Homepage > The Work of the Assembly > Committees > Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister > Reports

Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister

Report on the
Armed Forces and Veterans Bill
(NIA 33/09)

Together with the Minutes of Proceedings of the Committee relating to the Report,
Minutes of Evidence, and Written Submissions

Ordered by The Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister
to be printed 26 January 2011

Report: NIA 27/10/11R The Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister

Session 2010/2011

First Report

Membership and Powers

Powers

The Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister is a Statutory Committee established in accordance with paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Belfast Agreement, Section 29 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and under Assembly Standing Order 48. The Committee has a scrutiny, policy development and consultation role with respect to the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister and has a role in the initiation of legislation.

The Committee has the power to;

consider and advise on Departmental Budgets and Annual Plans in the context of the overall budget allocation;
approve relevant secondary legislation and take the Committee stage of primary legislation;
call for persons and papers;
initiate inquiries and make reports; and
consider and advise on matters brought to the Committee by the First Minister and deputy First Minister.

Membership

The Committee has eleven members, including a Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson, and a quorum of five members.

The membership of the Committee is as follows:

Mr Tom Elliott (Chairperson) 11
Dr Stephen Farry (Deputy Chairperson) 5, 6
Ms Martina Anderson
Mr Allan Bresland 9
Mr William Humphrey 10
Mr Danny Kinahan 12
Mrs Dolores Kelly 2, 4
Mr Barry McElduff
Mr Francie Molloy
Mr George Robinson 1, 3
Mr Jimmy Spratt

1 with effect from 15 September 2008 Mr Ian McCrea replaced Mr Jim Wells

2 with effect from 29 June 2009 Mr Alex Attwood replaced Mrs. Dolores Kelly

3 with effect from 14 September 2009 Mr George Robinson replaced Mr Ian McCrea

4 with effect from Monday 24 May 2010 Mrs Dolores Kelly replaced Mr Alex Attwood

5 with effect from Monday 28 June 2010 Mrs Naomi Long resigned as Deputy Chairperson and member of this Committee

6 with effect from 29th June 2010 Dr Stephen Farry was appointed Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister replacing Mrs Naomi Long

7 with effect from 1st August 2010 Mr Jim Shannon (DUP) has resigned from the Committee for Office of the First and deputy First Minister.

8 with effect from 13th September 2010 Mr Trevor Clarke replaced Mr Stephen Moutray

9 with effect from 13th September 2010 Mr Allan Bresland was appointed as a member of the Committee

10 with effect from 4th October 2010 Mr William Humphrey replaced Mr Trevor Clarke

11 with effect from 27th October 2010 Mr Tom Elliott replaced Mr Danny Kennedy as Chairperson; Mr Kennedy resigned from the Committee.

12 with effect from 8th November 2010 Mr Danny Kinahan was appointed as a member of the Committee

List of Abbreviations Used in the Report

List of Abbreviations

DALO Departmental Assembly Liaison Officer

DEL Department for Employment and Learning

DFP Department of Finance and Personnel

DUP Democratic Unionist Party

EFM Explanatory and Financial Memorandum

FETO Fair Employment and Treatment Order

GB Great Britain

GI Government Issue

MFO Moving Forward Order

MLA Member of Legislative Assembly

MOD Ministry of Defence

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MSP Member of the Scottish Parliament

NHS National Health Service

NI Northern Ireland

NIA Northern Ireland Assembly

OFMDFM Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister

PSNI Police Service of Northern Ireland

RAF Royal Air Force

RUC Royal Ulster Constabulary

SDLP Social Democratic and Labour Party

SSAFA The Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association

UDR Ulster Defence Regiment

UK United Kingdom

USA United States of America

Introduction

1. In July 2008 the Secretary of State and the Minister of State for the Armed Forces presented a White Paper to Parliament entitled ‘The Nation’s Commitment: Cross-Government Support to our Armed Forces, their Families and Veterans’. One of the key purposes of the White Paper was to propose policies intended to end any disadvantage that members of the Armed Forces, their families and veterans may suffer because of service in the armed forces.

2. Some of the initiatives and commitments in the White Paper require the support of agencies in Northern Ireland and the proposals, as they apply to transferred matters, were sent for the Executive to consider.

3. The Bill provides a framework for implementation, conferring of duties on a range of public authorities and Northern Ireland departments, in particular the Department of Finance and Personnel.

4. The Bill was introduced to the Assembly on Monday 28 June 2010.

5. At introduction, the Member in charge of the Bill, Mr David McNarry MLA, has made the following statement under Standing Order 30 :

“In my view the Armed Forces and Veterans Bill would be within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly".

6. The stated purpose of the Bill is to “to provide for the benefit of personnel and veterans of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown and their families’.

7. The Second Stage of the Bill was debated in the Assembly on Tuesday 12 October 2010. Following Second Stage, a letter was issued to the Chairpersons of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister and the Committee for Finance and Personnel requesting that they consider the issue of committee scrutiny as a matter of joint concern under Standing Order 64.

8. The Chairpersons of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister and the Committee for Finance and Personnel discussed which Committee should take forward the Committee Stage of the Bill. The Chairpersons agreed that the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister would take forward the Committee Stage of the Bill.

9. At its meeting of 20 October 2010, the Chairperson detailed his discussion with the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel and that he had agreed that this Committee would take forward the Committee Stage of the Bill. The Committee agreed that it would undertake the Committee Stage of the Armed Forces and Veterans Bill.

10. The Armed Forces and Veterans Bill (NIA Bill 33/09) (the Bill) was referred to the Committee for consideration in accordance with Standing Order 33(1) on Wednesday 20 October 2010.

11. At its meeting of 20 October 2010, the Committee agreed to issue a public notice seeking written evidence on the clauses of the Bill and to write to a number of identified stakeholders to seek their views on the Bill.

12. The public notice was placed in the Belfast Telegraph, the Irish News and the Newsletter on 25 October 2010.

Committee Stage Scrutiny of the Armed Forces
and Veterans Bill

13. At its meeting of 10 November 2010 the Committee agreed a timetable for the Committee consideration of the Bill and agreed a motion to seek an extension to the Committee Stage of the Bill to 28 January 2011. The Committee also considered the responses to its call for evidence; the Committee received thirteen written submissions from key stakeholders. A copy of the submissions received by the Committee are included at Appendix 3.

14. The Committee considered the Armed Forces and Veterans Bill and the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum that accompanied the Bill at meetings on 20 October 2010, 10 November 2010, 17 November 2010, 24 November 2010, 8 December 2010, 15 December 2010, 12 January 2011 and 19 January 2011. The relevant extracts from the Minutes of Proceedings for these meetings are included at Appendix 1 and Minutes of Evidence are included at Appendix 2. The Committee considered whom to take evidence from at a number of meetings and agreed to request the sponsor, Mr David McNarry MLA and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland to brief the Committee.

15. A number of additional papers were received by the Committee over the course of its consideration of the Bill. Copies are included at Appendix 5.

16. The Committee also wrote twice to the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to request its views on the Bill and at the date of the Report being ordered to be printed, the Committee had not received a response. Copies are included at Appendix 5.

Consideration of the Bill

17. At its meeting of 24 November 2010, the Committee took evidence from Mr David McNarry MLA. Mr McNarry MLA advised the Committee that the intention of the Bill is to end any disadvantage that members of the Armed Forces, their families and veterans may suffer because of service in the armed forces and to bring Northern Ireland legislation into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. The Minutes of Evidence are included at Appendix 2.

18. At its meeting of 24 November 2010, the Committee agreed to request legal advice on the competence of the Armed Forces and Veterans Bill in relation to existing equality legislation. At its meeting of 15 December 2010, the Committee noted a response to the request for legal advice from the Clerk Assistant providing procedural advice.

19. At its meeting of 15 December 2010, the Committee agreed to write to the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland to request a briefing on the Armed Forces and Veterans Bill in relation to equality.

20. On 8 December 2010 and 12 January 2011, the Committee was briefed by a Research Officer from the Assembly’s Research and Library Service on the Armed Forces and Veterans Bill. Copies of the Research Papers can be found at:

http://archive.niassembly.gov.uk/researchandlibrary/2010/19410.pdf

http://archive.niassembly.gov.uk/researchandlibrary/2010/19710.pdf

21. At its meeting of 12 January 2011, the Committee was briefed by the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland on the Armed Forces and Veterans Bill in relation to equality. The Minutes of Evidence are included at Appendix 2. The Committee considered proposed amendments from the Committee for Finance and Personnel and the Department of Finance and Personnel requesting that any reference to the Department for Finance of Personnel in the Bill be changed to the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. The Committee also considered amendments proposed by the Examiner of Statutory Rules. The Committee agreed to write to Mr McNarry MLA to advise that he may wish to take these amendments forward.

Clause-by-Clause Scrutiny of the Bill

22. At its meeting of 19 January 2011, the Committee undertook its formal clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill. Mr David McNarry MLA agreed to take the amendments forward. The Minutes of Evidence are included at Appendix 2.

23. Clause 1 – General duty to have regard to the impact of the exercise of functions on the services community

Amendment 1

Clause 1, Page 1, Line 14

Leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert –

‘(3) The Department may by order amend the list of authorities in subsection (2) by adding to, or removing from, the list an authority other than a Northern Ireland department.

(4) No order may be made under subsection (3) unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the Assembly.’

Question: That the Committee is content with the wording of the amendment proposed by the sponsor?

The Committee divided: Ayes 6; Noes 3.

Ayes: Mr Bresland, Mr Elliott, Dr Farry, Mr Humphrey, Mr Robinson and Mr Spratt.

Noes: Ms Anderson, Mr McElduff and Mr Molloy.

Agreed: The Committee is content with the wording of the amendment proposed by the sponsor.

Question: That the Committee recommends to the Assembly that Clause 1 be amended as proposed by the sponsor and agreed by the Committee?

Agreed: The Committee recommends to the Assembly that Clause 1 be amended as proposed by the sponsor and agreed by the Committee.

24. Clause 2 – Co-ordinators

Amendment 2

Clause 2, Page 2, Line 4

Leave out ‘the Department of Finance and Personnel’ and insert ‘the Department’

Question: That the Committee is content with the wording of the amendment proposed by the sponsor?

The Committee divided: Ayes 5; Noes 3; Abstentions 1.

Ayes: Mr Bresland, Mr Elliott, Mr Humphrey, Mr Robinson and Mr Spratt.

Noes: Ms Anderson, Mr McElduff and Mr Molloy.

Abstention: Dr Farry.

Agreed: The Committee is content with the wording of the amendment proposed by the sponsor.

Question: That the Committee recommends to the Assembly that Clause 2 be amended as proposed by the sponsor and agreed by the Committee?

Agreed: The Committee recommends to the Assembly that Clause 2 be amended as proposed by the sponsor and agreed by the Committee.

25. Clause 3 – Consultation with the United Kingdom and devolved authorities

Question: That the Committee is content with Clause 3 as drafted?

The Committee divided: Ayes 6; Noes 3.

Ayes: Mr Bresland, Mr Elliott, Dr Farry, Mr Humphrey, Mr Robinson and Mr Spratt.

Noes: Ms Anderson, Mr McElduff and Mr Molloy.

Agreed: The Committee is content with Clause 3 as drafted.

Clause 4 – Service Personnel and Veterans Charter

Amendment 3

Clause 4, Page 2, Line 31

Leave out ‘The Department of Finance and Personnel’ and insert ‘The Department’

Amendment 4

Clause 4, Page 2, Line 36

Leave out ‘The Department of Finance and Personnel’ and insert ‘The Department’

Amendment 5

26. Clause 4, Page 2, Line 38

Leave out ‘the Department of Finance and Personnel’ and insert ‘the Department’

Question: That the Committee is content with the wording of the amendments proposed by the sponsor?

The Committee divided: Ayes 6; Noes 3.

Ayes: Mr Bresland, Mr Elliott, Dr Farry, Mr Humphrey, Mr Robinson and Mr Spratt.

Noes: Ms Anderson, Mr McElduff and Mr Molloy.

Agreed: The Committee is content with the wording of the amendments proposed by the sponsor.

Question: That the Committee recommends to the Assembly that Clause 4 be amended as proposed by the sponsor and agreed by the Committee?

The Committee divided: Ayes 6; Noes 3.

Ayes: Mr Bresland, Mr Elliott, Dr Farry, Mr Humphrey, Mr Robinson and Mr Spratt.

Noes: Ms Anderson, Mr McElduff and Mr Molloy.

Agreed: The Committee recommends to the Assembly that Clause 4 be amended as proposed by the sponsor and agreed by the Committee.

27. Clause 5 – Reports

Amendment 6

Clause 5, Page 2, Line 41

Leave out ‘The Department of Finance and Personnel’ and insert ‘The Department’

Amendment 7

Clause 5, Page 3, Line 3

Leave out ‘The Department of Finance and Personnel’ and insert ‘The Department’

Question: That the Committee is content with the wording of the amendments proposed by the sponsor?

The Committee divided: Ayes 6; Noes 3.

Ayes: Mr Bresland, Mr Elliott, Dr Farry, Mr Humphrey, Mr Robinson and Mr Spratt.

Noes: Ms Anderson, Mr McElduff and Mr Molloy.

Agreed: The Committee is content with the wording of the amendments proposed by the sponsor.

Question: That the Committee recommends to the Assembly that Clause 5 be amended as proposed by the sponsor and agreed by the Committee?

The Committee divided: Ayes 6; Noes 3.

Ayes: Mr Bresland, Mr Elliott, Dr Farry, Mr Humphrey, Mr Robinson and Mr Spratt.

Noes: Ms Anderson, Mr McElduff and Mr Molloy.

Agreed: The Committee recommends to the Assembly that Clause 5 be amended as proposed by the sponsor and agreed by the Committee.

28. Clause 6 – Interpretation

Amendment 8

Clause 6, Page 3, Line 23

At end insert -

‘“the Department" means the Office of the First and deputy First Minister’

Question: That the Committee is content with the wording of the amendment proposed by the sponsor?

The Committee divided: Ayes 6; Noes 3.

Ayes: Mr Bresland, Mr Elliott, Dr Farry, Mr Humphrey, Mr Robinson and Mr Spratt.

Noes: Ms Anderson, Mr McElduff and Mr Molloy.

Agreed: The Committee is content with the wording of the amendment proposed by the sponsor.

Question: That the Committee recommends to the Assembly that Clause 6 be amended as proposed by the sponsor and agreed by the Committee?

The Committee divided: Ayes 6; Noes 3.

Ayes: Mr Bresland, Mr Elliott, Dr Farry, Mr Humphrey, Mr Robinson and Mr Spratt.

Noes: Ms Anderson, Mr McElduff and Mr Molloy.

Agreed: The Committee recommends to the Assembly that Clause 6 be amended as proposed by the sponsor and agreed by the Committee.

29. Clause 7 – Commencement

Question: That the Committee is content with Clause 7 as drafted?

The Committee divided: Ayes 6; Noes 3.

Ayes: Mr Bresland, Mr Elliott, Dr Farry, Mr Humphrey, Mr Robinson and Mr Spratt.

Noes: Ms Anderson, Mr McElduff and Mr Molloy.

Agreed: The Committee is content with Clause 7 as drafted.

30. Clause 8 – Short Title

Question: That the Committee is content with Clause 8 as drafted?

The Committee divided: Ayes 6; Noes 3.

Ayes: Mr Bresland, Mr Elliott, Dr Farry, Mr Humphrey, Mr Robinson and Mr Spratt.

Noes: Ms Anderson, Mr McElduff and Mr Molloy.

Agreed: The Committee is content with Clause 8 as drafted.

31. Long Title

Question: That the Committee is content with the Long Title as drafted?

The Committee divided: Ayes 6; Noes 3.

Ayes: Mr Bresland, Mr Elliott, Dr Farry, Mr Humphrey, Mr Robinson and Mr Spratt.

Noes: Ms Anderson, Mr McElduff and Mr Molloy.

Agreed: The Committee is content with the Long Title as drafted.

32. At its meeting of 26 January 2011 the Committee agreed the report and ordered the report to be printed.

Appendix 1

Minutes of Proceedings Relating to the Report

Wednesday 20 October 2010
Room 30, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr Danny Kennedy (Chairperson)
Mr Stephen Farry (Deputy Chairperson)
Ms Martina Anderson
Mr Alan Bresland
Mr Tom Elliott
Mr William Humphrey
Mr Barry McElduff
Mr Francie Molloy
Mr George Robinson
Mr Jimmy Spratt

Apologies: Mrs Dolores Kelly

In Attendance: Mrs Cathie White (Assembly Clerk)
Mr Stephen Magee (Clerical Supervisor)
Miss Tara McKee (Clerical Supervisor)
Mrs Marion Johnson (Clerical Officer)

2.00 pm The meeting opened in public session.

2. Chairperson’s Business

Armed Forces and Veterans Bill

The Committee considered a letter from the Speaker concerning the Committee Stage of the Armed Forces and Veterans Bill.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that it would take the lead in this Bill.

Agreed: The Committee agreed a Public Notice requesting written evidence, which is to be placed in the local newspapers. The Committee also agreed to write to a number of stakeholders provided by the Assembly’s Research and Library Service.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to write to all Statutory Committees seeking their views on the Bill.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to write to the Department seeking their views on the Bill.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that that the Chairperson would write to the Speaker advising that the Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee and he had agreed for this Committee to take the lead in this Bill.

Agreed The Committee agreed to write to the Committee for Finance and Personnel asking them to inform their Department of the Committee’s decision to invite officials from the Department of Finance and Personnel to brief the Committee on the Bill.

4.08 pm The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.

[Extract]

Wednesday 10 November 2010
Room 30, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr Tom Elliott (Chairperson)
Dr Stephen Farry (Deputy Chairperson)
Ms Martina Anderson
Mr Alan Bresland
Mr William Humphrey
Mrs Dolores Kelly
Mr Danny Kinahan
Mr Barry McElduff
Mr George Robinson
Mr Jimmy Spratt

Apologies: None

In Attendance: Mrs Cathie White (Assembly Clerk)
Mr Keith McBride (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mr Stephen Magee (Clerical Supervisor)
Mrs Marion Johnson (Clerical Officer)

2.03 pm The meeting opened in public session.

2.20 pm Mr McElduff left the meeting.

3.43 pm Mr Robinson left the meeting.

3.55 pm Mr Humphrey left the meeting.

4.07 pm Mr Bresland left the meeting.

7. Armed Forces and Veterans Bill

The Committee considered a timetable for Committee Stage of the Armed Forces and Veterans Bill and a motion to extend the Committee Stage of the Bill.

Agreed: The Committee agreed the timetable for the Committee Stage of the Armed Forces and Veterans Bill. The Committee also agreed a motion to extend the Committee Stage of the Armed Forces and Veterans Bill.

4.25 pm Mrs Kelly left the meeting.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to invite Mr David McNarry MLA to brief the Committee on the Armed Forces and Veterans Bill.

4.38 pm The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.

[Extract]

Wednesday 17 November 2010
Room 30, Parliament Buildings

Apologies: None

In Attendance: Mrs Cathie White (Assembly Clerk)
Mr Keith McBride (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mr Stephen Magee (Clerical Supervisor)
Mrs Marion Johnson (Clerical Officer)

2.02 pm The meeting opened in public session.

3.12 pm Mr Robinson left the meeting.

3.42 pm Mr McElduff left the meeting.

7. Armed Forces and Veterans Bill

The Committee considered the responses to the consultation on the Armed Forces and Veterans Bill. Sinn Fein stated their opposition to the Bill.

Mr Bresland declared an interest as an ex-member of the Ulster Defence Regiment.

Mr Elliott declared an interest as an ex-member of the Ulster Defence Regiment and as a member of the Royal British Legion.

Mr Kinahan declared an interest as an ex-serviceman.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to invite the Department to brief the Committee on their role in relation to the Bill.

4.37 pm The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.

[Extract]

Wednesday 24 November 2010
Room 30, Parliament Buildings

Apologies: Mr Francie Molloy

In Attendance: Mrs Cathie White (Assembly Clerk)
Mr Keith McBride (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mr Stephen Magee (Clerical Supervisor)
Mrs Marion Johnson (Clerical Officer)
Mrs Patricia Casey (Bill Clerk) Item 5 only
Mr Gordon Nabney (Examiner of Statutory Rules) Item 5 only

2.01 pm The meeting opened in public session. with the Deputy Chairperson in the Chair.

2.50 pm Mr Elliott joined the meeting.

2.53 pm Mr Elliott took the chair.

5. Armed Forces and Veterans Bill

Sinn Fein stated its opposition to the Bill.

3.08 pm The meeting moved into closed session.

The Committee had a discussion concerning the drafting of the provision relating to subordinate legislation.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that the advice provided by the Examiner of Statutory Rules be forwarded to Mr McNarry MLA for his consideration.

3.28 pm The meeting moved into public session.

3.28 pm Mr David McNarry MLA joined the meeting.

Mr Bresland declared an interest as an ex-member of the Ulster Defence Regiment.

Mr Elliott declared an interest as a former member of the security forces and as a member of the Royal British Legion.

Mr Kinahan declared an interest as an ex-serviceman.

Mr Robinson declared an interest as a member of the Enniskillen Association

Mr David McNarry MLA briefed the Committee on the Armed Forces and Veterans Bill. A question and answer session followed. Sinn Fein stated its opposition to the Bill.

4.22 pm Mr David McNarry MLA left the meeting.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to write to the Department to seek its comments on the Bill and seek information on how the legislation fits with existing equality legislation.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to write to the Assembly’s Legal Services to seek its advice on the competence of the Armed Forces and Veterans Bill in relation to current equality legislation in Northern Ireland.

5.15 pm The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.

[Extract]

Wednesday 8 December 2010
Room 30, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr Tom Elliott (Chairperson)
Dr Stephen Farry (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr William Humphrey
Mr Danny Kinahan
Mr Jimmy Spratt

Apologies: Ms Martina Anderson
Mr Allan Bresland
Mrs Dolores Kelly
Mr Barry McElduff
Mr Francie Molloy
Mr George Robinson

In Attendance: Mrs Cathie White (Assembly Clerk)
Mr Keith McBride (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mr Stephen Magee (Clerical Supervisor)
Mrs Marion Johnson (Clerical Officer)

2.41 pm The meeting opened in public session.

6. Armed Forces and Veterans Bill

The Committee considered the Armed Forces and Veterans Bill.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to invite the Royal British Legion, the Army Benevolent Fund, the UDR Benevolent Fund, Help for Heroes and the Equality Commission to give oral evidence to the Committee on the Armed Forces and Veterans Bill on Wednesday 12 January 2011.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to write to the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland to seek further information on the reasons for not responding to the Committee’s call for written evidence.

The Committee received a briefing from the Assembly’s Research and Library Service on the Armed Forces and Veterans Bill. The Researcher agreed to provide the Committee with further information.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to send a copy of the Research Paper to Mr McNarry MLA for comment.

3.20 pm The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.

[EXTRACT]

Wednesday 15 December 2010
Room 30, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr Tom Elliott (Chairperson)
Dr Stephen Farry (Deputy Chairperson)
Ms Martina Anderson
Mr Allan Bresland
Mrs Dolores Kelly
Mr William Humphrey
Mr Danny Kinahan
Mr Barry McElduff
Mr George Robinson
Mr Jimmy Spratt

Apologies: Mr Francie Molloy

In Attendance: Mrs Cathie White (Assembly Clerk)
Mr Keith McBride (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mr Stephen Magee (Clerical Supervisor)
Mrs Marion Johnson (Clerical Officer)

2.03 pm The meeting opened in public session.

7. Armed Forces and Veterans Bill

The Committee considered the Armed Forces and Veterans Bill.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to take evidence from the Equality Commission NI at its meeting on 12 January 2011.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to write to the Department to request responses to the committee’s previous letters in relation to the Armed Forces and Veterans Bill.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to invite Mr McNarry MLA to be available to attend the meeting on 12 January 2011 and the Committee’s clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that a Researcher from the Assembly’s Research and Library Service should brief the Committee on its Armed Forces and Veterans Bill 2010 – Update paper.

2.53 pm Mr Kinahan joined the meeting.

3.28 pm The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.

[EXTRACT]

Wednesday 12 January 2011
Room 30, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr Tom Elliott (Chairperson)
Dr Stephen Farry (Deputy Chairperson)
Ms Martina Anderson
Mr Allan Bresland
Mrs Dolores Kelly
Mr William Humphrey
Mr Danny Kinahan
Mr Francie Molloy
Mr George Robinson
Mr Jimmy Spratt

Apologies: Mr Barry McElduff

In Attendance: Mrs Cathie White (Assembly Clerk)
Mr Keith McBride (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mr Stephen Magee (Clerical Supervisor)
Mrs Marion Johnson (Clerical Officer)
Mr Michael Potter (Research Officer) Item 7 only
Mrs Patricia Casey (Bill Clerk) Item 7 only

2.03 pm The meeting opened in public session.

Mr Robinson declared an interest as a Member of the Enniskillen Association.

7. Armed Forces and Veterans Bill

The Committee received a briefing from the Assembly’s Research and Library Service on the Armed Forces and Veterans Bill.

Mr Robinson declared an interest as a Member of the Enniskillen Association.

Mr Bresland declared an interest as an ex-member of the Ulster Defence Regiment.

Mr Elliott declared an interest as an ex-member of the Ulster Defence Regiment and as a member of the Royal British Legion.

Mr Kinahan declared an interest as an ex-serviceman.

3.26 pm Representatives from the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland joined the meeting.

The Chief Commissioner, Mr Bob Collins, the Chief Executive, Ms Evelyn Collins and the Director of Policy, Ms Lisa King from the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland briefed the Committee on the Armed Forces and Veterans Bill in relation to equality. A question and answer session followed.

3.55 pm Representatives from the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland left the meeting.

The Chairperson suggested that the Committee conduct its clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill at next week’s meeting and that any amendments proposed today be sent to Mr McNarry MLA for his consideration.

Mr Spratt proposed that the Committee progress the Bill in the way the Chairperson suggested.

The Committee divided: Ayes 7; Noes 3.

Ayes: Mr Bresland, Mr Elliott, Dr Farry, Mr Humphrey, Mr Kinahan, Mr Robinson and
Mr Spratt.

Noes: Ms Anderson, Mrs Kelly and Mr Molloy

Agreed: The Committee will commence clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill at next week’s meeting and any proposals for amendments will be forwarded to Mr McNarry MLA for his consideration.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to write to Mr McNarry MLA to request that he consider the wording in Clause 2 as this may be a source of concern for the Committee.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to write to Mr McNarry MLA to advise that he may wish to take forward the proposed amendments from the Department for Finance and Personnel and the Examiner of Statutory Rules.

4.31 pm The Deputy Chairperson adjourned the meeting.

[EXTRACT]

Wednesday 19 January 2011
Room 30, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr Tom Elliott (Chairperson)
Dr Stephen Farry (Deputy Chairperson)
Ms Martina Anderson
Mr Allan Bresland
Mr William Humphrey
Mr Barry McElduff
Mr Francie Molloy
Mr George Robinson
Mr Jimmy Spratt

Apologies: Mrs Dolores Kelly
Mr Danny Kinahan

2.04 pm The meeting opened in public session with the Deputy Chairperson in the Chair.

Mr Robinson declared an interest as a Member of the Enniskillen Association.

Mr Bresland declared an interest as an ex-member of the Ulster Defence Regiment.

3.30 pm Mr McElduff left the meeting.

3.30 pm Mr Elliott took the Chair.

6. Armed Forces and Veterans Bill

Mr Elliott declared an interest as an ex-member of the Ulster Defence Regiment and as a member of the Royal British Legion.

4.04 pm Mr David McNarry MLA joined the meeting.

4.10 pm Mr McElduff re-joined the meeting.

Mr David McNarry MLA briefed the Committee on the amendments, which he will be taking forward, to the Armed Forces and Veterans Bill. A question and answer session followed.

The Committee commenced its formal clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill.

Clause 1 – General duty to have regard to the impact of the exercise of functions on the services community

Question: That the Committee is content with the wording of the amendment proposed by the sponsor?

The Committee divided: Ayes 6; Noes 3.

Ayes: Mr Bresland, Mr Elliott, Dr Farry, Mr Humphrey, Mr Robinson and Mr Spratt.

Noes: Ms Anderson, Mr McElduff and Mr Molloy.

Agreed: The Committee is content with the wording of the amendment proposed by the sponsor.

Question: That the Committee recommends to the Assembly that Clause 1 be amended as proposed by the sponsor and agreed by the Committee?

Agreed: The Committee recommends to the Assembly that Clause 1 be amended as proposed by the sponsor and agreed by the Committee.

Clause 2 – Co-ordinators

Question: That the Committee is content with the wording of the amendment proposed by the sponsor?

The Committee divided: Ayes 5; Noes 3; Abstentions 1.

Ayes: Mr Bresland, Mr Elliott, Mr Humphrey, Mr Robinson and Mr Spratt.

Noes: Ms Anderson, Mr McElduff and Mr Molloy.

Abstention: Dr Farry.

Agreed: The Committee is content with the wording of the amendment proposed by the sponsor.

Question: That the Committee recommends to the Assembly that Clause 2 be amended as proposed by the sponsor and agreed by the Committee?

Agreed: The Committee recommends to the Assembly that Clause 2 be amended as proposed by the sponsor and agreed by the Committee.

Clause 3 – Consultation with the United Kingdom and devolved authorities

Question: That the Committee is content with Clause 3 as drafted?

The Committee divided: Ayes 6; Noes 3.

Ayes: Mr Bresland, Mr Elliott, Dr Farry, Mr Humphrey, Mr Robinson and Mr Spratt.

Noes: Ms Anderson, Mr McElduff and Mr Molloy.

Agreed: The Committee is content with Clause 3 as drafted.

Clause 4 – Service Personnel and Veterans Charter

Question: That the Committee is content with the wording of the amendments proposed by the sponsor?

The Committee divided: Ayes 6; Noes 3.

Ayes: Mr Bresland, Mr Elliott, Dr Farry, Mr Humphrey, Mr Robinson and Mr Spratt.

Noes: Ms Anderson, Mr McElduff and Mr Molloy.

Agreed: The Committee is content with the wording of the amendments proposed by the sponsor.

Question: That the Committee recommends to the Assembly that Clause 4 be amended as proposed by the sponsor and agreed by the Committee?

The Committee divided: Ayes 6; Noes 3.

Ayes: Mr Bresland, Mr Elliott, Dr Farry, Mr Humphrey, Mr Robinson and Mr Spratt.

Noes: Ms Anderson, Mr McElduff and Mr Molloy.

Agreed: The Committee recommends to the Assembly that Clause 4 be amended as proposed by the sponsor and agreed by the Committee.

Clause 5 – Reports

Question: That the Committee is content with the wording of the amendments proposed by the sponsor?

The Committee divided: Ayes 6; Noes 3.

Ayes: Mr Bresland, Mr Elliott, Dr Farry, Mr Humphrey, Mr Robinson and Mr Spratt.

Noes: Ms Anderson, Mr McElduff and Mr Molloy.

Agreed: The Committee is content with the wording of the amendment proposed by the sponsor.

Question: That the Committee recommends to the Assembly that Clause 5 be amended as proposed by the sponsor and agreed by the Committee?

The Committee divided: Ayes 6; Noes 3.

Ayes: Mr Bresland, Mr Elliott, Dr Farry, Mr Humphrey, Mr Robinson and Mr Spratt.

Noes: Ms Anderson, Mr McElduff and Mr Molloy.

Agreed: The Committee recommends to the Assembly that Clause 5 be amended as proposed by the sponsor and agreed by the Committee.

Clause 6 – Interpretation

Question: That the Committee is content with the wording of the amendment proposed by the sponsor?

The Committee divided: Ayes 6; Noes 3.

Ayes: Mr Bresland, Mr Elliott, Dr Farry, Mr Humphrey, Mr Robinson and Mr Spratt.

Noes: Ms Anderson, Mr McElduff and Mr Molloy.

Agreed: The Committee is content with the wording of the amendment proposed by the sponsor.

Question: That the Committee recommends to the Assembly that Clause 6 be amended as proposed by the sponsor and agreed by the Committee?

The Committee divided: Ayes 6; Noes 3.

Ayes: Mr Bresland, Mr Elliott, Dr Farry, Mr Humphrey, Mr Robinson and Mr Spratt.

Noes: Ms Anderson, Mr McElduff and Mr Molloy.

Agreed: The Committee recommends to the Assembly that Clause 6 be amended as proposed by the sponsor and agreed by the Committee.

Clause 7 – Commencement

Question: That the Committee is content with Clause 7 as drafted?

The Committee divided: Ayes 6; Noes 3.

Ayes: Mr Bresland, Mr Elliott, Dr Farry, Mr Humphrey, Mr Robinson and Mr Spratt.

Noes: Ms Anderson, Mr McElduff and Mr Molloy.

Agreed: The Committee is content with Clause 7 as drafted.

Clause 8 – Short Title

Question: That the Committee is content with Clause 8 as drafted?

The Committee divided: Ayes 6; Noes 3.

Ayes: Mr Bresland, Mr Elliott, Dr Farry, Mr Humphrey, Mr Robinson and Mr Spratt.

Noes: Ms Anderson, Mr McElduff and Mr Molloy.

Agreed: The Committee is content with Clause 8 as drafted.

Long Title

Question: That the Committee is content with the Long Title as drafted?

The Committee divided: Ayes 6; Noes 3.

Ayes: Mr Bresland, Mr Elliott, Dr Farry, Mr Humphrey, Mr Robinson and Mr Spratt.

Noes: Ms Anderson, Mr McElduff and Mr Molloy.

Agreed: The Committee is content with the Long Title as drafted.

The Chairperson advised Members that the clause-by-clause scrutiny had been completed and that the Committee will consider the Committee Report on the Bill at next week’s meeting. Sinn Fein stated their opposition to the passage of the Bill.

4.36 pm The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.

[EXTRACT]

Wednesday 26 January 2011
Room 30, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr Tom Elliott (Chairperson)
Dr Stephen Farry (Deputy Chairperson)
Ms Martina Anderson
Mrs Dolores Kelly
Mr Danny Kinahan
Mr Barry McElduff
Mr George Robinson
Mr Jimmy Spratt

Apologies: Mr Alan Bresland
Mr William Humphrey

In Attendance: Mrs Cathie White (Assembly Clerk)
Mr Keith McBride (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mr Stephen Magee (Clerical Supervisor)
Mrs Marion Johnson (Clerical Officer)

2.05 p.m The meeting opened in public session.

6. Armed Forces and Veterans Bill

The Committee considered its draft Report on the Armed Forces and Veterans Bill.

Agreed: The Committee read and agreed paragraphs 1-12: Introduction.

Sinn Fein stated its opposition to the Bill.

Agreed: The Committee read and agreed paragraphs 13-16: Committee Stage Scrutiny.

Sinn Fein stated its opposition to the Bill.

Agreed: The Committee read and agreed paragraphs 17-21: Consideration of the Bill.

Sinn Fein stated its opposition to the Bill.

Agreed: The Committee read and agreed paragraphs 22-31: Clause-by-Clause Scrutiny.

Sinn Fein stated its opposition to the Bill.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to include Appendices 1-5 in the Report.

Sinn Fein stated its opposition to the Bill.

Agreed: The Committee ordered the Report to be printed.

Sinn Fein stated its opposition to the Bill.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that an extract from the Minutes of Proceedings of today’s meeting should be included in Appendix 1 of the report and are content that the Chairperson agrees the minutes to allow the extract to be included in the printed report.

Sinn Fein stated its opposition to the Bill.

3.43 p.m The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.

[EXTRACT]

Appendix 2

Minutes of Evidence

24 November 2010

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr Tom Elliott (Chairperson)
Dr Stephen Farry (Deputy Chairperson)
Ms Martina Anderson
Mr Allan Bresland
Mr William Humphrey
Mrs Dolores Kelly
Mr Danny Kinahan
Mr Barry McElduff
Mr George Robinson
Mr Jimmy Spratt

Witnesses:

Mr David McNarry MLA

1. The Chairperson (Mr Elliott): Mr McNarry, you are very welcome to the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM). You are used to sitting at the other side of the table. I ask you to make a presentation on your Armed Forces and Veterans Bill. The meeting will be recorded by Hansard. I advise you that the Examiner of Statutory Rules has made some suggestions and recommendations and that the Committee has agreed that those should be made available to you. You can seek your own advice on them.

2. Mr David McNarry MLA: Thank you, Chairman and members, for your invitation.

3. The Chairperson: Your presentation should last no longer than 10 minutes, after which you should leave yourself available for questions.

4. Mr McNarry: I will do my best.

5. I thank the Committee for its kind invitation and for the interest that it has shown in the Bill. I am aware of why the Bill is with the Committee for scrutiny. I welcome its being with the Committee and the opportunity to discuss it with members today. It is a simple Bill. It is simple to understand, is simple to relate to and, with the Committee’s support, can be simple for the Assembly to adopt. As a member and the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, I am aware of the Department of Finance and Personnel’s (DFP) views and those of the Finance Committee on the Bill. I do not disagree with the transfer of lead Department from DFP, as was intended, to OFMDFM and, hence, to this Committee.

6. When the early draft was being worked on, there was a view that DFP, which controls the purse strings, would be suitable as the co-ordinator of the Bill, especially as there are no significant costs in the Bill’s implementation. At that time, in informal discussion with the then junior Minister Jeffrey Donaldson, I was given, and I accepted, a clear impression from him that DFP was comfortable with its role in the Bill. However, as things can be moveable objects, I would find it helpful should the Committee agree this afternoon to submit its amendments that would give effect to OFMDFM being the lead Department. I am sure that the Committee can see the sense in that, because OFMDFM is experienced in channelling crossover issues — there are many in the Bill — with other Departments and, therefore, in my opinion, is best suited to overseeing the Bill.

7. I have and understand the advice given to the Committee by the Examiner of Statutory Rules, and I am comfortable with his advice as I understand it. I rephrase that: I do not argue with his expert opinion. On the contrary, I trust that the Committee will find his advice most useful and helpful. I will add a few further comments on the Examiner’s advice and suggested amendments.

8. I would find it beneficial for the Committee to accept his amendments and to bring them forward as Committee amendments. However, at this stage, I request the Committee’s indulgence on clause 6, page 3, line 12. I have spoken to the Assembly’s Bill Office about that and ask that I come back to the Committee. It may be a matter of misunderstanding; on the other hand, it may not be. However, in either case, with the Committee’s permission, I would like to take the opportunity to advise members of the outcome following the Bill Office’s clarification with the Examiner and myself on that.

9. Where the Examiner suggests a power to exclude the power to remove a Northern Ireland government Department from the list, I would welcome the Committee adopting, if it so wishes, that point as an amendment. Likewise, I would have no opposition to the Committee proposing amendments to change from regulations to orders the method of amending the list of authorities in clause 1(2). That has been suggested to the Committee.

10. This Bill has no hidden agendas. It brings to Northern Ireland due regard to the members of the armed forces, their families and the veterans and due regard also to the impact of functions on the services community. That is the genuine and honest purpose of my Bill; there are no other intentions behind it.

11. There is increasing concern in the armed forces and in the coalition Government that the complementary relationship with people and society is breaking down. Personal knowledge of the armed forces is diminishing. Aspirations and expectations are rising, and it is increasingly difficult to recruit and retain personnel. We have a situation in which the armed forces operate beyond the level of military commitments that were planned for them, and it is increasingly difficult for them to reconcile life in the armed forces with expectations of a normal life.

12. My Bill seeks to take account of those commitments. Therefore, the proposals that relate to devolved matters include prosthetic limb provision; access to NHS dentistry; the health needs of veterans; getting onto the NHS waiting list; the roll-out of community mental health; affordable homes; adapted social housing; adapted affordable homes; disabled facilities; affordable homes that extend access for veterans; social housing with local connections; a certificate of cessation; homelessness; school place allocation; educational attainment; special educational needs; education and training for service leavers; basic skills for families; concessionary bus travel; blue badge access; childcare provision; flexible careers in the armed forces; support to the volunteer reserve forces; support to the employment of service families; and the employment of service leavers in the public sector. The Bill will address the fact that they lose out on all of that, which is so important to the families and a good reason for me to bring it to the Assembly.

13. I have heard people’s views about rights and equality, and I respect and acknowledge those views. I know it to be true that Members express genuine concerns — I hear them each day and express them myself — over people not getting the fairness that we believe they deserve. My Bill rectifies all of that for the armed services and puts a stop to children, in particular, being disadvantaged and made unequal. The Bill is an exercise in fairness and equality. It extends rights, which are available elsewhere in the United Kingdom, to former and serving members of the armed forces and their families in Northern Ireland. It has an important job to do and a businesslike, no-nonsense way of presenting that.

14. The Bill will be seen by many observers as a test of the genuineness of the commitment to equality professed so often by Members of the Assembly. It is a Bill with genuine and open intent. As I said, there are no hidden agendas, but simply a desire to extend rights that are already enjoyed elsewhere in our country. I ask members to reflect on that and to give the Bill fair passage in their considerations, because it is concerned with equality and rights and with decent treatment of individuals and respect. There is no political subtext as far as I am concerned. There has never been a time in which the public have been more aware of the sheer professionalism and dedication of our armed forces, often in the face of official neglect, often in the face of systematic and scandalous underfunding and under-equipping in the most dangerous of circumstances.

15. The Armed Forces and Veterans Bill has been adopted as a legal charter for our armed services personnel. It will press. It will press Stormont Departments to make sure that soldiers, their families and veterans are not disadvantaged because of their military service. It will extend rights that are available to armed services personnel and their families in other parts of the United Kingdom. I have had tremendous support for the Bill from serving personnel and veterans, who have written to tell me that there is a need for the Assembly to make improvements to what we do for them here in Northern Ireland. One person wrote to me that:

“The system is deliberately designed to frustrate, cause additional stress and, ultimately, hope that you will go away."

16. Another person who contacted me stated:

“I suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, and, in the 21 years since my injury, I have never been offered as much as one session."

17. He went on to say:

“Maybe, it’s because I just try and get on with things and because I may joke and have a laugh to keep positive. It keeps me alive."

18. He ended by saying:

“But it is not like that all the time. I have not had a full night’s sleep in 21 years, and I refuse to dose myself with antidepressants."

19. I will conclude on that. Those are just two examples of the many I have heard from real people who have suffered because they chose to serve our community and got injured.

20. In conclusion, the Bill is important to me because of how it addresses rights. I want to tell the Committee that I have deliberately not sought to lobby on the Bill. I have not made contact with the many organisations in our society, including the Royal British Legion, to ask them what they think of the Bill. I have taken that approach because I did not want to diminish in any way the integrity of the Bill or the people whose futures I am seeking, with your help, to address. I deliberately stayed out of that, so that I could not be accused of political lobbying on the Bill. The Bill is right for Northern Ireland.

21. The Chairperson: Thank you very much, David. I need clarification on something, and that is —

22. Mr McElduff: Chairperson, would it be appropriate for members to declare interests in this matter?

23. The Chairperson: I was going to do that. I declare an interest as a former member of the security forces and a member of the Royal British Legion. Other members may wish to declare interests, but interests have been declared during previous discussions of the Bill.

24. Mr Bresland: I declare an interest.

25. Mr Kinahan: I declare an interest as an ex-member of the regular forces of the British Army.

26. Mr G Robinson: I declare an interest as a member of the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers Regimental Association.

27. The Chairperson: David, our understanding is that, although DFP has indicated that OFMDFM should be the lead Department on the Bill, there has been no indication that it has accepted that, even though this Committee has agreed to take the Bill’s Committee Stage. Is that also your understanding?

28. Mr McNarry: All that I can refer to is a letter of 9 November sent from the Department to the Clerk of the Committee for Finance and Personnel. I have the benefit of being a member of that Committee, and I am sure that this Committee has also seen that letter. In the letter, the Department states that:

“DFP is content with the provisions of the Bill. … However we believe that the lead responsibility for those latter responsibilities might sit more comfortably with OFMDFM rather than DFP for the following reasons".

29. The Department then goes on to give those reasons.

30. The Chairperson: Yes, we have that letter.

31. Mr McNarry: I am not aware of anything further to that letter.

32. The Chairperson: OK.

33. Mr McNarry: I know that the two Committees met and that the two Chairpersons met, and it was decided that this Committee would take the lead on the Bill.

34. The Chairperson: Yes, the Committee agreed to take its Committee Stage.

35. Mrs D Kelly: Thank you for your presentation, David. I am well aware of the sensitive nature of the discussions around the Bill, having attended the funeral of one of my constituents, Neil Turkington, not so long ago. I met some of his comrades who had suffered horrendous injuries during the conflict in Afghanistan.

36. I want to ask you about the definition of time in the Armed Forces and Veterans Bill. As a result of the conflict in the North, we have victims’ services. All those who were injured in the conflict are defined as victims and should have access to the victims’ service when it is up and running, on an individual needs assessment basis. I hope that that will take care of some of the health needs of those victims, because it would be very disappointing if the needs of victims were not met, and I was shocked to hear that many people are waiting over 20 years to get counselling. A lot of money and additional funding has been provided by OFMDFM for victims’ services, and it would be useful at some stage to look at how that money is expended. In respect of a cut-off point, you referred to those whose experience was not what they expected when they joined up. I wonder whether you are suggesting that that was due to their involvement in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

37. You also talked about inequalities for children and set the stall out in terms of equality and rights. However, the way that I interpret it is that the inequalities are in how veterans and their children and families are treated here when compared with GB, rather than when compared with the general population. Is that the distinction? Is the inequality in how a veteran would be treated in GB compared with here in the North?

38. The Chairperson: That is a quite a range of issues for you, David.

39. Mr McNarry: It is much easier to be on that side of the table asking the questions.

40. The genesis of the Bill is that this has been adopted as the nation’s charter by all the other regions in the United Kingdom. They have access to all the funds and so on that you talk about, but I took on board the fact that they deemed that it was an equality issue purely because of the disadvantages that they recognised came the way of members of the forces and their families and those who became veterans later on.

41. At the start, I said that I think that the Bill is simple, and I hope that it is. I am trying to keep it as simple as possible. The sensitivities that there may be, even to the very mention of the term “the armed forces", do not exist in any other part of the United Kingdom. I recognise those sensitivities, and I respect how people might react to them. I will have to deal with that and to convince anyone who has any strange opinions on that.

42. The Ministry of Defence is entitled to have up to 5,000 soldiers stationed in Northern Ireland. Serious numbers are added to that when their partners or wives and children are considered. That means that we can have a large constituency that really has no recognition whatsoever. In one sense, they are almost nomadic because they can be called out of here at any time because of the wars that you mentioned. Their families are left behind here, and it is those families, including their children, who find difficulties in accessing provision.

43. I am not asking that they be given any special privileges or that doors should be opened because of who they are. Nor are they, and nor does that apply in England, Scotland or Wales. They should have access to the same as everyone else, and, as far as I am concerned, they live here and are welcome here, and we should provide for them in the same way as we do for my family, your family or anyone else’s family.

44. Mr G Robinson: I support David’s Bill entirely. I spoke to it at Second Stage, and I have not changed my mind one iota. I commend David for introducing the Bill. I had a close personal association with the armed forces for a number of years, and I knew them inside out. I agree with everything that David has alluded to, particularly his comments on the equality issue.

45. There are not as many armed forces personnel here compared with a few years ago, but in recognition of their work in the Province over the past 30 to 40 years, we should do everything in our power and push out the boat to ensure that life is made as easy as possible for the people who are left here. They made a significant contribution to the life of the Province, and they also created a lot of work in the time that they were stationed here. At one time, there were around 30,000 armed forces personnel, and I know that that number has been reduced significantly. I commend David on his Bill, and I support fully what he is doing and has done.

46. Mr McNarry: Thank you very much, George.

47. Mr McElduff: I find it difficult to hear the British Army story told so positively. I want to put on record that the British Army murdered my wife’s brother.

48. The Chairperson: Sorry, Barry, we will take —

49. Mr McElduff: I find it difficult to hear this positive narrative —

50. The Chairperson: Mr McElduff, we will take your comments when it is your turn to speak, if you wish to be included.

51. Ms M Anderson: David, it will probably not surprise you to hear that Sinn Féin is opposed to the Bill. To pick up on Barry’s point: the narrative about the British Army that you outlined is not the experience of the vast majority of the people in the republican and nationalist community. I do not share that narrative.

52. In the context of the hope that we arrive at a point at which either all human beings have equal rights or none have any, I do not agree with your analysis that this is an equality issue. In the list that you outlined, you are looking for preferential treatment. Section 75 affords equality of opportunity to everyone who lives here. We also have particular circumstances that necessitated the Fair Employment and Treatment Order (FETO). Your list includes the employment of service leavers in the public sector as one of the aspects that you would like the Bill to address. In the process of framing and putting the Bill together, did you engage with the Equality Commission to see whether any of its clauses in any way impacted negatively on the duty that already exists in law?

53. Mr McNarry: I am disappointed to hear that Sinn Féin cannot and will not support the Bill. I call on the Bill Clerk to deal specifically with the question on equality issues.

54. The Bill Clerk: The Bill was drafted by the drafting service that is available through the Office of the Speaker. Bills are drafted by a firm called Winckworth Sherwood, which has a legal background. It is aware that Bills should be drafted according to the requirements of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The Bill will have gone through the Office of the Speaker on its introduction by Mr McNarry. I mentioned to the Committee earlier the checks that would have had to be made.

55. The Northern Ireland Act 1998 requires consideration to be given to equality, so there would have been those checks. We advise Members — it is in our guidance — that Bills are sent to the Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission at a certain stage of their development. Those organisations will then be able to flag up any glaring issues. If the Bill has not been subject to that check, it is open to the Committee to discuss with Mr McNarry the carrying out of that assessment. It is not too late to do that.

56. Ms M Anderson: Can we ask the Office of the Speaker what equality checking and screening has been done to find out what process the Bill has been through? Is it the Speaker who sends the Bill to the Equality Commission and the Human Rights Commission, or is it Mr McNarry who does that? We seek some understanding of who should have contacted those organisations at the developmental stage.

57. The Bill Clerk: There would be no problem with that. I am sure that the Office of the Speaker would be happy to deal with your enquiry. If you have legal questions, a more direct approach may be to ask Legal Services, as it provides that advice. I do not think that the information that you will get will be any different. If you go to the Office of the Speaker, it will ask Legal Services.

58. Mr McNarry: I put on record my surprise that Ms Anderson is not aware of that.

59. Ms M Anderson: I am surprised that you are not aware of it; it is your Bill. You have not been able to answer me.

60. Mr McNarry: I am about to answer if you will let me. The most stringent demands are put on a Member who is bringing forward a private Member’s Bill to meet the competency that the Speaker requires before he will allow a Bill to go to First Stage. This Bill has met those demands and fulfilled them as being competent. Therefore, it goes through all those ramifications, which says to me that it has met the legal requirements expected of it. I am satisfied with that.

61. Ms M Anderson: Given that you referred to the Bill Office to answer the question that I posed to you in the first place, and given the response that we have had from the Bill Office, I would like confirmation that that process was carried out, whether through the Office of the Speaker or whoever, and that the Equality Commission and Human Rights Commission were consulted in the way that they are supposed to be during the developmental stage of this Bill.

62. The Chairperson: We will consider that proposal after we have heard all the evidence, because Dolores Kelly made a proposal earlier.

63. Mr Spratt: David, I congratulate you on the Bill. I think that it is commendable, and I understand what you are getting at in respect of dealing with the armed forces. I want to deal with a couple of issues. It is surprising that those who espouse equality the most, not only around this table but in other Committees, espouse that equality only for certain people and not for everyone. Equality goes out the window in some people’s view when it comes to the armed forces. It is disappointing that they are still at that point. Hopefully, they might move away from there someday.

64. I think that Dolores was being genuine in raising the issue of victims’ money and the availability of services through the Victims’ Commissioner. However, I see it slightly differently, and I wonder whether David could explain. I understand Dolores’ point that some people in the Province come under that remit, but other people, who are part of battalions stationed throughout the whole of the United Kingdom and are serving in Afghanistan and other places, are from time to time drafted into places such as Ballykinler, where there are issues with schools. When I sat on the South Eastern Education and Library Board, there were always problems in relation to schools, because troops are, as you described, a moving community. I understand the need for some sort of protection around that.

65. I understand the issue to do with National Health Service dentistry and such like. My goodness, it is true that some of our troops have suffered in a terrible way in Afghanistan — they have had terrible limb and other injuries — and then have had to go onto National Health Service waiting lists.

66. The cross-cutting nature of the Bill covers quite a number of Departments, including Health, Education and, probably, the Department for Employment and Learning. I understand why it clearly should be with the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister because of the cross-cutting issues.

67. You will certainly have our absolute support for the amendments. I understand the amendments, and I think that this Committee should promote them because of the issues that have been raised by the earlier briefing that we had in closed session. I know that you are going to get a copy of that.

68. You will have our support. I am disappointed, although not surprised, at some of the views from across the table. I think that whatever can be done should be done, and the Bill will get us into line with every other part of the United Kingdom. Many of those troops come from all sections of the community in Northern Ireland. I am, therefore, disappointed that some people from the other side of the community cannot accept that brave individuals from their community are serving in the armed forces at this minute in time. I am also extremely disappointed that they do not accept that some of the brave people who serve presently in the forces out in Afghanistan and elsewhere come from the Irish Republic. We will certainly support the Bill and the equality issues around it, because those people deserve equality.

69. The Chairperson: Before I call the next member, I remind members to ask questions to the proposer of the Bill as opposed to just delivering statements.

70. Mr Spratt: Some other members made statements.

71. The Chairperson: I have been quite flexible. You are next, Stephen, but that reminder is not a reflection on you.

72. Dr Farry: It is all part of the process, I guess.

73. I was going to start off with some of the themes that Jimmy raised, but I will frame those themes in the form of a question to David. I am sympathetic to the Bill, but I am not prepared to say that I fully support it until we tease out a few of the issues.

74. David, are you basically saying that there is legislation covering devolved and non-devolved matters in the other three parts of the UK and that, in essence, there is a gap, because that does not extend to members of the armed services for the time that they are deployed to Northern Ireland?

75. Mr McNarry: Yes, I am trying to fill that gap.

76. Dr Farry: In that sense, it is an equality issue, because service families are affected as they move around the UK and are deployed internationally.

77. With regard to the point about victims, the issue of access to services is broader than the ability of people who are injured or wounded, either physically or mentally, in the course of duty to access services, because it is about the whole range of particular problems that service families have that is linked to their mobility and the fact that they have to move around. How can those people build up relationships with dentists, doctors and schools? There is a need for sensitivity in accommodating them. Is that essentially what you are trying to address?

78. Mr McNarry: It is another connotation of the word “victim". As you say, they are victims of the circumstances in which they find themselves here.

79. Dr Farry: OK. I threw in my two easy questions first.

80. We have been dancing around a genuine issue, which has been the subject of discussion at Committee and which you are going to look at. That issue is basically about how the Bill sits with the very particular legislative framework that we have in Northern Ireland, be it section 75 or the Fair Employment and Treatment Order, which does not pertain to the rest of the UK. We could debate, for example, how applicable those precise equality measures are, when is the right time to use them and whether they themselves need to be amended. However, my real question is: to what extent have you engaged with the Equality Commission and Human Rights Commission about those issues? There may be a subtle difference between your Bill being competent in respect of the Northern Ireland Act as things currently stand and it having implications, rightly or wrongly, for existing legislative frameworks. Do you accept that that is a core issue that needs to be scrutinised?

81. Mr McNarry: I see where you are coming from. However, I ask you to appreciate that I did not identify the issue. Rather, those basic, ordinary rights were identified in the national charter. In Northern Ireland, we had to do something different, and that is part of the problem in our country. I said at the start that this is pretty simple and that it is happening in other parts of the United Kingdom. Therefore, why do we have to do something different? Why can we not just adopt it? That is basically what I am asking for.

82. It is basically an accommodation of people who come to live in Northern Ireland. During that time, regardless of whether the posting is temporary or it turns into something more permanent, what is available to them in any other part of the United Kingdom should be available to them here. Why should they leave a camp in Dorset or wherever to come to Northern Ireland and then find out that they do not have access to the same things in Northern Ireland that they have left behind? They should not have to experience difficulties and, I imagine, trauma and to make a certain amount of adjustment.

83. When I was looking at the Bill and the needs that it was addressing, I did not have a clue that I would find out that provisions for the needs of the forces, their families and veterans did not apply to Northern Ireland. All that I am trying to change is that they would be applied to Northern Ireland and be adopted here. I do not want Northern Ireland to set itself out differently to any other part of the United Kingdom. As a member said earlier, I do not see troops and their families as anything other than people. I see them coming into our community, and I have to say that I am very glad to see them coming back into our community to be greeted by their families, rather than their families going to Wootton Bassett, which is a lovely place, but it must be the most horrendous place to visit. I am concerned for the families who cannot welcome anybody back.

84. We, as a nation, asked those people to do a unique duty for the nation, and we should ensure, as best as possible, that they are not disadvantaged. The recognition in England, Scotland and Wales was that it was a disadvantage and it needed to be put right. That is the simplicity of it, and I hope that it does not get too complicated.

85. Mr Kinahan: I congratulate David for bringing forward the Bill. I was hoping that such a Bill would be a sign that it was time to move on. I find the way in which I was asked whether I had an interest to declare slightly hard, as I feel that there was probably an interest on the other side of the coin. If people wish to go down that route, perhaps they should also declare an interest. I am not asking them to. It is time for all of us to move on.

86. There are severe inequalities for soldiers when they come home, particularly from Afghanistan. That is what we should be concentrating on. One of the suggested questions relates to how it works in other jurisdictions, and I want to turn that the other way round. Do people in other jurisdictions see it as unfair? Is there any backlash? Do people find themselves further down a queue because a soldier has been put up a queue because he has lost a leg?

87. Mr McNarry: Our Health Service has responded tremendously well to the type of case that you are talking about. I do not think that it is a matter of someone getting put up the queue. I would have thought that that type of necessary treatment would find its own slot in whatever queue there was going to be.

88. It was quite a mouthful. Again, with deference to those who do not share in my constitutional politics, I say that this is the nation’s charter. As far as I was concerned, that seemed to give it great effect and depth when people were asked whether they thought that it needed to be done. This was something that was being handed down to say that there is a gap and there is a problem. We have to balance a degree of fairness with a degree of disadvantage. Once people knew that there was disadvantage, no one could give any good reason, as far as I could find, that anyone in those circumstances should be disadvantaged. Therefore, they set about putting that right. That has been done in all the other parts of the United Kingdom. All things being equal, one would think that the charter would have come in here automatically. It has not. That is why I am asking for the Committee’s co-operation so that we can make that adjustment and make that difference.

89. Mr Humphrey: David, I commend you for the work that you have done to date. As Jimmy said on behalf of the DUP, we will be supporting the Bill.

90. When we discuss this type of Bill, we need to remember that, for generations and centuries, Ulstermen, indeed Irishmen, have been involved in peacekeeping at home and abroad. Very recently, one soldier from the Royal Irish Regiment and one soldier from the Irish Guards were lost in active service.

91. I am saddened, although not surprised, by Sinn Féin’s reaction today. We need to remember that a sizeable section of the community from which I come, and beyond, on both sides of the border on this island, is committed to going out and being involved in peacekeeping. Peacekeeping is what they are involved in.

92. I want to put on record, as I did in my contribution in the Chamber a few weeks ago, my gratitude on behalf of those people, a number of whom have spoken to me, for the leadership shown by the SDLP this year when its members and its leader wore poppies, which was significant. The poppy is not a British thing or a Protestant thing. It is for people who want to recognise the contribution made by those, regardless of background and class, involved in peacekeeping on this island and abroad.

93. Northern Ireland is a better and different place now. My opinion is that equality is central to the Bill. For example, from conversations that I have had recently, I know of an organisation called Combat Stress, which works with soldiers on the mainland. However, there is no such organisation here in Northern Ireland. Therefore, I commend the Bill and commend David for his work.

94. In a divided society, it is going to be the case that people will take a different view. However, it has to be put on record that Her Majesty’s forces, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the PSNI held the line in preserving some semblance of normality, law and order, and peace in this country during very difficult times. In my view, they prevented Northern Ireland society from slipping into anarchy.

95. The acceptance and mature recognition of the Bill across the Chamber would show that people are committed to a shared and better future in Northern Ireland. It is about creating a normal society.

96. Recently, I attended ‘Black Watch’, a play at the Belfast Festival at Queen’s. It gave a powerful message about soldiers on active service, some of whom lost their lives.

97. David, how would the Bill work — for example, in its practicalities and outworkings — with local authorities and local government in Northern Ireland and with organisations such as the Housing Executive?

98. Mr McNarry: Those are the kind of organisations with which the Bill needs to work. We are talking about recognising as a category someone who has been affected from being in the armed forces. Similar categories have been recognised for ordinary people in ordinary society. For example, if someone is disabled and needs structural alterations to where they live, they get that provision; if someone needs a wheelchair, they get one; if someone needs access to normal society, or as normal as is possible, such as going to the shops, they have it.

99. To be asked about finding a roof for over their heads is not exceptional. It is something that we may not do every day in our political lives, but, most days, people come to our advice centres or offices looking for help. They tell us that they are homeless. A member of the armed forces can be made homeless instantly and dramatically on leaving the service. All of a sudden, they have a giant turnaround. Having been used to the service and all that that implies, they are literally on the street. They do not know who to contact or where to go; they are homeless. There is no special position for them in the queue, and they are not asking for one. The Bill might help to get them into the queue.

100. Mr Humphrey: Mr McNarry is absolutely right. Last Friday morning, a young constituent called with me. He has left the Army and is having to live with his parents. We have a battle to try to secure the points to get the Housing Executive to give him a home. His brother will leave the Army in March. Two sons in that house will be in the position of having to live with their parents. They have served this country in an exemplary fashion, but they cannot get a home.

101. Mr McElduff: Last Friday, I met a disabled young woman who is wheelchair-bound. She is having tremendous difficulty getting proper accommodation from the Housing Executive. I do not want her to be treated any less well than a former British soldier.

102. A lot of presumptions are being made that these are “our" armed forces. It is important for Sinn Féin to put on the record that they are not our armed forces. I am thinking of young Martin McShane who was killed on the GAA pitch in Coalisland by the British Army. He was an unarmed teenager. That has to inform the narrative of this debate.

103. I do not think that the Bill is about equality; it is about preferential treatment, special positions and sectoral discrimination. Do you accept that it is about pushing people up the queue and disadvantaging others? That is my perception of what is taking place. I restate Sinn Féin’s opposition to the Bill.

104. Mr McNarry: Barry, you and I know each other well enough to call a spade a spade. I would like to think that that young woman whom you mentioned will be helped and that she will be helped because we are able to help her. I can only give you my assurance. If you believe me, you believe me; if you do not, you do not. I said that I have a very honest approach to this. It is not associated with all the things that you think are associated with me. I hope that I am not doing a disservice to anybody. I am not asking for anything for any member of the armed services that they are not entitled to. I am saying that that entitlement is being denied to them. I hope that you can understand that that is why the Bill has been introduced. There is no reason for bringing the Bill other than to establish those entitlements. Preferential treatment is not in my mind. There is nothing preferential in the Bill.

105. Perhaps I can take you back to when you were Chairperson and I was Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure. Of course, you are still Chairperson of that Committee. We had some humdingers together, because of the view that you have about your Irishness, which I am learning to respect. I remember something that happened at one of those Committee meetings. You will correct me if I am wrong, if you want to be pedantic about it, but indulge me. You were not very pleased with me for using the word “gypsies".

106. Mr McElduff: On a point of accuracy, it may have been Willie Clarke who took exception to you at that time and the use of that word.

107. Mr McNarry: It was Willie Clarke, but I am putting you in the role as well, because you are here and he is not. I was told that they are called Travellers. I am not knowledgeable about the subject. As I explained, I was brought up to call them gypsies. No disrespect was intended in my calling them that. Over time, and through what I recognise to be one of the best lobby outfits that Northern Ireland has ever seen, Travellers have established their due rights. They have not been prevented in doing so by me. They needed to establish those rights. When I looked into it at that time, it became clear to me that they had entitlements. I had not been fully clear on the subject and, therefore, rightly, wanted to learn about it.

108. I am not drawing corollaries or comparing Travellers to Her Majesty’s forces. I am saying that that was an opportunity for me to understand that Travellers’ rights had been established and that they were deserved. Therefore, I can only reach out to those who fought ably in that campaign for Travellers to ask them that they might, perhaps, give a little leeway with regard to what I am trying to do for soldiers.

109. I want to take another minute, Chairman, because I believe that this needs to have my thumbprint on it. I see people in uniforms only when they wear them. They are husbands and wives all the time, regardless of whether they are in uniform. They have chosen a job or career in the forces. They could be in the Army, Navy or Air Force. They have families, as I do. I hear what has been said here. I hope that we are graduating. I can say about my family, and I am sure that many of you around the table would say something similar, that I have suffered because of my role and job in politics. I would not like to see someone, who has chosen to serve my nation — it is my nation, so let me call it that — in a unique way, suffer. To come back to the simplicity of the Bill, I ask whether it is a big deal. I hope that it is not a big deal because that is not where I am coming from. It just seems to me to be decent that we make way for those people and their families. They are us: they are part of our community.

110. The Chairperson: OK. Thank you very much, David, for that presentation and for answering questions. Obviously, you will be kept informed of the Bill’s progress through the Committee.

111. Mr McNarry: I appreciate that. Will you also get back to me on suggested amendments that the Committee might bring forward, so that I know where I am with them?

112. The Chairperson: OK. Thank you.

113. Mr McNarry: Thank you, everybody.

12 January 2011

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr Tom Elliott (Chairperson)
Dr Stephen Farry (Deputy Chairperson)
Ms Martina Anderson
Mr Allan Bresland
Mr William Humphrey
Mrs Dolores Kelly
Mr Danny Kinahan
Mr Francie Molloy
Mr George Robinson
Mr Jimmy Spratt

Witnesses:

Mr Michael Potter		NIA Research and Library Services
Mr Bob Collins Ms Evelyn Collins Ms Lisa King		Equality Commission for Northern Ireland

114. The Chairperson (Mr Elliott): On 15 December 2010, at our last meeting, the Committee agreed to ask the researcher to provide a briefing on the updated research paper. Michael is present. I will ask him to deliver that briefing. I hope that members have their folders on the Armed Forces and Veterans Bill with them. We have folders in all sorts of colours. That one is red.

115. Mr Michael Potter (Research and Library Services): The presentation will look at the initial Bill paper of 8 December 2010 and will integrate the updated information. At the time, the original paper was circulated to Committee members, two significant events occurred that changed some of that information.

116. On 28 June 2010, the Armed Forces and Veterans Bill was introduced as a private Member’s Bill by Mr David McNarry. In July 2008, the command paper entitled ‘The Nation’s Commitment’ was presented to the Westminster Parliament following an inquiry into the national recognition of the UK armed forces. The rationale for the command paper was as follows: professions in the armed services are just as much a lifestyle choice as any other and employment, as such, should not be a barrier to routine life events that others take for granted. Service personnel and their families have to move location frequently, often to places where they have not chosen to live. There should be continuity of services: in health, education or special needs, for example. Limitations to service life and the threat of or incidence of physical or mental injury represent a sacrifice for which service personnel and their families should not be put at a disadvantage. The armed forces, associated personnel and extended families comprise around 10 million people. Therefore, they comprise a significant constituency whose needs should be taken into account when developing policy.

117. In February 2010, responses to a public consultation on the paper were published. An external reference group had been set up in 2008 to oversee the implementation of the strategy. It published its second annual report in November 2010. A progress chart from that publication is attached to the original Bill paper. It shows advances that have been made in each of the devolved areas — or have not been made, as the case may be. In many of the areas for action, ‘The Nation’s Commitment’ referred to devolved matters. The Bill provides a legislative basis for the implementation of ‘The Nation’s Commitment’ in Northern Ireland.

118. Clause 1 places a general duty to have due regard to the impact of the exercise of functions on the services community on Northern Ireland Departments; district councils; education and library boards; health and social care trusts; and the Housing Executive. There is no equivalent duty on public bodies in other parts of the UK. Such a duty was suggested in the consultation. However, it was generally unpopular. The Ministry of Defence response stated that:

“the main reason for perceived discrimination against the Armed Forces community is lack of awareness of their particular circumstances and needs. Legislation would be heavy-handed and probably unnecessary, risking setting them apart from the communities into which they seek to integrate."

119. Clause 2 requires Northern Ireland Departments to appoint co-ordinators to identify matters that affect the services community. Champions have been introduced elsewhere. For example, in Wales and Scotland, there are champions in health boards and NHS trusts. Many Scottish councils have appointed champions to look after the interests of the armed forces community. At present, 22 councils in Scotland have champions for the armed forces.

120. Clause 3 requires Northern Ireland Departments to consult with the UK and devolved authorities before exercising a function. At present, the external reference group consults across the UK with the participation of the Welsh and Scottish devolved institutions.

121. Clause 4 requires the Department of Finance and Personnel to publish and maintain a service personnel and veterans’ charter for Northern Ireland. On 8 December 2010, an Armed Forces Bill was introduced in the Westminster Parliament. It includes a provision for a requirement on the Secretary of State to prepare and publish an update report on the armed forces covenant. That Bill had its Second Reading on Monday 10 January 2011. In Scotland, Jeremy Purvis MSP has proposed a veterans’ charter, which was debated in the Scottish Parliament on 24 November 2010.

122. Across the UK, the implementation of ‘The Nation’s Commitment’ paper requires certain legislative adjustments to provide for the needs of the armed forces community, but also policy and strategy initiatives. Some local councils in England have piloted the armed forces welfare pathway, which seeks to assist members of the armed forces community where there is a significant local presence.

123. The devolved institutions have approached the issue differently. Wales has formed an expert group at Executive level to implement the devolved matters relating to the paper. Scotland does not have an Executive level group, but a cross-party group in the Parliament that proposes legislative change and invites initiatives such as the appointment of champions. To date, Northern Ireland does not appear to have formally engaged with ‘The Nation’s Commitment’ paper. However, in August 2009, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety published a strategy, ‘Delivering Healthcare to the Armed Forces’.

124. The legislative approach represented by the Bill differs from the other devolved institutions. However, there are particularly sensitivities with regard to the armed forces in this context that do not exist elsewhere. Also, the constitutional arrangements differ in Northern Ireland, and Ministers in Northern Ireland have greater relative autonomy regarding implementation.

125. Committee members indicated interest in other contexts and countries, so I will touch on that very briefly. Across the world, armed forces personnel and their families are supported, to varying degrees and in different ways, by their respective Governments and communities. That is done mostly through provision within military systems, ministries of defence or departments of veterans’ affairs. Much of that provision is set out in legislation, either through a succession of acts, as in the UK, or in one document, as is the case with the Code de la Défense in France.

126. In the USA, there is extensive legislative provision across every aspect of support to the military. That stems from the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, which became known as the “GI Bill of Rights". Some of that legislation bestows certain privileges on veterans and places a duty of care on bodies outside the military system, the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Local communities, businesses and institutions can adopt a military unit as a measure of support. In Canada, organisations can likewise sponsor a unit. As in the USA, departments of veterans’ affairs in Canada and Australia have statutory remits for looking after the needs of former service personnel. Canada also has a Veterans Ombudsman and a Veterans Bill of Rights.

127. I will give an update on the armed forces covenant. On 8 December 2010, a task force on the armed forces covenant published a report that recommended a number of ways in which the armed forces community could be supported. Those included a community covenant for local communities to support military units, as in the USA; a form of recognition for serving and former armed forces personnel and families such as an ID card to enable them to avail themselves of certain benefits or discounts; home ownership and education and initiatives; and support for veterans and greater engagement with the community. However, it did not include any new recommendations for legislation.

128. In summary, the Bill provides for the implementation in Northern Ireland of ‘The Nation’s Commitment’ command paper, which seeks to address certain disadvantages experienced by service personnel and their families by virtue of their employment that were identified in the inquiry. It will do that by introducing a statutory duty on certain public bodies to have due regard for their needs; by having appointed individuals and Departments to look out for their specific needs; through consultation with other UK and devolved authorities to harmonise policy and provision concerning service personnel and their families; and through a veterans’ charter for Northern Ireland. As yet, Northern Ireland has not engaged significantly with ‘The Nation’s Commitment’ strategy. The Bill seeks a statutory route to do so.

129. The Chairperson: Thank you very much. Members do not have any questions, Michael, so you are getting away very lightly. I should have declared an interest as a member of the Royal British Legion and a former member of the forces.

130. Mr Bresland: I declare an interest as well.

131. Mr Kinahan: And myself.

132. The Chairperson: We will now hear from representatives of the Equality Commission: Bob Collins, Evelyn Collins and Lisa King.

133. Evelyn, Bob and Lisa, you are very welcome. Thank you for attending. We wrote to you asking for comments on the Armed Forces and Veterans Bill. We ask you now to give a short presentation of no more than 10 minutes, and to then make yourselves available for questions. The session will be reported by Hansard for our records.

134. Mr Bob Collins (Equality Commission for Northern Ireland): Thank you, Chairperson. We can certainly satisfy on the brevity element.

135. To begin, I say that we are sorry that, for whatever reason, the original letter to the commission appears not to have been received by us. That is the reason that there was no response. Had we received that letter, there would, of course, have been a response.

136. The second thing to say by way of introduction is that not every private Member’s Bill, no more than every consultation by a public authority, will necessarily require a response by the Equality Commission.

137. Finally, as you know, the commission has no role in either giving or withholding approval for any Bill. That is the spirit in which we are here. Ours is not a legal interpretation of the Bill.

138. As far as the remit and interest of the Equality Commission is concerned, it appeared initially as though what was represented as the intention of the draft Bill may have been in some conflict with equality legislation. However, on the face of it, after careful reading, the Bill seems not to conflict with any equality or anti-discrimination legislation.

139. The Bill creates a duty for a range of specified authorities to give due regard to the impact that the exercise of their functions may have on an identified category of people, service personnel and their families. However, on the face of it, the Bill confers no preference and makes no requirement of any public authority around any action required to be taken following the giving of due regard to that impact. It seems to us that that followed from the White Paper’s essential starting point:

“that those who serve must not be disadvantaged by virtue of what they do".

140. In clause 2, the Bill creates the role of a co-ordinator in Government Departments. Of itself, that seems not to be a problem for any existing equality or anti-discrimination legislation. However, if the Bill is enacted, an important element will be the meaning that is given to the word “addressing" in clause 2. That will be a crucial consideration.

141. Crucial also will be the guidance from DFP, which will have a significant impact on the role and function of the aforementioned co-ordinators. The commission will, of course, be happy to respond to any consultation that DFP may have on any such guidance. If it came to that, the commission would want to consider whether there was any formal advice that it should give to DFP under schedule 9 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

142. The Bill proposes to create a regime in Northern Ireland that is quite different from that which pertains in other parts of the UK. That is not a problem for any current equality or anti-discrimination legislation in Northern Ireland.

143. Were the Bill to create a requirement for preferential treatment, or were the interpretation in the execution of the Bill to suggest that such treatment was required or to be encouraged, there could be a collision with equality and anti-discrimination law. However, that is not on the face of the Bill, so there is an important distinction to be made between what the Bill says and how, if it were enacted, it were put into effect or how, as I say, its interpretation in execution were realised.

144. Clause 3 does not establish equivalence of treatment between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. It simply requires a consultation arrangement but it does not bind Departments to follow practice in Great Britain, be bound in any way, or change their intentions in any way by virtue of the consultation.

145. If the Bill were to require an equivalence of treatment, or if that process of consultation were to give rise to an expectation that equivalence of treatment were necessary, that too could give rise to a collision between the terms of the Bill and the existing quality of anti-discrimination legislation, whether in fair employment, the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 or disability discrimination legislation.

146. There are two other things I want to say. Service personnel in Northern Ireland enjoy the protection of all the anti-discrimination legislation in the same way that everyone else does. They have access to whatever recourse is available to everyone else. They also have the same entitlement as everyone else to make a complaint if they believe that a public authority is failing to discharge the requirements of its equality schemes and if, as a consequence, they are directly affected by that, service personnel are not outside the protection of the legislation as it exists.

147. An important point to note, which applies to everyone in Northern Ireland but clearly and specifically to service personnel no less than everyone else, is that, especially with the enactment of the Equality Act 2010, which applies only in Great Britain, there is a growing difference between the level of protection available to people in Northern Ireland and that to people in other parts of the United Kingdom, on grounds of age, disability, and in other respects. As some of you will know, because we have previously made this point to the Committee, we have urged and made formal proposals to Ministers, including the First Minister and deputy First Minister, for significant change in discrimination legislation, both in its own right, so that the legislation that obtains in Northern Ireland is as good as it can be, and particularly because of the gap that has opened and will widen as, in sequence, elements of the 2010 legislation are given effect in Great Britain. Clearly, issues that arise when service personnel move from one jurisdiction to another in the United Kingdom also obtain in relation to everyone else who moves, whether employers, employees or others. That especially raises issues for employers who have staff in a number of jurisdictions in the United Kingdom, in Northern Ireland and say, England, Wales or Scotland. Certainly, the position of service personnel and everyone else would be substantially improved were that gap to be narrowed, or preferably closed, and were the kinds of proposals that had been made by the commission given effect through the necessary legislative change. That is entirely a matter for the Executive and the Assembly, because it is within the Assembly’s competence.

148. I will reiterate the point that I made earlier. On the face of it, there is nothing in the Bill that conflicts with current equality or anti-discrimination legislation. However, there is a need for particular care to ensure that the Bill and its outworkings are enacted and that the interpretations that are brought to bear in its execution do not wittingly or unwittingly fall into the trap of colliding with existing legislation. In that context, the guidance that is identified in clause 2(3) of the Bill will, perhaps, assume greater importance than may have been attached to it when the Bill was drafted.

149. The Chairperson: Thank you very much for that. I think that what you are telling us, in short, is that there are no issues with the Bill, but that it needs a watching brief.

150. Dr Farry: I welcome our guests from the Equality Commission. I take the point that you made about the Equality Act 2010 in GB. Although the current situation in Northern Ireland is outwith our considerations today, the Committee needs to look at that in the near future.

151. I regard your evidence on the Bill as the critical evidence session for the Committee. Although I appreciate that you will inevitably have to be selective about where you engage or do not engage, I hope that you appreciate why the Committee was particularly keen to hear from you about the Bill. Like the Chairperson, I clearly understand the advice that you are giving us and that, consequently, we need to focus our attention on clause 2.

152. I want to tease the matter out more clearly. In a sense, I am putting words in your mouth, but equality, in itself, is not something that is divisible. To ask public bodies to have particular due regard to the situation being faced by current and former service personnel and their families need not be to the detriment to the rights, and right to equality, of any other individual in society. I am conscious of examples of that in my constituency. I am a governor of a school in which there are a large number of children of service personnel. If that school, or an equivalent body, were to particularly bear in mind the profile of its users, it would not be acting adversely against the interests of other children in the school. I assume that is the type of situation that you would be fairly comfortable with.

153. Mr B Collins: I will address your first point first. We would, in any event, have responded to the Bill, because we recognise the closeness of the relationship and the way in which the due regard principle might be perceived as being in conflict with the section 75 due regard duty. We would undoubtedly have responded and we understand why the Committee has asked us to be here.

154. It could be argued that the very fact of requiring a Department or a public authority to have due regard to the impact that the exercise of a function may have on a particular group of people ipso facto confers an advantage on that group of people and a detriment on others. We do not think that that is necessarily the case. There are certain circumstances in which one would want particular attention to be paid, for example, to the children in the example that you cited. Of course, it is not exclusively about the children of service personnel, but, perhaps, about children of people who came from another part of the UK or have been posted to another place. I am certain that, when those children arrive at school, the schools concerned would take account of that fact and would have access to information, and would not simply ignore the context in which the child arrives in the schoolroom.

155. That pertains to people who move to Northern Ireland from other parts of the UK anyway. Since the duty is simply to “have due regard to the impact", with no stated purpose and no stated consequence, the public authority is, therefore, not bound to do anything. That is why the use of the word “addressing" in clause 2 is important. What does “addressing" mean? How will it be interpreted? What will the guidance say about it? Because, if the interpretation of “addressing" were to give rise to particular or special attention or to preferential treatment, there would be a clear and evident difficulty.

156. The Chairperson: I am reading “addressing matters", which, I assume, is a fairly loose issue. However, in broad circumstances, would that give rise to concerns?

157. Mr B Collins: It depends on the interpretation that either the guidance or the Department in question gives. To identify is one thing, but does “addressing" mean to remedy, resolve, deal with, overcome or provide for, and would that mean to provide for in a particular or preferential way as a priority? I am not putting in words; that is what appears in the Bill. I think that the word “addressing" and the guidance from the Department of Finance and Personnel will become key issues in determining how the Bill and, subsequently, the Act will be interpreted and executed.

158. Ms M Anderson: I want to pick up on the two points that have been raised again to see if we can tease them out a bit. I listened to what you said about that fact that, on the face of it, you do not think that the Bill is in any way at variance with other legislation. However, the explanatory and financial memorandum requires authorities:

“to have due regard to the impact that the exercise of their functions has on members of the armed forces and their families and veterans and their families."

159. When I read that sentence, I realised that we are not talking about the same situation — or are we? — that is described in the British Government’s White Paper that dealt with the armed forces and their families, because this Bill also deals with veterans. I say that particularly in the context that anti-discrimination legislation applies to everyone here, and we all have the same entitlement to the challenge function if a public body is not exercising its duties accordingly. Given the name of the Bill, there are implications not just for the armed forces and their families, but for veterans. Clause 2 states that a co-ordinator will take responsibility for “identifying and addressing matters", which challenges what you said about it not colliding with other legislation, because that is quite specific on what it confers a public body to do.

160. Mr B Collins: One of the key issues will be what “addressing" means and how it is interpreted. If the Bill is enacted as it stands, ultimately, of course, it will be a matter for the courts to identify what “addressing" means. However, in the meantime, it will be a matter for the guidance issued by the Department of Finance and Personnel to identify what it believes it to mean. If the guidance from DFP were to convey that “addressing" means to give preferential treatment or priority, there is potential for real difficulty.

161. We do not come here as lawyers giving formal legal interpretation of the Bill, we are simply giving our best judgement on how the Bill relates to the other equality or anti-discrimination legislation.

162. If “addressing" is taken to mean following through on the provisions in the document entitled ‘The Nation’s Commitment’, a number of those — specifically those that are identified in points 37 and 38 of Michael Potter’s papers, which identify priority of access for employment for spouses or for people leaving the armed services — will give rise to a real issue in relation to the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (FETO) and the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997. It is not clear whether there would be issues in relation to other legislation, but issues could arise in relation to those two, specifically in Northern Ireland, where it is not possible to give preference or withhold preference in any account in relation to either of those issues.

163. At the risk of repeating myself, our sense is that it is identifying a duty to have due regard without indicating the object of the due regard or attaching any action requirement to it — unlike section 75, which mentions:

“due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity"

and

“regard for the desirability of promoting good relations".

164. Nothing is attached to due regard here, other than due regard to how the exercise of function in that respect will affect that group of people. Having had due regard, you are not obliged to take any particular action in respect of that group of people, neither are you in relation to addressing it. It is not part of the Equality Commission’s function to say whether the legislation should be introduced or enacted; that is entirely a matter for the Assembly as the parliamentary authority in Northern Ireland.

165. Mr Humphrey: Thank you very much for your presentation. Given the legislation and the circumstances that currently prevail in Great Britain, if the Bill before us — in whatever shape it eventually comes before the House — is not enacted, will veterans and ex-service personnel from Northern Ireland be treated differently from their colleagues on the mainland? If they are not treated equally, will they not, effectively, be discriminated against?

166. Mr B Collins: Obviously, a key subclause of that question was:

“in whatever shape it eventually comes before the House".

167. If the Bill is amended, there will be an entirely different context for the discussion, because we do not know what change will have been made. Whatever way the cat jumps, there is going to be a difference of arrangement anyway, because what is proposed in ‘The Nation’s Commitment’ in respect of England, Wales and Scotland about priority access to employment appears not to be possible in Northern Ireland because of the existence of FETO and the Race Relations Order. There is, at least, a serious risk of collision between the two.

168. Ms Evelyn Collins (Equality Commission for Northern Ireland): In addition, our understanding is that there is no equivalent legislation being put through in Great Britain now that would be relevant to this legislation. Following the 2008 White Paper there was an amendment to the Armed Forces Bill by the current Government in December, and I am taking this from the Michael Potter paper that you all have access to, which seeks to fulfil the commitments made in the White Paper. If the Bill goes ahead, the situation here would be different. However, given that there are no related legislative provisions in the rest of GB, our reading is that the position here would be no different if it does not go ahead.

169. Mr Humphrey: Yes, but given the information, the Bill and the papers that you have mentioned, will ex-service personnel and veterans in Northern Ireland not be disadvantaged, if not discriminated against, if there is no Bill?

170. Mr B Collins: At the moment, everyone in Northern Ireland is disadvantaged relative to everyone in Great Britain, because the Equality Act 2010 has received Royal Assent and is being progressively brought into effect.

171. Mr Humphrey: We are speaking specifically about the armed forces.

172. Mr B Collins: I know. If there is no Bill, there are areas in which service personnel or ex-service personnel will suffer the same inhibitions as everyone else. However, whether or not there is a Bill, it seems, on the face of it, that some things may be possible in Great Britain that are not possible in Northern Ireland. Great Britain does not have an equivalent of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order and elements of the Race Relations Order may not apply there, simply because it is people in Britain, from Great Britain, being dealt with in Great Britain. The Committee may want to obtain its own legal advice; I am not offering legal advice. However, measures proposed in ‘The Nation’s Commitment’ document may not be possible in Northern Ireland, whether or not there is a Bill, because of the risk of collision with Northern Ireland’s pre-existing equality or anti-discrimination legislation.

173. Apart from that, it is difficult to identify a way in which you could say that people in Northern Ireland will be discriminated against compared to people in Great Britain but for the enactment of the Bill. That is beyond the Equality Commission’s remit, because we are confined to Northern Ireland. Secondly, the existence of separate jurisdictions within the United Kingdom means that there is every likelihood, and the reality, of people being treated differently in the three main jurisdictions of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in respect of devolved matters.

174. Mr Humphrey: That is pretty clear. Thank you.

175. Mr G Robinson: Surely equality is the whole thrust of the Bill. The way in which I have interpreted the Bill is that service personnel, families and veterans are not looking for anything more or less than other people in Northern Ireland or anywhere else. Surely the argument should be judged in the context that it does not matter who, or what, someone is.

176. Mr B Collins: It would be entirely wrong for me, or anyone from the Equality Commission, to comment on the Bill as a Bill, or its intentions. It is much better that we confine ourselves to observations on the extent to which we believe that there is any risk of the Bill being in conflict with Northern Ireland’s existing legislation. I have tried to do that as clearly as I can. It is better not to express a view. The Equality Commission does not have a view, per se.

177. The Chairperson: Thanks very much for that explanation and detail.

178. There is a response from the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish Regiment’s aftercare service in members’ information packs. I suggest that we undertake clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill at next week’s meeting, when we will ask Mr McNarry, the proposer of the Bill, to be present. At this stage, do any members have any proposals or amendments?

179. Ms M Anderson: Do we not need to hear from OFMDFM about the proposed changes to the anti-discrimination legislation that the Equality Commission is talking about? If that will confer a protection on all, as opposed to a Bill that may give preferential treated to the armed forces and veterans, you will then have a collision with a veto and —

180. The Chairperson: We wrote to OFMDFM twice for a response —

181. Ms M Anderson: Based on the evidence that we heard today —

182. The Chairperson: And we still have not had a response from them.

183. Ms M Anderson: Based on the evidence —

184. The Chairperson: It is not in our interest to hold this matter up any longer waiting on their response. We should just move on, whatever happens.

185. Dr Farry: What we heard today was useful, and it has given me a lot more confidence in taking the matter forward. In some respects, I am not sure how much added value the Bill provides to the status quo, but it certainly will be an improvement.

186. In advance of next week, it may be useful if we were to highlight to Mr McNarry the importance of clause 2, just to give him a heads up that that is an area in which we probably have to explore things with him in a little bit more detail, and to encourage him to think through how he would take that forward, particularly in light of the evidence we heard from the Equality Commission today. Even at a basic level, the Bill states that it is the co-ordinator’s duty to address matters, when surely it should be the Department’s duty to address matters, rather than the individual co-ordinator.

187. There may be a few drafting issues with clause 2, but in the first instance that may be for Mr McNarry to address rather than the Committee to seek to amend, although of course we reserve the right to propose our own amendments if appropriate. However, it may be useful and productive if we were to steer him towards that clause as one on which particular attention needs to fall next week.

188. Mrs D Kelly: Picking up on Stephen’s point, it is the normal practice of scrutiny for the proposer to have an opportunity to hear where amendments may be required, and it is up to them whether they choose to bring forward the amendment based on the evidence, or whether the Committee should bring forward an amendment based on evidence. That may be part of what Stephen is driving at.

189. Secondly, Martina’s point about additional powers is a separate issue over and above the Armed Forces and Veterans Bill in writing to OFMDFM to ask them precisely when, indeed if, they have any intention to strengthen the anti-discrimination powers as requested by the Equality Commission. I do not see that as repeating the —

190. The Chairperson: Yes, but that is a separate issue. We should take that under any other business, and I am happy to do that in respect of Martina and Dolores’s points.

191. Mrs D Kelly: We would be happy if you would do that, rather than it was ignored, as long as it is taken under any other business, Chairperson.

192. The Chairperson: That is fine. I am quite happy to do that. Have any members any amendments or proposals for amendments at this specific stage? You do not have to; you can make them at some other stage.

193. Dr Farry: We should hear what happens next week, although I would certainly consider amendments based on the clause 2 issue, because it is critical. We should defer to Mr McNarry in the first instance, to see how he wants to take the matter forward.

194. Ms M Anderson: Chairperson, no harm to you, I put a request to you and you just dismissed it out of hand and moved on. If you are going to try to chair this meeting, at least we should try to communicate and respect each other, to try to understand, despite what I said, what you are now proposing to do. First, you said we will move on to clause-by-clause. Is that what we are doing?

195. The Chairperson: I actually suggested that we do a clause-by-clause next week; not today. I suggested that we would do a clause-by-clause next week, and if there were any amendments today, I was quite happy to take them as proposals, and let the Committee vote on them. Indeed, they can come forward next week or at any other stage. When we are doing clause-by-clause next week, it is up to Mr McNarry to decide whether he wants to take those as amendments, or whether we put them forward, if we agree them, as Committee amendments. That is the way in which I was proposing to move forward.

196. Ms M Anderson: So are we going to try to carry out a couple of processes at one meeting? If we approve the clauses, do those not go to Mr McNarry to consider any proposals?

197. The Chairperson: My intention was that if any amendments were proposed today, we could put those to Mr McNarry so that he has them for next week. If we do not have them this week, we can still bring them forward next week. We will have the clause-by-clause scrutiny next week. This is the regular process for any Bill. We can debate those proposals next week. Some amendments, if there are any, may be accepted by Mr McNarry, and others may not. Some amendments may be proposed here but may not be accepted by the Committee. It is up to individual Members to put such amendments to the Assembly. It is the same as for any other Bill. I am trying to outline the process that I plan to follow.

198. Ms M Anderson: If we are working on the Bill as we would on any other Bill, do we not have a response from a Minister?

199. The Chairperson: No. It is a private Member’s Bill.

200. Ms M Anderson: So it is not necessary for us to get a response from OFMDFM?

201. The Chairperson: No. In fact, it was explained to us from the start that, because Mr McNarry is the Bill’s sponsor, although he is not representing a Department, he acts almost as though he was a departmental official who comes here to give us the details. That is how it was explained to us from the start.

202. Mrs D Kelly: I want to pick up on the issue of proposed amendments. It is also normal practice that the Committee staff may bring forward suggested amendments that are based on some of the evidence that is presented.

203. The Chairperson: The Committee staff normally bring forward amendments at the Committee’s recommendation. It would be unfair to ask the Committee staff to draft amendments.

204. Mr Spratt: You have outlined how, as I understand it, any private Member’s Bill is supposed to be dealt with. I guess that what is happening is that Sinn Féin and the SDLP have not got the response that they normally get from their friends in the Equality Commission. Quite simply, they are clutching at straws now.

205. Mrs D Kelly: That is —

206. Mr Molloy: That is a stupid remark. [Interruption.]

207. The Chairperson: Hold on, members. We will have one person speaking at a time.

208. Ms M Anderson: Well, Jimmy, you may not like the Equality Commission, but they are here to represent all the people of the North equally. They are everybody’s friends. You may not embrace that hand of friendship, but they are here for everybody.

209. Mr Spratt: Perhaps you did not listen to what I was saying —

210. Ms M Anderson: That was a very cheap remark. The response that I received —

211. The Chairperson: OK, folks. I am going to stop it there. We have had our say about that particular issue. I am concerned about whether the Committee will decide to progress the Bill or not. I am open to suggestions or proposals from members about other ways to move forward. I have outlined how I believe we should move forward, having taken advice from the Committee Clerk and others.

212. Mr Spratt: I propose that you move forward in the way that you have outlined. It is my understanding that that is the way in which any Private Members’ Bill is dealt with, no matter what it is about.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes 7; Noes 3

AYES

The Chairperson (Mr Elliott), Mr Bresland, Dr Farry, Mr Humphrey, Mr Kinahan, Mr G Robinson, Mr Spratt.

NOES

Ms M Anderson, Mrs D Kelly, Mr Molloy.

Question accordingly agreed to.

213. Dr Farry: On the back of that, may I propose that we draw to Mr McNarry’s attention that clause 2 may be a source of concern to the Committee and encourage him to consider how that may be best addressed at next week’s meeting?

214. The Chairperson: Are members content with that approach?

215. Members indicated assent.

216. The Chairperson: There are no proposals for amendments at this stage. The Committee for Finance and Personnel and the Department of Finance and Personnel have suggested that the Bill be amended to remove the references to “the Department of Finance and Personnel" and replace them with “the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister".

217. That would be done at clauses 1(3), 2(3), 4(1), (2) and (3) and 5(1) and (2).

218. Dr Farry: May I be flippant and ask whether OFMDFM has a view on that?

219. The Chairperson: They have not given us their view on it. I am sorry.

220. Ms M Anderson: Are you making this proposal?

221. The Chairperson: No. The Department of Finance and Personnel made the proposal to us.

222. Ms M Anderson: Does the Department of Finance and Personnel —

223. The Chairperson: Sorry, through the Committee for Finance and Personnel.

224. Ms M Anderson: Right, so the Committee for Finance and Personnel is asking that reference to DFP is removed and replaced with OFMDFM?

225. The Chairperson: That is right. I have no view on this. I only tell you it as something that is given us.

226. Dr Farry: Just to muddy the waters further, this falls under the definition of a cross-cutting matter, in the sense that one Department proposes that another should assume responsibility. I feel that that is the appropriate way to go. However, I imagine that, under the ministerial code, the matter will have to be determined at the Executive, given that it involves two Departments. That may be a way of burrowing in, getting a view from OFMDFM and clarifying whether that has been the case. On face of it, we have one Department saying it should be OFMDFM, but we have nothing from OFMDFM that says that that is its desired way forward. We should clarify that point and also the point regarding the Executive.

227. The Chairperson: I do not think that the Executive agreed on any decision to allocate the matter. However, on that particular point, if the Committee for Finance and Personnel wishes the Bill to refer to OFMDFM as opposed to Finance and Personnel, it should bring forward that amendment to the Floor of the House. That would be better than us doing it.

228. Ms M Anderson: Has this gone through the Minister of Finance and Personnel, or is it something that the Committee has recommended with the support of the —

229. The Chairperson: It came from the Department to the Committee.

230. Dr Farry: If you are looking for the Finance Committee to table an amendment, it is probably not on its agenda any longer. It has passed it on to this Committee. We are working to a deadline and we have to report. If it is the view of this Committee, we should write to the Committee for Finance and Personnel and request that it make that amendment.

231. Mr Molloy: Surely we should leave it to the DUP to sort out which of their Ministers will reject this Bill, instead of putting into our hands. It is not our job.

232. The Chairperson: It was agreed some time ago that this Committee — [Interruption.]

233. Members, there is no point in getting into this. All that you are doing is creating more difficulty for yourselves and wasting more time.

234. We can ignore the suggestion or we can write back to the Committee for Finance and Personnel and say that we do not want to bring that amendment forward, but if they wish to do it, that is up to them. Is that reasonable?

235. Dr Farry: Why does Mr McNarry not do it? That would be the cleanest way of doing it.

236. Mrs D Kelly: That is the problem of going through the clause-by-clause scrutiny next week. If there were amendments based on some of the evidence that has been taken this afternoon, it would give Mr McNarry an opportunity to reflect on what amendments he might wish to table to the Bill. We could hear that next week and then pick up on the clause-by-clause scrutiny. That would give members an opportunity to consider whether they want to bring forward amendments.

237. The Chairperson: When is the deadline?

238. The Committee Clerk: It is 28 January.

239. The Chairperson

240. We have only two meetings to decide, and have the report drawn up.

241. Ms M Anderson: We could do it in two meetings. We could do your first meeting as Dolores suggests and the second —

242. The Committee Clerk: We have to get the report written and agreed as well. We cannot do that unless we have done the clause-by-clause scrutiny, because we do not know what is going to happen at the next meeting.

243. The Chairperson: Surely the suggested amendments are coming from the Committee for Finance and Personnel. We could simply write back to say that if someone on that Committee or in that Department wants to bring forward that proposal, then so be it. It is not up to us to do that.

244. Mr Humphrey: Are we not taking a vote on how to proceed?

245. The Chairperson: We did. However, this is not an amendment, this is a separate issue.

246. Mr Humphrey: If there is no consensus, we should perhaps have a second vote.

247. The Chairperson: I am open to proposals.

248. Ms M Anderson: What are you proposing? To go back to the Committee for Finance and Personnel and ask it to —

249. The Chairperson: I am not proposing anything; I am making a suggestion. The Department of Finance and Personnel has requested that all references in the Bill to the Department of Finance and Personnel be changed to the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. The Department wanted to know whether we would agree to that amendment.

250. Mr Molloy: It is a private Member’s Bill. Surely we should be putting it to Mr McNarry to see whether he wants the change.

251. Mr Spratt: Stephen Farry has made that suggestion. I think that that it is the most sensible thing to do.

252. The Chairperson: If we check the Hansard report of the meeting at which Mr McNarry gave evidence, we will see that he said that he was happy that it be OFMDFM rather that the Department of Finance and Personnel, if it were the will of everyone else.

253. Dr Farry: I propose that we write to Mr McNarry and enclose correspondence from the Finance Minister, and request that he considers an amendment in light of that correspondence.

254. The Chairperson: Are members content with that proposal?

Members indicated assent.

255. The Chairperson: The Examiner of Statutory Rules has suggested amendments to clauses 1, 3 and 4 in relation to subordinate legislation. Mr McNarry has indicated that he is content with the amendments. That relates to making any subordinate legislation subject to affirmative procedure. Everyone seems content with that.

256. The Examiner has also suggested amendments to the clauses so as not to specify the Department and to define the Department in clause 6. That is fairly simple. As it stands, each time the Department is mentioned in the Bill, it states Department of Finance and Personnel. The amendments would mean the Bill would make reference to “the Department", and there will be an explanation at clause 6.

257. Mr Molloy: Surely if we had got that information earlier, it would have saved the debacle.

258. The Chairperson: It would not, because we will have to refer to one particular Department in clause 6. Perhaps we should send that to Mr McNarry as well.

19 January 2011

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr Tom Elliott (Chairperson)
Dr Stephen Farry (Deputy Chairperson)
Ms Martina Anderson
Mr Allan Bresland
Mr William Humphrey
Mr Barry McElduff
Mr Francie Molloy
Mr George Robinson
Mr Jimmy Spratt

Witness:

Mr David McNarry MLA

259. The Chairperson (Mr Elliott): We will now consider the Armed Forces and Veterans Bill, and proceed with our clause-by-clause scrutiny. Mr David McNarry MLA, the sponsor of the Bill, has been invited to answer any queries that members may have about the individual clauses. I invite Mr McNarry to the table to discuss the proposed amendments to the Bill and to discuss issues in respect of clause 2. This session is being reported by Hansard.

260. Mr McNarry, I ask that you give the Committee an outline of where you stand in respect of the Bill and to make yourself available for questions.

261. Mr McNarry: I wish to thank all Committee members for their interest in my Bill. I am happy to take forward the amendments. The first amendment to which I will refer is to replace references to “the Department of Finance and Personnel" with “the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister". There are seven such applicable references, at clauses 1, 2, 4 and 5.

262. The Chairperson: David, we are happy for you to go through all the clauses, and we will come back to you on any issues.

263. Mr McNarry: I also take the opportunity to thank the Examiner of Statutory Rules for his contribution, which was most worthwhile. I am happy to take his advice on the following matters. On the issue of secondary legislation-making power, in clause 1(3) and clause 1(4), the amendment would be, in clause 1(3), to replace “by regulations" with “by order". In clause 1(4), the amendment would be to replace reference to regulations being subject to “negative resolution" with provision for a draft order to be approved by resolution of the Assembly.

264. A further suggestion, which I accept, is to define “the Department" as the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister in clause 6, which relates to interpretation. Therefore, the remainder of the Bill would merely refer to “the Department", which is much neater.

265. Another proposal, item 5 in the Examiner’s list, is that, for good reason, the draftsmen inserted the words:

“insofar as they relate to Northern Ireland".

266. The reason for that was for clarity in clause 1. That is important for confidence. It does not relate to the functions of any organisations outside Northern Ireland, so I am content to leave that phrase in the Bill.

267. Chairman, those are the only amendments that I propose, and I would be happy to bring them forward, as I have said, or to leave it to the Committee to do so.

268. The Chairperson: Thank you very much, David. Do any members have any questions?

269. Dr Farry: I welcome Mr McNarry. Long time, no see, David. I am largely content with the Bill, and the evidence session with the Equality Commission was very useful in helping me in that regard. As you will be aware, the commission was happy with the Bill overall, but expressed some reservations on clause 2. I ask you to reflect a bit more on that and to explain your rationale for leaving it as it is, bearing in mind what the commission said.

270. Secondly, clause 2(2) states that:

“A co-ordinator’s duty shall be to take responsibility for identifying…matters" —

271. which seems reasonable, but also for “addressing matters". I question how can a single co-ordinator be responsible for addressing all matters within a Department that affect the services community, and whether that particular line needs to be redrafted to make it a little more reasonable in respect of implementation.

272. Mr McNarry: You make a very valid point, Stephen, and I picked that point up from the Hansard report. I have sought guidance. The clear understanding from that guidance, and my own interpretation, which I have just had confirmed, is that the co-ordinator will take responsibility and also has to follow guidance. If guidance is required, it would be expected, as I hope is implicit, that the co-ordinator would look to bodies such as the Equality Commission for that guidance. The Equality Commission is quite prepared to play that role, if called upon. If that is a course that it is found necessary to explore — although it may not be — such guidance would be referred to the Equality Commission.

273. Dr Farry: To expand on that, perhaps clause 2(2) should read along the following lines: “A co-ordinator’s duty shall be to take responsibility for identifying matters affecting members of the services community and members of families of members of the services community insofar as such matters relate to the work of the department, with those matters to be addressed by the department."

274. It is the concept of one individual being accountable for addressing all of the issues relating to a Department. Surely, that individual should identify matters as part of his or her job description. In turn, it would be for the Minister of that Department to ensure that the matter is addressed, rather than a lowly civil servant.

275. Mr McNarry: The co-ordinator’s role, at all times, is to be accountable, and in taking responsibility for carrying out his or her duties, it would be expected and normal that they would follow guidance. That may be an amendment that you particularly wish to pursue. My whole aim was to keep the Bill simple. I do not think that you are complicating matters; I am just saying that I picked up on what you said at the previous meeting, I have followed it through, and I am giving you the best explanation that I can. However, you personally may wish to pursue that amendment.

276. Dr Farry: I may reflect further on that matter, and have a private word with you. Perhaps it could be addressed independently at Consideration Stage.

277. The Chairperson: For clarification, David, are you content to accept all the amendments that are in the list that has been provided to the Committee, and that you have indicated that you are willing to take forward?

278. Mr McNarry: Yes.

279. The Chairperson: Thank you very much. Those amendments are tabled, members. Do members have any further amendments to propose?

280. Mr Molloy: Other than scrapping it?

281. The Chairperson: That is not an amendment, Mr Molloy.

282. Ms M Anderson: It is a waste of members’ time.

283. The Chairperson: We will now commence our clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill. Members have had the opportunity to raise any concerns or suggest any amendments. Members should read the relevant clauses in the Bill, along with the related commentary in the explanatory memorandum. The Bill has eight clauses, each of which will need to be considered in turn. The Committee will have four options: first, to agree the clause as drafted; secondly, to agree that the Committee recommend to the Assembly that the clause be amended; thirdly, where a majority of members support an amendment, the Committee Clerk and the Bill Clerk will take away the proposal and draft the appropriate wording for consideration at a subsequent meeting; or, fourthly, to reject the clause as drafted.

284. Members must clearly state their position during the scrutiny session if they wish to oppose a clause or do not feel that they are able to agree a clause. In such cases, members will be asked to set out their opposition or their proposed amendment. Consideration of a clause may be deferred until the next meeting. Members will have the opportunity to consider any amendments to each clause following the reading of that clause.

285. Members, I should have declared an interest as a member of the Royal British Legion and as a former member of the services.

Clause 1 (General duty to have due regard to the impact of the exercise of functions on the services community)

286. The Chairperson: Subsections (1) to (4) of the clause require certain authorities to have due regard to the impact that the exercise of their functions has on members of the armed forces, veterans, and their families. The clause also allows for the adding or removal of authorities.

287. The Examiner of Statutory Rules has suggested the following amendment: In page 1, line 14, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert

“(3) The Department may by order amend the list of authorities in section 1(2) by adding to, or removing from, the list an authority other than a Northern Ireland department.

(4) No order may be made under subsection (3) unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the Assembly."

Question proposed:

That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the wording of the amendment proposed by the sponsor.

The Committee divided: Ayes 6; Noes 3.

AYES

Mr Bresland, Mr Elliott, Dr Farry, Mr Humphrey, Mr G Robinson, Mr Spratt.

NOES

Ms Anderson, Mr McElduff, Mr Molloy.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Co-ordinators)

288. The Chairperson: I refer member to pages 1 and 2 of the Bill, and to page 2 of the explanatory and financial memorandum. Subsections (1) to (3) require each Northern Ireland Department to appoint a co-ordinator who will take responsibility for identifying and addressing matters that affect members of the armed forces, veterans, and their families.

289. Amendments to clauses 2, 4 and 5 are to remove the spelling out of the Department’s name. If those are agreed, the amendment to clause 6 is consequential.

290. The following amendment was suggested by the Examiner of Statutory Rules: In page 2, line 4, leave out

“The Department of Finance and Personnel"

and insert “The Department".

Question proposed:

That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the wording of the amendment proposed by the sponsor.

The Committee divided: Ayes 5; Noes 3.

AYES

Mr Bresland, Mr Elliott, Mr Humphrey, Mr G Robinson, Mr Spratt.

NOES

Ms Anderson, Mr McElduff, Mr Molloy.

ABSTENTIONS

Dr Farry.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Consultation with United Kingdom and devolved authorities)

291. The Chairperson: I refer members to page 2 of the Bill, and to page 2 of the explanatory and financial memorandum. Subsections (1) to (3) require each Northern Ireland Department to consult with the Minister exercising the equivalent function in England, Scotland and Wales before they exercise any functions affecting the armed forces, veterans, or their families.

Question proposed:

That the Committee is content with the clause.

The Committee divided: Ayes 6; Noes 3.

AYES

Mr Bresland, Mr Elliott, Dr Farry, Mr Humphrey, Mr G Robinson, Mr Spratt.

NOES

Ms Anderson, Mr McElduff, Mr Molloy.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 (Service Personnel and Veterans Charter)

292. The Chairperson: I refer members to page 2 of the Bill, and to page 3 of the explanatory and financial memorandum. Subsections (1) to (3) require the Department to publish a service personnel and veterans charter for Northern Ireland not later than one year after the Act comes into operation.

293. The following amendments have been suggested by the Examiner of Statutory Rules:

In page 2, line 31, leave out

“the Department of Finance and Personnel"

And insert “the Department".

In page 2, line 36, leave out

“the Department of Finance and Personnel"

And insert “the Department".

In page 2, line 38, leave out

“the Department of Finance and Personnel"

And insert “the Department".

Question proposed:

That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the wording of the amendments proposed by the sponsor.

The Committee divided: Ayes 6; Noes 3.

AYES

Mr Bresland, Mr Elliott, Dr Farry, Mr Humphrey, Mr G Robinson, Mr Spratt.

NOES

Ms Anderson, Mr McElduff, Mr Molloy.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 (Reports)

294. The Chairperson: I refer members to pages 2 and 3 of the Bill, and to page 3 of the explanatory and financial memorandum. Subsections (1) and (2) enable the Department to require all Northern Ireland Departments to report on progress on meeting their obligations under the legislation, and requires the Department to report to the Ministry of Defence.

295. The following amendments have been suggested by the Examiner of Statutory Rules:

In page 2, line 41, leave out

“the Department of Finance and Personnel"

and insert “the Department".

In page 3, line 3, leave out

“the Department of Finance and Personnel"

and insert “the Department".

Question proposed:

That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the wording of the amendments proposed by the sponsor.

The Committee divided: Ayes 6; Noes 3.

AYES

Mr Bresland, Mr Elliott, Dr Farry, Mr Humphrey, Mr G Robinson, Mr Spratt.

NOES

Ms Anderson, Mr McElduff, Mr Molloy.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 (Interpretation)

296. The Chairperson: I refer members to page 3 of the Bill and to page 3 of the explanatory and financial memorandum. Subsections (1) and (2) set out the definitions used in the Bill. As it stands, “the Department" means the Department of Finance and Personnel. The Department of Finance and Personnel and the Committee for Finance and Personnel suggested that any reference to the Department of Finance and Personnel be changed to “the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister".

297. The Examiner of Statutory Rules has therefore suggested the following amendment: In page 3, line 23, at end, insert

“‘The Department’ means the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister".

Question proposed:

That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the wording of the amendment proposed by the sponsor.

The Committee divided: Ayes 6; Noes 3.

AYES

Mr Bresland, Mr Elliott, Dr Farry, Mr Humphrey, Mr G Robinson, Mr Spratt.

NOES

Ms Anderson, Mr McElduff, Mr Molloy.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 (Commencement)

298. The Chairperson: I refer members to page 3 of the Bill, and to page 3 of the explanatory and financial memorandum. The clause provides that the Bill will come into operation on receipt of Royal Assent.

Question proposed:

That the Committee is content with the clause.

The Committee divided: Ayes 6; Noes 3.

AYES

Mr Bresland, Mr Elliott, Dr Farry, Mr Humphrey, Mr G Robinson, Mr Spratt.

NOES

Ms Anderson, Mr McElduff, Mr Molloy.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 (Short title)

299. The Chairperson: I refer members to page 3 of the Bill, and page 3 of the explanatory and financial memorandum. The Act may be cited as

“the Armed Forces and Veterans Act (Northern Ireland) 2010".

Question proposed:

That the Committee is content with the clause.

The Committee divided: Ayes 6; Noes 3.

AYES

Mr Bresland, Mr Elliott, Dr Farry, Mr Humphrey, Mr G Robinson, Mr Spratt.

NOES

Ms Anderson, Mr McElduff, Mr Molloy.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Long title

300. The Chairperson: The long title is

“A Bill to provide for the benefit of personnel and veterans of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown and their families".

Question proposed:

That the Committee is content with the long title.

The Committee divided: Ayes 6; Noes 3.

AYES

Mr Bresland, Mr Elliott, Dr Farry, Mr Humphrey, Mr G Robinson, Mr Spratt.

NOES

Ms Anderson, Mr McElduff, Mr Molloy.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

301. The Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr McNarry, for your attendance.

302. Ms M Anderson: Mr McNarry will be well aware of this, but I want it on record that Sinn Féin is opposed to this Bill, and we do not agree with any of the amendments or the clauses. We do not think that the Bill should go to the House to be debated, and it has been a waste of time. We have wasted a lot of time here.

303. The Chairperson: The draft report will be prepared for Committee consideration on 26 January 2011, and the Committee is required to report to the Assembly by 28 January 2011. Thank you all very much for your co-operation.

Appendix 3

Written Submissions

List of Respondees

Ards Borough Council
Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development
Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment
Committee for Finance and Personnel
Department of Education
Department of Employment and Learning
Department of the Environment
Department of Finance and Personnel
Department of Justice
Department of Regional Development
Lisburn City Council
Newtownabbey Borough Council
The Royal British Legion

Ards Borough Council

Ards Borough Council
2 Church Street
Newtownards
BT23 4AP
Tel: 02891 824190

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for consulting with Ards Borough Council on the proposed Armed Forces and Veterans Bill which is now at Committee Stage.

The proposed Bill was considered at a recent meeting of the Council’s External Affairs & Planning Committee where it was resolved to respond expressing support for the Bill and the clauses therein.

I hope that this is of assistance to you.

Yours faithfully

Amanda Martin
Principal Administrative Officer

Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development

Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development
Room 284
Parliament Buildings

Tel: +44 (0)28 9052 1063
Fax: +44 (0)28 9052 1679

From: Paul Carlisle
Clerk to the Committee for Agriculture
and Rural Development

Date: 11 November 2010

To: Cathie White
Clerk to the Committee for the Office of First Minister
and deputy First Minister

Subject: Armed Forces and Veterans Bill

At its meeting of 9 November 2010, the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development considered your correspondence of 21 October 2010 regarding the Armed Forces and Veterans Bill.

The Committee agreed that it will continue to ensure that all statutory obligations and policies associated with this Bill are complied with as part of the normal scrutiny undertaken by Committee

Yours Sincerely

Paul Carliele Signature

Paul Carlisle
Committee Clerk

Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment

Committee for Enterprise, Trade & Investment
Room 375
Parliament Buildings

Tel: +44 (0) 28 9052 1614
Fax: +44 (0) 28 9052 1355

To: Cathie White
Clerk to the Committee for the Office of the First Minister & deputy First Minister

From: Jim McManus
Clerk to the Enterprise, Trade & Investment Committee

Date: 5 November 2010

Subject: Armed Forces and Veterans Bill

1. At its meeting on the 4 November, the Committee for Enterprise, Trade & Investment considered OFMDFM’s request for views on the Armed Forces and Veterans Bill.

2. Members had no comments on the Bill.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Committee for Finance and Personnel

Room 419
Parliament Buildings

Tel: 028 9052 1843
From: Shane McAteer
Clerk to the Committee for Finance and Personnel (CFP)

Date: 12 November 2010

To: Cathie White
Clerk to the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister
(OFMDFM)

Armed Forces and Veterans Bill

1. At its meeting on 10 November, the Committee for Finance and Personnel considered the Department of Finance and Personnel’s comments on the provisions of the Armed Forces and Veterans Bill.

2. The Committee agreed that the correspondence should be copied to your Committee, and endorsed the Department’s view that the lead responsibility for managing the cross cutting and equality issues would rest more appropriately with OFMDFM.

Shane McAteer

Department of Education

Department of Employment and Learning

Department of the Environment

Private Office
Clarence Court
10-18 Adelaide Street
Belfast
BT2 8GB

Telephone: 028 90 5 40855
Facsimile: 028 90 5 41169
Email: privateoffice.assemblyunit@doeni.gov.uk

Our reference: CQ/192/10

Date: 17 November 2010

Mrs Alex McGarel
Clerk to the Environment Committee
Northern Ireland Assembly
Parliament Buildings
Ballymiscaw
Stormont
Belfast
BT4 3XX

Dear Alex

I refer to your request dated 9th November asking the department to comment on any obligations under the proposed Armed Forces and Veterans Bill.

I can confirm that the proposed legislation does not impact specifically on or create additional obligations on any of the Department’s responsibilities.

I hope you find this helpful.

Yours sincerely,

Úna Downey
DALO
[by email]

Department of Finance and Personnel

Assembly Section
Craigantlet Buildings
Stormont
BT4 3SX

Tel No: 02890 529147
Fax No: 02890 523600
email: Norman.Irwin@dfpni.gov.uk

Mrs Cathie White
Clerk
Committee for the Office of the
First Minister and Deputy First Minister
Room 404
Parliament Buildings
Stormont

11 November 2010

Dear Cathie

Armed Forces and Veterans Bill

I refer to your letter of 21 October requesting a briefing on the above Bill from DFP officials. Your letter was forwarded to me by the Clerk to the Finance and Personnel Committee.

You should by now be in receipt of a paper which was considered by the DFP Committee at its meeting of 10 November. This paper confirmed that DFP has no role to play in the implementation of the Bill and outlined reasons as to why OFMDFM should be the lead department.

We consider therefore that there would be no added value for DFP officials to brief the Committee on the content of the Bill. I would be grateful if you could obtain your Committee’s agreement to this view.

I am copying this letter to the Clerk to the Committee for Finance and Personnel.

Yours sincerely

Norman Irwin Signature

Norman Irwin

Annex

Dfp Views on the Armed Forces and Veterans (Private Members’) Bill and its Implications for the Department.

Implications for DFP

The Armed Forces and Veterans (Private Members) Bill confers duties on a range of public authorities and Northern Ireland departments to have due regard to the impact of the exercise of functions on members of the armed forces, veterans and their families.

The Bill also confers a number of specific and additional responsibilities on DFP. These include:

to make regulations adding to or removing authorities from the list to whom the duties of the Bill apply (Clause 1(2));
to issue guidance to departmental co-ordinators on how they should exercise their functions (Clause 2(3));
to publish a Service Personnel and Veterans Charter for Northern Ireland and to revise the Charter periodically (Clause 4);
to require all Northern Ireland departments to report on progress in meeting their obligations and to use that information to report to the Ministry of Defence on the progress each department has made in discharging its duties(Clause 5) .

DFP Views

DFP is content with the provisions of the Bill in terms of its core operational requirements, and the additional responsibilities listed above.

However we believe that the lead responsibility for those latter responsibilities might sit more comfortably with OFMDFM rather than DFP for the following reasons:

a. The Bill is cross cutting in nature, and includes obligations around a Charter and the associated monitoring and reporting. These would be more appropriate to OFMDFM, which already has overarching responsibility for a range of cross cutting and equality issues and strategies and has the central coordinating role on children, older people, and gender equality.

b. The Bill has been drafted in response to the recommendations set out in the Command paper, “The Nation’s Commitment: Cross Government Support to our Armed Forces, their Families and Veterans". None of the 19 operational commitments within this Command paper which have relevance for NI are the responsibility of DFP.

c. To have a lead Department that has no operational responsibilities for the actions, and is not the department that normally manages cross cutting and equality issues may create a perception among the armed forces’ constituency that this issue is not being given as much weight as those already centrally managed by OFMDFM.

Department of Justice Response to Minister for Finance and Personnel

Department of Justice

Department for Regional Development

Lisburn City Council

Newtownabbey Borough Council

Dear Cathie

I refer to your correspondence on the above subject dated 22 October 2010.

This matter was considered by our Planning and Consultation Committee on 1 November 2010, where it was agreed that the Council support the Bill in principle.

Yours faithfully

Logan Cathcart
Council Business Services
Newtownabbey Borough Council
Mossley Mill
Newtownabbey BT36 5QA

Tel: 028 90340086
Fax: 028 90340200

The Royal British Legion

Appendix 4

List of Witnesses

Mr David McNarry MLA Member in Charge of the Bill

Mr Bob Collins Equality Commission NI

Mrs Evelyn Collins Equality Commission NI

Appendix 5

Other Papers

Speaker to Committee Chairperson - 18.10.2010

Committee Clerk to DALO Letter
Armed Forces and Veterans Bill - 22.10.2010

The Committee for the Office of the
First Minister and deputy First Minister

Ms Gail McKibbin
Departmental Assembly Liaison Officer
Office of the First Minister
and deputy First Minister
Room G50
Stormont Castle
Belfast

Committee Office Room 404
Parliament Buildings
Ballymiscaw
Stormont
Belfast
BT4 3XX
Tel: (028) 9052 1448
Fax (028) 9052 1083
Committee.ofmdfm@niassembly.gov.uk

Date: 22 October 2010

Dear Gail

Armed Forces and Veterans Bill

The Committee Stage of the Armed Forces and Veterans Bill commenced on 12 October 2010. The Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister has agreed a public notice for publication, inviting written submissions on the clauses of the Bill.

I write to ask for your Department’s views by noon on Friday 12 November 2010.

Information on the Bill can be found on the Assembly’s website at:

http://archive.niassembly.gov.uk/legislation/primary/2009/nia33_09.htm

Yours sincerely,

Cathie White Signature

Cathie White
Clerk to the Committee

Committee Clerk to DALO Letter
Armed Forces and Veterans Bill - 17.11.2010

The Committee for the Office of the First Minister
and deputy First Minister

Ms Gail McKibbin
Departmental Assembly Liaison Officer
Office of the First Minister
and deputy First Minister
Room G50
Stormont Castle
Belfast

Committee Office Room 435
Parliament Buildings
Ballymiscaw
Stormont
Belfast
BT4 3XX
Tel: (028) 9052 1448
Fax: (028) 9052 1083
Committee.ofmdfm@niassembly.gov.uk

Date: 17 November 2010

Dear Gail,

Armed Forces and Veterans Bill

At its meeting of 17 November 2010, the Committee considered the responses to the Armed Forces and Veterans Bill.

The Committee agreed to write to the Department to request an oral briefing from Departmental officials on what role the Department has in relation to the Bill.

We would appreciate a response in time for our meeting on 24 November 2010

Yours sincerely

Cathie White Signature

Cathie White
Clerk to the Committee

Committee Clerk to DALO Letter
Armed Forces and Veterans Bill - 25.11.2010

The Committee for the Office of the First Minister
and deputy First Minister

Ms Gail McKibbin
Departmental Assembly Liaison Officer
Office of the First Minister
and deputy First Minister
Room G50
Stormont Castle
Belfast

Committee Office Room 435
Parliament Buildings
Ballymiscaw
Stormont
Belfast
BT4 3XX
Tel: (028) 9052 1448
Fax: (028) 9052 1083
Committee.ofmdfm@niassembly.gov.uk

Date: 25 November 2010

Dear Gail,

Armed Forces and Veterans Bill

At its meeting of 24 November 2010, the Committee received a briefing from Mr David McNarry MLA on the Armed Forces and Veterans Bill.

The Committee agreed to write to the Department to ask for its views on the Bill including how the Bill fits with other equality legislation.

We would appreciate a response by 9 December 2010.

Yours sincerely

Cathie White Signature

Cathie White
Clerk to the Committee

Committee Clerk to DALO Letter
Armed Forces and Veterans Bill - 16.12.2010

The Committee for the Office of the First Minister
and deputy First Minister

Ms Gail McKibbin
Departmental Assembly Liaison Officer
Office of the First Minister
and deputy First Minister
Room G50
Stormont Castle
Belfast

Committee Office Room 435
Parliament Buildings
Ballymiscaw
Stormont
Belfast
BT4 3XX
Tel: (028) 9052 1448
Fax: (028) 9052 1083
Committee.ofmdfm@niassembly.gov.uk

Date 16 December 2010

Dear Gail,

At its meeting of 15 December 2010, the Committee agreed to write to the Department to request urgent responses to the two pieces of correspondence attached.

I would appreciate an urgent response.

Yours sincerely

Cathie White Signature

Cathie White
Clerk to the Committee

UDR RIR Aftercare Service Response - 21.12.2010

Contact Us Jobs Sitemap Links Search RSS Feeds

Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister

Report on the Armed Forces and Veterans Bill (NIA 33/09)

Session 2010/2011

First Report

Membership and Powers

Powers

Membership

Table of Contents

Report

Appendix 1

Appendix 2

Appendix 3

Appendix 4

Appendix 5

List of Abbreviations

Introduction

Committee Stage Scrutiny of the Armed Forces and Veterans Bill

Consideration of the Bill

Clause-by-Clause Scrutiny of the Bill

23. Clause 1 – General duty to have regard to the impact of the exercise of functions on the services community

Amendment 1

Clause 1, Page 1, Line 14

24. Clause 2 – Co-ordinators

Amendment 2

Clause 2, Page 2, Line 4

25. Clause 3 – Consultation with the United Kingdom and devolved authorities

Clause 4 – Service Personnel and Veterans Charter

Amendment 3

Clause 4, Page 2, Line 31

Amendment 4

Amendment 5

26. Clause 4, Page 2, Line 38

27. Clause 5 – Reports

Amendment 6

Clause 5, Page 2, Line 41

Amendment 7

Clause 5, Page 3, Line 3

28. Clause 6 – Interpretation

Amendment 8

Clause 6, Page 3, Line 23

29. Clause 7 – Commencement

30. Clause 8 – Short Title

31. Long Title

Minutes of Proceedings Relating to the Report

Wednesday 20 October 2010 Room 30, Parliament Buildings

2. Chairperson’s Business

Wednesday 10 November 2010 Room 30, Parliament Buildings

7. Armed Forces and Veterans Bill

Wednesday 17 November 2010 Room 30, Parliament Buildings

7. Armed Forces and Veterans Bill

Wednesday 24 November 2010 Room 30, Parliament Buildings

5. Armed Forces and Veterans Bill

Wednesday 8 December 2010 Room 30, Parliament Buildings

6. Armed Forces and Veterans Bill

Wednesday 15 December 2010 Room 30, Parliament Buildings

7. Armed Forces and Veterans Bill

Wednesday 12 January 2011 Room 30, Parliament Buildings

7. Armed Forces and Veterans Bill

Wednesday 19 January 2011 Room 30, Parliament Buildings

6. Armed Forces and Veterans Bill

Clause 1 – General duty to have regard to the impact of the exercise of functions on the services community

Clause 2 – Co-ordinators

Clause 3 – Consultation with the United Kingdom and devolved authorities

Clause 4 – Service Personnel and Veterans Charter

Clause 5 – Reports

Clause 6 – Interpretation

Clause 7 – Commencement

Clause 8 – Short Title

Long Title

Wednesday 26 January 2011 Room 30, Parliament Buildings

6. Armed Forces and Veterans Bill

Minutes of Evidence

Written Submissions

List of Respondees

Ards Borough Council

Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development

Subject: Armed Forces and Veterans Bill

Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment

Subject: Armed Forces and Veterans Bill

Committee for Finance and Personnel

Report on the
Armed Forces and Veterans Bill
(NIA 33/09)

Committee Stage Scrutiny of the Armed Forces
and Veterans Bill

Wednesday 20 October 2010
Room 30, Parliament Buildings

Wednesday 10 November 2010
Room 30, Parliament Buildings

Wednesday 17 November 2010
Room 30, Parliament Buildings

Wednesday 24 November 2010
Room 30, Parliament Buildings

Wednesday 8 December 2010
Room 30, Parliament Buildings

Wednesday 15 December 2010
Room 30, Parliament Buildings

Wednesday 12 January 2011
Room 30, Parliament Buildings

Wednesday 19 January 2011
Room 30, Parliament Buildings

Wednesday 26 January 2011
Room 30, Parliament Buildings

Committee Clerk to DALO Letter
Armed Forces and Veterans Bill - 22.10.2010

Committee Clerk to DALO Letter
Armed Forces and Veterans Bill - 17.11.2010

Committee Clerk to DALO Letter
Armed Forces and Veterans Bill - 25.11.2010

Committee Clerk to DALO Letter
Armed Forces and Veterans Bill - 16.12.2010