Northern Ireland Assembly

Mr Weir:

I support the motion. When the Government are faced with the issue of equality they can take one of two routes. Either they can support equality of opportunity for all, which is the correct route, or they can try to eliminate the unemployment differential between the two main communities. That is clearly the route which the SDLP is going down in supporting quotas in the RUC. Unfortunately, that has been the net effect of the fair employment legislation over the last 25 years.

A Member:

Will the Member give way?

Mr Weir:

Unfortunately, I have only five minutes, so I shall not give way.

If one compares employment statistics from 1971 onwards, one will find that the Catholic share of the workforce in 1971 was about 29%. It is now nearly 40%. The number of Protestants in employment now compared with 1971 is down by roughly 15,000. The number of Catholics in employment has risen by about 84,000. Yet in spite of this large increase, in both actual and percentage terms, a differential gap remains with regard to the number of Catholics employed. As has been claimed by some other Members, such a gap does not mean that there is employment inequality, for while the Catholic percentage share of employment has increased throughout that period, it has constantly been chasing a moving target, particularly because of birth-rate differentials and other factors.

I also question whether the figure of 39·6% for the Catholic share of the workforce is correct, since it is based on public-sector employees and those in private-sector firms employing more than 25 people. Indeed, if one compares the 1991 figure with the census figure, one will find that about 170,000 people are not included. These, generally speaking, are people employed in small firms. Figures suggest that they have a higher Catholic recruitment rate.

I should like to move to the substance of the motion. The statistics tell us a number of things. First, in public-sector recruitment figures for nine of the last 10 years, the percentage of Catholics appointed was higher than their share of the workforce, and in the one year when it was not, it was more or less the same. In the private sector, this was true for each of the last 10 years.

Let us break that down using another statistic. I have carried out a little research on this. There were 37 public bodies in 1997 with a higher percentage of Catholic employees than their share of the workforce, 41 with a higher percentage of Protestants than one might expect. Using these statistics, how have they performed since 1997? Of the 37 public-sector bodies with a disproportionately high number of Roman Catholics, in 24 cases the percentage of Catholic employment has actually risen. In only 10 of them has it gone down.

Of the 41 public bodies with a disproportionately high number of Protestants, the percentage of Catholics in 1999 rose in 29 and decreased in nine. There were 23 bodies with a disproportionately high number of Roman Catholics in 1991. Of those, 17 had actually increased their percentage of Roman Catholics by 1999. Of the five where that percentage decreased, in only one case was it by more than 2%.

The same can be seen on the Protestant side, where 32 public bodies had a disproportionately high number of Protestants. The Catholic percentage has increased in 27 of them and decreased in only three. We are seeing a two-tier reaction on fair employment. Where there is a disproportionately high number of Catholics in the public sector, that number is increasing. Where there is a disproportionately high number of Protestants, it is decreasing. Those statistics clearly show that there is discrimination.

With regard to the broad sectors of health and education, where there has been a disproportionately high number of Catholics, that percentage has increased. In the other sectors where there is a disproportionately high number of Protestants, it has decreased. This clearly shows discrimination.

I urge Members to support the motion.

Mr Dallat:

Many years ago, when the SDLP campaigned for funding for the Fair Employment Agency it was very much opposed by the DUP. I am delighted to see so many copies of the equal opportunities report tonight - that is progress.

I once read a paperback called 'How to Lie with Statistics'. It is an absolute must for the politician who wants to make a case out of nothing. I threw it away because I want to live in the real world - not the world of make-believe.

For years I followed with interest Mr Campbell's claims of discrimination in his native city, and I often wondered if he was really genuine in his quest for fair employment. My wishes were granted when he got the DUP nomination for East Derry - mind you, the local papers are still talking about the statistics for that. He won the seat, and I was glad. This was because I hoped he would bring with him the strong anti-discriminatory principles he has been telling us about all these years. But not a bit of it. Indeed, I suggest he would defend to the death the high moral ground of those employers in his new constituency who have serious problems redressing the imbalance in their workforces but stubbornly refuse to carry in their advertisements the ice-breaker "We are equal opportunities employers".

That is the problem with statistics. You can add them, multiply them, or do what you like with them. You can say the tank is half empty or half full, depending on whether you are a pessimist or an optimist. Unfortunately, Catholic male unemployment is still twice as high as that for Protestants. Over the last ten years the figures in the public service have not changed significantly. There is a slight fall in Protestant representation, matched by a slight increase in Catholic percentages - that is all. In local government, taking an average of all 26 councils, 63.4% of all employees are still designated as Protestant. In several categories Catholics are particularly under-represented, especially in the higher grades. In the four worst councils, the average percentage of Catholic employment is less than 8%.

Nevertheless, there has been improvement, and all right-thinking people should be encouraged by that progress because in the end every one is a winner. When genuine equality has been established, the old system of begging for a job on the basis of religion, rather than ability and skills to do the job, will be gone, and this country will have come of age. Fair employment legislation is no longer peculiar to Northern Ireland. We may have pioneered it out of necessity, but it is now common practice for countries all over the world to monitor performance figures, not only on grounds of religion but on gender, age, disability and all the other categories listed in the Equality Commission's report. That is nothing more than common sense and good practice. The figures Mr Campbell quotes are cleverly selected to make a case were there is none, but I am not suggesting that he has been reading my book "How to Lie with Statistics". However, he could well have written it.

Fair employment is still an emotive term. It whips up fears and encourages prejudices. Fair employment legislation is just as important for the Protestant community as it is for the Catholic community. All persons are entitled to have their rights protected. Let us work the legislation by keeping our attention focused on real politics. Let us work together in harmony so that new high paid, skilled jobs are created and no one is unemployed or made to hold down jobs which require lower skills than they have. That is the work faced by politicians in the future, and that is what we should be about, rather than living in the past, which failed everyone and benefited no one. No one in their right mind condones discrimination against Protestants; there is nothing to be had in reversing the roles.

Unfortunately, the motion is divisive and that is regrettable because it denies the Assembly the opportunity to speak with one voice on a subject that is common to everyone. The SDLP in no way condones discrimination against any group of people and we are seriously concerned that Mr Campbell will be successful in creating a chill factor among Protestants. That is precisely what happened in Down Council where a DUP member made claims of discrimination where there were none and created a problem as a result of his claims. I am totally against the motion, and I am sorry it was discussed here at all.

Ms Gildernew:

Go raibh maith agat. I have listened with interest to the contributions made here on the issue of equality of employment, and I have to say that if this issue were not so serious, comments made by those on the Unionist benches would be laughable. For eighty years, since the inception of this state, discrimination has been carried out wholesale on the Nationalist community. For years, your name and the school you attended were more of an indication of your ability to do a job than your qualifications. When hundreds of young Catholics boarded boats and planes in search of employment, the shipyard in Belfast was employing men on the basis that their father, brother or uncle had worked there before them.

Now, after years of work in the community, intense lobbying by Nationalist representatives and the Irish Government, and international pressure, due in no small part to the MacBride principles, we have finally got legislation in place to try to address this. However, there is no getting away from the fact that Catholics are still more likely to be unemployed than Protestants in the Six Counties.

We are now hearing about studies being carried by Unionist advisors who are attempting to redefine the criteria for ranking deprivation. Attempts are being made to devise a formula to find the pockets of deprivation complained of by the UUP and DUP. The consequence of this will be that pockets of deprivation will be given ranking equivalence to ward upon ward of deprived Nationalist and Republican communities.

7.30 pm

Mr Kennedy:

Will the Member give way?

Ms Gildernew:

No, I do not have enough time. Everyone knows that the argument that the UUP and DUP have made over pockets of deprivation amidst affluence having some sort of equivalence to wards of multiple deprivation has no theoretical basis in social science. However, it is likely to be presented in such a way as to suggest it does. This attempt to equalise or neutralise deprivation fails when one examines statistical evidence in constituencies like Fermanagh and South Tyrone, where Catholic unemployment stands at 13.3% compared to 3.9% Protestant unemployment. Republicans have concerns that the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister is not seriously addressing equality matters. Indeed, it is not just Republicans but many Nationalists who regard high ranking civil servants and advisors as people who wield too much influence over the future of the equality agenda, especially when one of those advisors has already stated his 'religious blind' approach when dealing with equality matters. This approach is in direct conflict with affirmative action programmes, action plans and timetables.

Mr Kennedy:

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it right for a Member of this House to impugn the integrity of a civil servant or anyone else engaged in the work of government?

Mr Deputy Speaker:

That is not a point of order.

Ms Gildernew:

There is therefore a strong argument for the Equality Unit to become the subject of the closest scrutiny possible. [Interruption]

Mr Kennedy:

I question your ruling.

Mr Deputy Speaker:

You cannot question a ruling from the Chair. You will not question - [Interruption] Sit down, Mr Kennedy. [Interruption] Order. Sit down, Mr Kennedy.

Ms Gildernew:

Go raibh maith agat, Deputy Speaker. Examining the latest labour force surveys - [Interruption]

Mr Kennedy:

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker:

Mr Kennedy, I advise you now that if you do not sit down I will have you named and removed from the Chamber.

Mr Beggs:

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will you refer the matter to Mr Speaker for consultation as to whether it was appropriate as a point of order?

Mr Deputy Speaker:

As you know, Mr Beggs, it is for the person in the Chair now, and no one else.

Ms Gildernew:

Examining latest labour force survey reports, which are the most recent available statistic denoting long-term unemployment, one finds that the survey for 1997 revealed an alarming differential of 2.9% for Catholic males when compared to Protestant males. Such a figure was the highest differential since the 1960's. Furthermore, page 9 of the most recently published labour force survey report states quite clearly that Catholic males have been typically twice as likely as Protestant males to be unemployed. Yet, we hear Mr Campbell refer to the worsening under-representation of the Protestant community, particularly relating to the public sector.

Since this statelet was artificially created, its over-representation by the Protestant community has been well documented. The statelet has been policed by one section of the community, and has also been serviced by that same Protestant community in the Civil Service. Therefore, one of the many problems that the Equality Commission needs to address, urgently, is the religious and gender composition of the Civil Service.

Attention must be given to the fact that there is still an under-representation of Catholics throughout the service, especially at the higher levels. There is a need for an urgent review of its compositional make-up. While noting how few Catholics are employed, consideration also needs to be given to how few women are employed, and how few of them hold managerial and professional positions in the standard occupational classification ranking.

If such data were examined, Mr Campbell would learn that it is the under-representation of the Catholic community and the over-representation of the Protestant community that must be dealt with. Sinn Féin asks the Equality Commission to address this matter urgently.

I do not support the motion. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Nesbitt:

I have listened carefully to Members on both sides of the House, and I would like to begin by making some general comments.

First of all, equality is at the heart of the Good Friday Agreement. It must be applied to both communities and in an even-handed way. By recruiting only on merit, we are doing just that. The right man or woman should secure the job solely on that basis.

The Equality Commission's report, its tenth, makes a valuable contribution to the understanding of what is a very sensitive issue for both the Catholic and Protestant communities. Is there or is there not discrimination? Is there or is there not fair employment? Is there or is there not fair promotion? Is there or is there not fair recruitment? These are very sensitive issues to both communities. Therefore, as I said on 6 June when I last spoke on the subject, I will measure my words carefully. I will endeavour, Mr Deputy Speaker, to stand over every word I say.

As always with statistics, they need to be read and interpreted very carefully and not quoted ambiguously. There are structural changes we must be aware of - for example, the age structure of the population. There is a higher proportion of the younger age group in the Catholic community. Also, immigration, emigration and birth rates are different with respect to the Catholic and Protestant communities. These factors must be considered in the analysis of the statistics. The key test is, as noted, applicants and appointees, and how they move into employment. They may come from the unemployed or from the inactive population. They may be students or mothers who were not working and now seek work. Those entering employment come from different sources. Therefore, it is never easy to draw conclusions about the differential aspects of unemployment and about whether there is fairness in employment. Everything must be carefully analysed.

I mentioned the unemployment differential. I am conscious that Mr Campbell refers to the underrepresentation of Protestants, the corollary of that being the vast increase in work for Catholics that is seen to be happening in Northern Ireland. I want to make it clear: there are more Catholics unemployed. If more Catholics are unemployed there is more disadvantage. If there are more Catholics unemployed and they are all seeking work and are all equally qualified, and if we are working on the merit principle then it follows that, on a proportionate basis, more Catholics would be getting jobs than Protestants. That is not detrimental to the merit principle or to equality of opportunity, and it is not unfair. Therefore, we must be very careful in our analysis of the statistics. I will not say any more about the unemployment differential, and I have to tell Mr Conor Murphy that I will stand over the comments I have made on the subject.

Let me now deal with the point in the motion about the worsening under-representation of the Protestant community. As I said, statistics are to be interpreted carefully. Therefore, I cannot support Mr Campbell's motion. In my view, the jury is out on it.

Let me just give one or two statistics. The Protestant workforce is 60.4%, but 58% of the available workforce is from the Protestant community. Therefore, the proportion in work is higher than that available for work from the Protestant community. The private sector employs 60.2% of Protestants, but the public sector employs 61%. Remember, Protestants make up 58% of those available for work. I know Mr Campbell quotes Government statistics, but there is a difficulty with Government statistics. Government statistics from the Department of Finance and Personnel state that the number of applicants from 1996 to 1998 from the Protestant community was 46.7% while 51.5% of those appointed were Protestant. These statistics are not exactly the same as those in the monitoring report from the Fair Employment Commission or the Equal Opportunities Commission.

We have two sets of statistics that say a slightly different thing. Let me just give you one of the reasons for the difference. The Equality Commission's report stated that if one person applied ten times for a job, it would count as one application. However, the Department of Finance and Personnel, if one person applied ten times, would count it as ten applications - a totally different basis for the statistics, yet both are, to use Mr Campbell's words, "Government statistics".

Yes, there are statistics and selective statistics. Mr Campbell referred to health and education. You could equally refer to the Equality Commission's report on district councils. According to page 54, 56.8% of the district councils were Protestant, as were 58.1% of those who were appointed, so there are statistics and statistics. I cannot support the precise wording of Mr Campbell's motion. It criticises the worsening under-representation, and the jury is still out on that.

Mr Hussey:

May I have an interpretation of Standing Order 58(1)(e), which refers to any Member who

"uses unparliamentary words which he/she refuses to withdraw".

Is it in order for a Member of the House to impugn the integrity of hard-working civil servants?

Mr Deputy Speaker:

I will ensure that Hansard is examined, and I will notify the House if unparliamentary language has been used.

Mr Hussey:

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. If it is found that unparliamentary language was not used, will it be in order for the Deputy Speaker to apologise to the Member who he assumed was out of order?

Mr Deputy Speaker:

As far as I am concerned, the Member was out of order. I have made it clear to the House that I will ensure that Hansard is examined. If unparliamentary language was used, that information will be conveyed to the House.

Before I call Mr Haughey, may I ask that Members, whether Ministers or otherwise, address their remarks to the Chair and not to other Members.

7.45 pm

Mr Haughey:

I will endeavour to bear in mind what you have said, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I could not agree more with the comment of my Colleague Mr Dallat that he found it extremely difficult to keep patience with this sort of nonsense. Mr Campbell endeavoured to give the House some facts. Let me give you some facts that derive directly from the statistics. Protestants make up 58% of the available workforce. Catholics make up 42%. Overall, the Protestant share of the workforce is currently 60·4%. That is 2·4% higher than their numbers in the available workforce. In the private sector, Protestants make up 60·2% of the workforce, which is 2·2% higher than their share of the available workforce. In the public sector, they make up 61%. In the Northern Ireland Civil Service between 1996 and 1998, 46·7% of applications were from Protestants, and that resulted in their getting 51·5% of the appointments.

Mr Morrow:

The Member is supposed to address the Chair.

Mr Haughey:

Is a point of order being made, Mr Deputy Speaker?

Mr Deputy Speaker:

Order.

Mr Haughey:

Catholics made 44·7% of the applications and were awarded 42·8% of the appointments. In the higher reaches of the Civil Service there are 232 staff, of whom 50 are Catholics: 21·5% of the workforce. Only one Northern Ireland Civil Service category has an under-representation of the Protestant community. That is the 114 careers officers. When monitoring began in 1990, Catholics made up 34·9% of the workforce. In 1999 they were assessed at 39·6%. That is an encouraging increase, but it still falls short of the 42% of the available workforce who are Catholic. There is still work to be done.

Whereas fair employment legislation is based on the merit principle at the point of employment, and redress is possible through the courts, affirmative action is also possible. We in the SDLP would have liked to see a great deal more of that, but as certain people will have learned over the last 30 years, you cannot get all that you want. The affirmative action that we would have liked to see does not extend to the sort of measures that I thought -wrongly, I am afraid - I had in front of me.

Moving on, I agree emphatically with my Colleague Alban Maginness about TSN. Research indicates that a number of factors cause relative deprivation in the Catholic community and give rise to greater difficulty in gaining employment. The Catholic community has a younger age structure. There is reluctance on the part of Catholics to seek employment in security-related occupations. There is a higher proportion of Catholics in the lower socio-economic groups where unemployment is highest. A higher proportion of Catholic than Protestant families have large numbers of children. That is a very telling point. In both communities, families with large numbers of children are more prone to unemployment.

That brings me to an important point about new TSN. New TSN targets social disadvantage. We hope that that will lead to an erosion of the differentials in unemployment between the two communities, not because it discriminates in favour of the Catholic community but because it targets social disadvantage. Targeting social disadvantage helps those, both Protestant and Catholic, who happen to be socially disadvantaged, and therefore it is a non-discriminatory attack on the reasons for the differential in unemployment.

I have very little time left, but I would like to ask Mr Campbell a question. I hope he will answer. I do not want him to evade it. There are people in the DUP, and further afield, who believe that Protestants are currently being unfairly treated in the labour market. There are many people in my party, and in other parties, who believe that there is a continuing problem with fair employment and that the difficulties lie disproportionately on the Catholic side of the community.

Can we agree on one simple conclusion from all of this - that there is a difficulty with fair employment? That says to me that we need the toughest and the strongest possible legislation to outlaw discrimination in employment. Does Mr Campbell agree with me on that? We need the toughest and the strongest possible Government agencies to deal with the problem of inequality in education and with discrimination where it exists. We need to monitor the whole situation so that the Government can take appropriate measures. Predictably, but regrettably, Sinn Féin Members tried to lay blame on the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in relation to these matters. I regret that their concern about fair employment did not extend to their Colleagues -

Mr Deputy Speaker:

Mr Haughey, withdraw your remark.

Mr Haughey:

- who over the years waged an economic war which disproportionately affected employment in the Nationalist community.

Mr Molloy rose. [Interruption]

Mr Deputy Speaker:

Order. [Interruption]

Order, Mr Molloy. [Interruption] Mr Molloy, I am on my feet, which means that you will not be on yours. Mr Molloy, I am on my feet, and you will not be on yours. [Interruption] You will sit down, Mr Molloy. [Interruption] Mr Molloy, you will sit down. [Interruption] Order, Mr Molloy. [Interruption] Sit down, Mr Molloy.

I call Mr Campbell.

Mr Campbell:

I think that a period of cool, calm reflection is required, and I hope I will be able to bring something of that to the debate. I will try to deal with some of the issues that were raised.

In dealing with the factual position underlining and underpinning the motion, I had hoped that those who oppose it would have had some substance to their argument. I had hoped that they might not revert to hyperbole, to emotive phrases and to simplistic catchphrases. I had hoped that would be the case, but I am afraid to say that I have been disappointed. However, when a community and a series of public representatives are faced with cold, hard facts that they may want to quibble about, that they may want to dodge, that they may want to try to avoid or evade and cannot, then they have to resort to clichés. I had hoped that they might actually engage in the substance of the debate, but sadly, all too often this was not the case. Ms Lewsley made reference to the numbers of unemployed, and she is right of course. Proportionately there are more unemployed Roman Catholics than Protestants, but there is an underlying assumption that the 125,000 people who applied for jobs in the public sector all came from the ranks of the unemployed. Why should people assume that this is the case? Of course it is not the case. A sizeable number of them may be, but not all of those applying for jobs in the public sector are unemployed. To imply that the unemployment ratio should be used as a benchmark against which the numbers of public sector applicants are assessed really is a nonsense. I hope I have dealt with that.

I am not going to give credibility to those who represent terrorism by naming them, but several Nationalist Members had the breathtaking hypocrisy to mention that the security-related sector has to be taken into account - I thought they would have avoided it like the plague. These people, who for 30 years have advised Catholics not to take jobs in the security-related sector, are now saying that Catholics are under-represented in the security-related field.

Mr Hussey:

Does the Member agree that Catholics were not just so advised but intimidated and physically abused?

Mr Campbell:

That is what I meant by "breathtaking hypocrisy". They were advised not to take positions in the security sector, and the small number from the Roman Catholic community who did were intimidated. Members, some of whom are associated with the organisation that did the intimidating, are now getting to their feet and saying that there are very few Catholics in the security sector. There are very few Catholics in that sector because their affiliates shot them when they did work in it.

The SDLP does not escape blame. Since 1972 it has advocated that the Catholic community should not take up employment with the RUC, the UDR or the Royal Irish Regiment, yet many SDLP Members have asked tonight, as a defence, about the security-related sector. The position in the security-related sector would have been much better if the SDLP had advocated that its community should join. They are responsible for the under-representation of Catholics in the security-related sector, although not as much as the IRA, which shot people when they did come forward from the Catholic community.

I thank Mr Weir for his reference to the differential gap. At the outset I referred to the cliché about Catholics being more likely to be unemployed than Protestants. Certain people seem to have a blind spot, because statistics available in the Irish Republic show that Catholics in Counties Donegal and Monaghan are three times more likely to be unemployed than Protestants. Is that because of discrimination? If it is, what are the Dublin Government doing about it? That situation cannot be because of a Government agency, a conspiracy or a sense of paranoia in the establishment in Dublin to deprive the good Catholics of Monaghan and Donegal of employment. The reasons for such a situation in the Irish Republic need to be addressed.

References were made to the principle of equality, and I was amazed at the junior Minister, Mr Nesbitt, referring to equality being at the heart of the Good Friday Agreement. If equality is at the heart of the agreement then we will see within a week the terms of that equality. If the Unionist community is demonstrated to be opposed to this agreement, and if a greater number of Unionists is against this agreement than for it, then there will have to be a fundamental reassessment if equality is at the heart of it. However, that is a matter for next week, and I will not proceed down that avenue.

The other junior Minister, Mr Haughey, referred to the overall workforce breakdown, and my concluding remarks will deal with that.

8.00 pm

It is somewhat confusing for the average layperson hearing these figures being bandied about to come to terms with the overall principle underpinning the motion. That is why I attempted to keep it as general as possible and why I studiously avoided being selective, despite the accusations. If we look at tables 41 and 42 on pages 47 and 48 of the tenth annual monitoring report, we see that 55% of public-sector applications are from Protestants, but only 52% of all appointees are Protestant. People can avoid, evade or dodge that. They can try to get under it, climb over it, or get round it, but they will have to face up to it eventually. That is equality at work.

The Protestant community is demanding true equality. As of the tenth annual monitoring report, it does not have that. People can try to take us up a sidetrack or bring us into bypath meadow, but they cannot evade the central issue - the Protestant community's under-representation in the public sector in Northern Ireland.

Mr Haughey:

Will the Member give way?

Mr Campbell:

I will not give way. I have less than a minute. [Interruption]

Mr Deputy Speaker:

I am sorry, Mr Haughey, but Mr Campbell has indicated that he will not give way.

Mr Campbell:

I will conclude by referring to remarks made by Mr Haughey and by talking in a straightforward manner so that the public and Members may be clear. Look at the higher echelons of the public sector in Northern Ireland. The higher the echelon, the smaller are the numbers of Protestants gaining employment. That is what the facts say. One cannot deny the facts; one cannot avoid them. That is what they say. The lower the grade in the public sector, the more likely it is that Protestants are employed there. The reality is the reverse of the propaganda.

I urge Members to vote strongly in favour of this motion in order to make the Equality Commission face up the facts contained in the tenth annual monitoring report and to allow us to get something done about it.

Mr Haughey:

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Member has 15 minutes to sum up. That gives him five minutes to answer my question.

Mr Deputy Speaker:

Mr Campbell, do you wish to give way to Mr Haughey?

Mr Campbell:

Yes, I will give way for a brief intervention.

Mr Haughey:

I have just made a point of order; it was not a point of information. It was to point out that Mr Campbell has five minutes left in which he could answer the question. Does all of this mean that we need the strongest possible fair employment legislation?

Mr Deputy Speaker:

That was not a point of order. I assumed that you were asking Mr Campbell to give way.

Mr Campbell:

I thought that Mr Haughey was trying to intervene. I allowed him to intervene, and then he declined.

With regard to the point raised by Mr Haughey, a lack of tough legislation is not the issue. The issue is how that legislation is being implemented when it comes down to Mr Weir's point about under-representation in either section of the community. Is there equal validity being given to the under-representation of Catholics in a workforce, as there is to the under-representation of Protestants in a workforce. The reality is that there is not. There is not the same emphasis or resources being deployed to deal with under-representation of Protestants, as I made clear at the outset.

The Equality Commission, the Government and the previous Fair Employment Commission based the whole rationale for their fair-employment legislation on the fact that Catholics are more likely to be unemployed than Protestants. They will not move away from that underlying principle. Until they do, we will be in an awkward position.

Mr Haughey:

Does the Member mean that we need different fair employment legislation? Do we need even tougher fair employment legislation? Is that what the Member means? Is he proposing that we have different and tougher fair employment legislation?

Mr Campbell:

I thank the junior Minister for that point. I thought I was making it clear, but let me make it even more clear. It is not the lack of legislation; it is how that legislation is being implemented. If, despite the effective legislation that is on the statute book, the Equality Commission can devote its time and resources to dealing with the under-representation of Catholics in certain sectors of the workforce but will not devote time and resources to dealing with the under-representation of Protestants in certain sectors of the workforce, the problem is not the legislation; the problem rests with those who are implementing it. The equality of the implementation of that legislation is what is at the heart of this motion.

Mr Weir:

Does the Member agree that a further statistic which shows the level of discrimination against the Protestant community in terms of employment in recent years is that, because of the improving economic situation since 1991, Protestant employment has risen by only 11%, whereas Catholic employment has risen by 36%?

Mr Campbell:

I thank my hon Friend for that statistic. It certainly makes a point. It illustrates how those who raise the old bogey-stories about the breakdown of the workforces from years ago - are trying deliberately to miss the point. The point we are making in this motion is that we must talk about the flow of workforces, the appointees and the applicants. That is what tells us what is happening in the workforce now - in the year 2000. That is the important issue - not employment levels in 1962 or in the 1970s and 1980s. We need to know what is happening now. That is what will form the basis for the future breakdowns of all our workforces. That is why this motion needs support from this House. That is why the Equality Commission needs to act to stem the flow and halt the under-representation of Protestant applicants and appointees in the public sector.

8.15 pm

Question put.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 21; Noes 27.

AYES

Roy Beggs, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Robert Coulter, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, William Hay, Derek Hussey, Roger Hutchinson, Danny Kennedy, William McCrea, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Peter Robinson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Sammy Wilson.

NOES

Eileen Bell, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, John Dallat, Bairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, John Fee, David Ford, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, John Kelly, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Gerry McHugh, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Dermot Nesbitt, Dara O'Hagan, Éamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, John Tierney.

Question accordingly negatived.

Adjourned at 8.19 pm.

<< Prev