Northern Ireland Assembly
Monday 11 September 2000 (continued)
11.45 am
I wonder whether the DUP members who last Friday were sitting down in the Long Gallery with Sinn Fein recognised their presence there.
Mr Speaker:
Order. It is perfectly clear that this is not point of order but a toing and froing about this political matter.
Mr Dodds:
Is it in order for the First Minister continually to attack DUP Ministers while keeping silent on the abuses of Sinn Fein/IRA?
Mr Speaker:
Order. The Member knows perfectly well that he has repeatedly used the term "attack". The Ministers have been responding to questions that have been raised. There is time for only one further question, and that will be from Carmel Hanna.
Ms Hanna:
I welcome the proposed planning legislation. We need it urgently. I seek an assurance that we will have clear planning policies, not notes or vision statements, which will ensure sustainable development and give due weight to the views of the public and elected representatives and to the need for legislation to be enforced especially against unapproved development.
The Deputy First Minister:
Unapproved development is something which has blighted Northern Ireland for a considerable time. You built and then you threw down a challenge to the planning service to enforce its legislation. And how often did it do that? That is almost the ethic that exists in the North of Ireland: build it and you will get away with it, because sooner or later the planning service will give in. This must be looked at very carefully. I welcome what Ms Hanna has said about planning, but I am not convinced that there is an adequate planning policy.
Planning policies are needed, because I am not sure that one policy can be properly applied throughout the North of Ireland and at the same time be adequate for the type of diversity that we have in employment terms, in environmental terms, and indeed in social terms. I make one last observation, which is crucial: the social element of planning has to be very carefully looked at, because it is that which is causing many problems for people who live in urban areas. They are becoming more obvious, and it is not enough just to import bright ideas for physical planning without applying them to the social needs of the area to which they are to relate. If we get that type of approach into planning, it will be less of an exercise and more of a construction between the community and the political process.
Assembly:
Ad Hoc Committee on Flags Order 2000
Ms Armitage:
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you explain to the House why it is necessary to appoint a consultative Ad Hoc Committee to deal with the flying of the Union flag? I understood -
Mr Speaker:
Order. It would be inappropriate for the Speaker to explain the reasons for a motion. It is for the Member who moves the motion to explain the reasons for his so doing. I cannot accept the point of order.
Ms Armitage:
Well, may I finish what I was going to say so that you can understand it?
Mr Speaker:
No. The situation is quite clear. Motions are moved on the proposal of a Member and the decision of the Business Committee. It is not for the Speaker to intervene.
Ms Armitage:
Thank you.
Mr Speaker:
This is a business motion about the establishment of a Committee, and I will not permit debate on the content of the issue that is involved. Only debate on the formation of the Committee may take place. There is an amendment on the Marshalled List.
Dr McDonnell:
I beg to move
That this Assembly appoints an Ad Hoc Committee to consider the draft Regulations laid by the Secretary of State under the Flags (Northern Ireland) Order 2000 and to submit a report to the Assembly by 16 October 2000.
Composition: UUP 2
SDLP 2
DUP 2
SF 2
Other parties 3
Quorum: The quorum shall be five.
Procedure: The procedures of the Committee shall be such as the Committee shall determine.
This is a technical procedure. Members will already have received a copy of the Flags (Northern Ireland) 2000 from the Secretary of State. We need to deal with this as quickly and as efficiently as possible. There are a number of major issues concerning accommodation for and servicing of the Committee, and we need to have the work completed quickly.
Some Members who will serve on this Committee will also serve in other places and may have to try to be in two or three places at once. For that reason - and I know that a counter-proposal has been made that the Committee should have 20 members - this Committee should have 11 members, in accordance with the motion.
Mr Dodds:
I beg to move the following amendment standing in my name and that of Mr Ford: Delete from "Composition" to "five." and add
"Composition: UUP 4
SDLP 4
DUP 3
SF 3
Alliance 1
NIUP 1
UUAP 1
NIWC 1
PUP 1
Quorum: The quorum shall be eight."
The first point that we wish to make relates to the regulations under the Order. They are extremely important for the work of this Assembly and are, of course, extremely contentious. Many of us believe that it is a tragedy that we should have to debate the issue of the national flag's flying over Government buildings in part of the United Kingdom. The reason we are having to debate this is that, in breach of the election manifestos of the First Minister's party, Sinn Féin/IRA Ministers have been put into positions in the Government, with full executive responsibility. That is clearly where the blame lies for our having to have this debate.
So far as this Committee is concerned it is important that these issues be given the fullest possible consideration. In terms of its make-up, the amendment is based upon the previous make-up of the Ad Hoc Committee that was set up to deal with the future of the port of Belfast. We have a precedent for the make-up of an Ad Hoc Committee, and we should abide by that precedent.
Finally, there are practical considerations to be taken into account. On an issue such as this it will be extremely difficulty to ask the smaller parties somehow to find three representatives to sit on the Committee.
This is clearly an issue in which each of the parties will have its particular interest and point of view. It would therefore be invidious, if not impossible, to come to an arrangement whereby one party gave up its place in favour of another. Since this issue is so controversial and of such importance, and because of the precedent already established, I hope the House will support the amendment.
Mr C Murphy:
A Ceann Comhairle, it is somewhat surprising that such a motion must come before the Assembly, for we understood that the issue was to be dealt with by the Executive. I am not aware that the Executive has concluded its deliberations. Nonetheless, we are being sent regulations by the Secretary of State, and I am sure we can all speculate on the political nature of their timing.
We would have supported the initial proposal by the SDLP that there be a smaller Committee, mainly because of the pressure on Assembly Members, time, rooms and staff, something outlined at recent meetings of the Business Committee. However, it would be somewhat akin to looking a gift horse in the mouth to refuse a proposal from Members from the DUP that our membership on such a Committee be increased. I therefore thank them for that kind offer.
I look forward to sitting down with them in the Committee to debate this issue. We shall approach it on the basis of what was quite clearly said about the new institutions' flags in the Good Friday Agreement, and not on what follows from the agreement or what others try to interpret from or append to it. We look forward to the debate. We are not opposed to the DUP amendment, the effect of which will be to increase our membership on the Committee, which must be welcomed. Go raibh maith agat.
Mr Foster:
This is not something added on to the agreement. It is in breach of the agreement that the flag is not flying.
Mr Speaker:
If the Member wishes to speak to the substance of the issue, but not to the substance of the Order itself, he may indicate his wish to be called. However, that is not a point of order. The Secretary of State has written to me asking the Assembly to express its views. The Business Committee has taken the matter forward.
Mr C Wilson:
My party will not support the amendment or the initial proposal from the SDLP Member, Dr Alasdair McDonnell. The Northern Ireland Unionist Party will comprise a part neither of the Committee proposed by the SDLP nor of that proposed by Mr Dodds and Mr Ford. Our objection to participating in the Committees is based on the firm belief that sitting on a Committee, be it Executive, ad hoc or otherwise, is unacceptable now that this Assembly has moved from shadow to substance and includes two Ministers fronting a terrorist organisation, which continues to strike fear into the people of this Province. We shall not have any truck with Committees set up under the Belfast Agreement. My Colleague Ms Pauline Armitage is quite right.
At the time of the signing of the agreement, we were told by Mr David Trimble, the First Minister, and by Mr Ervine of the PUP that the issues of our constitutional position and the flying of flags had been resolved. I remember the PUP representative, who fronts a Protestant paramilitary organisation, leading a cavalcade of cars down the Shankill Road claiming victory for the people of Northern Ireland in their defence of the Union and saying the Union was now secure. It is a sad state of affairs that in Northern Ireland today we are talking about forming a Committee to discuss the flag of this nation and Northern Ireland's position in the United Kingdom, a Committee which would include two members of Sinn Féin, an organisation still in armed conflict with this Province's forces of law and order and, indeed, with ordinary, decent citizens - both Catholic and Protestant. The Northern Ireland Unionist Party will not participate, and I respectfully ask that my party's name be removed.
Mr Davis:
Can the Member confirm that his Colleague, Paddy Roche, sat on the Port of Belfast Committee?
Mr C Wilson:
I am quite prepared to deal with that question. I had hoped the Member would understand when I said that the moment the policy changed for the Northern Ireland Unionist Party was when the Assembly moved from shadow to substance - it no longer simply a place to voice one's opinion. We now have in the Government, and in Committees, people who are armed and fully prepared to use violence.
12.00
Mr P Robinson:
Will the Member give way?
Mr C Wilson:
The Democratic Unionist Party's position is extremely hypocritical. It made the same pledge as Mr Trimble. [Interruption] Indeed, in Mr Robinson's own election literature he showed a photograph of Mr Trimble -
Mr Speaker:
Order. It is clear that the Member who is on his feet does not wish to give way, and I would like to remind him to address his remarks through the Chair.
Mr C Wilson:
I will finish by saying that if you throw a stone into a pack of dogs, the one that howls the hardest is the one that has been hit. Mr Robinson's election literature, like Mr Trimble's, showed a photograph of Mr Trimble and Mr Adams with the caption "Who will share power with Sinn Féin in the New Northern Ireland Assembly?" Who would have believed that it would be Mr Robinson and Mr Dodds? This rotation of Assembly Ministers' seats means absolutely nothing. [Interruption] They should do the honourable thing and resign. We will be opposing the formation of this Committee. The Union flag will fly in Northern Ireland -
Mr Speaker:
Order. It is only fair that all Members who rise to speak be heard with reasonable decorum.
Mr C Wilson:
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The flag will fly in Northern Ireland, regardless of the House's determination today. Its decision will stand, whether it agrees on the terms of the original motion or the amendment, because people -
Mr C Murphy:
On a point of order, Mr Chairman. As a result of your original ruling that this debate should not be on the flags issue but on the motion to set up a Committee, I had to temper my contribution. That ruling should apply to all Members.
Mr Speaker:
I am taking it that the Member is explaining why, despite being proposed for membership of this Committee, he and his Colleagues are not prepared to sit on it, even if it is established. I am not entirely clear whether that means they will vote for or against. I trust, however, that he is bringing his remarks to a close.
Mr C Wilson:
The important identity of any nation is its flag, and I will finish by saying that the Union flag, the flag of this nation, will fly in Northern Ireland -
Mr Speaker:
Order. At that point the Member has moved entirely over to the content of the consultations and away from the question of the motion. I must rule that that is out of order.
Mr C Wilson:
I finish by saying it will fly as long as people like William Frazer -
Mr Speaker:
Order. The Member knows perfectly well that that is out of order.
Ms Armitage:
I am also surprised that this motion is before the House. I understood that in the Belfast Agreement Nationalists and Republicans accepted that Northern Ireland was, and would remain, part of the United Kingdom. If so, why are we now discussing the flying of the Union flag in this part of the United Kingdom? Obviously this is another mishap in the Belfast Agreement.
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
I would like to put on record that my party voted against this in the House of Commons. A country does nothing for its sovereignty by having to pass a law which allows its flag to be flown on certain occasions. The national flag should be honoured on all occasions.
Mr Speaker:
Order. I must again make it clear that this motion - and the Member referred to voting against this in another place - is not about the content or the piece of legislation. It is a purely business motion about the establishment of a Committee and the proportion of its members. This Committee, if it is established, will have to report to the Assembly, and Members will have the opportunity at that stage to debate the substance.
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
When vicious attacks are made on a party in this House, and we have heard one just now, surely I am entitled to defend my party's record on this issue. This piece of proposed legislation is disgraceful - totally and absolutely disgraceful.
Mr Speaker:
Order. The Member knows that he is straying on to the substance of the matter to be debated. There will be a time for that in the Committee and when it returns to the House, if the Assembly decides to proceed in that way. I cannot permit debate on the substance itself. Even defending the record of his party or of his colleagues is to stray from the specific proposal put forward by his party Colleague, Mr Dodds.
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
I am trying to talk about why we should have a larger Committee. I am entitled to give reasons for that. This is what this debate is about. There is an amendment to the motion before the House, that was moved by my party and others who have associated with us, which would have the effect of making the Committee larger. I am surely allowed to give reasons for that.
This Committee should be larger because of the legislation it is going to discuss. This legislation is outrageous. Surely every Member in the House should have a say in this Committee. The Secretary of State -
Mr Paisley Jnr:
Will the Member give way?
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
Yes.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
Does the Member accept that a larger Committee will have more people of the Unionist persuasion on it and that that will reflect the balance of opinion in this country? It is to the benefit of Unionism to have a larger Committee.
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
Of course it is to the benefit of the Unionism, but the issue here is the Executive. We have been told by Sinn Féin, who sit on this Executive, which my party does not, that this was never dealt with. Why did they not deal with this matter? They did not deal with it because they knew perfectly well that they would not get agreement. Sinn Féin/IRA has already made decisions, which is why we are here today: Sinn Fein/IRA Ministers refuse to fly the flag, in keeping with law, on certain days.
We need a larger Committee - and I am coming back to this larger Committee, Sir, for I do not want you to pull your moustache off, Mr Speaker - because this Bill can get round the question that we are supposed to be dealing with, the flying of the Union flag. The Sinn Féin Ministers think that by declaring that there are no flagpoles on their buildings they can ensure that the Union flag cannot be flown. It is optional in this Bill, and this is a very serious matter. What is more -
Mr P Robinson:
Just in case my hon Friend runs out of time - [Interruption]
Mr Speaker:
Order. The Gallery will be cleared if there is not immediate silence. [Interruption]
Order. Remove these people from the Gallery.
The sitting was suspended at 12.05 pm and resumed at 12.14 pm.
Mr Speaker:
Order. Members will resume their seats.
Rev Dr Ian Paisley rose.
Mr P Robinson:
Will my hon Friend give way?
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
Yes.
Mr P Robinson:
Does not my hon Friend find the intemperate language used by the so-called leader of the Northern Ireland Unionist Party remarkable, considering one of his colleagues, Mr Paddy Roche, sat with Sinn Féin/IRA on a Committee dealing with the port of Belfast? It is all the more peculiar that he seems to suggest that Sinn Féin/IRA only became bad boys after devolution occurred. I do not know where he was before that. Is it not all the more remarkable considering that Members who are now in the NIUP sat on the Procedures Committee which set up these very Committees? They never objected to the presence of Sinn Féin and never said that they would not be on the Committees, yet they voted for everybody else to be on the Committees. Is that not sheer hypocrisy?
12.15 pm
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
I leave it to the general public to make their own judgement on this matter. This issue is all-important. Already, because of the refusal of the Official Unionist Party to do its duty on the Executive, it has been brought to Mr Mandelson, brought to the House of Commons and brought here. This is another attempt to push Unionism down.
The Minister of the Environment (Mr Foster):
The issue that Mr Paisley refers to was brought before the Executive Committee. I was one of the people who raised the matter. It is not any fault of the Ulster Unionist Party.
Mr Speaker:
Order. Points of order have to be points of order. I assume that Members know what that means. Perhaps we are having difficulty getting back into things after the summer recess. If not, and if it becomes clear that Members press the point, I will be forced to ask Members to declare which Standing Order they are referring to. If Members wish to make political points, which is entirely justifiable, they should ask for the opportunity to speak.
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
If the Minister brought up a matter in the Executive, that shows that it was not before the Executive. The First Minister did not bring this to the Executive, and the issue was not voted on. We are here today because of the failure of the Unionist Party to do its duty in this so-called Executive. We are setting up a Committee that is not representative of the people of Northern Ireland. Surely this Committee, given the importance of the issue, should be as representative as the Committee that dealt with the ports issue. This is more important than ports.
This motion should never have been needed. It is needed because the power of Mr Trimble ended when the two IRA/Sinn Féin Ministers rebelled and refused to fly the flag that should have been flying. Because they refused to fly the flag, we are going to have to deal with this matter. My party is not running away from the IRA or anybody else, but we will not sit down in any Executive to govern Northern Ireland with IRA/Sinn Féin. Our position is perfectly clear. Of course, we have sat on councils with IRA/Sinn Féin and fought them, and we have sat here and battled with them, and we will battle with them again.
This motion - I know that you do not want me to mention the contents, Mr Speaker - is a way for the two Sinn Féin Members to ensure that the Union flag will never fly on Government buildings. The head of state down below thinks that, without protocol, she can trip in and out of Northern Ireland. This motion will enable the tricolour to be flown on Government buildings. That is not an option, but the flag of this country is an option in this motion. Those are things we utterly detest. If people are interested, we should have the same type of Committee that we had for the ports.
Mr Adams:
Ceist ghasta. Will you clarify whether the DUP is prepared to sit on a Committee, even a large one, with Sinn Féin to discuss the future of the Union flag?
Mr Speaker:
Order.
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
We will be battling with them -
Mr Speaker:
Order. I have been asked for clarification on a point of order. I can only take from the content of the amendment which has come forward in respect of composition that most, if not all, parties are able to be represented, although, as we have heard, not all may necessarily choose to be represented.
Mr Adams:
The question was for the Member speaking.
Mr Speaker:
Then it is not a point of order. Points of order may be raised only with myself. Of course, Dr Paisley may choose to respond as he brings his remarks to a close.
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
I have responded. Where Sinn Féin are, we will be battling with them. We will not take sides with them in their diabolical murder campaign in this Province.
Finally, why is this House, which is always boasting that we are all democrats, afraid of a Committee that represents the voters of Northern Ireland in a proper way? Why? Simply because the Official Unionists do not want united Unionist opposition to this disastrous and treacherous proposal.
Ms McWilliams:
This is probably going to be one of the most difficult issues we face, and, Mr Speaker, your decision that we do not start the debate here but keep it for the Committee is appropriate. I stand in favour of the amendment because our party supports a more inclusive make-up of that Committee - the more inclusive the debate the better. We have already heard the diversity of opinion across the Chamber on this issue. It is useful, therefore, that if there are a number of parties who might have been left out of that debate the amendment allows for their inclusion.
This morning in the Long Gallery there was a very good launch of Women Together incorporating People Moving On. The title of the organisation suggests the kind of things that it wants this Assembly to address, and moving on is indeed what we must do. Difficult as this issue is, it is appropriate that the Secretary of State has referred it to the parties. They are the people who must ultimately decide this difficult issue.
The amendment does not refer to that part of the motion which states
"The procedures of the Committee shall be such as the Committee shall determine."
Our party is in favour of that too.
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
Can you give an assurance, Mr Speaker, that, whatever this Committee reports, there will be a full debate on the Floor of the House and that adequate time will be provided for that debate? The Member mentioned something about having it in the Committee. This has to come back to the House, which must have a full and free debate. There are people who will not be on the Committee, and they must have their say on this issue.
Mr Speaker:
I can confirm that in terms of the original motion, or indeed the motion as proposed to be amended, that the Assembly will have to receive a report by 16 October. It will be for the Business Committee to allocate time, and it would be out of order for me to determine matters which the Business Committee properly decides upon in advance of its making that decision.
Mr McCartney:
It seems that this debate, whether on the original motion or the amendment, has generated a great deal of heat and discussion about something which in the end is really pretty valueless. It is quite clear that any recommendation made by this Committee or the Assembly may be totally ignored by the Secretary of State. He will make his decision in accordance with what he deems to be expedient for British policy in relation to Northern Ireland.
The role of this Committee and the Assembly is of the merest consultative kind and carries no weight of any substance. Therefore whether it is a smaller or a larger Committee is of no great moment.
However, let me point out that neither original motion nor the amendment would result in the inclusion of a representative from the United Kingdom Unionist Party, even though members of that party numbered five when elected by the people of Northern Ireland and before a rather bizarre process of bifurcation, after which Mr Wilson constituted himself the head of a party that many people believed to be a figment of his imagination.
Mr C Wilson:
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker:
Order. I must ask the Member, in making his point of order, to direct me to the paragraph in Standing Orders that it refers to.
Mr C Wilson:
I suggest that Mr McCartney, UK Unionist Party, would like to take the seat that we refused to take. Is he supporting the DUP's position?
Mr Speaker:
Order. A point of order was raised, and I trust the Member wants to hear my ruling on it. It would be entirely out of order if such an amendment were passed, for the amendment as it stands refers to the NIUP and not to the UKUP. In any case, it is not in the gift - [Interruption]
Mr C Wilson:
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker:
Perhaps the Member would wait until I have completed giving the ruling.
It would not be in the gift of the leader of the NIUP to appoint someone else to that Committee who was not a member of his party and who shows no indication of becoming a member of his party, even if he were minded to accept the generous offer. In fairness we should move on.
Mr C Wilson:
You might consider it, Bob.
Mr McCartney:
It is a matter of some anxiety to note the number of utterly bogus points of order that are made in the Assembly. I have sympathy for you, Mr Speaker, in dealing with them. A masterclass for slow learners with regard to what constitutes a point of order should have featured in the legislation for the Assembly. We have just had a demonstration of one of the more bogus points of order that have plagued us since the beginning.
My party may consist of only myself within this House, but it certainly consists of a significant number of people outside compared to the numbers in some other parties who are on the schedule for participation in the Committee. I do regard it as a compliment that I have not been included in the original motion or the amendment. There was no provision for my party to be represented on the Ad Hoc Committee for the Port of Belfast, and there is no such provision for a representative of the United Kingdom Unionist Party to sit on this Committee. That is both an overt and a tacit acknowledgement that the party I lead has been entirely consistent.
Mr C Wilson:
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is important - it is a point of order.
Mr Speaker:
I will take your reassurance, but only if you are prepared to identify, at the outset, which Standing Order it comes under.
Mr C Wilson:
Mr Roche was appointed as a UK Unionist -
Mr Speaker:
Order.
Mr C Wilson:
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like the record to show that he -
Mr Speaker:
Order. The Member must understand that if he does not meet my requirements he will not be called to speak on a point of order or anything else.
12.30 pm
Mr McCartney:
Not only was that another bogus point of order, the authority for which the learned Member was totally incapable of identifying, it was also evidence that he does not even have his historical facts correct. I am sure the leader of the Alliance Party will support me in this. Shortly after the appointment of Members to the Ad Hoc Committee on the Port of Belfast he told me that no representative of the United Kingdom Unionist Party had been appointed to that Committee. With regard to Mr Wilson's analysis of the points of order and his historical record, it seems that there is a want of either memory or consciousness on the part of my Friend.
Let me return to the principle. The reason there is a spat between some Members of the House over their virility in opposing any contact with Sinn Féin is that there has been, to some extent, a degree of inconsistency.
My opponents will appreciate that, whatever else can be said about my conduct in this House, at least it has been consistent on the principle of having no contact or association with those parties who are the political representatives of armed terrorists groups, whether they be orange, green, polka dotted or any other colour, real or imaginary, provisional or final. My party has made its position quite clear.
I wish it were otherwise and that I could have some social or other contact with many Members from those parties. However, on the fundamental principle that while they continue to represent terrorist groups in possession of arms, that is an absolute bar, as far as my party is concerned, to having any association with them.
A Member:
Will the Member give way?
Mr McCartney:
No.
There are people here who wring their hands and make all sorts of pious statements about their associations and about what they would like to happen. However, they are only here because the godfathers of murderous terrorists operating in the Province sanctioned them to be here. They are only here as long as they abide by the directions of those godfathers.
As far as this Committee is concerned, I am proud that I have not been and will not be nominated to serve on the Committee as constituted either by the original motion or by the amendment. Until the House takes a fundamental stand on the principles of democracy that is absolute and consistent, these difficulties and spats between parties will continue.
So I take no hurt from not being nominated for this Committee. I take it as a matter of pride that at least my opponents recognise, whether they agree with my position or are opposed to it, that at least it is consistent.
Mr Weir: With the exception of Mr McCartney, I am probably the person in the House least likely to be nominated to this Committee so I will not be given the opportunity to reject or accept a place. Like Mr McCartney I hope I can bring a degree of objectivity to the two questions before us. There will be an opportunity at a later stage to deal with the substance of the issue over flags.
The first question raised by the leader of the Northern Ireland Unionist Party, Cedric Wilson, was whether we should have a Committee at all. The second question, which is the subject of the amendment, is the nature of its composition.
With regard to the first question, I share the views of a lot of Members who say that it is a great shame that we must have a Committee because this is an issue which should have been sorted out before now.
It is a sorry state of affairs when there are restrictions placed on the flying of the Union flag. The Secretary of State will be making the final determination on the flags issue and, as Mr McCartney said, it is likely he will ignore what he is told by the Assembly and come to his own conclusion. However, it is vital that the Assembly gives its view on the issue.
While the Committee may well be consultative, it is important that it be established. If the Secretary of State reaches his own conclusions regardless of the Assembly's wishes, he will clearly be seen to be doing so against the will of the people of Northern Ireland as represented through the Members of the House. We will then be able to expose him on this issue. Therefore it is important that we have a Committee.
Regarding the composition of the Committee, we are constantly being lectured - particularly by the SDLP, who, I note, are taking a very contrary view to the amendment - that the Assembly is all about inclusiveness and inclusion. Those seem to be the sacred words of the New Northern Ireland Assembly and the supposed new dispensation. However, today we are being told that a number of smaller parties will be excluded from the Committee dealing with the vital issue of flags.
As happened before in respect of the Port of Belfast Committee, we ought to be looking for a Committee that reflects as widely as possible the views of the Assembly. There will be diverging views on the flag issue. The united Unionists will put forward one view, and the Women's Coalition, I assume, will take a very different view. While we have Standing Committees, which reflect the balance of the Assembly, we have had the precedence of the Port of Belfast Committee, which indicated that the widest possible representation on a Committee is beneficial and will lead to the most divergent views being represented.
I take exception to some of the remarks made by Dr McDonnell in opposing the amendment. He said that a problem would arise due to the workload of Committee members, and that there would be a danger of Committee members being on two Committees at the one time. That would be serious if we were dealing with a Committee that was going to sit for the lifetime of the Assembly. However, we are dealing with a Committee that will be due to report to the Assembly in a month's time - a very short time. Under those circumstances it should not be beyond the ingenuity of Members to organise Committee meetings so that they do not clash, and in so doing we can ensure that we have a proper debate and an informed report on the flag issue.
Therefore I urge Members, in the spirit of inclusiveness, to support the amendment because it offers a better procedural way forward than the initial motion.
Mr Ford:
I disagree with some of the remarks made by the proposer of the amendment. I am sure Mr Dodds would be disappointed if I did not disagree with some of his opening remarks about Sinn Féin. Nonetheless, I welcome the new commitment to inclusivity, which has been demonstrated this morning by the DUP. This came as a shock to some Members.
Those of us who are members of Antrim Borough Council saw this inclusivity demonstrated at the annual meeting in June. The Ulster Unionist Party made its traditional attempt to grab all the committee chairs despite the fact that it represented half of the council membership. However, by dint of an agreement between the DUP and those normally regarded as opposition, we were able to ensure some more balance and fairness. Perhaps this is a sign of DUP conversion to inclusivity, and I welcome it. I am delighted to support those parts of Dr McDonnell's speech.
However, I was surprised at the way in which he put forward this resolution in the first place. For 30 years the SDLP has talked a lot about equality, fairness and inclusivity. However, in the Business Committee the SDLP, by procedural means, railroaded through the motion in the form in which it first appeared. That did not cause any difficulty to the larger parties but it excluded some of the smaller parties. If we are talking about inclusivity, then that is not a very realistic or fair way to proceed. Dr McDonnell thinks that there would be difficulties for the larger parties in staffing a committee, yet it was raised in the Business Committee that we could have a weighted voting system as, for example, the Business Committee and the Commission.
The SDLP would not be required to have four people sitting in the Committee at all times, and they could still cast their votes. Unfortunately inclusivity seems to have switched from the parties currently to my right to the parties currently to my left. I hope we can introduce the idea all round the Chamber.
Mr McCartney, who unfortunately is not here - and he tells us a lot about good manners - to listen to the winding-up speeches, said that today's procedure was valueless. It may or may not be valueless. We will know when we see the report and how the Secretary of State deals with it. Today's debate will be very valuable if it emphasises that this Chamber can start to agree on what inclusivity means. So far as I am concerned, we are here to work for a pluralist society, not the kind of dualist society which seems to be the preference of some sections of the SDLP. As long as they cobble together a deal with the Ulster Unionists, the rest of us can fall in with it. The only way we can work towards a pluralist society is if every party in the Chamber is properly represented on special Committees like this.
I do not have a problem, so far as my party is concerned, if there are only three seats for the parties other than the four largest and if we, as the largest section of that group, have one of them. As Mr Weir has said, there are difficulties with expecting people to represent others. I have managed to co-operate on certain practical issues with members of the other smaller parties, but I do think it would be fair to ask Mr Watson to represent me on the flying of the Union flag, unless his views have changed a lot recently.
If we are to be inclusive, if we are to get balance, fairness and openness, we must have a large and inclusive Committee. We already have the precedent in the Port of Belfast Committee. There is no excuse whatsoever for narrowing it down. That could only be seen as an attempt to diminish the rights of smaller parties in the Chamber. I urge Dr McDonnell to listen to the views which have come from this end of the Chamber, to accept the amendment and to let us see a bit of inclusivity all round after today's debate.
Dr McDonnell:
I have always treated Mr Ford with respect, courtesy and kindness, but in view of his brutal attack on me and my views, I may have to reconsider that. However, I am happy to accept the amendment.
The SDLP was not going out slashing at people and trying to exclude and marginalise them. The motion was worded as it was quite simply in view of a number of the items that were brought to the Committee on Tuesday. There are considerable problems in the House at the moment in terms of staff, space and function. Our concern was driven merely by the fact that a bigger Committee would be harder to work with, but in the interests of inclusivity I am very happy that it should be larger.
I could answer many things that have been said, but it would be superfluous. I regret that what was purely a piece of technical business here this morning has resulted in much ugly washing of dirty linen among some of the smaller Unionist parties and the DUP. If we in this House want to be taken seriously, we must get beyond the inconsistencies and take ourselves seriously on these issues on which we disagree.
There are a number of points, particularly one made by Mr Weir about what I said. The reality is that many Members have to double up and do some of the work that Mr Weir has opted out of. That is why some people have to serve on two or three Committees. I am quite happy to accept the amendment and allow it to become the substantive motion.
Mr Speaker:
While the mover of the substantive motion has indicated that he is prepared to accept the amendment, it is in the possession of the House and we have to proceed a decision on it. If it is passed, it will become a part of the substantive motion.
12.45 pm
Question That the amendment be made put and agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly appoints an Ad Hoc Committee to consider the draft Regulations laid by the Secretary of State under the Flags (Northern Ireland) Order 2000 and to submit a report to the Assembly by 16 October 2000.
Composition: UUP 4
SDLP 4
DUP 3
SF 3
Alliance 1
NIUP 1
UUAP 1
NIWC 1
PUP 1
Quorum: The quorum shall be eight
Procedure: The procedures of the Committee shall be such as the Committee shall determine.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)
Water Supply: Cryptosporidium
The Minister for Regional Development (Mr Campbell): Mr Robert Martin, Chief Executive of the Water Service, provided a comprehensive statement last week on the cryptosporidiosis outbreak in Lisburn, Poleglass and surrounding areas. I welcome this further opportunity to place the issues in a wider context.
Information about cryptosporidium and its effects is in the public domain. However, I would like to explain briefly the nature of cryptosporidium, outline the history of the present outbreak and explain the way that the Department has been working with the Eastern Health and Social Services Board in responding to the outbreak. I also want to assure Members of the seriousness with which I and all involved regard this present problem and express my sympathy to all those affected.
Cryptosporidium is a parasitic organism which can be water-borne and is resistant to normal disinfection processes. Cryptosporidium can cause serious ill health, although normally in humans it is self-limiting and clears within two to three weeks. For those people whose immune systems are weakened or compromised, it can be much more serious. The first reported UK outbreak associated with public water supplies was in 1988. Following a further outbreak in 1989, the Government appointed a group of experts, who reported in 1990 and in 1995 on measures to mitigate the risk of cryptosporidium in the public water supply. Their recommendations were adopted by the Water Service.
The group further reported in 1998 and made over 50 revised recommendations, one of which was that water utilities carry out risk assessments on all their supplies. In early 1999 the Water Service assessed the risk of contamination at all 59 sources then in use in Northern Ireland. The methodology used was based on models used in England, Wales and Scotland and developed in consultation with the Northern Ireland drinking water inspector.
This assessment identified the Silent Valley as the only source with a risk factor that indicated the need for continuous sampling and analysis during the spring, which is the highest-risk period. A further 22 sources were identified as having lower risk factors, but at these sources it was considered prudent to undertake single 24-hour sampling of both raw and treated water in both spring and autumn of each year. Similar 24-hour samples of both raw and treated water are taken at the remaining sources each spring. I must emphasis that the risk assessments are based on the protocol used in Scotland and that the associated testing regimes are fully in line with those required by cryptosporidium regulations in England and Wales and by direction in Scotland. These arrangements have been agreed by the drinking water inspector and the chief medical officer.
Having given Members the background information, I would like to turn now to the recently detected outbreak of cryptosporidiosis in the Lisburn and Poleglass areas.
During the week beginning 21 August 2000 the Eastern Health and Social Services Board became aware of a number of cases of crytosporidiosis in the Poleglass area. By 25 August there were more than 20 confirmed cases, and an outbreak control team had been established. The outbreak control team is chaired by the consultant for communicable disease control (CCDC) and includes representatives of the Water Service. Investigation and control of the outbreak is the responsibility of the Eastern Health and Social Services Board. The Water Service role is to assist the CCDC in every possible way, taking steps to identify any possible contamination of the public water supply and measures to limit the impact on the community. In accordance with established procedures for dealing with major incidents, the Water Service set up control teams in eastern division and at head office.
The Water Service began sampling for crytosporidium oocysts at Poleglass reservoir on 22 August. Although by 25 August there was no test evidence to link the outbreak to the public water supply, the CCDC decided to issue a precautionary notice advising the elderly and those suffering from serious medical conditions to boil their water before consumption. A press statement to this effect was issued on 25 August.
Continued sampling of water from the reservoir, in the period 25 to 29 August, revealed increasing levels of cryptosporidium in the water supply, and the outbreak control team, acting diligently and methodically in accordance with agreed protocols, decided on the evening of 30 August 2000 that a "boil water" notice should be issued to customers within the Poleglass reservoir supply zone. The CCDC, on the morning of 31 August 2000, issued a press statement to this effect and later that day Water Service staff hand delivered 17,500 "boil water" notices to affected households.
By 31 August the Water Service had established that a number of the confirmed cases lived in the supply zone served by the neighbouring Northern Service reservoir, and the decision was taken to issue "boil water" notices to all remaining customers supplied with water from the Forked Bridge treatment works through the Lagmore conduit. These were delivered the following day.
Approximately 28,500 "boil water" notices were delivered to households, schools and industrial and business premises in the Poleglass, North Lisburn, Twinbrook, Dunmurry and surrounding areas. An estimated 90,000 people were affected by the notice. Water Service and Eastern Board customer help-lines have been in place since the start of the outbreak to provide information to members of the public who have concerns about the "boil water" notices or any other matters. The Water Service has provided bottled water, on request, to nursing and residential homes. Bottled water has also been provided to schools by the education and library boards.
Water Service investigations of possible sources of contamination concentrated on the Lagmore conduit - a brick conduit approximately seven miles long. This conduit, which is 110 years old, carries water from the Forked Bridge treatment works to the service reservoirs. Detailed investigations of the conduit, including using CCTV in a section pinpointed by bacteriological sampling, confirmed that there had been ingress and contamination of the treated water. Further investigation revealed that the conduit had been damaged when an outfall was being laid from a private septic tank attached to a property built in the last few years. This damage has been repaired and the conduit sealed at this point. However, investigations will continue until the Water Service is satisfied that there are no other sources of contamination.
Consistent with the need to maintain the water supply at all times, an intensive programme of cleansing the service reservoirs is underway. This is a huge task - for example, the Poleglass service reservoir holds almost 10 million gallons. It is 16 ft deep and the size of one and a half football pitches.
As part of the ongoing programme to replace and upgrade ageing infrastructure, work commenced in April this year on a £2·5 million contract to replace the entire brick conduit with a modern ductile iron pipeline. The new pipeline was programmed to be brought in to service in November, but it has been decided to utilise a section of it to provide a bypass of the suspect area of the existing conduit. This bypass should be completed by the end of this week.
I now move to the removal of "boil water" notices. It will be for the outbreak control team to decide when the notice may be lifted. This decision will be informed by test sample results and geographical analysis of clinical evidence from the affected areas.
I am fully satisfied that all involved in controlling this outbreak and investigating its cause have acted correctly, swiftly and in accordance with agreed protocols. In less than a week from the initial indication that the water supply was implicated, the entire system had been thoroughly investigated, a source of contamination had been detected, the conduit had been repaired and sealed, reservoirs are being cleaned, and works are ongoing to link the old conduit to the newly constructed pipeline.
I pay tribute to the hard work and dedication of staff in the Water Service, other Departments and agencies and, in particular, the consultant for communicable disease control, the Chief Medical Officer and the members of the outbreak control team. The way they have handled the enormous workload arising from this incident has demonstrated their great commitment and service to the community.
My officials will continue to consistently work with the other members of the team to take every possible step to enable the "boil water" notices to be lifted and normal water supply to be restored to our customers at the earliest possible date.
I described earlier how the Silent Valley had been identified as the source which was at highest risk of contamination by cryptosporidium when the risk assessment was undertaken last year. The Silent Valley reservoir serves approximately 250,000 people.
To protect the quality of water entering the public supply from this source the Water Service, earlier this year, temporarily excluded sheep from its land, which includes the catchment area, as spring is recognised as being the period of greatest risk. The temporary exclusion period was subsequently extended.
A further review of the management of the Silent Valley catchment has shown the need to continue to exclude the sheep, and I therefore had no alternative but to announce last week that the exclusion must continue. I understand fully the difficulties this will cause for local farmers, and I sympathise with their position. My officials have been liaising and will continue to liaise with officials from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to establish what measures can be taken to assist those farmers. I regret having to take this decision, but it is unavoidable owing to the interest in public health. Who in this House would do otherwise?
On completion of the new £35 million water-treatment works for the Silent Valley, the position regarding future grazing will be reviewed. This is scheduled for completion in the financial year 2003. That investment, coupled with the ongoing £32 million replacement of the Mourne conduit, which carries the water from the Silent Valley, demonstrates the Department's commitment to continue the delivery of wholesome drinking water to our customers.
Finally, the provision of adequate water and sewerage services is important to everyone in Northern Ireland, whether a domestic consumer, a commercial or industrial user, a farmer, a fisherman, an environmentalist or someone concerned with public health issues. The Water Service has suffered significant underfunding over the last 20 years. On the basis of assessments derived from an asset management plan completed in 1993, the Water Service needs to invest approximately £3 billion over the next 20 years to replace out-of-date infrastructure, meet the needs of new development that satisfies public health requirements, and comply with European directives on drinking water and waste water.
Recent events, including the flooding in Belfast, have confirmed just how essential it is to raise the funding of the Water Service to levels which will enable the provision of a service that meets the requirements and needs of all our customers in the twenty-first century.
1.00 pm
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Quite a number of Members have indicated that they would like to question the Minister on this subject. We have set aside one hour for the debate, which will bring us up until 1.45 pm. I must ask Members to be as succinct as possible in their questioning.
Mr McFarland:
The Regional Development Committee and the Health Committee had detailed briefings from the Water Service and -
Mr ONeill:
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Should you not call the Chair of the Committee first?
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Yes, that is certainly appropriate, and I ask the Member if he will give way to the Chairman, Mr Alban Maginness.
The Chairperson of the Regional Development Committee (Mr A Maginness):
I welcome the Minister's thorough and detailed statement in relation to this very serious problem that has affected the people of Lisburn, Poleglass and Lagmore, and I want to thank him for the detailed and frank way in which he has dealt with this issue. At my request he willingly arranged for an official to attend a Committee meeting and present a very thorough and detailed report. I am sure that all Members are very mindful of the suffering, distress and worry caused to those affected by this outbreak, and the House should extend its sympathy to all of them. It is particularly worrying for parents of small children and for those with elderly relatives, and I am sure all Members would agree that we feel deeply for them.
The report from Mr Robert Martin was very detailed.