Northern Ireland Assembly
Monday 9 October 2000 (continued)
Foundation Degree Proposal
5.
Mr J Wilson
asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment if he will confirm that the foundation degree proposal is appropriate for Northern Ireland.
Dr Farren:
Having considered the Department for Education and Employment's foundation degree proposals and underlying rationale, I have commissioned pilot schemes, to be led by the university sector, in order to determine the suitability of introducing this type of degree in areas of high skill demand in Northern Ireland. The pilot schemes will be led by the universities, but they will be working in very close co-operation with a number of the further and higher education colleges, and there will be significant employer involvement in the development of courses related to foundation degrees.
Mr J Wilson:
Many studies have suggested that the main strength of the training systems in continental countries such as France, Germany and the Netherlands, relative to the United Kingdom, lies at the level of the technician, that is to say sub-degree qualifications such as the Higher National Diploma (HND). Why does the Minister not concentrate on developing an existing qualification such as the HND rather than introducing an entirely new one?
Dr Farren:
The Member refers to the underlying philosophy of the foundation degree proposals. Perhaps if I outline the purposes of the foundation degree, he and the House will better appreciate its particular relevance and significance.
The proposals have several purposes. First, to increase the supply of highly-skilled technicians and associated professionals in areas of the economy where they are needed. There is a strong focus on the supply of highly- skilled technicians to forge new alliances between employers, universities and further education colleges. This includes fusing the academic and vocational paths to high level qualifications, meaning that those exiting from foundation degrees would have the opportunity to proceed to higher degrees - to a full undergraduate degree or beyond. There is a generally identified need for HND and HNC courses which is not being fully met in the current provision, and which the foundation degree will address. Given that there is this three-way involvement of universities, which validate and help to develop the course, the further education colleges, which are involved at the point of delivery and the employers which are involved, along with the universities and the colleges, in the design of the curricula, we will have a new and very important synergy created between all three, which will address the points that the Member is concerned about.
Mr McMenamin:
How will the introduction of the foundation degrees benefit both the students and the Northern Ireland economy? What are the main features of the foundation degree?
Dr Farren:
The foundation degrees are intended to have five essential core features. First, as I have indicated, employers will be involved in the design, recognition and review of the qualifications. This is very important. With respect to training programmes, we have gathered a lot of experience from employers in recent years. Regarding vocational programmes, employers have requested involvement, from the beginning, in the design and provision of courses with a vocational dimension - or with vocational objectives associated with them. That is very important. I hope that there will be a very generous and warm response from employers to their involvement in the new pilot degree programmes.
Secondly, technical and sector-specific skills and generic skills should be underpinned by rigorous academic learning. This will be a feature of their delivery, and I trust that will be ensured by the involvement of the universities.
Thirdly, students should develop work-relevant skills through an understanding of the workplace. As part of the programme of study, students will become part of the workforce in the skill area in which they are being trained. We want to see these degrees made available in a way that will enable them to be transferable. On several occasions I have highlighted the necessity to have ladders of opportunity which will allow students, particularly those starting at the post-compulsory school years, to enter and to transfer across and up various roads, or ladders, of progression to the highest level that their ambition and ability will take them. This characteristic will be part of the foundation degrees from the outset.
Obviously, that will ensure that they can progress through to honours degrees at undergraduate level as indicated, post-graduate studies, and perhaps also to research study. The underlying message has to be that these courses, in the first instance, are intended to be economically relevant, and that is highlighted by the involvement of employers at the very outset. I trust that in that way the courses will meet the needs of Northern Ireland students as the Member suggested they should.
3.30 pm
Madam Deputy Speaker:
I must move on to the last question, and I advise Members that we have a very short time left.
Post-Graduate Science Students: Grants
6.
Mr Ford
asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment if he intends to increase grants to post-graduate science students, in line with proposed increases in England and Wales.
Dr Farren:
My Department will maintain parity with the stipend increases announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the 2000-01 academic year. In order to maintain parity beyond that date, my Department will require additional resources, and as Members in the House know, that is an exercise in which all Executive Ministers are currently engaged.
Mr Ford:
Will the Minister agree - given that a well qualified workforce, particularly in science and technology, is so important to our economic prospects in the future - to maintain the level of grants so that we do not lose students to England and Wales and to make this one of his highest priorities?
Dr Farren:
I agree. By way of general observation, it is important that we should note that that is not just important here in Northern Ireland, but in the universities of Britain, the South, and those in the United States, as I discovered when I was there last week.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)
There are severe pressures, which make it very difficult to retain research students given the high levels of competition for their skills. Those who are researching in new technologies are in high demand in the economy and difficulty in retaining them is something which universities in many places are also experiencing. We are obviously concerned that we do not lose research students and that we take steps to ensure insofar as our resources allow that we can retain them.
Mr Speaker:
The time for this group of questions is up.
Social Development
Fuel Prices
1.
Mr McGrady
asked the Minister for Social Development if he will make a statement on the impact on low-income families of high fuel prices in Northern Ireland.
The Minister for Social Development (Mr Morrow):
My interest in fuel prices relates mainly to their impact on domestic heating costs. It is estimated that there are approximately 170,000 households at risk from fuel poverty in Northern Ireland. Clearly an increase in fuel prices could exacerbate their situation. I would be concerned, therefore, that a sustained period of high fuel prices could push more people into fuel poverty. The present concern about fuel costs has been brought about by the recent increase in oil prices. I trust that the present high cost of oil is temporary and that the market will stabilise at a lower level.
Fortunately oil is not the main heating source for many of the households at greatest risk. In my written answer to Mr McGrady's question on 5 October about current schemes available in relation to energy conservation in the home, I identified heating and insulation schemes designed to help low-income families. I also referred to the proposals to introduce a revised domestic energy efficiency scheme with effect from 1 April 2001. Additionally, the winter fuel payment has been extended this year to include men as well as women from age 60, and the level of help has been increased to £150. While these measures will not resolve the problem, they will nonetheless lessen the impact of the high fuel prices.
Mr McGrady:
I thank the Minister for a very comprehensive reply, the second part of which dealt with energy conservation. The question on the Order Paper refers to the impact of high fuel prices on low-income families. Is the Minister aware that many families on low income applying to the Social Security Agency for assistance and loans to pay for fuel, oil and electricity to keep their young families warm are actually refused? They are very often refused on the basis that there are inadequate budgets to deal with them.
Will the Minister today undertake to instigate an immediate review of this situation? We have due and proper concern for the elderly; we should also have a similar concern for young families in low-income households who cannot now pay for heat, light and fuel for cooking. Please can that be made a matter of urgency?
Mr Morrow:
I can assure the Member that I very concerned about the whole spectrum of heating and fuel poverty among young people, families and the elderly. My Department is very conscious of their needs, and we will be looking at this on an ongoing basis and keeping it very much under review. I can assure the Member that we do not take the matter lightly and that everything that can be done will be done to ensure that no one falls within the poverty trap of coldness.
Many people die from cold-related illnesses every year, and that greatly concerns us. We have taken steps to deal with many aspects of the problem, and I assure the Member that we are treating it very seriously and will continue to do so in the future.
Mr Beggs:
Is the Minister aware that some Housing Executive tenants still rely on direct electricity for heating their homes? This frequently happens in flats where there are low-income families. Will he give an undertaking that alternative forms of more efficient heating will be provided, as a priority, to those homes?
Mr Morrow:
The question that the Member asks is a very wide-ranging one. Nevertheless, as I said earlier to Mr McGrady, I can give the assurance that we will be looking at all aspects of this matter. We are concerned about the whole issue of families on low incomes and the current high cost of heating oil, although we have also stated that that is not the main source of heating for those people. I can give the Member an assurance that we will be keeping these matters under constant observation.
Social Security Appeals
2.
Mr Paisley Jnr
asked the Minister for Social Development how many social security appeals are upheld (a) at review and (b) at appeal tribunal, and if he will give a breakdown of the statistics for each benefit.
Mr Morrow:
The new decision making and appeal procedures have been phased in by the Social Security Agency since July 1999. In the year following their introduction, the total number of reconsiderations upheld in favour of the customer at 31 August 2000 was 2,687, or 17·3%. The total number of appeals upheld by the appeals service since the introduction of the decision making and appeals procedure at 31 August 2000 was 1,679, or 27%.
I have prepared a detailed breakdown of these statistics by individual benefit, and with your permission, Mr Speaker, I will place that in the Library. I could go into all the details now, but I suspect that that may not be to the advantage of the Assembly. There are many figures here, and it would take a long time to break them down. They will, however, be in the Library for anyone who wants to have a look at them.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
I appreciate the Minister's answer and the fact that he does not want to waste the time of the House in going through the lists. I will certainly take time to study his answer in detail because some of those benefits are of great intereset to me.
I want to ask the Minister about the panels at appeal tribunals. He is aware that they have undergone some major changes in relation to the lay representation on them. Can he inform the House as to whether he has received any correspondence which indicates alarm at the lack of lay representation on the appeal tribunals? Does he have any intention of examining the operation of appeal tribunals in Northern Ireland?
Mr Morrow:
I will deal generally with the matter that the Member has raised. It is not an efficient use of resources to have a legally qualified chairman and panel members in respect of all cases. It has made hearings difficult to arrange and contributed to delays in waiting times for appeals. The new system is designed to ensure that appeals are heard by an appropriate number of people who have the relevant expertise to deal with all the issues raised. Flexible tribunal composition will help to shorten the time appeals take to reach a conclusion.
Tribunals are held locally throughout Northern Ireland, and in practice, therefore, tribunals will continue to have links with the locality in which they sit. Tribunals consist of one, two or three members selected by the president of a panel appointed by the Lord Chancellor. All tribunals must have a legally qualified member. Regulations set out the circumstances in which a tribunal shall also have a medically qualified panel member and a financially qualified panel member.
Mr McMenamin:
Does the Minister agree that there needs to be considerable communication in the process of appeals and reviews? I represent constituents who spend a great deal of time trying to contact by telephone the appropriate bodies and agencies in and around Belfast. The majority cannot afford the high cost of telephone calls. Will the Minister consider setting up a Freefone system or a local rate charge throughout Northern Ireland for people who have difficulties contacting the relevant agencies or bodies?
Mr Morrow:
The Member has asked a lot of questions, and I may not be able to answer them all. However, I will make an honest attempt, and if I miss anything I will return to the Member.
He raises the issue of a telephone system being introduced. There is no reason why that cannot be looked at, but I cannot give him any assurance as to what the outcome will be. However, it is fair and reasonable for my Department to look at that situation, and perhaps we will come back to it.
The Member raised other matters - I am not sure whether I got the gist of them. Decision making and appeals were introduced to improve the accuracy of decisions and the security of benefit payments, as well as to provide a better, more responsive service to the public. I trust that that is now happening, although I do take on board what the Member said. I represent a rural constituency some distance from Belfast so I have some affinity with the Member's comments. The telephone system that the Member mentioned can and will be looked at.
Town Centre Reinvigoration
3.
Mrs E Bell
asked the Minister for Social Development when he plans to present the Assembly with the outcome of the Northern Ireland town centre reinvigoration study, along with his policy conclusions.
Mr Morrow:
The former Department of the Environment commissioned consultants to report on town centres to ensure that those outside Belfast and Londonderry were thriving and healthy. The Department for Social Development is taking the lead on this in consultation with other relevant Departments. I have asked officials to arrange a conference in Armagh on 26 October where a wide range of interests will focus on the key issues of the report. I anticipate that consideration of the consultants' report will be completed later this year. I will then consult with appropriate Ministers and decide whether this is a matter to be brought before the Assembly. In the meantime, a copy of the consultants' report has been deposited in the Assembly Library.
Mrs E Bell:
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive answer, and I hope that the conference will go some way to some concerns. However, does the Minister agree that delays in the outcome of this town centre reinvigoration study is causing problems to some traditional town centres and that full information should be given as soon as possible?
Mr Morrow:
I accept that in the absence of the report there is some hold-up, or what may be perceived as a hold-up, in towns across the Province. Nevertheless, it is almost impossible to move at a faster speed, and I assure the Member that all due care and consideration is being given to the matter. However, I accept the point, and it will be pursued with due haste.
Dr McDonnell:
I thank the Minister for his answer. Is there any relationship between the town centre reinvigoration study and the statement that the Minister issued on 28 September regarding the £8·6 million for inner north Belfast? I see from the notes with the statement - and I welcome the fact - that the Minister is working in conjunction with the North/South committees.
3.45 pm
Is the Minister working with the rest of the Executive on this? Has he consulted his Executive Colleagues?
Mr Speaker:
I was not aware that this study dealt with any part of Belfast, but I will leave that to the Minister.
Mr Morrow:
The quick answer to Dr McDonnell's question is "No". It has nothing to do with it. I do not see the relevance of the next part of the question on the North/South body. Can the Member clarify that?
Mr Speaker:
There is some confusion as to what the town centre reinvigoration study is about. The supplementary question seemed to be on a different matter.
Mr Carrick:
I note what the Minister says about the town centre reinvigoration study. Perhaps it could be brought before the Assembly at a future date. Does the Minister accept that an important consideration is how we can deal with the antisocial behaviour which is so prevalent in many towns? What consideration will the study give to that aspect of our social structure and the stability of our town centres?
Mr Morrow:
I do not see that as a function of the study, but I can sympathise with the Member. Antisocial behaviour is a menace right across the Province. It is not confined to any particular town; rural areas are also aware of the problem. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to give the impression that this study will deal with antisocial behaviour.
Housing Executive Rents
4.
Mr Close
asked the Minister for Social Development when he will stop increasing Housing Executive rents at a rate in excess of inflation.
Mr Morrow:
I smiled when I read this question. I have never increased Housing Executive rents. It would be difficult for me to stop something that I had never started. I have been in consultation with the Social Development Committee on Housing Executive rents for 2001 and 2002, and I await their consideration before taking a final decision.
Mr Close:
I welcome the Minister's stout rebuttal of the question and his indignation about Housing Executive rents being increased above inflation. I seek his assurance to the House, but more importantly to Housing Executive tenants, that rents will not increase by a level above inflation for 2001-02.
Mr Morrow:
I am being misinterpreted. I did not mention any percentages, I simply stated that I have never increased Housing Executive rents because I have never been in the position to do so. At this stage I cannot inform the Assembly what future Housing Executive rents will be. No decision has been taken on the level of rents. I am in consultation with the Social Development Committee, and I look forward to their response.
The Chairperson of the Social Development Committee (Mr Cobain):
Will the Minister give an assurance that if rents are not increased by GDP plus 2%, there will be no reduction in overall expenditure by the Housing Executive in areas such as replacement grants or fuel poverty schemes?
Mr Morrow:
I cannot give any assurance at this time as to rent levels. I cannot say whether the level will be GDP plus 2%, plus 1%, plus 4% or zero. I cannot do that. No decision has as yet been made. I keep repeating that I have had a meeting with Mr Cobain's Committee, and he knows what happened at that Committee. He knows the questions I have put down and the response that I am waiting for, and he knows that I want to take on board all that the Committee has said, but as yet I have had no response. That is no criticism of the Committee Members. They are not yet in a position to respond, but until I get their response and see what their priorities are, now that they are in possession of all the facts and know all the implications, I cannot give an answer other than the one I have already given.
Rev Dr William McCrea:
Does my hon Friend and Minister agree that it would assist him greatly if the Committee and the Assembly agreed to allow his Department to retain the money in respect of house sales that is currently being taken away from it? Last year £13 million was removed from the house sales budget. Would it not help him enormously if this House were unanimously to agree that house sale money be kept by his Department? That would allow him to take many of the necessary actions on fuel poverty, while keeping rents low.
Mr Morrow:
The quick answer is "Yes, yes, yes, yes", and I thank the Member for putting the question. With regard to looking for extra finance for housing, I am also on record as asking for the support of the Social Development Committee and the Assembly. I take the Member at face value and say "Yes, yes, yes" every time.
Housing Executive Budgets
5.
Sir John Gorman
asked the Minister for Social Development what will be the impact on Housing Executive budgets if the formula of inflation plus 2% is applied for each of the next three years to Housing Executive budgets.
Mr Morrow:
The formula of inflation plus 2% is not applied to the Housing Executive's budget. For planning purposes only, an assumption is made on future rental income based on rents increasing by GDP plus 2%. I have not yet made any decisions on actual future rent increases.
Sir John Gorman:
I thank the Minister for his reply, which sounded to me like another "Yes". May I ask him what plans he has to eradicate the high level of urgent housing need? There are 23,000 people on the waiting list, of whom 12,000 are in urgent need. There are 44,000 homes unfit for human habitation in the Province, mostly in rural areas, although some are in Belfast. He must have some plans to modernise Housing Executive dwellings.
May I mention another point which may or may not have come to his notice? The reduction in the number of unemployed people has led to the fact that a considerable number - Housing Executive tenants mostly - now fall outside housing benefit. Last year there were 4,000. Those people, who are mostly on low incomes, are going to find it extremely difficult to pay their rent, and we may well see a sharp increase in arrears. I would like to know what plans he has to deal with these matters.
Mr Morrow:
The point that the Member raises is of great concern to me and my Department. He is quite right when he says that there is a very urgent housing need, particularly in places such as north Belfast, Londonderry and some of our rural towns and villages. There is a substantial waiting list. Without resources and finance, we cannot adequately and properly tackle this great need. It is a known fact that there are currently 25,000 people on the waiting list.
We cannot tackle this problem without resources. It will not surprise the Assembly to hear that in recent years housing has moved down the priority list. That is unfortunate, and it is not right, but it is the case. Northern Ireland has the highest proportion of home ownership in any region in the United Kingdom - 71%. It would be a fatal mistake if the Housing Executive were to be penalised because of the lack of funds needed to tackle the problems that Sir John has raised. I ask him, and the Assembly, to support us in getting the funds and the necessary resources to put into housing. We do not want to be penalised because of the good job that the Housing Executive has done in recent years, providing good housing stock.
Mr Dodds:
I welcome the Minister's comments about Housing Executive budgets. I also agree that, having asked the Social Development Committee for its views, it would be quite wrong - indeed, it would leave the Minister open to criticism in this House by members of that Committee and others - if he were to pre-empt its views and make an announcement today on rents. Does he recall the commitment which I made in this House when I held his position to index Housing Executive rent increases as closely as possible to inflation? Can he confirm that this remains his intention, indeed his policy?
Mr Morrow:
I could say "Yes, yes, yes", but I will be a wee bit more explanatory. It is true that Mr Dodds is on record as having said that rent increases would be kept to a minimum, and I am also giving that assurance today. Furthermore, it would be quite ridiculous for me to come to the House and say anything about future rent increases, bearing in mind Mr Dodds's reminder to the House that I have referred the matter to the Committee. It would be very discourteous of me to try to pre-empt what the Committee might say on this matter, and I have no intention of doing so. I am waiting with bated breath for the thoughts of the Committee in the not-too-distant future. I have no doubt that it, like myself, will have the interests of the Housing Executive tenants at heart, and I look forward to its response. I hope that that reassures the Member.
Urban Regeneration
6.
Mr Ford
asked the Minister for Social Development what plans he has to introduce legislation to enable local councils to facilitate urban regeneration.
Mr Morrow:
Many district councils are active in facilitating aspects of urban regeneration and partnership arrangements with my Department and others. I have no plans to introduce legislation on their powers and functions. Any such changes would be the responsibility of the Department of the Environment. However, in the first instance they would presumably have to be considered in the context of any future review of public administration in Northern Ireland.
Mr Ford:
I thank the Minister for his reply, but I am afraid that I cannot thank him for its content. I accept that his answer has perhaps been pre-empted by the Minister of the Environment, who made certain announcements at the Waterfront Hall on Saturday. Will the Minister not agree with me that we cannot have a Laganside in every district council area? There are huge problems with urban regeneration right across the Province in response to which district councils are the best placed organisations to take a lead. Will he give an assurance that he will at least discuss with Mr Foster how the two Departments can co-operate on such legislation?
Mr Morrow:
On the first point, I can assure the Member that what was said at the Waterfront had no impact on my reply.
Regarding the other points, I am considering a number of options that have been developed by my officials. The Social Development Committee will be consulted shortly. I want to keep the Committee on board because I see it as a vital part of the whole mechanism that we are trying to put together. Unless, or until, consultation takes place, I cannot give the Member any more assurances, but all aspects of the issue will be looked at, including co-operation with the Department of the Environment.
Housing: Legislative Proposals
7.
Mr ONeill
asked the Minister for Social Development if he will provide a timetable for the introduction of legislative proposals in respect of housing.
4.00 pm
Mr Morrow:
The legislative programme for the current Assembly session includes a major Housing Bill. Later this month I intend to submit a policy memorandum about the Bill to the Executive Committee and I hope that it will be possible to bring the Bill to Committee Stage before the summer recess. It is likely to be spring 2002 before the Bill completes all the legislative stages.
Mr ONeill:
Many important issues will be contained in that Bill. One item which is missing from the information that has been provided to Members to date is the role of the Housing Executive vis-à-vis housing associations. It was intended originally that this should be included, and it was to have been included in the Bill proposed in 1998. Can the Minister tell me why it is not being included now?
Mr Morrow:
I understand there is some disquiet about this matter. I also understand that the Committee is deliberating on this, and I am waiting to hear its views. This matter exercises the Committee as it does Mr ONeill, so I can assure him that it will not be glossed over. I am looking forward to hearing from the Social Development Committee and have no doubt that Mr ONeill has had an input. Once my Department gets that response, I will be in a better position to give a fuller answer.
Fuel Allowance
8.
Mr McClarty
asked the Minister for Social Development if he will extend the £2,000 fuel allowance, payable to people over 60 years of age on income- related benefit, to those below the age of 60 years who are chronically ill, and if he will make a statement.
Mr Morrow:
The consultation period on the new domestic energy efficiency scheme proposals has just ended, and my officials are considering the responses received. At this stage I am not in a position to say whether the scheme will be revised in the light of representations made. I will, however, ask that the Member's request be considered along with the responses received.
Mr McClarty:
Does the Minister agree that this is a moral issue as well as a financial one? Surely it is wrong that those who are over 60 years of age and in good health should qualify for £2,000 while those who are under the age of 60 and have a chronic illness do not qualify. In fact, they qualify for a considerably smaller sum.
Mr Morrow:
I take the point, and I will look at this again before coming back with more details.
First Minister
Debate resumed on motion:
That this Assembly has no confidence in the First Minister. - [Mr P Robinson]
Mr McGrady:
During the debate this morning, the Gallery was full of school children who had come to learn how to behave in future life, to hear about the problems we have in Northern Ireland and to get some understanding of how we address them. Regrettably, what they were exposed to was another rant around another course, as we have experienced so often in the Chamber. What we were treated to was political internecine warfare among the Unionist parties. That is not the business of this Assembly.
In proposing the motion, the hon Member Mr Robinson took 15 minutes to explain its legitimacy. I thought that the amount of time spent on it quite clearly illustrated its illegitimacy. He dealt with the Ulster Unionist Party in all its works and pomps, and he dealt with policing and decommissioning, which are not matters for this Assembly.He did not promote or propose the motion in relation to any item that referred to the office of First Minister. The purpose of the motion is to declare that the Assembly has no confidence in the First Minister as an officer or as a Minister, not as the leader of a party.
It would have been unsurprising, Mr Speaker, had you at that point ruled the contributions made by the proposer as irrelevant, if not repetitious. They were repetitious and irrelevant, because none of the points made in the motion related to the office of First Minister. Therefore I cannot see how the Assembly could pass a vote of no confidence, as no reference was made to the work of the First Minister. In retrospect, no argument was made at all.
We have heard these arguments before, outside the Chamber and on every political platform. It is quite legitimate for parties to score political points off one another and gain political advantage. It is not legitimate to bastardise the Chamber in the process. The Chamber is representative of all the people of Northern Ireland.We should be - and we are - addressing the bread-and-butter economic and social issues.
Most people outside the Assembly would consider this a repetitious motion. It has been expressed in different forms before, but the purpose is the same. There is internecine political warfare between the Unionist parties to see who will come out as the big chief at the end of the day. There are many little chiefs throughout Northern Ireland who want to get on and live their lives in some sort of peace and stability. They want us to set down the programmes to enhance their economic prospects and provide them with a better social life and way of living. That is what the Assembly should be about. All that internecine stuff should be kept where it belongs, namely the political platforms outside the Assembly.
The purpose of the motion is to destroy the Assembly. It is not concerned with whether the First Minister is fulfilling his office or not. The purpose is to destroy the Assembly and all that it is trying to do for the people of Northern Ireland, with the support of the majority of the population. The motion brings the Assembly into disrepute, which will be to the advantage of those supporting the motion. Let us not pretend: we see, we hear, and we know what this motion is all about.
We have tried, from our different political perspectives, to establish a new way of life in Northern Ireland. The Assembly, its offices, the Committees, the Ministers, the Chairmen of Committees and all the Members represent the only thing that we have been able to come up with in the past 30 years of most extreme violence. Those who propose such motions have not provided one iota of an alternative that would be viable and could work in this community.
I remember so vividly when peace was declared two years ago. An enormous weight was lifted off my shoulders. I could physically feel it being lifted, and I know that other members of my community and others felt the same. We had hope for a new era of peace. Peace will not come with the turn of a key - it will be a process. I have said many times that after 30 years of violence we could not expect violence to be totally switched off. But we do have - [Interruption] I have only started, and I am not going to give way. [Interruption]
Thank you for listening. I, along with others, felt great relief. It might not have suited your political agenda, but I am sure you were relieved, at least, that violence as we had had it for 30 years had ceased. This institution, with all its attributes, is a result of that peace process. [Interruption] I am not going to give way. [Interruption] I am not going to give way. [Interruption] I am not going to give way until it suits me. The Member may laugh, but I am on a serious tack. I understand his humour, but we are not dealing with a humorous subject. All the jeers and the catcalling will not deny the fact that the DUP, in this motion, is set on a purely destructive course with no alternative, and no hope to offer the people of Northern Ireland.
It is about denial; it is about negativism; it is about getting rid of David Trimble at all costs. You are saying "To hell with the people of Northern Ireland - get rid of David Trimble!" You did it before. You did it with Terence O'Neill. You did it with Chichester-Clark. You did it with Brian Faulkner. Now you are trying to do it with David Trimble. The only one you did not try to do it with was Molyneaux, because he sat doing nothing during all the years of violence when people were being blown up all around us. You had nothing to offer the people at that time, and you have not offered them anything since.
So here is another target, and you can turn everything into an attack on personalities. We are getting attacks on the personalities of one Minister after another. That is all we are getting. We are getting no constructive proposals for alternatives. There was no mention of the reality of the situation in the contribution made by the hon Member for East Belfast. We have simply been engaged in a political process today. The people out there - and those young people sitting up in those Galleries above us - heard what was going on today. They saw what was going on, and they know what was going on in the negativism of the motion and in the choruses behind, alto and soprano, going "Yeah, yeah" and "Yah, yah". That is what they saw. That was the example they got of what politics is like at this moment in Northern Ireland.
Good God, can we not give them something better to look forward to? Can we not give them some encouragement to activate the political process instead of having most of them running away from it? Could we not bring them in to the advent of democracy and political representation? Could we not encourage them by the example we give them in this House to make their contribution to our society? [Interruption]
You can catcall as much as you like. The reality of the situation is that we have a motion in front of us to destroy this institution and all that it is hoping to achieve. With that institution will go all the aspirations of the people of Northern Ireland for a peaceful and a better economic life. If you destroy this institution, and have nothing to put in its place - and you have nothing - then you are also affecting the whole economic process, the whole economic development to which we all aspire.
We will be left behind. Do not kid yourselves - we will be left behind. But who will pick up the tab? It will not be the gentlemen on those Benches. The ordinary man and woman in the street will pick up the tab of deprived incomes and poorer social situations.
4.15 pm
On top of that you are giving encouragement through this motion to those in the community who are still trying to use violence in the pursuance of political objectives. It is totally indefensible that you have abused this Chamber for purely party political progress and opportunism. I have not heard a single argument as to what was wrong with the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, or this Minister or that Minister in terms of the performance of their duties to this House and to the community. That was what this motion was allegedly to have been about, but it failed miserably.
The very day we open the Civic Forum in Belfast - [Interruption]
Mr P Robinson:
It is a waste of money.
Mr McGrady:
They laugh at the ordinary people of Northern Ireland. They laugh at those sections of the people of Northern Ireland who want to have a say in how they are administered and who want a platform to give us advice from their own experiences as to how they want this country to be run. They sneer, they jeer, they laugh at them. I hope they will reap their political reward for that.
As I was saying, on the day that the Civic Forum was inaugurated, when we were giving hope to and enfranchising another large section of the community, we have this debacle, this hypocrisy on the Floor of the House. What sort of message is that to send to the young people, to the people of the Civic Forum, to the people of Northern Ireland as a whole? This is not opposition; this is just dirty party politics.
My party cannot lend even a whimper of support to this motion because of its sheer hypocrisy and negativism. I do warn that if this motion were to succeed, the next step would be the downfall of this Assembly. You and I know that. Everyone here is your target today - every Minister and every institution. You want to be governed by the peripatetic Ministers from Westminster that you girned about for 30 years. You want the part-time Ministers from Westminster to come over, to take four Departments each and to try to deal with them. You cried about it for 30 years, and now you want to go back to it because you have damn all else in your political programme but a return to direct rule. That is all you have. [Interruption]
Mr Dodds:
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. For the second time during his rant the Member, who had to be ordered to sit down, has blasphemed and cursed in this House. Will he now withdraw that sort of language and apologise to the Members and the people listening in the Gallery, who are looking for an example from politicians?
Mr Speaker:
May I raise three points of order. First, there should not be references to the Gallery from any of the Members. Having said that, I see less folk to play to the Gallery. Perhaps they have other things to do. References to the Gallery are out of order in all circumstances, save where the Speaker finds himself having to reprove people there. That is not very common. Secondly, I urge Members, including the Member who was on his feet, to beware of unparliamentary language.
Thirdly, Members should note that when they use the word "you" they are making reference to the Speaker. I have been accused of many things inside and outside this Chamber, and if I were to regard all that the Member said as being in order, I would have to take unto myself many things that he knows are not my responsibility. I ask the Member to be wary of the language he has been using, both in the sense that some of it may be a little unparliamentary and in that some of it makes references to me which I do not recognise.
Mr McGrady:
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that advice. I apologise if I have blasphemed against you. That was not intended, and I certainly was not aware that I was guilty of the heinous crime of blasphemy in the language I used. If in the interpretation of some Members I was, then I willingly and gladly withdraw it. I do not want to give offence in that sense; I only want to give offence in the political sense, and say that the negativity of the debate that we heard this morning was without parallel. I do not want to repeat myself, Mr Speaker, in case I fall foul of you again or even use some of the same language again.
This motion is not about the welfare of the people of Northern Ireland. It is not about their economic welfare; it is not about their social welfare; it is not about their constitutional welfare. It is a petty, internecine struggle between two power blocs. In fact, it is more personalised than that. We in this Chamber should not be subjected to that; the people of Northern Ireland should not be subjected to that; people who heard or saw the debate this morning, either here in this House or somewhere else, should not be subjected to that.
I am probably speaking to the vacant air, but the biggest gesture that could be made today in this House to establish and confirm the peace and to work with our differences, even in opposition - there is no problem with genuine political opposition - would be for the proposer of this motion to say that the motion is not in order. He has not made any comment about the First Minister as First Minister. He has made comments about him as leader of a party, which is not the business of this House. If the integrity and honesty with which they are trying to bring me to book are the order of the day, I ask him to withdraw the motion.
Mr Close:
I am intrigued by the wording of the motion:
"That this Assembly has no confidence in the First Minister",
with the emphasis on the words "First Minister". My intrigue stems not so much from what was said, but rather from the words that were not used. I am not at all surprised, and I am sure that nobody in this House was surprised, that what I referred to earlier as the "hokey-cokey" party, or the party of political shenanigans, should be expressing no confidence or no trust in someone or other. [Interruption]
I hear a telephone ringing. I thought they were out of order in the House.
As has already been said, the DUP, from its inception, has constantly called no confidence in someone or other. We have had a litany of people having to go. We have had "O'Neill must go", "Chichester-Clark must go", and "Faulkner must go". We then moved on to Secretaries of State. Willy Whitelaw had to go, Merlyn Rees had to go, Mo Mowlam had to go - they all had to go. Even Governors of Northern Ireland suffered the same fate; they were told to go. Moderators of the church were told to go, not to mention His Holiness the Pope. Anybody who tried to bring about change in Northern Ireland was told by the party on my left, the party of political shenanigans, to pack their bags and go.
The previous speaker said that Mr Molyneaux was not told to go, and I think he is correct.
If my memory serves me well, the same Mr Molyneaux was called a Judas. Even he did not please anyone.
It has reached the stage where, if people in authority were not told to go by the Democratic Unionist Party, or if a motion of no confidence were not expressed in them by the Democratic Unionist Party, those people would think that they were doing something very wrong indeed. Can anyone imagine the Democratic Unionist Party calling on someone to stay, or the Democratic Unionist Party having a vote of confidence in anyone? It was demonstrated only a few years ago that at times Members of the DUP do not even have confidence in themselves. They got up and ran away from the negotiations because they lacked confidence, they lacked trust in their ability to argue a case. When we are told that somebody is not endorsed, that problems are being voiced by the Democratic Unionist Party, people should not get particularly concerned. On the contrary, they are in very good company. They are people who have endeavoured, and continue to endeavour, to bring about necessary change in Northern Ireland, and that is very important.
I began by saying that I was intrigued by the wording and by the lack of words in the motion. I note that the motion is one of no confidence in the First Minister expressly. No reference whatsoever was made to the Deputy First Minister yet critically, it is a fact that the First and the Deputy First Ministers were elected on a common slate. Is it not a fact that the Office to which we all must refer, and are duty bound to refer, is the Office of the First and the Deputy First Minister? Maybe they simply neglected to mention the joint Office. But it strikes me, from the wording of the motion, that this has nothing whatsoever to do with a lack of confidence in the First Minister. Rather it is the Democratic Unionist Party's pursuance of a purely party political fight with the Ulster Unionist Party. I think it is wrong. It is disgraceful that this House should be used as a vehicle simply to carry on a party-political feud.
I would go further than that. I do not believe it is just a feud with the Ulster Unionist Party. I believe that in this attempt to attack the First Minister and to ignore the Deputy First Minister lies the real motivation behind all this - that which motivates Members of the Democratic Unionist Party -blind personal ambition: power seeking. They want to obliterate a particular political party completely, and they are prepared to sacrifice democracy, the price that the rest of us would be called on to pay, to satisfy their ambitions. I believe that that is also very wrong. Their motive is not just to destroy the Ulster Unionist Party; their motive is to destroy the Northern Ireland Executive, to destroy the Northern Ireland Assembly, to destroy, most importantly, the voice of the people who put us all here and thus to destroy the voice of democracy. Their motive is the destruction of democracy, because they know what would happen if this motion were passed here this evening. They know, as everyone does, that it would lead to the collapse of the Executive - which would in turn collapse the Assembly - and inevitably to the destruction of devolution and with that the hopes and the desires of the people of Northern Ireland.
Members of the Democratic Unionist Party tell us time and time and time again that they are a party of devolution. I put it to the House that their actions belie that. Why else would they want to tear down this edifice, tear down this Executive and tear down this Assembly? While Mr McGrady was on his feet I heard members of the Democratic Unionist Party, from sedentary positions, refer to this place as a waste of money.
They said that millions were being squandered on democracy in Northern Ireland. However, members of the Democratic Unionist Party express concern about the state of our roads, the rail network, the water and sewerage systems, and the plight of the agricultural community. I must say that their actions in that respect speak louder than their words. How can I accept their references to waste of money, when their actions belie the existence of democracy in Northern Ireland? Their tears are crocodile tears and their concern is shallow. Their words have the stench of hypocrisy.
4.30 pm
Mr McCartney:
Will the Member tell us what the Assembly has been able to do for the agricultural industry, Harland and Wolff, the declining textile industry or the hauliers? The answer is absolutely nothing.
Mr Close:
Accountable democracy has been one of the main issues for those of us who fought for devolution in Northern Ireland. None of us ever claimed that such accountable democracy would solve all the ills and problems of Northern Ireland. The critical thing, however, is that power rests in the hands of the people of Northern Ireland. That is something that my party and I welcome and which I thought the Democratic Unionist Party wanted. Today, however, I learn that they too, like Mr McCartney, are not interested in devolution.
Mr McCartney:
I never said I was interested in devolution.
Mr Close:
That is correct, and I accept it. However, the Member now has allies in the Democratic Unionist Party who through this motion declare that they too are a party of integration. I find that very sad. The only reason the Democratic Unionist Party wants to subvert the voice of the people and drag the Assembly down is to remove power from the hands of locally elected representatives. It has taken us 30 years to get devolved institutions in Northern Ireland. Yet on a whim, the Democratic Unionist Party would throw that back in our faces. They complain at the lack of investment, saying it is occasioned by direct rule. What would happen if the motion were passed? It would bring us back to direct rule tomorrow; it would kill devolution. Let us be honest about devolution. Is the Democratic Unionist Party interested in devolution? If so, why do they wish to destroy this institution?
Mr Wells:
The hon Member knows from experience that what he says is not true. He and I sat in this Assembly from 1982 to 1986, and both our parties worked tirelessly to bring devolution to the Province. Our objection is not against devolution per se, but against the form of devolution we have, which allows terrorists in the Government. The people of South Antrim showed very clearly that they will not have it.
Mr Close:
The Member knows very well that the path that they attempt to tread with this motion is part of a DUP agenda. That agenda is to get rid of the First Minister, the Executive and the Assembly. What would be the consequence? The consequence would be the end of devolution in Northern Ireland. Members know well that if devolution is killed off this time it will be dead and buried once and for all. It will be the Democratic Unionist Party who will have lent credibility - or will be accused of doing so - to the statement used by enemies of Northern Ireland in the past who said that it was a failed political entity.
The DUP will be giving credence to that type of statement. The message that the Democratic Unionist Party appears to want to send out to the rest of the United Kingdom, Europe and the world is that Northern Ireland is a failed political entity. That is not the message of the Alliance Party; it is not my message or the message of anyone who cherishes, desires and wants to see authority operated by the people of Northern Ireland. It is a message coming from the DUP that will ensure that joint authority is there in all but name, and perhaps in name also.
I will repeat that. The Democratic Unionist Party knows in its heart of hearts that if this motion were passed it would lead to the collapse of the Executive and the Assembly and that that would be the death and burial of devolution. In return we would have joint authority in all but name, and perhaps even in name. That is the betrayal that the Democratic Unionist Party would stand accused of if this motion were passed.
If the DUP continues its kamikaze agenda, based on political stunts and political myopia, it will be guilty of achieving what 30 years of bombing and killing failed to achieve - the destruction of Northern Ireland. It has been said in the past that members of the Democratic Unionist Party were the best allies that Republicanism had. How can you possibly refute that argument if they continue to pursue this particular cause? The Democratic Unionist Party wants to destroy the institutions of self-government. Many other people wanted to achieve that in the past.
I urge the Democratic Unionist Party to think again. I accept that what we have is not perfect, but it is infinitely better than what we would have if it were destroyed. We all have a duty and responsibility to improve the social and economic well-being of all our citizens. This Assembly and the Executive, headed by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, are the best vehicles available for us to make progress. There is a responsibility on all of us to use these foundation stones to build a better future.
We must all make progress with a positive agenda. Let us not slide backwards on the slope of this motion. Rather than indulge in a motion of no confidence, I appeal to the Democratic Unionist Party to use its talents positively. I am not asking its members to become nodding dogs, but rather to become more attached rather than semi-detached - to become real Ministers, participating fully in the Executive, trying to improve the institutions rather than destroying them. If meaningful devolution is their honest and sincere goal, if they wish to change what they claim is an imperfect peace- and I agree with them on that- into the real peace that all our citizens yearn for, if they want to construct a future and bury the past, in their hearts and minds they must realise that the opportunities to achieve those very worthy goals exist in this place - in the Executive, in the Committees and in the Assembly. Destroy this place and they destroy the future.
Mr Speaker:
Before calling the next Member, I must advise the Assembly of typical generosity on the part of Dr McDonnell. He has indicated that he is prepared to forego the Adjournment debate rather than interrupt the flow of this one or have the Assembly recalled tomorrow solely for his debate.
Even so, we still only have until six o'clock. I have some 16 Members currently on the list to speak, and I ask other Members to show the same generosity of spirit to each other that Dr McDonnell has shown to the Assembly.