4.45 pm

The Member mentioned jail. Mr ONeill said that the removal of the licence was a very draconian option. However, the alternative suggestion would be that the person should go to jail. If that is Mr ONeill's alternative, it is even more draconian. If he wants to bring forward an amendment that involves jail, then we will look at that option.

Mr ONeill said - and he should be corrected on this - that driving licences give people in Northern Ireland a right to vote. He is wrong. Driving licences do not give people a right to vote. They are a unique means of identification enabling people to exercise their franchise, but there are several other means of identification that people can use and are entitled to use. I suggest to him that throwing in that emotive issue and saying that it would deny someone the right to vote is wrong. It does not help this debate. It does not help people who want to make a serious contribution to this issue. He should reflect on that and possibly withdraw his comments, because they are wrong.

Mr ONeill:

I think that the House recognises the sincerity with which the Member speaks and, indeed, the sincerity that we all have on this issue. Members all recognise the seriousness of it, and the impact of what we are doing here today. We should therefore be very careful. There were two things that I was referring to when I mentioned the electoral arrangements. One was whether we know the impact that this is going to have for us in Northern Ireland. I do not think that we do, because arrangements here are that bit different. Indeed, the same applies to some of the other clauses. They have not been tested. The opportunity has existed in Britain for some of that testing to take place.

The second matter related to the use of prison and the use of the word "draconian". I am using the word "draconian" in relation to introducing a punishment that is not standard under normal human and civil rights. It is an addition above what is normally accepted, and it is introduced as a new punishment. I recognise, as all of us would, that certain circumstances while driving can result in one losing one's licence. That, however, is related to the crime. This is not, and I asked the question of where we would end if we were to start down that road. Where do we end and what else would we take away? That is the substance of the point that I was trying to make.

Mr Paisley Jnr:

I appreciate the Member fleshing out the point that he was trying to make. I suggest, however, that he has dug himself further into the hole on this issue. In his earlier comments he asked the House whether we were going to consider removing someone's passport or some other draconian measures. He said that these were kinds of Iron Curtain measures. The well-known Iron Curtain country of Sweden removes a person's passport if that individual defaults on these types of payments. Indeed, several other European countries have even more stringent regulations. The Member is a great European, and his party is very strong on Europe, so I would have thought that he would be quite willing to embrace what is a common practice across the rest of the European Union.

Ms McWilliams:

It may be the case that others do so, but that does not suggest for one moment that we should follow. We are here to debate what is good for Northern Ireland. That is why the issue of suspended sentences and breach of orders in Northern Ireland has been looked at recently, and we will be coming to that later in relation to another matter. For men who had abused and were persistently returning to the court and getting suspended sentences and were breaching orders which bound them over to keep the peace, it was decided that it would be a useful intervention to mandate them to attend behaviour programmes. These are known as "men overcoming violence" programmes, and research and evaluation have shown those programmes to be very successful.

What research shows this to be successful? It is useful to divert people from custodial care if possible, because there is no point in filling up the prisons when there may be other programmes and interventions that work. We know from research that mandated programmes that deal with the cause - which is the behaviour - work, but simply taking people's driving licences off them may not work. We do not know.

Mr Paisley Jnr:

I thank the Member for reinforcing the point that I was making to Mr ONeill. This is not some unique draconian measure. It is common practice in other places.

The other point the Member tried to make is that this would in some way increase custodial sentences. I think that clause 16 would actually ensure that there would not be as many people held in custody as there would be if we went down another particular road. For that reason, I suggest that this is a good measure.

We are trying to protect the victim. Who is the victim? Are we going to focus on the person who is defaulting on making their payment? Is that person a victim? That might be argued in some circumstances, but we are trying to protect the most vulnerable people in our society. This Bill deals with them. All the Members who appear to be in favour of this clause would, in another place and even in this place, and other circumstances and other political arguments, chide me and my party for not having alternatives. What has been suggested in the House today is not an alternative to clause 16.

Mr Ervine:

Taking up that last point, alternatives are very difficult when you have accelerated passage. My party will be extremely loath to allow accelerated passage again. It is highly unlikely that we will ever stay silent when the leave of the House is asked for again. It is all very well that we have the responsibility to deal with that society out there, but we also have a responsibility to scrutinise and make good law.

It seems to me that we would create a dangerous and quite ludicrous precedent by allowing a sanction to be introduced that is unrelated to the perceived misdemeanour or crime, and that is the removal of the driving licence. Mr ONeill makes a fair point when he says "What comes next?" Not only that, but where else do we decide that where there is an infraction we will take the driving licence?

It is my painful experience that when Governments get emergency legislation they guard it jealously, never wishing to have it off the statute books as it is beneficial to them and they would not want to get rid of it. I fear that this is a pathetic knee-jerk reaction, and for it to come from a socialist Government is, quite frankly, ludicrous. I do not want to draw analogies between Tony Blair's New Labour and the Minister for Social Development, but I stood on a platform in Glasgow where Ian Paisley Jnr said, and I quote: "The Democratic Unionist Party is a socialist party." I know that Ian will not contradict me on that.

Mr Paisley Jnr:

The Member's interpretation is inaccurate. I think that what I said was - and I was quoting a founding father of our party, a man who used to sit in this House, Mr Desmond Boal - that the Democratic Unionist Party is to the left on social issues but to the right on the constitution. I think that is the exact quote that I used, several years ago in Glasgow.

Mr Ervine:

We probably do not want to get into this debate, but I think there is a transcript of that meeting, which may well determine that I am correct. It was organised by 'The Scotsman,' which reported exactly what I perceived Mr Paisley to have said.

Nevertheless, we have the grand defence and, as Mr Paisley said, if others were in a different forum, asking different questions with different responsibilities, they might say something else. I think that is exactly right, and the Minister would do well to remember that they do try to appeal to those who have less opportunity than most, those who are vulnerable.

We all have constituency responsibilities, so it is irrational and shameful to suggest that those arguing against this clause are less concerned for children or struggling partners than they are. This would be a dangerous precedent and it is unnecessary as the full rigour of the law is already being applied in these cases.

The Department is cleaning up its act in terms of the Child Support Agency - the state is now taking greater responsibility than the partners who suffer because of those who will not pay. If MLA Wilson is correct in saying that the clause will apply to so few, why include it? Look at all the constrictions that will inform the judge's decision.

I know people who have a driving licence and no car. The loss of the driving licence may not be punitive at all to whose who cannot afford to run a car or who take too much alcohol. When considering the confiscation of licences, we did not think of taking a shotgun licence away from someone who has fun with a shotgun in the fields. We did not think about taking a television or a fishing licence away.

Mr Shannon:

Will the Member give way?

Mr Speaker:

The Member will be able to speak very soon. It might be best to wait.

Mr Shannon:

There have been occasions when such licences were taken away.

Mr Ervine:

The licence is to be taken away because of the non-payment of child support.

Mr Shannon:

Clearly, they were taken from people who were drunk in charge.

Mr Ervine:

It does not matter. Of course, a licence can be taken away because of an abuse of the system or infringement of the law. It is a human right to drive a vehicle, provided you do so within the law and are competent to do so. It could be considered that gun, television or fishing licences permit leisurely pursuits, yet we do not advocate their confiscation. If you have driven much in this country you will know that driving is not necessarily fun.

This clause would not make any difference. Many of the Bill's positive elements will undoubtedly assist the struggling partner, but this nonsensical idea of taking a driving licence away could be replicated by another or the same Department. Therefore, my party and I are absolutely against this.

Mr Shannon:

Members have argued against the inclusion of this clause. I will say why it should be included. Members have talked about the vulnerability of children - the ones we are trying to protect. When a parent makes no direct contribution towards the upkeep of his children, they are left vulnerable. Children are vulnerable when no food is on the table, when there are no clothes on their backs and when they do not have the toys that their friends at school have. This is what the Child Support Agency is trying to address. I am aggrieved that some Members feel that this legislation, which we hope will be introduced, is inapplicable.

One Member highlighted behaviour programmes as a means of addressing the problem - that would not make these parents more accountable.

5.00 pm

Behaviour programmes are a way of patting them on the wrist and telling them not to do it again. These are people who have habitually, purposefully and wilfully refused to support their children. As long as they purposefully, habitually and wilfully do that, we need adequate, acceptable legislation. Members have talked about practices in other countries. Mr Ian Paisley Jnr referred to Sweden, where a passport can be removed. Do Members feel that that is sufficient, or do they feel that they should do something else? We have Members who want to do something, but who cannot come up with a suitable alternative.

The new article 36A refers to the removal of the licence as a last resort. That is its exact purpose. We talked earlier about parity, and it is important to maintain that. There is real concern about having parity with the United Kingdom. However, this is not just a matter of having parity with the United Kingdom; we are also protecting the rights of children and other vulnerable groups.

Mr Ervine:

I am struggling to find where it says that.

Rev Dr William McCrea:

Grow up.

Mr Ervine:

No. I am trying to find where it says "as a last resort". The text does not say it. It might well be a judge's first resort determination.

Mr Shannon:

Obviously the Member has difficulty understanding the English language, though we all know he comes out with big words in the Chamber. We hear it all the time. We are talking about legislation and, for people who have not made any contribution towards supporting their children, this article will be used as a last resort to try to make them accountable. That is what we are referring to. The new article 37A says - just for those Members who perhaps have difficulty reading - "If, but only if". "If, but only if there has been wilful refusal or culpable neglect" will the sanction be used. Quite clearly the measure will be used as a last resort. Allow me to quote the new article 37A (1)(b) also:

" it may make a disqualification order, but suspend its operation".

This amounts to a second chance; before making an order for disqualification, the courts can suspend the operation and thereby give the person another opportunity to pay.

The thrust of the legislation is to ensure that we can make those people pay who habitually do not pay. That is what we are talking about. That is what we are looking for. If the policy is not agreed today, we will have left a loophole which will allow those people who have defaulted on their child support payments to continue to do so. What alternatives are Members proposing? We need a deterrent. This is not one that will be used lightly, but it may have to be used. If this measure will ensure that parents are accountable, we must adopt it. I cannot comprehend the comments of some Members. We have to have legislation that makes people accountable, and what the Minister has put forward is exactly that. I suggest that Members think of those who are most vulnerable, think of the children. If they do, they will support this.

Mr P Robinson:

I welcome a full debate on these issues. Far too often such matters have been dealt with by Orders in Council, which meant that we could not have an input into what was happening with very important issues.

As a Member who has had to address Child Support Agency (CSA) issues many times for his constituents, I have been very frustrated at the way in which the legislation has caused problems not only for a mother who cannot get the necessary payments through to enable her to look after a child or children properly, but also for husbands who are anxious that the payment levels have been applied incorrectly. I welcome the Minister's introduction of a Bill that will go some way towards clearing up some of those matters.

I would, however, ask that the House, in its enthusiasm to get hold of a piece of legislation and get its thumbprints on it, ensure that it does not smudge the legislation. I fear that that is what Members are going to do. There seems to be a consensus among those Members who are opposed to this clause that they are opposed to it for very different reasons. Some are opposed because they think that the Bill is not going to make any difference at all; others are opposed because they think that it is terrible and draconian. However, they do agree with one another that it is should not be in the Bill.

Let us step back for a moment. What is the Minister trying to do with this piece of legislation? He is recognising the fact that there are defaulters, people who are not paying their way, people who have a responsibility towards a child or children, but who are not putting their money where their mouth is. For whatever reason, the money is not coming forward.

The first question the House should be asking itself is this: how do we ensure that we get the funds from those individuals? That has to be a priority. Whatever the House may do with this piece of legislation, it should be on the side of the child - the child must be its priority. Account must be taken of individuals' rights - and I will come to those rights in a moment - but the burden of the legislation is to apply sanctions that will act as a deterrent, thereby ensuring that people do pay up.

Members have said that it is terrible to pass legislation that will take away someone's driving licence. If someone is reluctant to pay up, something must be done to hurt that person. If it does not have that effect, it will not be a sanction, and it will not encourage them to pay up. This Bill is far from draconian - it provides a lesser punishment, to be used under lesser circumstances, because the present legislation stipulates a prison sentence. Members opposite are saying that it is terrible and draconian for the Minister to be considering a piece of legislation that will take someone's driving licence away rather than sanction him with imprisonment. I think the average guy out there who is in default of payment might, marginally, prefer to have his licence taken from him than to go to prison. As for being able to see his children, the issue that everyone is concerned about, and being able to continue working, those aspects of his life are better protected by the lesser sanction that the Minister proposes to insert in the legislation than the one that is already there. All this piece of legislation will do is provide the courts with a further option, which they might use in the right circumstances, say, for instance, if an individual had to use his vehicle. This legislation can be used to protect people's rights.

So let us be clear: this it is not a draconian measure. It is a lesser sanction that can be used by the courts in the right set of circumstances. Some Members say that if it is going to be so seldom used, why bother to have it there? I am taking those arguments and dealing with them. [Interruption]

They are, and you agreed with them.

The record will show that after Mr Ervine referred to MLA Wilson - I think that that was the term that he used - he then said that he agreed with him.

In truth, I hope that this is never used. The fact that it exists is a deterrent in itself. The deterrent is that the provision is there, and if a person does not pay up, then it can be applied. That will be what forces them to make the payment. I hope that MLA Wilson is right when he makes that judgement, and I hope that Mr Ervine is right when he says that he agrees with him.

Mr Ervine seemed to think, by the way, that he was wounding the Democratic Unionist Party by applying to the party the terrible criticism it is socialist. I do not quake at the knees when someone calls me a socialist. In the best Ulster style of radical social reformers, this party is happy to bear those insults.

It would be dangerous for the House to consider moving away from parity as regards this kind of legislation. Under devolution it is right that a Northern Ireland Assembly should attempt, as far as possible, to do things in the Ulster way and to have legislation that fits our own set of circumstances. However, we should be careful when dealing with the Treasury and with legislation that has parity as far as benefits, et cetera, are concerned. If we move away on any one of these aspects, if we give them an excuse in any area of parity legislation, we could well find ourselves further down the line.

If that happens, I will happily come out holding a copy of today's debate and remind Members that they were warned about it. I know that if this amendment is carried -

Mr Ervine:

Will the Member applaud the Scottish Parliament for having had the courage to address the issue of student fees in a manner different to the attitude that pertained at Westminster? This has been done; there is precedent where a law is regarded as not being a good one for a particular area. Indeed, the fact that the Abortion Act 1967 does not cover this area is one example of other parties playing in an à la carte manner.

Mr P Robinson:

I made it clear, and if the Member looks at the record, he will see that to be the case, that in general terms, we should attempt to stamp our own brand on any legislation that comes forward. I am warning of the dangers, when dealing with benefit payments and such matters, of departing from the general parity principle.

Another matter that needs to be dealt with by the Assembly relates to the alternatives. I have looked at today's Order Paper and at the amendments that have been put forward. On every occasion they are saying "No. Take it out. Delete it. Do away with it." Do they offer an alternative, however? No. There is no alternative. They cannot continue to say "No"; they really must come forward with alternatives.

All that those with amendments are attempting to do is to pull the teeth out of the Bill. They want to leave it as a gummy creature, which is incapable of extracting any money from defaulters. We have to face up to reality; we will not succeed without sanctions.

In this piece of legislation, the Minister has provided a way of doing that. If Members want to come back with an alternative way of doing so, let them do that, but they should not criticise those who have been positive, have brought forward proposals and provided a way forward. They might even recognise the words that I am using. May I say that I also agree -

Ms McWilliams:

Does the Member agree that it would be difficult for us to introduce alternatives, given that criminal justice is a reserved matter? I was making the point that there are alternatives; there are diversionary programmes instead of custody. Alternatives exist, and we have introduced them in Northern Ireland, but since criminal justice is a reserved matter, it is not possible to do so from this Floor. We are simply saying that we need to delete this particular clause. It may indeed be the case that, under the criminal justice legislation, we will wish to look at those proposals.

5.15 pm

Mr P Robinson:

I shall return to my office and look very closely at the Women's Coalition submission to the review to see what alternatives they proposed. I rather suspect that there are not too many. Just as they have the ability to amend this legislation to take things out, they have the ability to amend it to put things in. They did not take the opportunity to offer the Minister any alternatives.

While I accept that there are clearly drawbacks to accelerated passage, Members all accepted it. There was not a whimper from any part of this Chamber when the accelerated passage was sought. If there had been even a squeak from the corner, the process would not have gone forward. They can hardly complain at this stage when they did not take the proper action at the appropriate time. Therefore, I encourage the Assembly to think long and hard before it removes any authority, sanction and teeth that this Bill might have.

If Members really want to be on someone's side regarding this legislation, let them be on the side of the child who, because of the defaulting parent, is not receiving the funds. The only way one can do that is to allow the courts an additional mechanism to use, either as a deterrent or, ultimately, as a sanction if the payment is not made.

Mr O'Connor:

I too oppose clause 16, because I feel personally that a driving licence is a civil liberty. There are disabled people in our society who need a car to get about. Are we to take that vehicle away from them and deny them that opportunity? If we answer in the negative because they are disabled, we fly in the face of our own equality legislation, for we cannot discriminate between people who are able-bodied and those who are disabled. There is an inconsistency.

There are a number of alternatives to the draconian penal measures outlined. There are community service orders, probation orders, and other measures that can be taken by the courts without actually sending someone to jail for non-payment. It is understood that jail is the ultimate deterrent, and it is to be hoped that that will have the desired effect. My Colleague Mr ONeill mentioned using one's driving licence as identification when one goes to vote. I know that many people find it a convenient way to identify themselves.

Mr Wells:

The hon Member is introducing a red herring, for he knows that everyone in Northern Ireland has access to a medical card. Most of us have access to a British passport, and many have benefit books. This spurious argument that someone cannot vote if their driving licence is taken away is absolute nonsense.

Mr O'Connor:

Despite what the Member has just said, if a person is working, they will not have a benefit book. Perhaps some people have more access to medical cards than others. [Laughter]

Mr Speaker:

Order.

Mr O'Connor:

As for passports, most people could have two if they so desired, and many probably do. The idea of taking a passport away may be considered by some as draconian, but I feel it is less draconian than removing someone's driving licence. Mr Ervine raised the issue of revoking television licences. In this country, there are 150,000 licensed firearms. Are we to tell people that, because they have not paid their child support, we are going to take their firearms licence from them?

Where do we draw the line? Where do we start to let individuals have what is -[Interruption] If you want me to give way, Oliver, just ask.

Mr P Robinson:

As I understand it, the burden of the Member's suggestion is that we should be proposing less draconian measures. However, the Bill includes the power to put people in prison: does the Member not agree that something less draconian, namely the ability to take away a driving licence, should be in the Bill?

Mr O'Connor:

I am advocating less draconian measures. Probation - giving someone 200 hours community service - is actually a first step; it is not putting someone in jail. It is a deterrent on its own and makes the person pay for what they have done.

My concern - Mr S Wilson and Mr Ervine also referred to this - is that the provision does not automatically mean that someone's driving licence will be taken away. Someone could come to court with a clever lawyer and build up a better case than someone else. Some people will have their driving licence taken away and others will not. There are enough sanctions in the current procedures.

Nobody is suggesting that irresponsible fathers, or mothers, should not pay for their children. They should pay and, if they do not, the measures that are already available through the criminal justice system should be implemented on the existing sliding scale that includes fines, community service or probation. The Assembly should not go down the road of taking away driving licences and, maybe later, passports.

Mr Hussey:

You approve of a sliding scale. The measure suggested here could be part of that sliding scale. What would be the difference?

Mr O'Connor:

A sliding scale currently exists, and it includes fines, community service, probation and, ultimately, jail - or, as Draco would have prescribed, cutting people's heads off. We need to look at the issue and pull back. Are we going to take firearms certificates away from people who are caught shoplifting or tell people that they are not allowed to have a colour television licence or tell lorry drivers that they cannot have a HGV licence? I sincerely hope that the clause is removed.

The Minister for Social Development (Mr Morrow):

I have listened carefully to all the points that have been made, and it is obvious that some have taken to wall gazing and are not focusing on the real picture. Members oppose clause 16 for a range of reasons. There is no consistency in the reasons why they want it removed, but they want it removed, none the less.

Clause 16 introduces a new civil penalty, allowing the making of an order by a court of summary jurisdiction - a magistrate's court - disqualifying a non-resident parent from holding or obtaining a driving licence. It will be an alternative to committal proceedings.

To put things in their proper prospective, I remind Members that the Assembly - nobody else - decided to go for accelerated passage. Not a single, solitary Member muttered anything against it until today, when they know that they cannot do anything about it.

Ms McWilliams:

We have discovered, since I put this point to the Assembly, that there was a problem elsewhere in the building, and Committees were sitting at the same time as the business was being taken. Indeed, the business had been moved up the Order Paper and there were no annunciators in the Committee rooms. That was a particular problem that has now been recognised. My Colleague, Ms Morrice, was Deputy Speaker at that moment.

Mr Morrow:

Ms McWilliams is not the only person today who has spoken and voiced her concern about this accelerated passage. There were umpteen other people around this Assembly who could have come down and spent 20 or 30 seconds of their valuable time and stopped it. Today, they expressed their concern because it was going down that road.

I am not responsible for annunciators. I do not organise the business of this House. The order of business on that day - just like today, as Members discovered - was changed instantly. Therefore, that was not of my making.

Mr Dodds:

The Minister will be aware that the purpose of accelerated passage is to deal with pieces of legislation to which parity is deemed to apply. Section 87 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 - as agreed by the parties in this Assembly today - places an obligation on the Minister to seek to consult with the Secretary of State for the purpose of maintaining parity on social security, child support and pensions.

Will the Minister confirm that that is the case? In light of that, all this talk about wanting to stop accelerated passage and all this complaint about maintaining parity seems not to comply with the provisions of the Act agreed by the parties in this House.

Mr Morrow:

I thank the Member for making that point and I confirm that that is the case.

I am aware that the penalty of disqualification from driving for failure to pay child support causes some Members concern. There has been a lot of argument that does not accurately reflect what is being proposed. I would just like to take a little time to set out the true position.

Clause 16 will enable an order to be made by the court - and I want to emphasise that it is by the court - disqualifying a non-resident parent from holding or obtaining a driving licence. This penalty will exist as an alternative to committal proceedings - that is, to imprisoning a person who wilfully fails to meet his financial obligations to his children. I wish to emphasise again that this will be a decision of the court, not a decision of this legislation.

This penalty, like imprisonment, will be imposed very much as a last resort on those parents who have resisted every attempt to get them to meet their responsibilities to their children. By the time it is considered, the non-resident parent will have had every opportunity to dispute his liability or to appeal to an independent tribunal.

The amount owed will have been determined in accordance with the provisions of the child support legislation. The court will consider, in the presence of the person concerned - I emphasise "in the presence of the person concerned" - all the circumstances of the case when deciding whether disqualification from driving or imprisonment is the appropriate penalty.

In coming to that decision, in addition to looking at a non-resident parent's financial circumstances, the court will need to find out whether the licence is needed to earn a living. This does not mean that where the liable person needs a driving licence to earn a living the licence can never be removed. It is just one of the circumstances the court must take into account before imposing the penalty.

Imprisonment is already a penalty, under the existing child support legislation. This amendment, if accepted, would remove the driving licence sanction. This would mean that for those non-resident parents who have wilfully refused to pay maintenance and who have evaded other methods of enforcement the only option for the Child Support Agency will be to apply to the court for the most severe sanction - committal to prison.

5.30 pm

If that is unsuccessful, there is no punishment whatsoever for the evasion of parental obligation. The removal of a driving licence gives the court an alternative penalty that allows the non-resident parent to continue working and to be in a position to pay the maintenance due. It will be the decision of the court whether the non-resident parent has deliberately refused or neglected to pay the maintenance owed. If the court decides that a penalty is appropriate, it will consider the circumstances of each case before deciding whether disqualification or committal is the right penalty.

It is reasonable to expect people to act in a way that is acceptable to society. That is not asking too much. If they do not do so, then they must be penalised or punished to show that their actions are not acceptable. Non-resident parents have an obligation to pay child support. It goes without saying that every opportunity will be given to those parents to enable them to make payment arrangements. That is acceptable behaviour. If they do not pay, they must be persuaded to do so. If that means using a final sanction, then it should be used.

The important point is that no non-resident parent needs to have his driving licence revoked. All he has to do is start paying maintenance and make arrangements to pay any arrears. This applies to a very small number of parents who will go to any lengths to avoid supporting their children. I am sure the Assembly will agree that a non-resident parent must be encouraged to pay any maintenance due. If a period of disqualification achieves that, and a genuine effort is made to clear the debt, then the licence is returned.

I am convinced that the possibility of having his driving licence withdrawn will make any non-resident parent think twice about trying to evade his responsibilities. The proposals strike the appropriate balance between ensuring maintenance is paid and recognising the individual circumstances of the non-resident parent.

I am somewhat confused by the proposal to leave out this clause. Are the Members who support this amendment saying that withdrawing a driving licence from those rogue parents who refuse to face up to their responsibilities is too lenient, and that the only fitting punishment is prison? That is the only option the court would be left with. I suspect not. What they are saying is that the rights of the rogue parent who wilfully and deliberately refuses to face his responsibilities to his children are more important than the rights of the innocent parties, namely the children. That cannot be right by anybody's standards.

The non-inclusion of this clause in the Bill would be a breach of parity. That applies equally to other amendments that will be considered today or tomorrow. Some people are under the impression that parity simply means the payment of the same benefits at the same rate. They could not be more wrong.

Parity includes having the same conditions for the receipts of benefits and the same penalties and sanctions for failure to meet obligations to society, and the simultaneous introduction of new provisions relating to benefits, pensions and child support. Parity brings with it not only rights but obligations. You cannot have parity for the bits of the social security system that you like and ignore it for those parts that you do not like.

It is all or nothing.

Mr Ford:

Does the Minister not accept that for 50 years the Government in this place made major differences, ranging from the selective employment tax rate to the Safeguarding of Employment Act 1947 which was rather more popular on his side of the House than on this one?

Mr Morrow:

We are dealing with benefits today, Mr Ford. Perhaps that was unclear.

There is a compelling reason for the maintenance of parity. It is a simple one - it is called money. The money to pay contributory benefits, such as the retirement pension and incapacity benefit, comes from contributions paid into Northern Ireland's national insurance fund by the employed, self-employed and employers. To put it bluntly, these contributions are nowhere near sufficient to meet the amount we need to pay for contributory benefits in Northern Ireland. Every year the shortfall is made up by a transfer from Great Britain's national insurance fund. For example, in 1998-99, the Northern Ireland fund needed a transfer totalling £123 million. I hope the Assembly heard that. I repeat it: £123 million.

Mr Ervine:

Can the Minister tell me what value the Exchequer would place on the removal of a driving licence, and how that would help to pay for the shortfall?

Mr Morrow:

I happen to believe that if you feel that it is not important -

Mr Speaker:

Order. The Minister has in no way been the only offender in this regard, but I encourage him and other contributors to speak through the Chair.

Mr Morrow:

The withdrawal of a driving licence is one method by which we can ensure that non-resident parents face up to their obligations and responsibilities. I hope the Member understands that.

Mr Paisley Jnr:

Will the Minister confirm that the withdrawal of a licence does not allow the Government to refund the money that was originally paid for the licence? Therefore, in parity terms we lose nothing, whereas if we do not take this approach, we will breach parity and lose even more.

Will he also confirm for the record that since 1948, after the welfare state was established, successive Governments in this place did not breach parity in order to secure social security benefit for Northern Ireland?

Mr Morrow:

I thank the Member for that important point. I say again that if we do not adopt this Bill in its entirety, we will break parity, and for me that is crucial. I want to reiterate the point that in 1998-99 the Northern Ireland national insurance fund needed a transfer of £123 million from the Great Britain national insurance fund just to break even.

The money for other benefits, such as disability living allowance and income support, comes from the Exchequer and is conditional on the maintenance of parity. Is it sensible, or reasonable, to put the financial benefits of parity at risk so that a few people who fail to meet their obligations to society and their children can get away with it? I ask the Assembly to stop and think of that. In my opinion, it is neither sensible nor reasonable. It cannot be right to say that a person who is able to support his children, but who wilfully refuses to do so, has an inalienable right to drive his car. To fail to support your child when you are able to do so is totally unacceptable and must be punished. I strongly recommend that the Assembly reject the amendment and agree that clause 16 stand part of the Bill.

I am imploring the Assembly on this: whether its duration be long or short, let it be said that when it had an opportunity to throw its weight behind those who could not defend or stand up for themselves - our children - this Assembly was not found wanting.

I want to deal with some of the points raised by Members. Mr Ford queried the importance of parity. In relation to this Bill, it is all or nothing. One cannot cherry- pick this Bill and take only the bits that one wants. There are responsibilities that go with the privileges.

Ms McWilliams:

The Minister may not be able to answer this question at this particular juncture, but it is extremely important for us to know the answer because it may determine how people vote. The Department of Social Security is to test discrete elements of the new scheme in England and Wales prior to its being introduced in Northern Ireland. Is this one of the parts to be tested and, therefore, is it possible that it may not be introduced in Northern Ireland if it fails to meet the requirements elsewhere?

Mr Morrow:

I sincerely hope that this is one part of the Bill that will be introduced in Northern Ireland, because it would be a very effective step to take to ensure that people who should be paying for their children do so. As my hon Friend Mr P Robinson has said, there has been an attempt by Members who have spoken to take this clause out. They want to make it into a toothless piece of legislation. We have enough of that already. We want to make sure that this Bill goes through the Assembly and that it has some teeth, and I would prefer those teeth to be very sharp.

Ms McWilliams:

I will ask the question again. I know what the Minister's hopes and desires are, because I have heard from him and from other members of his party on this point. Is it the intention that this part of the scheme be piloted, and is it therefore possible that it may not be introduced in Northern Ireland if it is seen to fail elsewhere?

Mr Morrow:

I have 40 or 50 questions to go through here, and I assure the Member that by the time I come to that issue, I will endeavour to answer her question.

Mr Ford said that a person found guilty of drink-driving would get a disqualification of one year. It will be up to the courts, and the courts alone, to consider the period of disqualification, which can be anything up to two years. Some Members have queried why the courts should decide. I can not think of a better arena to decide such a thing. Mr Weir made that point adequately. Mr Ford also said -

Mr Ford:

Does the Minister accept that there is a further section that allows for an extension? Would it not be more accurate to talk about an extendable two years?

Mr Morrow:

That is the Member's interpretation.

Mr Ford:

What is the Minister's interpretation of the part of clause 16 (3) that would insert article 37A(7) into the 1991 Order, as set out on page 15 line 20, if he wishes to dispute my interpretation?

Mr Morrow:

Yes, that is right - the two years can be extended. I am glad that we can agree on something.

Mr Ford went on to talk about an appropriate and workable sanction. Now, not many Members came up with an alternative during the whole debate. As a matter of fact, I doubt if I heard one. The comments were all "Pull it down. Throw it down. No, no, no." But the court would consider whether the person needed the licence to earn his living. It is a measure of the last resort, applicable to people who can pay but will not, and who have been persistent in non-payment.

The people who come before the court are not there because they are angels; they are there because they have wilfully defaulted in their payment and they will not pay what their children are entitled to. That is why they are in court. That is why they may lose their driving licence, and it is to be hoped that Members keep that point to the forefront when they are voting.

5.45 pm

Mr Ford asked how many other countries use the withdrawal of licences.

Mr Ford:

I did not say that; you have got the wrong person.

A Member:

It was Mr ONeill.

Mr Morrow:

Was it?

This sanction is used in the United States of America - in Texas and in Minnesota. [Interruption]

Mr Speaker:

Order. Members should not speak from a sedentary position.

Mr Morrow:

Europe also uses this sanction for offences which are not related to child support, so it is not new or unique. There are some excellent Europeans in the Assembly - people who pride themselves on being more European than British or, as some claim, Irish. Let them be Europeans today and go down that road.

Michelle Gildernew raised the issue of the European Convention on Human Rights. The legal advice is that this provision is consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Mr Ford stated that breaking parity with regard to clause 16 would have cost implications. There are cost implications, for example, if the parent with care is on benefits, the Department for Social Development has to pick up the continuing costs of those benefits, because the absent parent cannot be sanctioned in that way.

Mr ONeill asked - and if I misquote him, it is not intentional - if the measure had been tested, and he raised the matter of the right to vote. The measure is being introduced in Great Britain and Northern Ireland to give courts an alternative to prison sentences, which is currently the only sanction available for persistent offenders.

With regard to the right to vote, other documents are available for identity purposes. Licences are used for identity purposes only -

Mr P Robinson:

If the Minister cannot answer this question now, I will be content with a written answer. If the existing legislation allows for prison sentences, can the Minister indicate whether the courts have taken advantage of this up until now, and, if so, in how many cases?

Mr Morrow:

I cannot give Mr Robinson a definitive answer, but I will write to him.

Mr ONeill:

I am sure that all Members agree that this Bill is a great improvement on the current process for child support provision. Sammy Wilson made the point - and I agree with him - that the bulk of this Bill will reduce a great deal of the intricacies in the system and the difficulties that people had to face while working with it in the past. In the light of Sammy Wilson's comments and the Minister's earlier answers, will the Minister, when he is preparing his reply to Mr Robinson, also indicate how many cases were taken that failed due to the intricacies of the existing arrangements?

The point was made that no alternatives were put forward today. The court situation could have enough flexibility now to make a real impact with an improved system for calculation and an improved system for ensuring that people would be brought to book properly.

Mr Morrow:

I assure Mr ONeill that his point will be taken into account and a full and definitive answer will be given. Perhaps he will reconsider his support for the withdrawal of clause 16. He would be doing everyone a service, particularly those children who have been neglected and whose parent is not prepared to accept responsibility for them.

Mr S Wilson:

The Minister's explanatory and financial memorandum shows that while there are no present plans to operate a pilot exercise to look at some provisions of the Bill, he would provide, if it were considered prudent, the option of pilot changes where advisable. Will the Minister confirm - and some doubts about clause 16 have been expressed by Members today - that if it were considered prudent that this particular provision be piloted, he would be prepared to consider that at some stage?

Mr Morrow:

Yes, if it would be prudent.

I will return to Mr ONeill's point about the withdrawal of driving licences with respect to voting. By law, you do not need a driving licence to vote. It is one of a number of means of identification you can use when you go to a polling station.

Ms McWilliams raised the point about abused women. The effects of taking away licences on parents with care will be taken into consideration. I hope I covered that adequately during my submission. It seems that some Members think that a driving licence is taken away automatically. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Mr Ervine:

I do not have my papers to hand. However, the Bill states that the court, and only the court, can determine such a thing. How can the Minister tell us, as he did earlier and in his most recent comment, that this is an issue of last resort? It states clearly in the Bill that the licence will be taken away if, and only if, the court believes it to be right.

Mr Morrow:

I am a bit confused at the tenor of the question. When I was answering, I said that the court decides whether the driving licence stays or goes - not the Department. The legislation does not make that decision - the provision is within the legislation.

Mr Ervine:

The point that I am making is that, in an earlier assertion, the Minister said that it would be decided as an issue of last resort. Since the Minister will not be determining that, how can he tell us that that is what the judge will determine as an issue of last resort?

Mr Morrow:

The proposed article 36A(1) says

"Where the Department has sought to recover an amount by virtue of Article 35 and that amount, or any portion of it, remains unpaid, the Department may apply to the court under this Article".

The operative word is "may". Nobody can tell the court how it should handle the matter.

The court, in whom I have confidence, will deal with the matter.

Mr Weir:

Does the Minister agree that in terms of the provisions, at first instance, the Department has the discretion to refer the matter to the court, but the court also has a discretionary power. This is illustrated by clause 37A, a point which was referred to by Mr Ervine. There is a major difference between a discretionary power which is indicated by the word "may" and a court's mandatory power which is indicated by the word "shall".

Mr Morrow:

I accept that point, but some Members are taking their eyes off the picture: a case will only go before a court when all other methods have failed. A case comes to court when an individual has wilfully neglected his responsibilities after being given umpteen opportunities to fulfil his obligations. I take the point very strongly - [Interruption]

Mr Paisley Jnr:

Will the Minister give way?

Mr Morrow:

Yes, in a second. A defenceless child also has rights. Let us go to the heart of this matter and not only defend the child but be seen to do so.

Mrs E Bell:

Under Standing Order 24, I beg to move That the Question be now put.

Mr Speaker:

That Question can only be put at six o'clock. You are slightly ahead of the game.

Mrs E Bell:

I am still for it.

Mr Speaker:

It is possible to do that in about two and a half minutes' time. Until then the Minister may continue. I would remind the Minister and others of the import of what the Member has said. It is possible at six o'clock to propose that the Question be put and, if it is agreed, the Question will be put. We would then continue with the rest of the Consideration Stage.

Mr Hussey:

That can only be done by someone who has not taken part in the debate.

Mr Morrow:

It is obvious that I am not going to be able to deal with all the questions adequately here as time is slipping away. I assure Members that I will respond in writing to anyone who has raised a point here today to which I have not replied. I do not want anyone to feel that he has been cheated.

I do want to deal with Ms McWilliams's point. It is clear from the memorandum of the Bill, paragraph 253 clause 27, that there are no plans to pilot any of the provisions. However, it is considered prudent to have the option to pilot changes, should this appear advisable. I hope that that will alleviate the Member's genuine concern about the matter, and I am assured that this will be the case. I hope that she takes that point on board. I could say a lot more but time has run out. Members have a chance now to do something real for the children whose custodians they claim to be. Let us not fail them now.

6.00 pm

Question put That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 42; Noes 34.

Ayes

Ian Adamson, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Tom Benson, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Joan Carson, Wilson Clyde, Robert Coulter, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, Reg Empey, Sam Foster, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Derek Hussey, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, David McClarty, William McCrea, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Maurice Morrow, Dermot Nesbitt, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Ken Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Jim Shannon, David Trimble, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Sammy Wilson. [Tellers: David McClarty and David Hilditch]

Noes

Eileen Bell, Joe Byrne, Seamus Close, John Dallat, Bairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, David Ervine, John Fee, David Ford, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, Joe Hendron, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Kieran McCarthy, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Martin McGuinness, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Pat McNamee, Monica McWilliams, Francie Molloy, Jane Morrice, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Sean Neeson, Mary Nelis, Danny O'Connor, Dara O'Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, John Tierney. [Tellers: David Ford and Barry McElduff]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Debate suspended.

Assembly Business

TOP

Mr Maskey:

On a point of order, A Cheann Comhairle. It relates to a conversation I had this afternoon with Minister Bairbre de Brún. Obviously the Minister will make her own statement to Members at the first available opportunity. I would like to set on record that the Minister was available this morning and was prepared. I think, Mr Speaker, that you will acknowledge that there was no attempt - [Interruption]

Mr Speaker:

Order.

Mr Maskey:

As I have already said, the Minister will speak to Members in the Chamber - after having this discussion with yourself today - at the first available opportunity. I just want to put on record on behalf of our party and the Minister that there was no intention at all of slighting Members of this House. The Minister was prepared and ready. There was a difficulty regarding the time frame - [Interruption]

Mr Speaker:

Order. I was asked earlier whether the Minister had tried to get in touch. I advised that it would have been difficult because I was preoccupied with some visitors. I can confirm that the Minister was subsequently in touch with me and advised that there had been some confusion or difficulty about time. The Minister may speak on that matter herself at an appropriate time.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley:

Mr Speaker, would you care to rule on whether this is a point of order? Can a Member get up to try to defend a Minister in this House and say that it is a point of order? There is nothing in 'Erskine May' that would give any Member of the British House of Commons the right to do what we have heard as a point of order.

Mr Speaker:

Of all the Members in this Chamber there is none who knows better the capacity for flexibility on the part of a Speaker and a point of order.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley:

I hope that you do the same to others who get up and defend their Ministers.

Mr Speaker:

This is hardly a precedent, as the Member knows well, at the beginning of, and later in, sittings.

Mr Dodds:

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the light of comments that I made earlier about this matter on which remarks have just been made, may I ask whether it is not the case that nothing, but nothing, will excuse or cover up the shameful behaviour of the Minister in not attending this House? [Interruption]

Mr Speaker:

Order. The Member knows that is not a point of order.

We will resume at 10.30 am tomorrow with a statement, followed by continuation of the Consideration Stage.

The sitting was suspended at 6.13 pm.

<< Prev