Does my hon Friend not find the solicitor's document outlining a plan of attack upon an individual and an attempt to have him removed - and it can be nothing less than that - outrageous? Anyone who put his hand to devising that can no longer have the support of any right-thinking person.

I thank my hon Friend for his intervention, and I concur with his remarks. I ask myself "What was Tom Hill's crime?"

When I was a Member of Parliament for South Antrim I received delegations from Mr and Mrs Lynn. I can name them because they appeared on the 'Spotlight' television programme. They had a child who was diagnosed with terminal illness and who has since died. They were distraught when they came to see me in Ballyclare, because four different people representing the Northern Ireland Hospice council had, they believed, lied to them - in writing and face to face.

We are told that Tom Hill was sacked primarily because of an alleged conversation in the home of Mr and Mrs Lynn. In spite of repeated assurances that the matter was dropped in July 2000, when the Lynns raised the matter in the 'Spotlight' programme, they were told that it had been properly and appropriately dealt with.

The council refused to show the report on the alleged conversation in the Lynns' home. When the Lynns requested a reply, they received none to their communication or correspondence and no reply to their phone calls. When I spoke to the Lynns, they told me that they had received what they perceived to be a threatening solicitor's letter on behalf of the hospice nursing manager less than two months after Jonathan's death. That shows the care and sensitivity of those handling the situation. A grieving, broken-hearted family that needed care and attention as never before seemed to be getting deeper and deeper into a pit. When they tried to get evidence and information, they were not only denied it, but they were refused even the courtesy of a reply.

On their behalf, I contacted the Northern Ireland Hospice. I received a cop-out - hardly surprising, of course, when I heard what Mr and Mrs Lynn said. I wanted a meeting to get to the bottom of this for Mr and Mrs Lynn. That meeting has never taken place - it was never agreed to. I believe that Mr McComiskey was going on holiday. It is only natural for people to go on holiday, but somebody must have been there to deal with matters in his absence. The meeting could have taken place when he came back; but it never has.

This has been a despicable and disgraceful way of handling people whose hearts are broken. They were told that there was no reason to believe that the alleged conversation was part of Mr Hill's saga, only to read that it was at the heart of Mr Hill's sacking - lies and deceit. The truth is that the public and those paying money to the hospice no longer have confidence in the Northern Ireland Hospice's council. Its members have offered to resign; their resignation should be activated immediately.

I want to draw one final consideration to Members' attention. It will be some months before those places are filled after the resignations. There is a belief that gerrymandering is afoot. It is believed that council members have obtained several hundred membership forms. Postponing the extraordinary general meeting until a later date could give those resigning a better chance of being reinstated by receiving sufficient proxy votes to ensure re-election.

The whole saga stinks. It is breaking the hearts of many hard-working people who have supported the hospice over the years -people who love the hospice and who want to support it in future. Anyone who believes that the facts can be buried forever must think again. It is necessary to have an open, independent inquiry into the saga. The truth must be told.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the motion, which concerns a vexing matter. Central to it are the children and their families who are suffering because of the ongoing personality disputes in the children's hospice. That diminishes the positive work and dedication of the professional and voluntary staff of the children's hospice. It is sad that internal problems have been brought into the public arena in such an unseemly way, because that can only deeply affect the children and families who use the children's hospice.

You are right, a Leas Cheann Comhairle, to point out that a tribunal is ongoing and to remind us to be careful when discussing the personalities involved in the dispute. The debate ought not to be about personalities, but about the care of the young children, the vulnerable of our society. Anyone who has been to a hospice where adults are dying appreciates the trauma that is involved, and how much greater that trauma is when young children are dying. Our aim should be to attempt to resolve the issues at the centre of the unseemly controversy by any necessary means.

Around £1 million of public funding was allocated to the children's hospice, and there is no legislation to regulate voluntary organisations in this part of Ireland. Relevant legislation should be urgently introduced, because we are powerless to intervene in a dispute with a voluntary organisation. At the moment, we can only highlight the central issue - the children and their families who are suffering. I ask those involved to disregard the personalities and potentially egotistic behaviour involved, to put aside their public posturing and to work through the circumstances surrounding the unseemly, hurtful public debate about suffering children with an independent adjudicator.

I support the motion, because it gives us an opportunity to speak about the matter in public. We have an obligation and a duty to the children and their families to ensure that this personality issue is not allowed to diminish the focus on the real suffering of people at this time.

I will start by emphasising the word "tragedy", which was how Ian Paisley Jnr and Jim Wilson described the situation. We should regard the matter in that light. I am concerned about references to the concept of a public inquiry. Public inquiries might be good at apportioning blame, but I am not sure that we should be seeking to do that. We should seek to be a bit more neutral, and I would prefer the phraseology that is used in the resolution, which refers to seeking "an early resolution" of the difficulties."

The tragedy is that so many people of goodwill started off working together and seeking to promote the needs of life-limited children, but have ended up torn asunder, whether as a result of personality clashes or management differences, in the widest term.

That is leading to a tragedy for the potential clients of the service that the children's hospice should be providing. We have heard plenty about what has happened in the past. Some Members have perhaps been a little unwise to say as much as they have. We should state the need for the difficulties to be resolved, rather than seek to apportion blame in any way.

There are a vast number of charities in Northern Ireland, as there are across the UK. The time has run out for some of them, and they no longer exist in anything more than name. Some are very small and have difficulties because they principally operate on the basis of the goodwill of volunteers. Some of those we see as charities here are actually branches of national organisations that have firm management structures in place and are run in a truly professional way.

Without wishing to apportion blame, some groups of charities in Northern Ireland have the potential for problems. Those charities, which started out as a small number of people operating on the basis of goodwill with limited funding, have become major local bodies. They were started up with enthusiasm, energy and commitment to a cause - the true meaning of charity. They have grown over the years; they have been given public funds, have attracted outside funding and, in some cases, overseas funding.

Those small groups of volunteers are now trying to run what is, in effect, a major business - employing staff, providing services, et cetera. In many cases the skills that that requires are different from the skills which people brought in at the beginning, such as the enthusiasm to get a body started. Those who find themselves in positions of much greater responsibility than they expected may have run into difficulties inadvertently. They have run into difficulties nevertheless, and problems arise because of it. For that reason, we need a body akin to the Charity Commissioners specifically for Northern Ireland.

Mr Kelly was wrong to say that there is no legal control, but he was right to say that the Assembly has no control over the actions of a voluntary organisation. The control over charities in Northern Ireland is a minimalist one conveyed by Inland Revenue registration on purely financial matters. That is clearly inadequate to deal with the problems highlighted in the hospice, or which may arise in other major regional charities. We do not need a financial audit after problems have arisen. We need a body equivalent to the Charity Commissioners across the water; indeed, in some senses we need to go beyond that. We need a body that would participate in promoting good practice, could help to resolve difficulties and would ensure that this important sector of Northern Ireland society runs to the interests of its clients and is not riven with difficulties like those faced by the hospice.

I want to see that resolution. I support the motion, but I urge caution in apportioning blame or in seeking a public inquiry, as that might merely add to the anguish that is being experienced.

It is not necessarily appropriate to take sides in this affair. Authorities are already in place to deal with this. We agree with the motion in the respect that it is calling for an early resolution of the issues. The only side that we should take is that of the children who are terminally ill, their families and those who have worked tirelessly to support them. Along with my Colleague, Mr Ford, my only suggestion is that consideration should be given to appointing a charities commission specific to Northern Ireland to deal with this type of issue.

I rise to support the motion as it is stated in the Order Paper. I do not intend to go beyond that.

The row about the children's hospice must be resolved. It has gone on too long and has caused untold anxiety to the public, especially to those who matter most - the children and parents who will use the hospice. When the problem is finally resolved, there should be a detailed inquiry into how it got so far out of hand and could not be resolved without a damaging public fracas that did no one any good, not least the sick children who benefit from the hospice.

Charities are voluntary, but that does not reduce the need to abide by established codes of conduct, follow clearly defined procedures and have in place appeals procedures which are fair, fast, efficient and conclusive. On this occasion, the Assembly can do nothing more than take note of the dispute. It is not helpful to take sides, as that may entrench positions and exacerbate the problem. Nevertheless, much can be learned. For example, should a similar row break out in another charity, surely it would be of enormous benefit if mechanisms were in place to intervene to stop that dispute getting out of control. I am pleased that other Members have already suggested something similar.

The voluntary sector, and in particular the charitable bodies, play a critical role in providing a holistic and comprehensive service to those in need. The present incumbents in those charities have rights, but they also have responsibilities to ensure that the image and functions of those charities are not damaged by unnecessary adverse publicity.

As I have said, I am not taking sides in the dispute. That is not the way forward. However, I hope that the matter is resolved sooner rather than later, as that would be in the interests of those who matter most - the children. I support the call for a report - not necessarily a public inquiry - and a debate on its findings. Never again should such a worthy cause be thrust into the public gaze in such a distressing way. Those involved in the hospice movement deserve better; and those who use the service most definitely deserve better.

Now that the matter is before the Assembly, we should appeal to the public not to curtail its support for the hospice movement but to redouble its generosity. We should urge them to become members of the hospice movement and by doing so fulfil one of the most basic needs of mankind - looking after the sick and dying.

I stress that I am not taking sides, nor does the motion require that. I hope that the tribunal referred to earlier will not be compromised by contributions made in the debate.

Finishing on a lighter note - and sometimes we need one - surely if we in the Chamber can agree on the issue, the hospice movement, which is made up of people with a common cause of looking after the needs of very sick children, can resolve its differences. I know that it is not as simple as that. However, I am convinced that no one in this dispute had any evil intentions; nor did they set out to damage the hospice movement. However, that it is what has happened, and it must be resolved by legislation and procedure that will prevent it from happening again.

This has been a worthwhile debate. I came to the House with a heavy heart in the knowledge that we would have to discuss the tragic happenings surrounding the management of the children's hospice and how it has taken the limelight from the real issue - the mission of the hospice.

I welcome the serious contributions from those supporting the motion. I do not want to anticipate the House's unanimous support, although I would welcome that. The management of the children's hospice is a tangled mess, but this debate ends on a positive note. The House calls on those who have responsibility to take responsibility and resolve the problems. Surely that is what this debate has been about. We should not have had to debate it in a public arena, but we would have been remiss in our duty had we not shown our interest.

I welcome the comments of many Members, and I shall refer to them briefly. Jim Wilson said that the hospice offers a fantastic opportunity, and I agree with him. Everyone can say a hearty "hear, hear" to that. We want a state-of-the-art facility for people in real need.

There is, however, a slump in confidence in how this has been managed, and the debate has focused on that. It was addressed competently by most Members who spoke. The debate issues a challenge to those in charge of the children's hospice: who runs the hospice, and how should it be managed in future? I hope that that challenge is met, because it is clear that there must be a clearing of the decks. The previous management style has not worked. If it had worked, we would not be debating it today. That is the reality. Let us clear the decks and allow a new, more professional management team to organise the affairs of this very noble charity.

I welcome Mrs Courtney's comments and those of my Colleague, Mr McCrea. They echoed similar sentiments, which rightly focused on the real victims - the children and their needs and on the urgent, immediate, centred, even selfish, support that these youngsters require. I hope that we can leave this debate behind and focus on the real issues, just as we should encourage the hospice management to resolve its problems so that it too can focus wholeheartedly on those issues.

Mr McCrea said that the heart of the issue was the sacking of the director. When I first read about the matter, the term "gross misconduct" struck my eye. That phrase can send out the wrong message if people do not know what it means. Mud thrown in this society sticks. One finds out, however, that the "misconduct" appears to have been an innocent conversation. This conversation was between a husband and wife who have been involved with the idea of the children's hospice before there ever was one and who have been involved all their professional lives in caring for terminally ill children. That such "misconduct" is used against the director is a sad reflection, not on the director, but on those who work against him.

The House ought to express its resentment at how that has been used by those in charge of the tangled mess. No one has disputed what I said at the beginning of the debate - that there are four key issues: the general lack of accountability of the hospice; the management issues that have taken the focus off the mission statement; the lack of financial transparency; and the lack of integrity in dealing with an employee. These have not been disputed; I welcome that and believe that the House supports those issues.

I also believe the words of the PR agent for the children's hospice, who in today's 'News Letter' said that anything that reduces the ability of the organisation to deliver its core services is not in the best interests of those who need them. If the management style reduces the ability to deliver the core services of the children's hospice, the person who made that statement should present it to her bosses this morning and say to them "It is your style that is reducing the ability of our organisation". The House should support that call. The matter must be resolved expeditiously. It is not good enough to wait until the autumn. It has to be resolved, and resolved now.

Mr Kelly, the Sinn Féin Member for Mid Ulster, was wrong to tell the House that we are powerless to do anything about this. We certainly are not. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is not powerless; it could have held an inquiry. If it had held an inquiry when one was first asked for, or even if it had had the imagination to pre-empt those calls by holding an inquiry when the issue raised its head some 18 months ago, we might not be in this situation today. We are not powerless; let us not pretend that we have no responsibility here. As public representatives, of course we have a responsibility.

Let us remember that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has to account to the taxpayer for how much of its money it has allocated to this project and why. We do have power on this issue. We should not forget that, and we should not let those in charge of the issue forget it. The Minister could help, and the Department could investigate the issue and look at the series of problems.

Mr Ford agreed with Mr Jim Wilson and me that this whole saga has been a tragedy and that it could be resolved by those people who are currently in charge of it. I have gone further than that: ministerial or departmental direction or advice to the management could have changed the structures rapidly to stop the situation getting out of control.

I say to Mr Ford and Ms Morrice that there comes a time in the affairs of man when we cannot sit on the fence, when we have to stand up and be counted on an issue. There comes a time when we have to say, not that we are taking sides on an issue, but that we are taking the side of what is right for children. We have a choice between what is patently right and the actions that have been taken, which have been blatantly wrong.

The House is not playing the blame game today. We are quite deliberately highlighting our interest in the issue and warning those people who have the responsibility to get on with the job to sort this mess out or else we will have the power, and the duty, to step in.

I therefore commend the motion to the House and repeat my earlier tribute to the work and the tenacity of Tom Hill in the face of the unacceptable pressures on him. I hope that the House will, in some way, send out a signal today to all those involved, telling them to hurry up and resolve this terrible, tasteless dispute that we have had to sample over the last few months. I commend the motion.

<< Prev