Northern Ireland Assembly
Monday 8 October 2001 (continued)
Mr Foster:
I speak in favour of the motion. I am not sure if there has been an amendment tabled, given the attacks on Mr Trimble. There is a crisis of confidence in the political institutions and the political process in Northern Ireland. Whose fault is that? Even the IRA recognises its culpability. Its statement spoke of putting in place a
"confidence-building measure".
There is no confidence, and that lack of confidence has led to the motion's coming forward. The Provisionals have been involved in 32 murders since 1994.
If the IRA will not disarm and disband, the time has come for the House to ensure that its political representatives have no role to play in the governance of Northern Ireland. As a result of the terrible events in the USA on 11 September, the free world has changed forever. Sinn Féin/IRA must realise that. Its fascist campaign is over; it cannot be resurrected.
The Prime Minister has declared war on terrorism. If he is serious, he could send no clearer signal of his intent than to start here in his backyard. I have not forgotten the Prime Minister's handwritten pledges made to the people of Northern Ireland in May 1998. They included the promise that those who use or threaten violence would be excluded from the Government of Northern Ireland and that prisoners would be kept in prison unless violence was given up for good. I ask the Prime Minister about the promises to the people of Northern Ireland. He has failed us miserably.
Yet Sinn Féin/IRA arrogantly continues to defy public opinion in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and it ignores the public statements of Her Majesty's Government and the Irish and American Governments. Decommissioning is patently not just a Unionist demand or the result of a Unionist deadline; it is a democratic demand and part of a democratic deadline. In seeking justice, we do not seek to bring down Stormont and the democratic institutions. Indeed, it is because Stormont and the democratic process mean so much to us and we have so much respect for them, that we cannot allow either this place or this process to be debased any longer by the presence of the political representatives of terror in the Government of Northern Ireland.
Republicans confound the truth regularly, because the problems that they allegedly suffered under the Stormont Parliament come at the lower end of the scale of human grievances. To make comparisons with South African people under apartheid, as they often do, is absurd. Their comparisons only belittle the serious grievances suffered by those people.
The Republican campaign slowed down legal reform in Northern Ireland. The result of the IRA-inspired rape of this community was more hatred, distrust, bitterness and strife between the people of Northern Ireland. The Republican movement should hold its head in shame. Seven and a half years after Dick Spring said that the IRA must decommission, it has failed to do so. The Republicans are the wreckers of the Good Friday Agreement. Their continued campaign was, and is, wrong; it is criminal and filled with deceit.
As for the claim that the guns are silent - what nonsense. I referred to 32 people murdered by the Provisionals. However, even if it were true, it would be irrelevant. During the period of the Cold War, many people protested against nuclear weapons. The fact that those weapons were silent did not make them any less of a threat. It is the same with the illegal stockpiles of weaponry held by the IRA. The usual excuse of silent guns will come as a surprise to the RUC officers who came under automatic fire in north Belfast recently. It will also come as a surprise to the families of those who suffered IRA punishment shootings. The real human rights abusers are those who shoot or beat young people tried by a kangaroo court. Yet there is a deafening silence from senior Sinn Féin Members, including their Ministers. Strangely they are not so reticent when they suspect Loyalists or the security forces of wrongdoing.
2.15 pm
The schizophrenia that characterises Republicanism is, therefore, alive and well today. At the Sinn Féin party conference 10 days ago, Gerry Kelly said that he knew all three Colombian "tourists" - that is strange. When they were arrested, Sinn Féin was at pains to say that those men were not party members and that no one, even those who had appeared on platforms with them at previous gatherings, seemed to know who they were. Gerry Adams had to be told by the Cuban Government that Niall Connolly was his party's representative in Cuba and Latin America - that is questionable. I wonder how many other representatives about whom he knows nothing are out there? No doubt, they and Mr Adams are as elusive as a wet fish.
In addition, let us not forget the Florida gunrunning plot. At the time of the incident, the IRA said that it was not responsible, yet those who were convicted are now listed as Republican prisoners alongside the killers of Gárda Gerry McCabe. In the dark world of Sinn Féin/IRA, evil is good, murder is justifiable, and the truth, like other people's lives, is a cheap commodity.
Recently, the president of Sinn Féin claimed that terrorism is ethically indefensible. Where has Gerry Adams been for the past 30 years? The dead and wounded of Bloody Friday, Claudy, Birmingham, La Mon, Harrods, Enniskillen or Canary Wharf could have told him that a long time ago. The victims of those attacks, which were all on civilian targets, would have little difficulty in identifying those responsible as terrorists rather than freedom fighters. How dare the perpetrators of these outrages on civilians send condolences to the American victims of terror? Links to ETA, the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), Libya and now the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) are well documented.
The problem for Sinn Féin/IRA is that the truth hurts. It has told so many lies and generated so much propaganda that it believes its own publicity. It cannot accept the fact that the IRA is a terrorist group, because it cannot face the awful truth of what it has done to this country and its people over the past 30 years.
Let us look at what it has done: it has bombed the centres of cities and towns; destroyed the economy; frightened off outside investment; created unemployment; murdered the forces of law and order; and murdered and maimed innocent people, Protestant and Catholic. Despite this, it has the effrontery to talk about human rights, jobs and equality. That is blatant hypocrisy, and with full intent to deceive the uninitiated.
Footage of IRA funerals shows that leading Sinn Féin members play key roles in those events, and some might even say that they organised them. The prime example must be the funeral of Thomas Begley, the mass-murderer of innocent shoppers on the Shankill Road. Was Mr Adams not a pallbearer that day? In response to the cry "Bring back the IRA", a certain gentleman felt confident enough to reply, "They haven't gone away, you know". How could he speak with such authority?
The same individual now issues thinly veiled threats to those Nationalists who are tempted to join the Police Service of Northern Ireland. It appears that it is acceptable for Sinn Féin MLAs to be in the pay of the British state by virtue of their Stormont seats, but not so for young Catholics who want a job serving all the people of Northern Ireland as part of the police force.
It is, therefore, time to call a halt to the gut-wrenching hypocrisy of Sinn Féin/IRA. This process has given it a chance to leave behind its past and to build for itself a democratic future. It is not the fault of democrats that the IRA is still wedded to the path of fascist armed struggle. Democrats should not be expected to indulge the IRA any longer, and they should not be punished for the failure of fascists. We have been patient and have gone beyond the extra mile in an attempt to secure peace, while others have not budged. Time and time again we have jumped.
David Trimble, with tremendous courage, has taken great political and personal risks to sustain the process. No one could have done more, and I pay tribute to his skills, resilience, dedication and responsibility. However, the responsibility for the present crisis lies with the Sinn Féin/IRA Republican movement as a whole. It alone has failed to fully implement the Good Friday Agreement. Having listened to Sinn Féin today, I know of no spectacle more offensive and more ridiculous than the Republican movement in many fits of pretentious morality. I support the motion.
Ms de Brún:
Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Is ar alt 30 mír 2(a) d' Acht Thuaisceart Éireann 1998 a bhraitheann rún an iarChéad-Aire, agus féachann sé le baill de chuid Sinn Féin a eisiamh ó oifig aireachta.
Níl aon amhras faoi thiomantas mo pháirtí don neamhfhoréigean agus do mhodhanna síochánta daonlathacha amháin. Mar sin de níl ciall ná réasún leis an rún. Níl ann ach leithscéal le gníomh a dhéanamh níos moille leis na hinstitiúidí a chur ó mhaith. Níl sa mhéid a fheicimid inniu ach toradh chairt na scriostóirí a leag sé amach ina litir chuig a chomhAontachtaithe tá bliain ó shin nuair a chuir sé síos ar a intinn an Tionól a thabhairt chun éigeandála, na hinstitiúidí a chur ar fionraí agus an locht a fhágáil ar Phoblachtanaigh.
Is léir go bhfuil an tUasal Trimble in éadan an athraithe. Sáróidh ar a rún inniu. Mar sin féin, tá seans go n-éireoidh leis na hinstitiúidí a chur ar fionraí nó iad a scrios go hiomlán fiú féin.
Faoi alt 30 d'Acht Thuaisceart Éireann 1998 is féidir Aire ar bith a chur as oifig má sháraíonn air/uirthi téarmaí ar bith an Ghealltanais Oifige a chomhall. Cuimsíonn siad i bhfad níos mó ná tiomantas don neamhfhoréigean agus do mhodhanna síochánta daonlathacha amháin. Cuimsíonn siad gealltanas dualgais oifige uile a chomhall de mheon macánta. Cuimsíonn siad gealltanas fónamh don mhuintir uile ar bhealach comhionann agus gníomhú de réir na n-oibleagáidí ginearálta a bhíonn ar rialtas comhionannas a chur chun cinn agus leithcheal a chosc.
Cuirim i gcuimhne do Chomhaltaí go n-éilíonn an Cód Iompair, a chaithfidh Airí a chomhlíonadh i dtólamh, ar Airí oibriú ar bhealach a chabhróidh le deachaidreamh pobail agus le comhionannas déileála a chur chun cinn.
Lena chois, sa Dearbhú Tacaíochta sa chomhaontú tiomnaíonn rannpháirtithe iad féin don chomhpháirtíocht, don chomhionannas agus don chomhurraim mar bhonn leis na caidrimh laistigh de thuaisceart Éireann, idir an Tuaisceart agus an Deisceart, agus idir na hoileáin seo.
Tá sé íorónta mar sin de go bhfuil muid ag plé rúin a fhéachann le mé féin agus mo Chomhghleacaí aireachta Máirtín MacAonghusa a chur as oifig aireachta. Cuireadh an rún seo chun tosaigh ag iarChéad-Aire a sháraigh níos mó ná uair amháin go neamhnáireach Gealltanas Oifige an chomhaontaithe, a Chód Iompair, a Dhearbhú Tacaíochta agus Acht Thuaisceart Éireann 1998. Chinn na cúirteanna go ndearna an t-iarChéad-Aire, le linn dó bheith in oifig, beart mídhleachach nuair a dhiúltaigh sé ainmniúcháin a dhéanamh do chruinnithe earnála na Comhairle Aireachta Thuaidh/Theas.
The motion brought by the former First Minister relies on section 30, subsection 2(a) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. He seeks to exclude members of Sinn Féin from holding ministerial office, and when one of them rises to speak, he leaves the Chamber.
My party's commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means is unequivocal. Therefore, the motion has no rational basis. It represents no more than a smokescreen for subsequent action aimed at collapsing the institutions. What we are dealing with here is the outworking of Mr Trimble's wrecker's charter as set out in his letter to fellow Unionists a year ago, when he outlined his intention to see a crisis in the Assembly, achieve suspension of the institutions and place the blame on Republicans.
It would appear that Mr Trimble is opposed to change. His motion will fail. He may, however, succeed in again provoking the suspension, or even the collapse, of the institutions.
Section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 allows for the exclusion from office of any Minister on the basis of a failure on his or her part to observe any of the terms of the Pledge of Office. These terms include a pledge to discharge in good faith all the duties of office. They include a pledge to serve all of the people equally and to act in accordance with the general obligations in Government to promote equality and prevent discrimination.
Let me remind Members also that the code of conduct, which Ministers must abide by, requires Ministers to operate at all times in a way conducive to promoting good community relations and equality of treatment. Furthermore, in the declaration of support for the agreement, participants commit themselves to partnership, equality and mutual respect as the basis of relationships in the north of Ireland, between North and South, and between these islands.
It is ironic, therefore, that we are debating a motion put forward by a former First Minister, who in his period of office was in clear and flagrant breach of the agreement's Pledge of Office on a number of counts - its code of conduct, its declaration of support, and the Northern Ireland Act 1998. In his period of office as First Minister, the courts found that he acted unlawfully in refusing to make nominations to the North/South Ministerial Council's sectoral meetings.
It is also ironic and a little hypocritical that Mr Trimble informs us of his intention to bring the motion, challenging my party's commitment to non-violence and exclusively democratic means, yet tells us in almost the same breath that when his motion fails, as it clearly will, he will withdraw his party colleagues from the Executive and bring about the collapse of the institutions.
It would appear that Mr Trimble's own commitment to democratic means extends only to the point at which he ceases to get his way. Mr Trimble announced his intention to put his motion to the Assembly and, at the same time, threatened to take action to bring down the political institutions if his motion does not get the endorsement that he seeks. It does not seem to matter to Mr Trimble that over 70% of the people who participated in the referendums, North and South, voted in favour of the full operation of the institutions.
Against a background of overwhelming support, North and South, for the agreement, and the institutions, Mr Trimble has provoked the suspension of the operation of these institutions three times. He has fractured the operation of the North/South Ministerial Council and blocked sectoral meetings of that Council on education, and health and food safety. His actions have led to the postponement of further plenary meetings of the Council and he has impeded proper ministerial consideration of work on accident and emergency services, emergency planning, high technology equipment, cancer research and health promotion. He has impeded the operation of the Food Safety Promotion Board at a time when food safety is so crucial to people across the island of Ireland.
Mr Trimble has threatened to withdraw his party's Ministers from the Executive to render unworkable the remaining political institutions and to bring about a further suspension or collapse. No one should underestimate what the effect will be if Mr Trimble is allowed to continue with his wrecker's charter. Many of those who voted for the institutions did so in the belief that an Executive comprising local Ministers could and would benefit their lives in the way that we have committed ourselves to doing so in the Programme for Government. They voted in the belief that if we are to catch up with the rest of Europe in regard to the delivery and quality of services - health and social services, in particular - we stand a much better chance of doing so with an Executive of local Ministers and a local Assembly than under direct rule, which presided over the rundown of those same services in the past.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)
Most importantly, the Good Friday Agreement offered a historic opportunity for a new beginning, a fresh start for everyone in society. It gave all Unionists the opportunity to see myself, as Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, and my party Colleague, Martin McGuinness, as Minister of Education, impact positively on their lives. That is beginning to happen. The agreement gave Nationalists the opportunity to see Unionists carry out their offices for the benefit of all and act without holding on to power for themselves and without excluding others. That we still await.
Those who refuse to take up the challenges place at risk the opportunity to make the agreement a success. It is little wonder that people now ask me whether the prospect of success might be precisely what motivates or agitates Mr Trimble. I am asked whether it is Mr Trimble who is becoming increasingly nervous as Nationalist Ministers, and others, show evidence of their commitment to serve everyone equally. People also wonder whether Mr Trimble has the same difficulty, or even greater difficulty, with Sinn Féin and SDLP Ministers' placing equality at the heart of Government as he has with accepting the democratically expressed wishes across the island of Ireland.
The logic of seeking to move from the conflict of the past to a new and peaceful future is to realise that to overcome the hurt of the past requires dialogue and co-operation. The key to conflict resolution is a resolve to avoid using the process to gain short-term political advantages over old adversaries. Dialogue, negotiation and implementation of agreements already reached cannot and must not be reduced to political manoeuvring. We, who are partaking in a transition process, need to convince our supporters that co-operation rather than confrontation is the way forward. To undermine those who seek an alternative way is to risk a mood swing against the whole process. That would benefit no one.
Oral Answers to Questions
First Minister and Deputy First Minister
Mr Speaker:
Question 4, in the name of Mr Fee, has been transferred to the Minister for Regional Development, and will receive a written answer.
Question 8 in the name of Mr Billy Armstrong has been withdrawn, and question 18 in the name of Mr Seamus Close has been transferred to the Minister of Finance and Personnel and will receive a written answer.
2.30 pm
Good Friday Agreement
1.
Ms Ramsey
asked the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to detail what steps have been taken to ensure the full and early implementation of the Good Friday Agreement.
Mr Séamus Mallon MP:
The implementation of the Good Friday Agreement is the collective responsibility of the British and Irish Governments and the political parties. The two Governments published a paper on 14 July 2001 which set out in detail the progress made on the implementation of the agreement and on aspects that were within the responsibility of the devolved Administration, including the effective working of the institutions under strands one, two and three.
The Executive meet regularly, as does the Civic Forum. Progress in the North/South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council has been good in most areas but, for reasons that are well known to the Member and which have been a matter of public controversy for some time, has been lacking in other areas.
Ms Ramsey:
On Friday, the Court of Appeal upheld an earlier court ruling which stated that the former First Minister acted unlawfully by refusing to nominate Sinn Féin members to attend North/South Ministerial Council meetings. Given that judgement, can the Minister confirm that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will nominate Sinn Féin Ministers to attend North/South Ministerial Council meetings, and will the Office agree dates for those meetings?
Mr Séamus Mallon MP:
I have always believed that the then First Minister acted illegally in preventing meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council on health and education by refusing to nominate the appropriate Ministers. I argued that point in court, and I welcome the judgement of the Court of Appeal which vindicates the stance that I adopted. It is important now for the North/South Ministerial Council to be able to resume its work in health and education. The Ulster Unionist Party should respect the decision of the court and nominate the appropriate Ministers to those North/South meetings.
I regret that I cannot give the Member an assurance that they will take place now or in the immediate future considering the peculiar set of circumstances that surround the workings of the institutions.
Ms Lewsley:
Will the Minister confirm that, at its last plenary meeting, the North/South Ministerial Council agreed to meet in an institutional format to examine any difficulties that it had? Why has that not happened?
Mr Séamus Mallon MP:
At its last plenary meeting, in September 2000, the North/South Ministerial Council anticipated that it would meet by agreement in institutional format before the next plenary meeting to consider procedural and cross-cutting issues. The agendas were not considered and will be subject to agreement between the two Administrations before the next meeting. The reason why that has not taken place is no secret.
Mr Kennedy:
The implementation of the Belfast Agreement is being obstructed by the actions of one party. Will the Minister specifically identify Sinn Féin/IRA as preventing proper progress by its steadfast refusal to commit to non-violence and exclusively peaceful means?
Mr Séamus Mallon MP:
I made my position on that issue clear in the previous debate. The North/South Ministerial Council meetings are not taking place as they should for two reasons: one is the way in which the agreement has not been properly worked with regard to decommissioning, and the second is because of what has been deemed an illegal decision not to nominate Sinn Féin Ministers to take part in those institutions.
Mr Speaker:
I want to remind Members that when they put questions to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, they are putting questions to both Ministers. Members have risen to ask supplementary questions and have said, "I ask the Minister". That is not possible in questions to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, as questions are addressed to both. When either Minister answers, he is deemed to have answered for both.
Parades Commission
2.
Mr McClarty
asked the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to detail the nature of any consultation with which the Office has been involved over the review of the Parades Commission.
Sir Reg Empey:
There is no review of the Parades Commission, and no joint consultations have taken place with the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister about such a review.
Mr McClarty:
Do the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister agree with my Colleague the Rt Hon David Trimble that the Parades Commission should be scrapped? So-called controversial parades and the manner in which they have been dealt with by the Parades Commisssion should be subject to a public inquiry sponsored by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Do the Ministers accept the findings of Prof Liam Kennedy who, in his report 'They Shoot Children Don't They?', vividly makes the case for establishing an anti-intimidation unit.
Sir Reg Empey:
Although there is no review of the Parades Commission, it is true that, in a statement in August 2001, the Government said that to create greater consenus on the parades issue and a less contentious environment, they would initiate a review of the operation of the Parades Commission and the legislation under which it was established. The Government's statement also indicated that the review would involve consultation with interested parties, including the Irish Government. On that basis, it appears logical for this institution through its Executive to be consulted also.
Mr Watson:
The Prime Minister promised clearly at the Weston Park talks that he would review the Parades Commission. Do the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister agree that the Executive should encourage the Prime Minister to proceed with the review?
Sir Reg Empey:
If there is a review, it is essential that not only the Executive but the entire Assembly be consulted. A significant number of consequential problems arise because of the failure to have the matter addressed, and they cause disruption to the devolved services. Therefore, as the representative institution of the people of Northern Ireland, the Assembly should be asked for its opinion.
It is evident that the Commission is not achieving a consensus in our community. There is still widespread disagreement over contentious parades, even though they are a small proportion of the number of parades that take place in any year. Nevertheless, it is clearly a contentious issue, and it has not been resolved by the actions of the current Parades Commission. That is why I am pleased to note that, in their submission in August, the Government indicated that they would initiate a review of the operation and the legislative basis under which the commission was established. That is the key to progress.
Mr A Maginness:
I am glad that no review has been established. Do the First and Deputy First Ministers agree that a review is unnecessary, given that the Parades Commission has done a good job, in the main, in determining contentious parades in an independent and dispassionate manner? It has also taken controversial decision making away from the police, providing a neutral environment in which parades can take place.
Sir Reg Empey:
If something is not functioning properly, or if it is believed that it could function in a more effective way, one reviews it. Anyone who thinks that the parades issue is being dealt with satisfactorily is mistaken. The process was supposed to bring about consensus in local circumstances and avoid controversy. That patently has not been the case. We have endured several contentious decisions that have not received support from various sections of the community - it is not a one-sided issue - and it is timely to have a review, not only of the operation but especially of its legislative base.
Anti-Intimidation Unit
3.
Mr Cobain
asked the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to indicate what steps have been taken to establish an anti-intimidation unit in the Office.
Mr Séamus Mallon MP:
We have no current plans to establish such a unit. Our Department, working through the Community Relations Council, provides financial support to several community and voluntary organisations working to tackle intimidation. In developing a cross- departmental community relations strategy, we shall include measures to tackle the underlying causes of community division, sectarianism and racism, as well as measures to ensure an effective and co-ordinated response to sectarian and racial intimidation. As a first step, we are examining practice throughout the devolved Administration for responding to such intimidation and how it might be improved.
Mr Cobain:
Do the acting First Minister and the acting Deputy First Minister agree that it is regrettable that there are no plans to establish an anti-intimidation unit? Maximum priority should be given to rectifying that problem. It would be a useful means of co-ordinating the involvement of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in tackling the persistent problem of sectarian intimidation, including punishment shootings, beatings, attacks on people and property, threats and forced evictions.
Mr Séamus Mallon MP:
As I have said before, in the draft Programme for Government there is a commitment to an effective and co-ordinated response to sectarian and racist intimidation across the entire devolved Administration. Our officials have been asked to consider how to take the matter forward. I do not believe that it would be appropriate to commit to any structure or outcome at present. The specific matter of punishment beatings is a reserved matter and, therefore, not for the devolved Administration to deal with.
Dr McDonnell:
What steps have been taken to resolve the dispute at Holy Cross Primary School? Does the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister accept the right of the children involved to receive an education?
Mr Speaker:
Order. The question will need to be restricted to the terms of the primary question, which deal with the establishment of an anti-intimidation unit.
Mr Séamus Mallon MP:
I respond to your direction, Mr Speaker. One wonders how, if an anti-intimidation unit were in place, it would deal with the barbarity of the events at Holy Cross Primary School. The entire community must make known its views about that situation. It must protect the right of children to go to school unmolested and without the verbal barrage that those children are subjected to daily.
Mr Dodds:
The acting Deputy First Minister mentioned financial support for a number of groups, including those tackling intimidation. He will be aware of the representations from myself and others about the concerns of some of those groups about the funding gap. Many of them will go out of existence, and their work on intimidation and other issues will be badly affected. Can he assure us that the issue will be addressed quickly, and that those people will get word soon that the money will be delivered to keep their organisations in place?
2.45 pm
Mr Speaker:
Order. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. This question should also be answered in the context of the primary question.
Mr Séamus Mallon MP:
Again, I speculate as to how an anti-intimidation unit could deal with matters as they are. I recognise the validity of the Member's point. The acting First Minister and I recently discussed the matter with the Member in the wider context of problems in north Belfast. I note that, in the past few days, the Minister of Finance and Personnel stated publicly that it was essential that gap funding be made available to assist groups such as those to which, I assume, the Member referred. I could not agree with him more; now is the time to ensure that all groups working for the good of the entire community are given the resources to do so.
Needs and Effectiveness Study on Health
5.
Mr Savage
asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to indicate what progress has been made with regard to the needs and effectiveness study on health.
Mr Séamus Mallon MP:
The Executive launched the needs and effectiveness evaluations to establish the level of need for key public services in Northern Ireland, relative to England. They will also provide information to support our argument with the Treasury for a more equitable financial settlement than that which the Barnett formula provides and help the Executive to improve the effectiveness of programmes. The health study is progressing well. The work has been taken forward by an interdepartmental group of officials from the Economic Policy Unit (EPU), the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.
In recent months, subgroups have been set up to examine programmes of care including acute services, mental health and care for the elderly, families and children. They are also examining population need, general effectiveness, administration and the health elements of the needs assessment study. The subgroups are collating information on the needs and effectiveness of certain services in the Health Service and, where possible, are comparing those to services in England, Scotland and the Republic of Ireland. The final report is due by spring 2002.
Mr Savage:
How will the Executive deal with the vexed question of waiting lists, given that the problem appears to be getting worse, although there is ample hospital capacity in other European countries?
Mr Séamus Mallon MP:
In essence, the Member's question is a matter for the departmental Minister. However, we have had long discussions about waiting lists and about the problems facing the elderly in our communities. Unless more money can be found for those services, the problems will continue.
At the previous Question Time, I expressed the hope that there would be a robust approach to the issue during Assembly debates on the Programme for Government and the Budget - and in the relevant Committees - to ensure that resources are available to give the aged and those in immediate need of acute services the attention that is their due. It is an important issue. If the Assembly is still here, this matter will be its acid test. I hope that it will show the robustness that is required.
Dr Hendron:
Can the Deputy First Minister confirm that the Minister of Finance and Personnel has made substantial increases to the health budget in each Budget adopted by the Executive? How will those increases compare with those in Britain?
Mr Séamus Mallon MP:
Statistics can prove anything, but let us have the statistics. I can confirm that the Assembly's first Budget in December 2000 provided an additional £114 million over the existing planned expenditure for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in 2001-02. The Department's budget for 2001-02 is 5·3% higher than expenditure in the previous financial year, compared to an estimated 9·4% increase for the equivalent services in England.
In September, the Executive agreed a draft Budget for 2002-03 that will provide a further £31 million over indicative plans, representing an 8·1% increase over plans for the current year. No comparable information is available for Britain. Despite those statistics, there is still not enough money for the type of services that the Member asked about.
Commissioner for Children
6.
Mr McMenamin
asked the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to outline what arrangements are being made in respect of the Children's Commissioner to ensure that there is a full and inclusive consultation process.
Sir Reg Empey:
We have invested considerable effort in ensuring that consultation is as comprehensive as possible and have put particular emphasis on the involvement of children and young people. Over 11,000 copies of the consultation document and 260,000 information leaflets have been distributed. A billboard advertising campaign and a poster campaign in schools was run in August. A version of the document for children and young people has been sent to all primary and secondary schools and all further education colleges. A facilitator's version has been produced for teachers and youth leaders. It has been sent to schools, further education colleges and youth groups. A dedicated web site has been set up for the duration of the consultation. Irish versions of the children's document and facilitator's guide have been sent to Irish-medium schools, and a Cantonese version of the information leaflet has been produced. Other special versions will be produced if required.
Mr McMenamin:
Can the Minister give an assurance that the composition of the non-governmental organisation (NGO) forum will be reviewed, given the representations of certain groups that may not have been included?
Sir Reg Empey:
The forum was established on an ad hoc basis to contribute to the development of a children's strategy. The current membership was drawn from the core members of the Putting Children First campaign, as it includes the major children's organisations and umbrella groups for smaller organisations throughout the country. Umbrella organisations concerned with disability and ethnic minorities were also included in order to ensure that those issues are considered in the context of the policy on children's issues.
It is well known that we have received representations from several organisations, notably faith-based organisations and organisations working with disabled children, suggesting that membership should be more broadly based. The forum itself has also asked us to review its composition, which we intend to do in the near future. In so doing, we shall give careful consideration to the representations made to us.
Mr McCarthy:
Can the Minister give an assurance that there will be no age barrier to the appointment of a children's commissioner? [Interruption].
Mr Speaker:
Order.
Sir Reg Empey:
I hope that there was no self-interest being declared in that question. I assure the Member that it is the intention of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to comply with all statutory requirements across the board.
Executive Meetings: Failure of Ministers to Attend
7.
Mr Davis
asked the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to advise of any practical difficulties which arise out of the failure of some Ministers to systematically attend meetings of the Executive.
Mr Séamus Mallon MP:
The Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Social Development have both taken a pledge to fulfil the duties of their office. Although they are prepared to take up ministerial office, they have refused to participate in Executive meetings. Despite the non-attendance of those Ministers, the Executive have ensured that matters are progressed, even in the absence of ministerial co-operation, so that the people of Northern Ireland are not disadvantaged by their absence. The allocation of £40 million for the trans-European network route from Larne to the border and the funding of free travel for the elderly are but two examples of such action. Nevertheless, people will inevitably draw their own conclusions. The two Ministers will, no doubt, claim credit for the actions of the Executive while trying to undermine its collective approach to tackling the problems faced by the people of Northern Ireland.
Mr Davis:
Do the acting First Minister and Deputy First Minister accept that the term "systematically" refers to the specific pre-planned methodology that falls short of resignation but that has resulted in the withdrawal by two Ministers from Executive meetings? Has the systematic absence of those Ministers from Executive meetings impaired the effectiveness of the Department for Regional Development and the Department for Social Development?
Mr Séamus Mallon MP:
The term "systematically" probably refers to a specific pre-planned methodology that falls short of resignation. I believe that that is the case, but we need not spend much time on the semantics - we all know the meaning of non-attendance and withdrawal. As a result of such action, politics and the Departments suffer. The wider community depends on good government, and it is being short-changed. The Member will agree that anything less than full participation in Executive meetings at all times sells short the entire community and should not be condoned.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
Does the Office of the First and Deputy First Minister accept that today's announcement by the former First Minister that he intends to withdraw his Ministers from the Executive means that, from Thursday, most Ministers will be in non-attendance mode? That proposed withdrawal is in line with the DUP policy of non-involvement and justifies it. Does he accept that that constitutes a massive vote of no confidence in the Belfast Agreement and in the institutions created by it?
Mr Séamus Mallon MP:
I listened carefully to what the former First Minister said, and I did not get the impression that he regarded the motion as a vote of no confidence in the institutions. I accept that it would fall under the category of systematic withdrawal from the Executive. The withdrawal from the Executive of all Ulster Unionist Members, along with DUP Members, would inflict enormous damage on the political process that involves us all and on our hopes for a better political future. Even at this late hour, people should re-examine their position and adhere to a stance which leads into the future rather than one which tries to slink back off into the past.
North/South Ministerial Council
9.
Mr Byrne
asked the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister whether the Executive will give consideration to a North/South Ministerial Council meeting in institutional format as provided for in the Good Friday Agreement.
Mr Séamus Mallon MP:
The agreement provides that the North/South Ministerial Council will meet in an appropriate format to consider institutional or cross-sectoral matters and to resolve disagreement. At its last plenary meeting in September 2000, the North/South Ministerial Council anticipated that it would meet by agreement in institutional format before the next plenary meeting to consider a range of procedural and cross-cutting issues.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)
Mr Byrne:
I thank the Deputy First Minister for his answer, but will he ensure that an institutional format meeting occurs as soon as possible and that co-operation in cross-border transport is on the agenda? Will the Minister bring up at the North/South meeting the commendable work done by the Executive on the N1 section of the Belfast to Dublin route?
Will he urge that similar progress be made on the N2/A5 Dublin-Omagh-Derry trans-European network route?
3.00 pm
Mr Séamus Mallon MP:
I thank the Member for the question and, in the interest of brevity, I will answer the second part of it. The N2 Dublin-Omagh-Derry route is one of the key transport corridors set out in the spatial development strategy. That will be a factor when the prioritisation of resources for roads is considered.