When dealing with such issues as the validation of qualifications, we should think in broader terms, beyond an all-Ireland approach. Recently, the all- Ireland approach has proved beneficial in dealing with foot-and-mouth disease. Everyone is concerned about health, and the all-Ireland approach to such matters of common concern as healthcare is always sensible, but we must also think in European terms.

Surely there is parity of qualifications between member states? Recently, Spanish doctors and nurses were recruited to the beleaguered English Health Service. Their medical qualifications, therefore, were acceptable. Is the motion really necessary? Surely protocols exist for the recognition of all qualifications obtained in EU member states? Are we saying that those protocols are inadequate? There is a sound reason for their existence: to ensure genuine comparability of qualifications between member states.

The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety should indicate whether she is satisfied that those protocols are effective. If they are, why change them? On an administrative level it may be simpler to change them, so that those from the South may apply more easily for jobs in the Health Service here. However, does that not discriminate against those with equivalent qualifications from other member states such as Germany, France or Spain? The Minister for Employment and Learning could no doubt advise us on that. However, we must be mindful that we do not breach European regulations by giving favoured member status to the Republic of Ireland over other member states.

Should there not be protective measures for those who have already qualified in Northern Ireland? Comparability of qualifications is all right in itself, but those who qualify in our own system must be protected. If there is a shortage of applicants for jobs, people will have to be recruited from other countries. However, if that is not the case, are we to allow those from elsewhere to slip into jobs in our system ahead of those who qualified in Northern Ireland?

We have a duty of care to protect students who qualify in our own institutions in the job recruitment in our system. Our primary duty is to protect the welfare of the young people of Northern Ireland. We must not be seen to enact legislation that is contrary to EU regulations. Anything that can be done to bring the Health Service up to a more acceptable standard must be the priority of every Member.

I am old enough to remember when work permits were necessary in order to get a job in the North. However, we now live in a global society in which people want to travel and gain experiences - they do not want bureaucracy to get in the way of their careers.

The motion is useful in that it raises issues that affect all Departments. Since partition there have been many cases of hardship created and maintained by two sets of bureaucracy that sought to separate, differentiate and divide. Health has no respect for political borders. However, the absence of common validation and recognition of qualifications has created real hardship for the people who work in the Health Service and, more importantly perhaps, for the people who need the service.

Cross-border bodies create opportunities to confront many issues relating to qualifications and training. As already mentioned, our membership of the EU endorses that fine principle and in many respects enables us to address the issue.

I support the motion and I hope that progress is made with expediency and effect on this issue, on education, on the legal system, on social services, and on many other issues that affect people's lives daily.

This is an important motion, and I thank the Member from Sinn Féin, Ms Ramsey, for tabling it. However, as the old joke goes - if a plane crashes on the border between Switzerland and Italy, where are the survivors buried? We must focus on the issue. We talk about where people should receive the medical treatment they need, and who is best equipped to administer it. However, if someone is the recipient of medical care, it does not matter who provides it, or where that person receives it, as long as he or she is receiving the best attention.

The point has been made that we live in a global society. We should view this issue in an all-Ireland and British Isles context and also, as Jane Morrice stated, in a European context. I want people to return to the Health Service in Northern Ireland. Members should recognise that there are a number of foreign nationals working in the Health Service, all of whom provide a service here that is not being provided by other people for different reasons. We should not be disparaging about Filipinos or anybody else. They have come here and they have done a job, and I think that they have done it very well. Anyone who has relatives in hospitals or nursing homes where those people are working will bear testament to that.

By tabling the motion I did not intend to be disparaging about outsiders coming here to work. The motion aims to make it easier for people who gain qualifications in Belfast but who want to work in Louth to be able to work there. I was not criticising outsiders who come here to work.

I am not suggesting that Ms Ramsey said that. I am picking up on what other Members said when they mentioned Filipinos. I am saying that we should recognise the skills that those people have and what they do in the medical professions.

There is a great deal of talk about qualifications. It is important that somebody who has qualified at Queen's University can go to work in Dublin, Milan or elsewhere. That is their choice, and they are entitled to it.

When I was growing up there was a notion about hospitals and nurses. People had a Florence Nightingale- syndrome conception about nursing. That has changed. Nowadays, young girls and young men do not see nursing as a profession that they want to go into because there are so many social problems. The Government did not put money into the Health Service in Northern Ireland over the past 30 years, and everyone knows what has happened.

A few weeks ago, when Belfast City Hospital staff were dealing with people involved in the anthrax scare at the Post Office, 46 people were lying on trolleys in corridors. That image is not one that would encourage people to work in the Health Service.

Nurses, doctors and medical staff are people's first point of contact when entering an accident and emergency department, and they are often abused because there are no beds available or because patients cannot get immediate treatment. We must improve the Health Service to attract staff back - nurses do not want to stay in that situation.

I gave blood yesterday here, and I spoke to one of the staff. She said that she had left the City Hospital to work for the Blood Transfusion Service because the abuse from patients and their relatives on the wards was increasing and that it was worse for her colleagues in accident and emergency. This is a result of a lack of proper Health Service funding over the past 30 years.

Order. The Member is roving wide of the debate, which, as I remind the House, is about the validation and mutual recognition of qualifications and not about staffing levels.

I understand that, Mr Speaker. I can see why you think that I am wide of the mark. Validation and recognition of qualifications are important, but my point is that we must remind ourselves that we have a problem in Northern Ireland and in the United Kingdom because the Health Service has been run down over the past 30 years. Unless we do something about that, cross-border validation and recognition of qualifications will be meaningless and will not help the situation.

Gabhaim buíochas le Sue Ramsey as an cheist seo a thabhairt faoi bhráid an Tionóil. Tá áthas orm bheith in ann freastal ar an díospóireacht agus chuir mé suim, agus mé ag éisteacht, sna pointí a luaigh Comhaltaí.

Tá suim ar leith agam i bheith ag obair le bailíocht chomónta agus aitheantas ar chailíochtaí fhoireann na seirbhísí sláinte agus sóisialta a bhaint amach ar bhonn trasteorann. Aithním fosta go gcuireann an iomad gairmí atá bainteach leis seo le castacht an ábhair. Tá difear ann idir na grúpaí gairmiúla ó thaobh an mhéid iniúchta a rinneadh ar fhorbairt bailíochta comónta.

Caithfidh daoine a fuair a gcuid cailíochtaí sa Deisceart, agus rinne Comhaltaí tagairt dó sin sa díospóireacht, aitheantas foirmiúil a fháil dóibh ón bhord rialaithe abhus le ligean dóibh oibriú mar altra nó mar chnáimhseach sna seirbhísí sláinte sóisialta agus pearsanta. Is é a fhearacht sin ag daoine i ngrúpaí gairmiúla eile a fuair a gcuid cailíochtaí sa Deisceart agus ar mian leo oibriú sa Tuaisceart.

Ciallaíonn sin go gcaithfidh duine clárú leis na boird rialaithe sa Tuaisceart agus sa Deisceart faoi seach le cleachtadh sa dá dhlínse, fiú má aithnítear an chailíocht ghairmiúil féin sa Tuaisceart agus sa Deisceart.

Mr Speaker, I thank Sue Ramsey for bringing this matter to the Floor of the House. I am pleased that I have been able to attend the debate, and I have listened with interest to the points made by Members.

Working towards a common validation and recognition of the qualifications of health and social services staff on a cross-border basis is an area in which I have a particular interest. I recognise that the wide range of professionals involved makes this complex. The extent to which the development of common validation has been explored varies between professional groups.

Ms Ramsey and other Members have pointed out that people who qualify in nursing in the South must have their qualifications formally recognised by the regulatory body here to allow them to work as nurses or midwives here. The same is true for people in other professions who qualify in the South and who wish to work here. Therefore although a professional qualification may be recognised North and South, to be able to practise in both jurisdictions, a person must register with both regulatory bodies.

Dr Hendron said that some groups have taken steps to correct this, resulting in the new regulatory body for social care staff, the Northern Ireland Social Care Council (NISCC) and the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work its predecessor (CCETSW). These bodies have established close links with the National Social Work Qualifications Board (NSWQB) in the South and have undertaken some joint work, including the recent cross-border mobility study. I am keen to see further development of initiatives of this kind, as such work is extremely important.

Some of the existing arrangements inhibit the development of flexible cross-border working patterns that would offer service benefits North and South. Mr Savage and others queried the potential benefits, but they are clearly there.

The Centre for Cross Border Studies published a report earlier this year on cross-border co-operation in health services in Ireland. The report cited the requirement that registration and accreditation of nursing, medical and allied professions be carried out North and South as a serious inhibition to developing joint appointments, staff rotations, placements and cross-covering, all of which health professionals have been discussing as ways to improve services in their areas.

The report highlighted the fact that undergraduate and postgraduate training is organised and accredited by different bodies, North and South. It was also recognised that, in many cases, reciprocal recognition does not exist, and this inhibits partnerships in training programmes.

As Mr Dallat said, there are other aspects far beyond the question of validation or accreditation that must be taken into account. In considering the obstacles to mobility, the North/South Ministerial Council will consider some of the more general questions. The main issue is not just mutual recognition, but also differing terms and conditions of service and general barriers, not specifically related to health and social care.

Mr Savage asked whether the measures that are in place, or that we seek to take forward, are discriminatory. The underlying rationale of mutual recognition is to remove the potential for discriminatory action; it will not favour one member state over another.

The North/South Ministerial Council has commissioned a study on obstacles to mobility between the two parts of the island. I anticipate that similar barriers will be identified to those already cited and which individuals have encountered when moving, either North to South or vice versa.

Dr Hendron mentioned co-operation. The health and social care professionals working in border areas have local knowledge of the practical benefits of working together in the various fields. They have carried out that work across different areas. The recent Altnagelvin/ Letterkenny partnership project, for example, detailed 13 constraints to effective cross-border partnership. The knowledge and awareness of the various barriers and obstacles to cross-border working has come from those who have working experience and who seek to improve matters in their areas. They are, therefore, well placed to contribute to the North/South Ministerial Council's study of obstacles to mobility.

These considerations highlight the complexity of the area and the need to be clear about the barriers and how they might be overcome. I am keen to see progress on the matter and will be exploring the use of the North/South Ministerial Council as a vehicle for progressing the issue.

Ms Morrice and others said that this is a question for the island of Ireland. It is also a question in a wider European context. I was delighted to jointly open a recent conference at which the delegates studied the work in the wider context.

I have listened carefully to Members' contributions and will respond in writing to any issues that I have not covered. I welcome this debate; it is key to the improvement of border areas. It is vital that people from that substantial part of the island get the best out of local services. A recent North/South Ministerial Council sectoral meeting on health and food safety considered regional and supraregional services. I appreciate the attention that the Assembly is giving to this important matter.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I listened carefully to the Minister and to Members.

This is probably one of our easiest debates on health matters. As far as I know, it is the first time that everyone has agreed a motion. We are moving forward.

Several Members mentioned the problems faced by the Health Service in general, and I agree with them. However, if we make it easier for staff to work on an all-island basis we shall fill gaps in provision in the short term. Kieran McCarthy said that we should not concentrate solely on the border counties. I agree with that, but the primary effect of the proposed changes will be on people living in those areas, because they live close to hospitals on either side of the border.

Jane Morrice and Billy Hutchinson mentioned the European market. I agree with what they said, but, at present, nursing staff must re-register, which has cost implications for the individual. That system should be stopped, and registration should be automatic. Several Members, including Mr Dallat, said that the issue involved all Departments. We should aim at making things easier for professionals working in the health sector or in any other sector.

Dr Hendron rightly said that nursing staff were the backbone of the Health Service. I also agree with Mr Savage, who said that it was not simply an all-Ireland matter and that we must examine the matter in a European context. However, tall oaks from little acorns grow. The problem of foot-and-mouth disease was dealt with successfully by work done on an all-Ireland basis. If we start by considering qualifications from an all-Ireland perspective we can progress to involving the British-Irish Council and Brussels.

I thank the Minister for saying that the motion covered a range of professionals associated with the Health Service. It highlights the problems faced by those working at service delivery level. All Members seem to agree with the motion, so I hope that it will be passed. We must sort out the problems as soon as possible.

TOP

RUC Reserve Pensions

I beg to move

The part-time Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve was formed under section 9 of the Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1970. The full-time Reserve also came into being in 1970. I propose the motion knowing that it relates to a reserved matter but trusting that those at Westminster who have responsibility for it will read the Hansard report of today's debate with interest and will rectify an unacceptable position.

The only mention of pension provision for part-time RUC Reserve members in the Police Pension Regulations is as follows:

There is no doubt that pensions is an extremely complex arena.

Part-time RUC Reserve members are liable for further national insurance contributions under the Social Security Benefit (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 to the maximum contribution levels that occasionally apply. There was no mention of a pension for part-time members anywhere in RUC Regulations. Similarly, no pension provision was made for full-time members of the RUC Reserve: rather, a £500 bounty was paid on a triennial basis - a not inconsiderable amount in the 1970s. At the same time, regular RUC officers received no bounty, but were still expected to pay a percentage of their pay into the pension scheme. Some officers received less take-home pay than some of their full-time Reserve colleagues.

It seems strange and, indeed, discriminatory that full-time Reserve members were paid a bounty every three years while part-time members were not. That bounty was surely a payment in place of a pension provision. A judicial review in 1994 rightly resulted in a pension scheme's being awarded to full-time RUC Reserve officers, backdated to 1988. Again, the part-time Reserve was not included in those new arrangements.

I shall speak about the status of the part-time Reserve. Part of the problem is that some people regard the part-time Reserve as part-time employees of a part-time force. Full-time Reserve officers are full-time workers employed under renewable contracts, and the Chief Constable regards that section of the force as essential. He has praised that part of the full-time force and believes that he would have great difficulty meeting policing needs without the part-time Reserve. The full-time element of the Reserve is made up of full-time workers, and the part-time Reserve is part of that. Members are not part-time workers of a part-time force; they are part-time workers of a full-time force. There was a debate earlier on the rights of part-time workers. This motion continues that debate but addresses a specific aspect of it.

Let us briefly look at the work of the part-time force. Men and women do their day's work but assist the community and help to maintain security in the evenings and at weekends, and their presence frees full-time Reserve and regular officers. Surely, we all recognise the important work that policing must undertake, particularly in the evenings and at weekends. I also remind the Assembly that the part-time Reserve remains in situ under the new policing arrangements.

Under the terms of the relevant pension legislation, part-time Reserve members were and are in non-pensionable employment. Heretofore, that also applied to the full-time RUC Reserve. Part-time members could, if they wished, contribute to their pension plans, and those contributions were eligible for tax relief at the highest rate. All contributions to an approved pension scheme are eligible for such relief. If, as in the case of the full-time Reserve, a bounty of £500 were paid into a pension fund, a gross payment in the region of £700 would have followed.

At that time of high inflation and of high returns from tax-free growth, which were allowed because of the legislation that applied to pension contracts, a substantial fund could have been established for part-time members. The majority of those members have given more than 20 years' service to the Northern Ireland community. That should have provided a reasonable annuity and, in normal circumstances, a lump sum at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer. The police pension scheme is one of the best available in the public service. It allows for retirement after 30 years' service, with no loss of benefits for retirement before the statutory age of 65.

I hope that the Assembly will agree that the RUC part-time Reserve has been overlooked for years in respect of a bounty payment or a pension. The present Government have introduced the stakeholder pension scheme. Part-time members have received letters that tell them that they can buy into the scheme. However, when they buy in, they receive no Government contribution, unlike their full-time colleagues. Others who work in security and emergency cover in Northern Ireland, such as the Territorial Army and the Royal Irish Regiment - formerly the Ulster Defence Regiment - contain part- time elements who receive a bounty payment. I ask the Assembly to support the RUC part-time officers' attempts to get what they duly deserve.

I wish to raise some points about the entitlements and future recruitment of the Police Service of Northern Ireland Reserve. Members have on various occasions discussed the entitlements of workers in Northern Ireland. One such debate was on the minimum wage, which applies especially to those in part-time permanent or temporary contracts. Therefore in the context of the entitlements of workers in general, and of part-time workers in particular, the Chamber should consider the work and employment conditions of PSNI members and of the PSNI Reserve.

On hourly rates, holiday entitlement, and general pay and conditions, the principle outlined in the motion warrants consideration, and, in many people's opinion, support. That principle is, if consistency is to be maintained in the Chamber, that all part-time workers should be entitled to equal conditions, whether they belong to the PSNI or to any other public or private service. Given that that is the principle being advanced, the SDLP is sympathetic to Mr Hussey's motion.

However, Members must be cautious in applying that principle. It was interesting that Mr Hussey talked about the bounty payment for those in the full-time Reserve, and how that could be applied to those in the part-time Reserve. That differs from an established pension scheme in which people make weekly or monthly payments into a pension fund.

That aside, we should be cautious as to how far the principle might apply in respect of pension entitlement for members of any organisation who give only a few hours of service. Part-time workers might work for only four hours in any week. Therefore, the application of a pension principle to those who might work for such limited hours needs to be carefully thought through.

I would also caution that while there may be some merit in the motion, and while it may be considered further in other places, its principle, and the approach adopted by Government and policing organisations to it, should not in any way be used to delay or frustrate the new beginning for policing. There is concern that delays in resolving the negotiations between the representative policing organisations and the Government on the severance scheme for members of the full-time Reserve might bring about a delay in the new beginning for policing. Such delays could be in relation to the phasing out of the full-time Reserve or to the recruitment of the new PSNI part-time Reserve.

Whatever the entitlement of the full-time or part-time Reserve might be, it is important, in order to be consistent with the new beginning for policing, and mindful of the security situation, that recruitment into the new part-time Reserve start quickly. In that recruitment the Patten principle that people should be recruited from areas where there are no, or few, members of the current part-time Reserve should be applied vigorously. It is important that the target of 2,500 part-time Reserve members over three years, outlined in the Patten implementation plan, be achieved in a way that is consistent with the new beginning for policing. That will ensure that the growing support for the PSNI will begin to develop pace in all sections and all communities in the North.

Order. I must caution the Member that the motion is very clear. It is about the RUC part-time Reserve and the pensions of people from that era. It is straying outside the realms of the motion to talk about those who may come to be members of the PSNI.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was somewhat surprised that you have already given me the flexibility that you have.

I return to the substance of the motion. It is also important - and this is part of the emotional thinking as opposed to the political and tactical thinking behind what Derek Hussey has outlined - to acknowledge that the part-time Reserve, over the years of service within the RUC, and now within the PSNI, did fulfil a valuable role. That role was not the role of the established RUC; it was to provide community support and community service in the North. Contractually and practically, that was the role of the part-time Reserve, and that role will be valuable in the future in ensuring that the core value of policing - community policing - is honoured, respected and advanced. In having sympathy with the motion, we wish to acknowledge that that was the historic and intended role of the part-time Reserve. We also acknowledge that its members - like other members of the RUC - far too often, in far too many places and in far too many ways, had unjustified and illegitimate threat and terror inflicted on them. Immense pain was caused to the part-time Reserve, the RUC and their wider families. In that context, and for those reasons, the SDLP has sympathy with the motion and will not oppose it.

I congratulate Mr Hussey for moving the motion. The DUP will wholeheartedly support it, and I hope that all Members support it fulsomely and without caveat. It is essential that the House should defend the rights of those in employment, whether they work in the Health Service, education or policing. Public representatives have a duty to do that.

I hope that no one will let his anti-RUC bias deny members of the RUC Reserve their pension rights. I welcome Mr Attwood's saying that it is appropriate for proper employment arrangements to be made for the RUC. It is appropriate. He made some justification of it. I do not mind what spin he puts on it as long as he and the SDLP support the motion. That is progress.

The House must send out the message that RUC Reserve pensioners deserve proper recognition and proper pension rights. It is essential that the House does what it can to raise that issue with the Government, the Chief Constable and those people who take the decisions that deny members of the RUC Reserve their proper pension rights.

Mr Hussey mentioned the vital role played by part- time members of the RUC. That can be seen from the rolls of honour in police stations and other public buildings that show the ultimate sacrifice that those people made, even though they were part-time members of the police force.

Mr Attwood said that the RUC Reserve did play a vital role. I hope that "did" is not the operative word and that the Reserve continues to play a vital role because it remains part of policing here.

I was interested in the operational manpower figures for Northern Ireland in Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary's report. They should be a wake-up call for Members interested in effective policing. Members of the Northern Ireland Policing Board should accept that if they want more beat officers in rural and urban areas, full-time and part-time members of the Reserve play a vital part in everyday policing here.

Look at the statistics. In Mr Attwood's constituency, West Belfast, 43% of all police officers on the beat are members of the full-time and part-time Reserve. In areas west of the Bann, an average of one in three officers is in the full-time or part-time Reserve. In North Antrim, 25% of officers on operational duty are in the full-time or part-time Reserve. In other areas the figures are over 40%. People should realise that the vital role played by those members must be recognised by an adequate salary and pension and, as Mr Hussey pointed out, by a bounty such as is made available to others who work for the defence of this country.

The policing demands of Northern Ireland cannot do without the level of manpower that the full-time and part-time Reserve provide. With that important issue in mind, it is essential that we support the motion. Some people are in danger of sacrificing good and effective policing on the altar of Patten, as if he were a god.

Order. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The motion does not refer to upcoming officers in a new and developing service, but to the right of the part-time RUC Reserve to receive proper pension entitlement. The motion refers to part-time, not full-time, staff, and to past, rather than future, service. I draw that to the Member's attention as I drew it to the attention of Mr Attwood earlier.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I consider myself told off and reprimanded. Nonetheless, I am glad to have put those issues on the record.

I agree with Mr Hussey that many members of the RUC Reserve have been overlooked with regard to pensions or bounties. However, I will go further and say that they have been treated with contempt when it comes to their pension rights. They are being turned into a political sacrifice, and they are paying the price, because they are losing their pension rights. Northern Ireland is also paying a price, because it will lose out on the service and the level of effectiveness that we can expect from the police in the future. I hope that all sides of the House will have the courage of their convictions. If Members support employment and pension rights for other people under other circumstances, I hope that they will support those rights for members of the RUC Reserve.

I support the motion, which is very appropriate at the moment. I have a little problem with the new initials - PSNI - especially after your chastisement of my Colleagues, Mr Speaker, for introducing what you saw as a subject that was not relevant to the motion. Nonetheless, it is important that people like me, who have never had any initials to use other than "RUC", get into the habit of using "PSNI" and become familiar with the term. Mention of the PSNI is relevant because if the treatment of the former RUC Reserve members is unjust and ungenerous, that will have an effect on the future recruitment of a very necessary part of the policing service of the country.

I know well from my own many years of service in the police that there are many occasions of public importance - from motor racing events to political gatherings and other large public occasions - which it would be absurd to man with expensive, professional, highly trained people. What is needed is bodies on the ground who are well trained for the functions that they are being asked to perform and who are available at short notice.

If we forget about the service of the part-time RUC Reserve, we will find their replacements hard to recruit. We spoke to the Police Federation, which represents all ranks of the police on such matters, and we were given some technical advice about the complications that could happen if identical pension schemes were to be introduced for regular and reserve police. We concluded that it was proper to examine each police reservist's service individually. An honorarium system would take due account of the service given by individual men and women and enable them to make pension provision if they so wished. I have discussed this with Mr Hussey, who concurs, and I am happy, therefore, once again, to practise saying the initials "PSNI", and to support the motion.

I welcome Members' contributions. I thank Mr Attwood for his support of the principle and his acknowledgement of the excellent input of officers to the community over 30 years and of the pain - and worse - that they have suffered. I thank Mr Paisley for his expansion of my explanation of the vital role of the reserve element in policing in Northern Ireland.

Mr Speaker, I thank you for your intervention and reminder that the debate is on the RUC part-time Reserve. However, the point was also made that that element continues through. Sir John Gorman took that line. His contribution was one of the most telling. He said that the way we treat officers who have served in the RUC part- time Reserve will impact on people's attitude to joining the new PSNI. His idea of an honorarium has opened the debate up a little, but policing is a reserved matter. We may have some impact if those responsible read the Hansard report of the debate. I sincerely urge them to consider carefully the matters we have raised. I urge support for the motion.

<< Prev