Northern Ireland Assembly
Tuesday 12 February 2002 (continued)
|
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There is a conversation going on. Mr Shannon: It is my own Colleagues. There has been no leeway in this report to support those parents who choose to smack if that is the way in which they want to parent their children. As a parent, I felt that it was, and is, the way to punish my children after reasoning has failed. It is not the Government's place to tell me how to bring up my children, just as the Government should not choose my wife, my job or how many children I have. Madam Deputy Speaker: Time is up. Mr Shannon: My democratic right to choose my life and my morals and to guide my children as I see fit should, and must, be safeguarded. Mr Poots: This is a very interesting debate, and I welcome the fact that most Members will have the opportunity to participate. The role of the family is crucially important, and we do ill to interfere too closely with it. Parents have a special relationship with their children. Having children was a special experience for my wife and myself. There was a bonding experience that allowed us to express our love, and allowed us to care for our children, and for our children to express their love to us. The vast majority of parents have the same relationship with their children. It is a loving and caring relationship where parents want the best for their children. They also want to give them the best opportunity and guide them in the right direction. It is remarkable that 88% of parents have, at one stage or another, used smacking as a means of giving their children direction. The vast majority of those 88% did that in love and care, because they wished to give their children the right guidance. Some Members may think it somewhat odd that I was such a keen supporter of the children's ombudsman, and yet I supported smacking in the home. Throughout the process of the report that the Committee of the Centre drew up on a children's ombudsman, I had said that 95% of the work of the ombudsman would relate to 5% of children. Children are being neglected and abused, not by parents smacking them, but by parents who are ignoring them and allowing them to run wild and do as they please in many circumstances. Those children unwittingly stray into danger. In my constituency, large numbers of young people meet up regularly. Residents in the vicinity are harassed, objects are thrown at their houses and their own children are abused by those young people. Girls as young as 12 and 13 are mixing with young fellows of 18 and 19 years of age, where drink, drugs and glue are readily available. Are those parents caring for their children? Should those parents be charged with neglect of their children? I believe that parents who neglect their children and allow them to run wild do much more harm to their upbringing than those who will occasionally smack their children to bring them into line. Some of the articles that I have read about smacking and other forms of punishment stretch to the ridiculous. Giving children stars for good behaviour may work with very young children, but once they get a little older they may look upon that with disdain. Another form of punishment is to send children to their rooms for a time. If smacking amounts to physical punishment, then those other methods equate to mental punishment, and that must be considered objectively. Since corporal punishment has been excluded from schools, many teachers have said that they have no way of controlling children. Children can do what they like, and teachers can do nothing with them. If that has happened in our schools over the short time since corporal punishment has been removed, what will happen in our homes when children are allowed to do as they please, when they please, where they please, and parents can no longer bring them back into line? Smacking is one form of punishment that can be used on children. I had to punish my son this morning, and I did that by removing his mobile phone for a week. I could have chosen to smack him, but I believed that removing his phone was another method of punishment. Parents have a range of options, and those who are disciplining their children should not be punished. Those parents who are neglecting their children and allowing them to run wild should be punished. The Minister of Finance and Personnel (Dr Farren): Although I welcome the debate, I approached it with a degree of apprehension. I anticipated that, although the motion is directed at the nature of the consultation process, much of the debate would slip into assumptions about the outcome of that consultation process at a phase when the public consultation has been completed and an analysis of all of the submissions has just begun. Therefore there has been no determination at this point on the outcome. As has become clear from the debate, many other jurisdictions, including all the United Kingdom jurisdictions, have been consulting on the question of how we most effectively bring discipline and guidance into the lives of our children, and what role the law should play. It is not a case of the law's not having a role to play; it has a role to play in many aspects of family life. Suggestions that it should have no role at all simply ignore the considerable volume of family law that necessarily exists. In England and Wales the consultation was through the document 'Protecting Children, Supporting Parents', published in 2000. That consultation received 900 responses, 80 of which were from Wales. Five hundred and sixty of the responses were from individuals. Analysis of the consultation showed that although nearly all the organisations that responded favoured a change in the law, 70% of those individuals who replied were in favour of maintaining the status quo. In November 2001, the Minister of State at the Department of Health, Jacqui Smith MP, communicated the Government's decision on the way forward. She said that the Government would not be legislating on the issue. It is important to note that, whereas the decision was taken not to legislate for the time being, Members will be aware from now on that that did not mean that there was no change in the law in England and Wales. The Court of Appeal, between the consultation and the Government's decision, had occasion to adapt the law in the case of the Crown versus H. The Court added to the existing common law on reasonable chastisement those tests set out by the European Court of Human Rights in A versus the United Kingdom. Judges and juries in England must consider the nature and context of the defendant's behaviour, the duration of the behaviour, the physical and mental consequences of the behaviour for the child, and the age and personal characteristics of the child. The Court of Appeal also added a fifth factor, namely, the reasons given by the defendant for administering the punishment. The Minister finished her statement by saying that the law on reasonable chastisement in England and Wales would be kept under review. It is, therefore, possible that the matter will be raised again in England and Wales at a later stage. Let me assure the Member - because this is the point of his motion - that I shall take careful account of the outcome of the English consultation exercise just as I, and, indeed my predecessor, have taken into our consideration the decisions reached on the law on the physical punishment of children in other jurisdictions. The Scottish result may be very different from that of England and Wales. A Bill is being introduced by the Scottish Parliament, which, if passed, will prohibit the physical punishment of a child under three years of age. It will forbid the use of any implement, such as a cane or slipper, and will make it illegal to shake a child or hit him or her on the head. The Bill, if passed, will also make it illegal for childminders in childcare centres to use physical punishment. The Republic of Ireland has also reviewed policy on the physical punishment of children and has decided that it will follow a policy aim of ending parental physical punishment through education. The Law Reform Commission of Ireland has said that it believes that this may, in due course, facilitate a change in the law, although it would be premature to change the law there now. 3.15 pm I should also refer to the experience of other countries. Sweden, Finland, Austria, Italy and Israel are among those countries that have ceased physical punishment, while Canada and almost all US states take the view that physical punishment is an exception to the law of assault. Therefore it was important to conduct a thorough consultation exercise in Northern Ireland so that a decision on the right model for Northern Ireland could be reached through the collection of comprehensive information on people's views. The consultation document was not launched on 11 December, Mr Weir; it was launched on 11 September. Mr Weir: I said that it was launched on 11 September, and that was why, unfortunately, it did not get the publicity that it deserved. Dr Farren: It received considerable publicity. I may have misheard the Member with respect to the date. The press was widely circulated, and the Minister launched the document at a press conference -[Interruption]. Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Dr Farren: Doctors, dentists and surgeries were all provided with copies of the consultation document, as were churches, libraries and schools. Evidence that attention has been paid to the document and that the consultation process has been a success in reaching all sections of society is to be found in the 500-plus submissions that have been received. It is vital that the Executive hear the range of views so that we can find an appropriate way forward. The process of analysing the responses has begun, and it will be a substantial task. I am making a commitment to publish the analysis. My Colleagues and I enter the process of examining options for the way forward with genuinely open minds. We shall have to do something, because the Westminster Government have undertaken to the European Court of Human Rights that the failure of the law to provide adequate protection to those in the position of A will be addressed and the law amended. However, all the options set out in the consultation paper remain: limiting the scope of the defence of reasonable chastisement; removing the defence of reasonable chastisement, including a statement of rights and responsibilities in the legal definition of parental responsibility; and encouraging the development of parenting programmes. Those options remain, and there may be more. I welcome the contributions to the consultation exercise from all shades of opinion, including those contributions from Assembly Members. They are difficult issues that invoke strong feelings in many people, and the consultation exercise was the means by which those feelings could be communicated to those charged with deciding the way forward. The responses must be tailored to the circumstances of people in Northern Ireland. I shall turn to some of the individual matters raised by Members. The nature of the Strasbourg jurisprudence, which was questioned in some contributions, means that although the court can look only at the case before it, its decisions will have wider ramifications. In A versus UK, the United Kingdom accepted that the law did not provide adequate protection to the applicant against maltreatment or punishment, contrary to article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore it should be amended. In moving the motion, Dr Birnie suggested that the research on which the consultation paper is based is flawed. Experienced lawyers and academics wrote the paper, and all efforts were made to check the facts contained in the paper. Dr Baumrind and Dr Larzelere are two leading sources that have been mentioned as not having been considered adequately. Dr Baumrind was considered during the preparation of the paper. Dr Larzelere's work was written when the research for the paper was completed, but it has kindly been provided to officials who will give it proper consideration. Dr Birnie: My understanding is that Dr Larzelere's research was published in 1996, well before the consultation in 2001. Dr Farren: I understand that the paper and research, which the Member refers to, was made available only after the consultation document was prepared. Nonetheless, it has been made available to officials, and the evidence in it will be considered in the course of the analysis of submissions to the consultation. Reference has also been made to an alleged misuse, or misapplication, of section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Section 75 provides for equality of opportunity in respect of age. Every consultation in Northern Ireland must refer to equality obligations, and equality impact assessments must be carried out in relation to policy decisions. Currently, the law creates differences between how children and adults are treated in the law as regards assault and battery. There is no defence of reasonable chastisement for an adult who hits another adult. Therefore it is our job to see whether that distinction, as regards children, is justifiable. That is one of the purposes of the consultation; it does not predetermine the outcome. I reassure the Member that the outcome of the consultation carried out in England and Wales has been, and will continue to be, noted by my Department and by the Executive. Equally, we will take into account the experience in other jurisdictions. Work will be carried out to analyse the responses to the consultation, and any policy that is developed will properly take into account the views expressed by those who responded to the questions posed by the consultation paper. As the debate has demonstrated, this is no easy topic. We have to keep in mind the three-year-old who is given a quick smack for going too close to the fire and the 12-year-old who is hit with a broom handle or worse, as evidenced by the use of baseball bats and cricket bats in our society. We must keep in mind chastisement of that kind, which is being given to teenagers for answering back or perhaps for not answering at all. This is not a referendum for or against smacking; it is much more complex than that. We have to focus on the functions of the law in defining standards. It is about protecting vulnerable people, including children who can be exposed to considerable mental and physical risk not just outside the home but also within it, and helping to shape people's ideas about what is acceptable and unacceptable. It is not about classifying people into good and bad parents. Some good parents say that they have frightened themselves by smacking too hard. It is about asking some difficult questions and recognising that we are dealing with laws that are 150 years old. It is because of the value of informed debate on these important issues that I am happy to support the amendment in the name of Patricia Lewsley, as it emphasises the many sources on which we want to draw. Indeed, we have been doing just that in deciding the way forward. Parents, interested groups and all of us want what is best for our children and to bring them up to be responsible and active members of the community. I thank the Member for raising these vital matters in the debate, and I thank the Members who have contributed to it. Ms Lewsley: I thank those who have contributed to the debate and especially those who supported my amendment. The debate is not about good parents or bad parents; nor is it about penalising any parent. It is about putting guidelines, legislation and, in particular, support mechanisms in place to help parents. I am surprised by Mr Weir's complaint about the lack of consultation with parents and his support for a motion that narrows the issue by asking the Minister to take into consideration only the outcome of the consultation in England and Wales to the exclusion of other jurisdictions. The ultimate aim of the consultation should be the protection of our children. Dr Birnie: I thank all those who took part, particularly the Minister. The underlying argument in proposing the motion is simple and modest. It is that the Minister should note the decision made by the Administration in London, which was taken during the process of public consultation here, that no further change in the law is necessary. England and Wales face the same European Court of Human Rights obligations as we do, and the European Convention on Human Rights has already recognised that the European Court of Human Rights does not imply that all signatory countries must have an outright ban on smacking. I sense that many opponents of the motion fear that if Northern Ireland, or any other part of the UK, retains the so-called "reasonable chastisement" defence, it will make them the odd man out internationally. Despite the implication contained in the consultation document, there is, in practice, great uncertainty as to whether major European countries such as Austria and Italy have truly banned smacking in the home. The opponents of the motion should also be aware of the example of the state of Arkansas in the USA. You may say - Ms Ramsey: Will the Member give way? Dr Birnie: I will not give way as I have only a short time. The former President of the USA, Bill Clinton, who was a welcome visitor here, was Governor of Arkansas, where the statutes allow for reasonable and moderate parental discipline. Ms McWilliams: They also allow for capital punishment. Dr Birnie: I do not think that we want to debate that issue today. I will be brief. Ms Lewsley referred to the need to encourage effective parenthood, and we all agree with that. I pay tribute to those portions of the consultation document that point the way to greater forms of support for parents. I have doubts about Ms Lewsley's proposal for changes in the civil law. I agree with Mr Gibson's points. Many of us have received letters from parents who are concerned about proposed changes in the law, and we should avoid punishing the innocent majority of parents along with a small minority. We should avoid a nanny state. Ms Ramsey said that we should look at the example of other countries, and I agree with that. However, it is important to examine those examples carefully to check whether they actually have banned smacking. As to the point that changes in the law would not lead to trivial prosecutions, we should bear in mind that a court case has been taken in Scotland because of an incident in October last year when a French tourist smacked his eight-year-old son on the streets of Edinburgh. Mr Ford said that we should not give carte blanche for serious abuse. We all agree with that. There is an existing law on assault. Mr Ervine challenged proponents of the motion to define smacking. 3.30 pm An acceptable definition could be established by the five criteria that are now set out in the development of the English common law, established by the R versus H case in the spring of last year, to which the Minister referred. Prof McWilliams said that the consultation was an open process. However, as Mr Weir said, the option of keeping the law as it is was not listed among the options for public consultation. As to the impact of physical correction on children, I refer Prof McWilliams to the research that I mentioned in my opening speech. I agree with Mr McCartney that, in all probability, a change in the law would not prevent the sort of insidious, secret abuse that is so damaging and wrong. I agree with Mr Weir that we must listen to the concerns of ordinary parents. I also agree with Mr Shannon's and Mr Poots's remarks about the importance of having a loving family without excessive state intervention. I note that the Minister said it is too early to analyse the results of the consultation. We eagerly await the analysis of the more than 500 submissions that the Office of Law Reform received. As I said, he listed the five criteria that were established after the United Kingdom versus A and the R versus H cases in order to inform courts about the definition of reasonable chastisement in future. That is where our law should rest. Finally, I urge the Minister of Finance and Personnel to note that the 'Protecting Children, Supporting Parents' consultation document said that "it would be quite unacceptable to outlaw all physical punishment of a child by a parent". Prime Minister Tony Blair was quoted in 'The Guardian' of 8 November 2001 conceding that he had smacked his children when they were "really naughty or did something nasty to another child." That is one example that we should bear in mind. Question put, That the amendment be made. The Assembly divided: Ayes 30; Noes 34 Ayes Alex Attwood, Eileen Bell, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, John Dallat, Mark Durkan, David Ervine, Sean Farren, John Fee, David Ford, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, Carmel Hanna, Joe Hendron, Billy Hutchinson, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Kieran McCarthy, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Martin McGuinness, Gerry McHugh, Monica McWilliams, Conor Murphy, Danny O'Connor, Dara O'Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, John Tierney. Noes Fraser Agnew, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Esmond Birnie, Wilson Clyde, Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Nigel Dodds, Sam Foster, John Gorman, Tom Hamilton, William Hay, David Hilditch, Derek Hussey, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, Robert McCartney, William McCrea, Alan McFarland, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Ken Robinson, Mark Robinson, Jim Shannon, David Trimble, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Jim Wilson, Sammy Wilson. Question accordingly negatived. Main Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly calls on the Minister of Finance and Personnel to take note of the outcome of the consultation in England and Wales by the Department of Health on the law on the physical correction of children in their homes 'Protecting Children, Supporting Parents' (2000) which decided not to change the legislation. Mr B Hutchinson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption]. Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Members should resume their seats. Mr B Hutchinson: My point of order relates to the extension of the debate that has just ended by the Deputy Speaker who was in the Chair before you. There is no provision for such an extension, either in Standing Orders, which I checked, or in the legislation. Can the Speaker make a ruling on this matter and bring it before the House on Monday? Madam Deputy Speaker: I will certainly refer that point of order to the Speaker for him to look at and report back. 3.45 pm Motion made: That the Assembly do now adjourn. - [Madam Deputy Speaker.]
Job Losses in East AntrimMr Beggs: I thank the Business Committee for allowing me to bring this matter to the Floor of the Assembly. It is important to highlight the recent decline in employment in east Antrim to other Assembly Members and to the various Government Departments. [Interruption]. Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will Members please take their seats. Mr Beggs: There is a clear need for Government Departments to assess how the job prospects and lifelong learning opportunities of the people of east Antrim can be improved. Many people's perceptions of east Antrim are inaccurate and have more in common with the situation in the 1960s, rather than with the reality of the twenty- first century. GEC, ICI and Courtaulds have gone. The voids left by those multinational companies have been filled by FG Wilson (Engineering) Ltd and by small business complexes which have developed on the former sites of ICI at Kilroot and of Courtaulds at Carrickfergus. During the past decade, in common with the rest of Northern Ireland, unemployment declined with the emergence of new industry and service sector jobs in east Antrim. In 1996, unemployment in Larne was at 10%, slightly above the Northern Ireland average of 9·5%. In recent years the economic outlook for east Antrim has been primarily related to the fortunes of Nortel Networks. In 1999-2000 over £125 million was earmarked for investment in Nortel's Monkstown plant. In 2000 Nortel won the Northern Ireland Exporter of the Year award, and its workforce almost doubled. A range of suppliers flourished in east Antrim at that time - Insilco, Solectron and C-Mac. New jobs were created, but with the crash of the global telecommunications market those were either lost or were at risk. Since January 2001 there have been 1,000 redundancies at Nortel, and 200 staff have been given early retirement. There have been 350 redundancies at Solectron, 200 at C-Mac and 120 at Insilco. Other job losses in the electronics industry were related to the decline in the world economy. Two hundred jobs were lost at Daewoo Electronics in Carrickfergus, and 65 at AVX in Larne. With the announcement of other redundancies, the total of jobs lost in the last year affected approximately 2,000 people. Questioned by David Hilditch, an Assembly Colleague from East Antrim, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment reported that 44% of all redundancies in Northern Ireland between April and November 2001 were in east Antrim. That statistic is startling. The scale of job losses is the same as that caused by the closure of the man-made fibres industry in the early 1980s. The trade union Amicus-AEEU indicated that a 2:5 ratio multiplier effect comes into being when manufacturing jobs are lost, because the additional loss of service sector jobs increases the total. The unemployment statistics for December 2001 show that unemployment in the Carrickfergus Borough Council area is at 6·6%. That is the fifth highest of any council area in Northern Ireland. Larne borough, at 5·9%, is the sixth highest, with the Northern Ireland average at 4·6%. That is the position at the moment, and recently announced redundancies have yet to appear in official unemployment statistics. Eleven district councils in Northern Ireland are earmarked for special TSN support from LEDU and IDB. I want to know why those eleven councils qualify, while the councils with the fifth- and sixth-highest unemployment rates - Larne and Carrickfergus - do not. I welcome the fact that the criteria for designating TSN are under review, but I would like the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, and the Executive, to bear in mind that dramatic changes have occurred in east Antrim, even since the recent completion of the Noble indices. The IDB's most recent report shows low numbers of overseas visits to east Antrim. In 2000-01, there were no visits to Larne, and only three to Carrickfergus. How can we address the decline? How do we make progress? How can we contribute to improving the lot of the people of east Antrim? There is a need to promote sustainable employment, and to switch the focus to indigenous business start-ups and company development, which is the role of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and Invest Northern Ireland. Education also plays a role in improving people's opportunities. I place a high level of importance on the need for education, to enable an individual to improve his or her skills. The availability of training and further education is key to improving the employment potential of individuals, the economic performances of employers and the economy as a whole: hence the wording of the motion. The East Antrim Institute of Further and Higher Education, for which I have the highest regard, is not located in east Antrim; it is located in north Belfast. East Antrim is one of the few constituencies in Northern Ireland that does not have a permanent, central further education college. As a member of the Committee for Employment and Learning, I have repeatedly raised the issue of further education provision in my constituency, as the former Minister will testify. There is underprovision. Larne Technical College closed in 1999. It has since been demolished, and the site is derelict. Larne's current further education provision is situated in a temporary, out-of-town location. There is a real need to re-establish further education facilities in Larne town centre to give a focal point to continuing lifelong learning. I hope that the Minister will soon be in a position to announce good news on that front. I am pleased that she has agreed to meet me next week to discuss this and other related issues. The meeting was arranged prior to the selection of this motion for debate. There are several areas in which there have been educational gaps in east Antrim, particularly under Peace I funding. Proteus (NI) Ltd spent a total budget, largely in the field of educational support, of £22·25 million, none of which was spent in the Carrickfergus Borough Council area. The educational guidance service for adults (EGSA), with a budget of about £4·3 million, spent only £26,000 in the East Antrim constituency, on one pilot project. I welcome the fact that Proteus (NI) Ltd and EGSA recently attended a community-funding event in east Antrim. Applications will rise as a result of that. However, as east Antrim has a relatively weak community infrastructure, there may be a need for proactive departmental support in that area. The Oakfield Community Centre in Carrickfergus is a potential outreach area for the East Antrim Institute of Further and Higher Education. It has been successful to date, but demand is dropping because its equipment is obsolete. I seek proactive support from the Department for Employment and Learning to improve the educational facilities in that deprived area of my constituency. Many villages, never mind towns, in Northern Ireland were provided with community educational IT suites through Peace I. However, to the best of my knowledge, the town of Carrickfergus, which does not have a further education college, was not. The officials responsible for the allocation of Peace II money recently advised me that it is unlikely that funding will be available within their gift. Again, will the Minister say whether there are departmental or other funds to provide Carrickfergus with a community education facility so that lifelong learning programmes can be provided? I expected learndirect, the Internet-based learning facility, to play a key role in filling the further-education voids in east Antrim. Until recently, Larne and Carrickfergus were two of only four district council areas in Northern Ireland that did not have a learndirect centre to provide community access. I welcome the recent announcement of a learndirect centre in Carrickfergus, which is to be operated by Oriel Training. However, I regret the fact that no learndirect application of the required quality has yet been approved for Larne. I suggest to the Minister that a new further education campus in Larne would be an ideal location for a learndirect centre. The community that I represent is becoming frustrated by the delays and the lack of equality in the provision of lifelong learning facilities. I support the development of small business units. There has been a successful development at the Larne Enterprise Development Company (LEDCOM) and at Carrickfergus Enterprise Agency Ltd (CEAL), in Carrickfergus, where business start-ups have been encouraged - all the units there are filled. In my constituency there is an opportunity to further develop indigenous employment that would continue to exist despite changes in the world economy. I ask the Department for Employment and Learning and other Departments to support such developments. The people of east Antrim need equal education opportunities as regards the provision of further education and training. A level playing field is required to provide incentives for businesses across the board in Northern Ireland. The fortunes of the global economy are not in the hands of the Assembly, but let us ensure that equal opportunities for training, education and employment are provided for everyone in Northern Ireland, including east Antrim. Madam Deputy Speaker: Many Members wish to speak in this debate. Therefore I ask Members to limit the length of their contributions to around six minutes. Mr O'Connor: I thank my fellow Assembly Member for East Antrim, Mr Beggs, for bringing this important issue to the House. There has long been a perception that east Antrim is prosperous because of companies such as GEC, Standard, Courtaulds, ICI plc and Carreras Rothmans (NI) Ltd. Those companies have gone. They were replaced by companies such as Daewoo, which is more or less gone; Insilco Technologies, which has only two remaining employees; and C-MAC, Solectron, and AVX, which have also gone. There is a real danger that the entire constituency of East Antrim is placing all its eggs in two baskets: FG Wilsons and Nortel Networks Ltd. That is dangerous, as we have seen already this year. For example, my friend is today working the last day of his notice period at a subsidiary of Nortel. He is redundant from today. East Antrim is now one of the unemployment black spots of Northern Ireland. When my Colleagues, Mr Beggs and Mr Roger Hutchinson, and I met the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment a few weeks ago, we discovered how bad the situation is. Long-term unemployment is increasing, and youth unemployment is actively rising. There may be a correlation between the rise in youth unemployment and the closure of the East Antrim Institute of Further and Higher Education in Larne. When that facility closed, all sorts of promises were made. We were told that a smaller, purpose-built, state-of-the-art building with IT suites would be built to meet the needs of modern education. Those promises have not been delivered on, because the property has not yet been sold. I hope that progress will be made on the matter. I thank the Minister for her presence here today, and I know that she is sympathetic to our concerns and is trying to ensure that all people in Northern Ireland have equal access to training. 4.00 pm Further education in Larne was asset-stripped by the East Antrim Institute of Further and Higher Education. More and more courses were removed from the institute in Larne to safeguard the institute in Newtownabbey until full-time further and higher education provision could no longer be justified in Larne. However, hundreds of people made use of part-time provision, and that service is no longer available. I want to touch on some other issues that have affected my constituency. The Moyle interconnector is now on stream, and there is a combined gas turbine plant at Ballylumford, where there will be a huge number of job losses once that is fully operational. There have been job losses at Kilroot power station in the past few years. East Antrim seems to have fallen behind; as prosperity has increased elsewhere in Northern Ireland, it seems to have decreased in east Antrim. There is also hidden unemployment. Mr Beggs referred to figures that we received from the Minister. However, because many of the jobs that were lost in companies such as AVX and Insilco Technologies provided second incomes for families, and because those losses occurred in the run-up to Christmas, perhaps they have not yet appeared in the raw statistics. I fear that the statistics are much worse than we are being led to believe. I would like the Minister for Employment and Learning and the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to appoint officials to examine seriously the situation in east Antrim. There is no longer a hospital in the constituency; a minor injuries unit was promised, but there has been no word of it. The people of east Antrim have been stripped of everything that they had, and they cannot take much more. Not enough is being done to meet their needs. There is talk about building the capacity of our young people and helping them be the best that they can be in order to compete in the modern world. I agree, but how can that be done when people in Carnlough have to travel almost 40 miles to reach the East Antrim Institute? The tourism industry has been faltering, and much more should be done to improve it. The Industrial Research and Technology Unit should become more involved in trying to safeguard and add value to the assembly jobs at FG Wilson. Mr Hilditch: I support what the previous Members have said, and I once again voice my concern at the job losses and the lack of training opportunities in the constituency of East Antrim. After the last round of job losses at Nortel in May 2001, I wrote to the company and subsequently met their representatives on 12 June 2001. The agenda of the meeting was the long-term future of Nortel and the group of satellite companies that was set up to supply directly to Nortel. The company representative assured me that job losses had been unavoidable, but that the company was now leaner and fitter and that the market had bottomed out. Nortel was simply waiting for the upturn that research predicted would happen. It could not be stated at that stage when that upturn would occur, but Nortel was confident that no more job losses would occur at the company or at its suppliers, including Solectron. Disappointingly, as an elected representative, that was the last I ever heard from Nortel. I then had a series of meetings with the satellite companies, including Solectron. At this stage I was concerned that Solectron had a contract with Nortel as the sole customer, and that people who had applied for jobs at Nortel ended up employed at Solectron. I have continued to be concerned at the state of this industry, in which Nortel appears to be the central figure. Indeed, I have submitted written questions on this subject, to which Mr Beggs referred earlier. The answer was that 1,218 people were unemployed up to 9 November, but I believe this figure to be less than half of the jobs that have really been lost. The figure does not take into account those on temporary or fixed-term contracts, and those who lost their employment before finishing their training, therefore not attracting redundancy. I must add that many of these employees were in secure employment elsewhere, and were encouraged to leave and move to Nortel and Solectron on the promise of secure employment, increased earnings, overtime, and better working conditions. This is why the workforce is so embittered about not only the loss of its employment, but the way in which the bad news has been handled. For example, documentation was left accidentally in photocopiers: output increased at the Solectron factory; employees were sent to other factories in Scotland and the Republic of Ireland to help them achieve the quality that the Carrickfergus factory achieved every day. Currently the contract Solectron has with Nortel is worth some £45 million, and I believe that this will be relocated to the aforementioned factories. Therefore this loss will be not only to Carrickfergus and east Antrim, but to Northern Ireland as a whole. With regard to redundancy packages for the workforce, the reality is that because Solectron is such a new company in the Province, the redundancy package is of little use to most of the employees. I urge the Minister to ensure that every effort is made in training and employment to ensure that the very capable workforce is offered every opportunity for training and upgrading of its skills and technical know-how, so that its prospects for new employment are fully maximised, and that these workers are simply not put out to graze as surplus to requirement. Another area for concern in my constituency is the gas turbine installation in the Premier Power plant at Ballylumford. The contract has been awarded to an Italian company, which in turn has recruited a workforce of foreign nationals. I am informed that the skills required are readily available in our locality. I am concerned that the workforce may not be receiving the minimum wage, despite its entitlement as members of the European Union. I have brought this to the attention of the Assembly through question AQW 965/01. The answer from the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment was as follows: "My Department does not hold this information which relates to issues outside its remit and to a private company. Nationals of countries outside the European Union and the European Economic Area require an employment permit to work in Northern Ireland. Responsibility for the issue of employment permits rests with my colleague the Minister for Employment and Learning. The National Minimum Wage is a reserved matter, on which the Department of Trade and Industry leads for the United Kingdom as a whole." Further questions have been tabled, and are due for answer this week by the Minister for Employment and Learning - we look forward to those. I am disappointed with that answer, and empathise with the local people who have experienced unemployment in the east Antrim area, and who see foreign nationals taking much- needed jobs and shipping home the wages. In conclusion, I am deeply concerned at the state of the telecommunications industry in east Antrim, on which the area is heavily dependent. I can draw parallels with the textile industry, whose demise devastated the area during the 1970s. We can ill afford to lose the telecommunications industry, but similarly I am concerned at the over-dependence on this industry. East Antrim also depends on small businesses, as some 58·4% of employment in Carrickfergus and Larne is accounted for by small businesses, many of which are experiencing difficulties. East Antrim currently ranks fifth among the 18 parliamentary constituencies in unemployment figures, and urgent measures need to be put in place to reverse that trend. I support the call to improve job prospects and lifelong learning opportunities. Mr Ford: I rise to look over the constituency boundary from South Antrim to East Antrim, as I want to add a few brief comments to the debate on the Nortel aspect, particularly on behalf of my Colleague, Mr Neeson. I welcome the fact that this debate is taking place, and I congratulate Mr Beggs for having introduced the topic. There is a significant problem in east Antrim. Companies such as Nortel did not just employ constituents of East Antrim Members; they also employed many people from south Antrim and north Belfast. As David Hilditch has rightly highlighted, the shrinking of 1,500 jobs in IT and communications in the last year or so was in parallel to what happened in the late 1970s and early 1980s to the textile jobs, which also disappeared from south and east Antrim. A major initiative is needed to restore confidence in the area and deal with the after-effects of the job losses at Solectron in recent weeks. There has also been some good news. The recent announcement by the planners to give outline planning permission to the retail and business park at the Courtaulds factory site in Carrick is a positive development on a brownfield site and is clearly welcome. However, we must ensure that that is followed up fully. I trust that the Minister for Employment and Learning will ask her Colleague, Reg Empey, to ensure that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment lends as much support as possible to that project, so that there are more jobs for the people of Carrickfergus. Similarly, there are some positive signs of recovery of IT jobs in north America. We hope that the Minister can give us some assurance that everything possible will be done to stop job losses in Northern Ireland and to ensure that jobs are underpinned until they become fully viable and firms can expand again after the anticipated upswing in the economy when it comes across the Atlantic from north America. Invest Northern Ireland will have a major role in developing and promoting investment. The over- dependency on IT and communications jobs has been highlighted, and there is a need to build up the tourist potential, but basically the economic base in the constituency and in the wider County Antrim area must be broadened. That clearly comes back to the Minister for Employment and Learning, because one fundamental matter must be addressed - skills development and the promotion of lifelong learning opportunities. The Government must support private business, because private business is the engine that produces economic growth in an area. However, competition does not always achieve what we want, and the changes made to further education several years ago seem to have created difficulties. The amalgamation of separate colleges seems to have led indirectly to problems in several areas, most obviously in the closure of the Larne campus of the East Antrim Institute. It must be possible to redress that. Danny O'Connor has rightly highlighted that it has not been dealt with as speedily as it should have been. Whatever problems there may be in running a multi-campus institution, it cannot be right that the people of Larne have no further education provision closer than Ballymena, Antrim or Whiteabbey. Something must be done to put further education provision back in Larne, and we must also look for some form of outreach in Carrickfergus instead of depending entirely on the facility in Whiteabbey. Those matters must be addressed urgently. Economic confidence in east Antrim, which has had high employment levels and has lost them, is lower than in some parts of Northern Ireland that have always expected to have higher levels of unemployment. Larne is clearly an area of major concern, although Carrickfergus is not far behind, and when I say Larne, I mean the entire borough from Ballycarry to Carnlough. Sean Neeson wrote recently to several Ministers to seek a co-ordinated interdepartmental approach to the situation and to ask that a task force be set up to ensure that the problems do not fall through the gaps between different departmental responsibilities. Those problems simply cannot be dealt with in isolation, and I ask the Minister for Employment and Learning to tell us what she can do, in conjunction with her Colleagues, to ensure that a multi-agency task force, involving not only Government Departments but also local agencies in Larne and its wider community, is put together to ensure that we tackle the problem in a way that shows that this institution is supposed to symbolise joined-up Government. |