The amendment is intended to ensure that children who must act as carers will be assessed under the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 rather than under the Bill. They will be assessed as children first and carers second, an important distinction. Children should first and foremost be treated as children, especially when they have to act as a carer to someone, such as a parent. The amendment will ensure that a child is free to ask for an assessment to determine whether he, a child acting as a carer, should be taken to be a child in need under the 1995 Order. Trusts will then provide the carer with support services appropriate to a child carer. The Committee supports amendments 1, 2 and 6.

I endorse the comments made by the Chairperson of the Health Committee. He pointed out that the Minister and the Department recognise that some children are carers first. That concern was brought to the Committee's attention by Barnardo's, Carers Northern Ireland and the Children's Law Centre. I am happy that the Minister has taken on board their concerns. The Committee proposed amendments to the Bill, and I recognise the work done by the Minister and her officials - some of whom are here today. The Committee gave them a hard time on some occasions.

On advice from the Committee Clerk, the Committee agreed to withdraw its amendments on the basis that the Minister's amendments covered them and also went a bit further. That proves that interested groups - from all related fields - can come to Committees at Consideration Stage, make an impact and change legislation on the Floor of the Assembly. That positive message from the Assembly today will impact on vulnerable members of our society.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

Our Committee was anxious that once this legislation was passed, children should get not only assessments, but resources to carry out their work. The Committee made the point that it would be passing legislation in the Assembly that places a duty on organisations to carry out much-needed and long-called-for assessments for carers and the disabled.

Irrespective of those assessments being carried out with community care, resources for the implementation of those packages may not be available. I am pleased that the Committee advanced those amendments.

Mr Speaker, you may be pleased to know that outside organisations are learning how to initiate amendments and are coming forward - albeit a little late in the day - with some of their concerns. Those concerns that highlight the need to change the legislation can be developed in the Committee. That is why we advanced this amendment. It was difficult, because the core of the problem lay with the policy of the Department, which argued that children under 16 are children and not carers.

I visited the Mater Hospital with the Health Committee. In the maternity unit I saw a child of 14 who had just given birth. If that baby had been born with a disability, would the mother have been a carer? Therein lies of the crux of the problem. At what age do we consider someone to be a carer? Although that mother was 14 and may have been taken into consideration under the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, it was the Committee's view that she was a carer and should be assessed accordingly.

Having heard representations from Barnardo's, Carers Northern Ireland and the Children's Law Centre, the Committee is pleased that it pursued this line and held to it. The Department has agreed with the Committee's proposals and accepted this amendment.

I recognise the contribution of the representative organisations. I was happy to meet their concerns, expressed through the Committee, and I am grateful to all for their work.

Question, That amendment No 2 be made, put and agreed to.

We shall now debate the second group of amendments. With amendment 3, it will be convenient to take amendment 5 and amendment 7.

Molaim leasú 3. I beg to move amendment No 3: In page 4, line 40, leave out "1972 Order" and insert "Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 (NI 14)".

No 5: In clause 8, page 9, line 11, at end insert

No 7: In clause 8, page 9, line 25, leave out "operational". - [Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.]

The purpose of amendment 3 is to correct a drafting point. The title of the 1972 Order needs to be given in full, because that expression is not defined in the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995.

The purpose of amendment 5 is to insert a new definition that is required because of new information provisions. Amendment 7 is consequential on the references to "area" in the information provision.

Molaim leasú 4. I beg to move amendment No 4: After clause 5, insert the following new clause:

Some concern was expressed in Committee Stage that carers might not be aware of their right to request an assessment. I wish to ensure that carers are aware of their rights. The purpose of the amendment is to require trusts to provide information to carers. The amendment requires trusts to make information generally available in their areas about the rights of carers to request an assessment and to take steps to ensure that carers have access to such information.

In addition, the amendment requires that where a trust is aware that someone is providing care, the trust must notify that carer specifically of his or her right to request an assessment. The duty to provide information will apply not only to the rights of carers to an assessment under the Bill but under the new provision to be inserted by the Bill in the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995.

As the Minister says, amendment 4 provides for a new clause that sets out, in a more competent form, the wording of the Committee's withdrawn amendment. The amendment addresses the Bill's failure to place a duty on authorities to take action to provide information to carers, including children and young people, about their right to an assessment and to seek out those carers.

The Committee decided that the matter was too important to leave to trusts to provide separate guidance. The amendment rectifies that serious omission, especially for children, by amending the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, and places a duty on authorities to identify those children who are caring for a parent and tell them of their right to an assessment under that Order. The Committee supports the amendment.

I thank the Minister and the Department for tabling the amendment. When the Committee heard submissions from the carers' representatives, it was clear that many carers were concerned about the lack of information that they received from the trusts and, indeed, about the way that information varied between trusts. The Committee was of the view that carers had a right to the information and that the Bill should make it clear that the authorities have a duty to provide that information.

The Bill did not put that duty clearly on the authorities. However, it is now much clearer. The Committee is happy to withdraw its amendment in favour of that proposed by the Department about the duty that authorities now have to make information on rights available to carers.

Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Speaker, I am conscious of the many times when you have ruled that Members should not repeat one another in the Chamber, and I do not intend to do that. I support the comments of the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Health Committee and the discussions we have had on the Bill. The Department, the Minister and her officials have taken the issue on board, and rather than assuming that carers are aware of their rights, that duty will be placed on boards and trusts. I welcome the fact that the Minister and the Department have taken our comments on board and have proposed amendments to the Bill. I welcome the amendment.

I thank the Chairperson and Members of the Committee for their contributions. I have been able to go further than the Committee asked by providing for general and specific information for carers.

Question, That amendment No 4 be made, put and agreed to.

Amendment No 5 made: In clause 8, page 9, line 11, at end insert -

Amendment No 6 made: In clause 8, page 9, line 13, after "individual" insert "aged 16 or over." - [Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.]

Amendment No 7 made: In clause 8, page 9, line 25, leave out "operational". - [Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.]

Molaim leasú 8.

I beg to move amendment No 8: In page 10, line 2, leave out "Personal Social Services (Amendment)" and insert "Carers and Direct Payments". - [Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.]

The purpose of this amendment is to make the title of the Bill more descriptive of the purpose and content of the Bill.

Amendment 8, as the Minister says, changes the short title. In tabling the amendment, the Minister has acknowledged the Committee's view that titles should, wherever possible, be descriptive of the content and intent of the legislation. The Committee was concerned that the Department had proposed legislation that included such a non-descriptive short title. This change does not change the intent of the Bill. It is made in the interests of clarity. Although the Bill's current short title may be technically correct, it does not address the needs of the public for clear and concise information on the content of the Bill. It is important that the public should know what a Bill is meant to do in a simple and straightforward way, and changing the title will help to do that. I trust that the Minister will bear this in mind for future Bills. I thank the Minister for her action today.

When the Bill first came before the Committee, I felt strongly that, as this is a devolved Assembly, the public should know what we are doing. We should not make it more difficult for them to understand the different types of legislation that we are passing. For this reason I proposed that the Department look again at bracketing "Amendment" after "Personal Social Services", because it is meaningless. We may understand what is being amended, but members of the public who have lobbied for assessments for carers will not. We are trying to make the Assembly as inclusive as possible, and when people campaign, they should understand that the legislation that is passed is for them.

This was an interesting experience for the Committee: we were told that what we were proposing was longer than nine words and that this would set a precedent - a short title is supposed to be short. Nonetheless, we said that the title would then explain exactly what was proposed. We are all learning about legislation, and I pay tribute to the Bill Office. Initially, we asked its officials to explain why we were setting a precedent and why we might not be able to do this. The staff, quite rightly, said that it was not for them to attend for cross-examination by the Committee and that it was up to the Department to give that explanation. It is important that we understand that progress on this is entirely in the hands of the Department. The Clerks sitting to your left and right, Mr Speaker, were extremely helpful to the Committee, and for that we are grateful. I am pleased that, after much consideration, the Department decided that it would be possible to change the short title and that the short title will now say what the Bill will do.

As other Members have said, this amendment caused the most hassle in the Committee, since the Committee members and officials are all still learning. The arguments on this were hot and heavy, and we were passionate about the Bill's saying what it is doing. A number of members proposed this and asked the Department to think again. I am happy that the amendment we proposed, and which the Minister and her officials are bringing forward, goes that one step further. I welcome her commitment and support for the Bill. I support the amendment.

I am happy to allay the Committee's concerns.

That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Personal Social Services (Amendment) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Personal Social Services (Preserved Rights) Bill: Final Stage

TOP

Resolved:

Oral Answers to Questions

First Minister and Deputy First Minister

1.

asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail (a) the number of Bills which have currently been under consideration by the Executive for more than two months and (b) when they will be introduced to the Assembly.

(AQO 905/01)

There are no Bills currently being considered for more than two months by the Executive.

I am pleased to know that there are no further Bills with the Executive. Will the First Minister confirm that the draft housing Bill, which deals with such important social issues as homelessness and dealing with bad tenants, was with the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and the Executive for almost three months? Will the First Minister explain why there was such a delay in bringing the Bill to the Assembly? Is he as slow a reader as he is a learner, or is his office inefficient? Will the First Minister also explain why there should be such a delay in bringing important social legislation to the House? There are six special advisers in his office, and £16 million was voted

I am happy to inform the Member that approval to draft the housing Bill was discussed by the Executive at the meeting on 12 April 2001. However, it was not until 26 November that the Minister for Social Development forwarded a revised memorandum. A further revised memorandum was forwarded by the Minister for Social Development on 18 February 2002. That was discussed and cleared at the Executive meeting on 28 February 2002. The Member will agree that the delay of 10 days was not exceptional.

In relation to that issue, will the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister advise whether the Minister of Education has brought forward a Bill to the Executive on the Burns review or he has advised the Executive of any timetable for implementing the Burns Report?

Will the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister advise whether the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has provided a timetable for taking forward the Hayes Report and whether that will require legislation?

The Member will know that the Minister of Education has announced that he is extending the consultation period on the education Bill until 28 June. Therefore the question of approaching policy decisions, let alone a Bill, will not come into view until the autumn. We have agreed with the Minister of Education that he will consult with the Deputy First Minister and myself about how a consensus might be reached around any proposals. We are some time away from legislation on that issue.

We have been informed by the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety that, after discussions in the Executive, proposals on the way forward will be published for public consultation in the spring. It is hoped that final decisions can be taken before the end of 2002. The need for legislation will not be known until those decisions are taken.

Does the First Minister agree that the DUP's boycott of the Executive is having no effect on the legislative process?

That is correct. Most legislative matters are handled by a written procedure and consequently the presence or absence of DUP Ministers has absolutely no effect on the handling of that business. The so-called DUP boycott is, as on so many other issues, done purely for appearance to disguise the reality of their full participation in the process.

2.

asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what representations it has made, on behalf of Northern Ireland industry, to the Treasury regarding the introduction of the aggregates tax.

(AQO 949/01)

The Deputy First Minister (Mr Durkan): In our response to the pre-Budget report we have written to the Chancellor welcoming the derogation for Northern Ireland of the aggregates levy, but expressing concern that the partial exemption does not fully reflect the concerns of the aggregates industry. We also indicated that we will be making further representation on the matter. Over the last year our Department has made representations on several occasions to the Treasury on behalf of the Northern Ireland industry regarding the introduction of the levy.

The First Minister and my predecessor, Mr Mallon, raised the issue at a meeting with the Chancellor in January 2001, when they expressed concerns about the impact of the levy and pressed vigorously for recognition of our unique circumstances. That was followed in March 2001 with the presentation of more detailed evidence to support Northern Ireland's case. Sir Reg Empey and Mr Mallon wrote to the Financial Secretary in October, when they pressed the argument again for consideration of Northern Ireland's case as part of the wider representations made before the pre-Budget report. A paper was also submitted to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, as it was conducting an inquiry into the impact of the aggregates tax here.

What further action can the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister take to ensure that the tax is not levied at any stage?

We continue to make representations underlining our concerns about the impact of the aggregates tax on our industry. We continue to make the point, at several levels, that not only will it have an adverse economic impact on the industry and on those employed in it, but it will have an adverse environmental impact. The limited derogation to date shows that we have had some success. We will continue to press the case, but there are no automatic levers for success. The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, the Minister of Finance and Personnel and the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment will continue to make the case.

I acknowledge the work done on this issue by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and the work done by the Deputy First Minister in his former role as Minister of Finance and Personnel. However, does the Minister understand that a partial exemption will mean huge costs for the building industry, if the tax goes ahead this year? It may mean that there will be job losses in that sector. Will the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister be in touch with the Treasury before the beginning of April to continue to persuade it not to push ahead with that tax?

We continue in our efforts to highlight to the Treasury the difficulties that the tax causes our industry. Although we welcome the concession that was included in the pre-Budget report, we stressed that it did not meet all our concerns. The tax, albeit in its modified form, will still have a serious impact on our industry. Not only will it have an impact on our industry, it will have an impact on those who use the industry and pay for the goods, which includes the public purse.

Although we have received some budgetary relief on the estimates of the impact, we will still have to pay, so we will continue to make our case. However, I do not want to give the impression that I am confident that we will get more relief soon.

TOP

3.

asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what progress can be reported on the North Belfast initiative.

(AQO 939/01)

We are fully committed to ensuring that all the measures announced on 23 November 2001 progress as speedily as possible. Substantial progress has been made on a range of measures in the package. The North Belfast Community Action Project is up and running. The first phase of traffic-calming measures is in place, and the statutory procedure to bring forward the second phase is under way. A scheme is in place to ensure protection for the windows of houses at the interface.

In addition, there are some matters that do not fall within our responsibility, but which are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Office, for example - the work on the extension of the Alliance/Glenbryn peace line, which I understand is complete, and a temporary CCTV camera at the junction of Alliance Avenue and Ardoyne Road is also in operation.

In addition, a wide-ranging sports package for local schools costing £1·5 million is in operation, and the North and West Belfast Health and Social Services Trust has over £100,000 support for additional counselling. A wider assessment of counselling needs in the area is to be completed urgently. It has always been clear that there needs to be an appropriate mechanism for cross- community dialogue to address vital issues, to improve relationships and to build trust. The Office is pleased to hear of progress in that direction and stands ready to support those initiatives.

Work is ongoing on the preparation of a detailed design for the regeneration and improvement of the Alliance Avenue and Ardoyne Road intersection. Officials are continuing to consult both communities about the proposal, and it is hoped that a trial design will be available soon as a result. Although it would have been preferable for the final design to be approved by now, its completion has required careful and sensitive handling. The Office is committed to the process of consultation, to agreement with both communities and, in particular, to a policy of "no surprises", so some time is needed for that.

I thank the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister for that reply and congratulate them again on their good work on the situation in the greater Ardoyne area. I welcome the emphasis that the First Minister has put on the development of community dialogue and community capacity, which are very important. I encourage the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to meet at first hand community groups from both sides of the sectarian divide in the area to discuss their concerns and - if it is possible, in that context - to encourage them in community dialogue. I invite the First Minister to indicate any additional forms of funding that might be available for community groups there, and of which they could take advantage.

We acknowledge that community groups have an important role to play in resolving these issues. We have been open to them and endeavour to keep in contact with them. In the run-up to the proposals of 23 November, the Deputy First Minister and I met a range of groups. We have a local office in the area and maintain contact with several groups. We are, and will remain, available to meet them as the need arises. That is part of the "sensitive handling", which I mentioned before.

On funding, the North Belfast Community Action Project is working with the Ardoyne Focus Group, the Concerned Residents of Upper Ardoyne and other community groups to assist them to build and maintain their capacity and to access sources of funding. Those include a range of initiatives and schemes from Belfast City Council, the Eastern Health and Social Services Board, the North and West Belfast Health and Social Services Trust, the Belfast Education and Library Board, Government Departments, National Lottery distributors and charitable trusts. There is a range of possibilities, and the Office is doing what it can to assist.

Can the First Minister tell the House when the road realignment project will progress?

That situation continues to receive our full attention. We are aware of the need for people there to accept the road realignment project in the context in which it was agreed to implement the necessary works. The Glenbryn residents' committee had accepted a set of design proposals. However, we are awaiting the consultants' design proposals based on alternative options, which were asked for by representatives of the Ardoyne Focus Group.

I understand that the consultants are making progress as quickly as possible but must await an engineering drawing from the Department for Regional Development's Roads Service to see how the alternative approach would reconfigure the road layout at the intersection. I hope that the Department will be able to complete the drawing by lunchtime on 5 March. As soon as the consultants' design proposals are available, officials will obtain the reaction from both the Glenbryn and Ardoyne representatives. We hope that that will lead to the road realignment project proceeding without interruption.

Will the First Minister consider extending the brief of the North Belfast Community Action Programme so that it can be more proactive in dealing with local concerns over policing manpower on the ground and the work on the abuse of substances and drugs? I draw the First Minister's attention to the serious blow dealt to the work of the Forum for Action on Substance Abuse (FASA) project on drug awareness in North Belfast, which will have to close through lack of funding at the end of March.

I appreciate the Member's interest in dealing with drug awareness programmes. I cannot give any detail on the FASA programme, although we will look at the current situation regarding it.

On the general issue, the North Belfast Community Action Project is intended to bring forward a series of relevant proposals within a very short time scale. Those proposals may involve drugs-related issues and local concerns over policing manpower. The possibility is there, through that project, of addressing the matters that the Member raised.

4.

asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to outline (a) the consultation between the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe and the Northern Ireland Executive Office in Europe to build on the contacts and networks that have been developed in the past; and (b) how this can be incorporated in the new regional office.

(AQO 923/01)

We recognise that the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe has a significant contribution to make to the development of the Executive's strategic approach to European Union issues. Discussions are taking place with the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe, seeking to agree a mutually beneficial role for that organisation in the development of our European policy. We are keen to draw on the experience of the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe to see how it can complement and assist the work of the Executive.

Does the Deputy First Minister acknowledge that, in addition to the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe, there are others outside the Northern Ireland Civil Service who have contributed to Northern Ireland interests in Europe? What consultations have there been with, for example, Northern Ireland MEPs regarding the Brussels office's operations?

We certainly acknowledge that there are a range of other bodies and persons with significant experience of, and insight into, European affairs. Among those are our three MEPs. The director of the Brussels office has met both John Hume MEP and Jim Nicholson MEP. The office staff have frequent contact with the Brussels-based assistants of MEPs. There have been, and continue to be, efforts to arrange a meeting in Brussels with Dr Ian Paisley MEP, but those have not yet been successful.

The role of the Brussels office is not in any way meant to displace the important role played by our three MEPs in the parliamentary structures. The role of the office is very much to amplify their role, to ensure that they are well informed about the interests and insights of this regional Administration and, in turn, to ensure that issues and ideas identified by them as emerging in the European Parliament can be readily relayed through the office for our information.

Are the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister ready to take off their tunnel-vision glasses when it comes to European affairs? Do they recognise that three working days' notice is not adequate when inviting an MEP to their office? Are they concerned that the first opportunity that Jim Nicholson MEP had to come to the office was at the invitation of the Committee of the Centre? Will they treat the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe in a more honourable way in the future than they have in the past?

First, we are in discussion with the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe. As I said in my earlier reply, that is with a view to ensuring that our work and the work of the office can best complement each other and support the interests of the region. We are clearly committed to that.

Secondly, staff from the office regularly go to meet people in various offices in Brussels - it is not the case that everyone must come to them. The staff are available to meet people in various locations.

I hope that MEPs, given their proximity to the Parliament, will be able to visit the office frequently and meet office representatives in the Parliament buildings. The point of convenience works both ways. We must do more to ensure that the office serves the interests of everyone. We have underlined the fact that the office is intended not only to support and represent the interests of the Executive, but to support the many regional interests that have important business in Brussels across several sectors.

Did the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister inform the office of the Northern Ireland Executive in Brussels, when they attended its opening, of the Special EU Programmes office in Omagh? Will they ensure that senior EU officials visit us? Does the Deputy First Minister agree that those officials could benefit from visiting such border areas as west Tyrone, where the introduction of the euro has severe implications for businesses?

I will try not to anticipate any later questions. The First Minister and I stressed to senior officials in the Commission and in the European Parliament that they would be welcome to the region. They in turn stressed that they were keen to visit Northern Ireland. They do not want to visit at an institutional level, but they want to see projects on the ground and meet those who use European moneys well. I would not be surprised if any visiting senior representatives of the Parliament or the Commission wanted to see the three Special EU Programmes Body offices in Omagh, Belfast and Monaghan.

TOP

5.

asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to outline the timetable for the introduction of the proposed single equality Bill.

(AQO 933/01)

We are committed to introducing a single equality Bill. We are also obliged to implement European Union Directives, and we prioritise that. We have agreed a revised schedule for the single equality Bill that reflects that priority. We are chasing a moving target, as underlined by the facts that the Directive to establish a general framework for equal treatment and employment in occupation was agreed after we commenced work on the Bill and that another Directive on sex discrimination is currently being discussed in the Commission. The revised schedule also takes account of the comments from consultees, many of whom wanted more time to consider the issues involved.

The implementation of EU Directives on race, religious belief and sexual orientation will be effected by subordinate legislation. We will consult on those Regulations in the autumn, and they will be brought before the Assembly before the election. A White Paper to set out our proposals for the Bill will be prepared and issued for consultation before the end of December 2002. In addition, separate consultation will take place early next year on proposals for tackling age discrimination and, subject to the agreement of the new EU Directive, on gender discrimination. All those elements will be brought together in the Bill. This is a complex area of law, and it is important that we get it right. We anticipate that the draft single equality Bill will be introduced to the Assembly in autumn 2004.

I agree that the issue is complex and must be got right. However, we have fallen behind in the original timetable. I accept that there have been some complex EU Directives, but they come frequently and there will be more. There will be opportunities to amend any equality Bill to take account of EU Directives. If we continue to delay in taking account of EU Directives, there is a great fear among those who are interested in introducing an effective single equality Bill that it could be delayed for many years.

This is the first time that I, as a member of the Committee of the Centre, have heard of a proposed new timetable for the Bill. I urge the First Minister to ensure that all preparatory work is done so that those who are not yet convinced can be assured that a political "dead hand" has not been laid on the introduction of a single equality Bill. Can the First Minister assure us that the timetable will be adhered to?

I am glad that the Member appreciates some of the complexities in this area, and we assure him of our efforts and concerns. We cannot give assurances about matters not under our control. EU Directives are not under our control; however, they must be implemented. We cannot put EU Directives to one side just because we are keen to put a single equality Bill on the statute book. EU Directives force their way to the top of the list because they must be implemented, and many people would quickly point out that they were being disadvantaged if they thought that EU Directives were not being implemented. Inevitably, we must pay attention to EU Directives.

I hope that no factors will introduce further delay. However, given the complexity of the issue, we will do well to meet our targets.

I welcome the commitments outlined by the First Minister to provide the timetable by December 2002 and to end age and gender discrimination. If all the opportunities of the single equality Bill are grasped, we will have a ground-breaking initiative in Northern Ireland that will be followed in Europe, rather than Northern Ireland following Europe as regards Directives.

The First Minister said that due to the complexity, range and nature of the issues some consultees have requested further time to consider matters. What responses to the consultation on the single equality Bill have been received from the Equality Commission?

I thank the Member for his point; in particular his reference to the single equality Bill's being ground-breaking. The intention is to consolidate the legislation to make it easier for people to follow and apply. It is critically important that, because so much of the legislation relates to employment, we provide a single, comprehensive, consistent code for employers rather than the present overlapping, inconsistent codes. I cannot respond to the question on the Equality Commission. Therefore I will write to the Member.

I thank the First Minister for his response. Does he agree that events are as important as legislation? How does he propose to address the ongoing discrimination against the Chinese community?

I take the Member's point, particularly about the Chinese community. We are conscious that the Chinese community is the largest ethnic group in Northern Ireland and that it makes a valuable contribution to society. We are concerned about recent events that show that the Chinese community is subject to discrimination and, on occasion, attack. A race equality unit has been established and will develop and co-ordinate strategies to deal with such matters.

I have been advised that Mr Ken Robinson is unwell and is unable to be here to put his question. Therefore question six falls.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>