Assembly: Adjournment Debates

 

Mr Weir:

On a point of order, which may guide us for future events.

I understand that for a balloted Adjournment debate the ballot is conducted on a Friday. It would be helpful for Members to know that they had been unsuccessful in the ballot. Some Members arrived here not knowing whether they would be called in the Adjournment debate although they had prepared for it. It would also be useful if the names and subjects that are to be debated in the Adjournment debate were known by Friday lunchtime by means of an amended Order Paper or a circulated list of the speakers and subjects that are to be raised on the Adjournment.

5.00 pm

The Initial Presiding Officer:

This matter is resolved on a Thursday evening. There were some 24 applications for this first occasion, and I expect a much larger number in future. The amount of time required to contact everyone on a Friday in order to let them know the outcome will be considerable and if we were to continue in this manner, we would require some additional staff. The information that should have been given was that those Members who were to be called would be contacted on Friday, and if they were not, it was because they would not be there. We could, of course, adopt the mechanism that Mr Weir suggests, but that would have practical implications in terms of contacting everyone, particularly in view of the fact that not everyone is able to be contacted.

Mr Weir:

I am not suggesting that we go to great expense or hire additional staff, but if the outcome is known on a Thursday evening, a letter could be sent out to members by first-class post on Friday morning, and they would receive it on Saturday morning. That would not cause too much trouble. Alternatively, on Thursday evening could a circular be put in the pigeon-holes of those who have been selected? That would resolve the situation without inordinate expense.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

It is probably unwise for us to use our time here to discuss administrative matters, save to say that the practicalities of the apparently simple processes have proved to be quite difficult - Members have not been here, they have not been available to collect papers from their pigeon-holes and sometimes they have even been out of the country. However, I take the point; we will look into it. As I said earlier, if there is something unsatisfactory, I would like to hear about it, and I will take it seriously. Please bear with us as we try to be responsive.

Mr Morrow:

A number of Members are disappointed that they were not drawn in today's ballot, and I accept that not everybody could have been drawn out. Can you confirm, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, that those who have been drawn out will not be able to enter the next ballot?

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Yes. Whatever goes into the ballot is destroyed at the end of that ballot. If a Member wishes to re-enter a matter, then he needs to do so. He must contact us, give us the signed slip of paper, and it will then be re-entered.

Mr Morrow:

I would like further clarification. I am referring to those who will speak today. Can they be included in the next ballot?

The Initial Presiding Officer:

They can. The usual channels have indicated to me that they hope that those who have had less chance to speak might be more fortunate in the ballot. This is a very difficult matter to deal with, as I am sure Members will understand.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley:

One thing worries me. Is this ballot run the way the Speaker of the House of Commons runs hers? Or is it a pure ballot - if there is such a thing as a pure ballot?

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I was somewhat surprised at your terminology of a pure ballot. I have spent some time with the Speaker of the House of Commons discussing some of these matters and have been educated significantly by her in them, but I would not for a moment suggest that there was anything impure about the way she conducts matters in the House of Commons.

Mr McCartney:

The mockery of a ballot is not something which appeals to me or to my party. Surely there is a better way of ensuring a degree of parity in the opportunities for the Members from the various parties to speak. One accepts immediately that the larger parties should have more opportunity - there is no quarrel with that - but a system which allows, as in this case, one Member from the Ulster Unionist Party, which is the largest party, two from the Social Democratic and Labour Party, two from the Democratic Unionist Party, one from the Alliance Party and none from the other parties to speak is not something that we should recommend.

This is supposed to be an Assembly where reason, equality and fairness prevail, and that certainly cannot be achieved by a common lottery. There are better methods. We are not tied to the House of Commons in this; it may have established a ballot for all sorts of other reasons. In any case, this Assembly is not operating on the same basis as the House of Commons, with a Government and a major opposition party. This is supposed to be a consensual Assembly, and that ought to be reflected by something other than a lottery.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

It is true that Members are from parties of differing sizes, but the size of the parties bears no relation to the number of applications to speak. There are some parties with many Members and almost no applications, and other parties with fewer Members but with a considerable interest in the matter. That is one of the reasons for the apparent skew that you describe, and that has to be taken into account.

Mr Molloy:

My understanding was that those who were selected today would not be selected the next time. Secondly, Sinn Fein is not happy with the allocation today or with the method that has been used. As Mr McCartney has said, we must approach this in a way that will ensure representation from all the parties.

Some parties may have made a number of applications judging that in a ballot they would have a better chance of getting some out, but we put forward two on the basis that we had two Members who wanted to speak. We might have been better putting in 20 applications - that would have increased our chances of getting two out, but that would just tarnish the system. We must look again at this method of balloting and find some means of getting representation from across the Chamber.

Mr Morrow:

Mr McCartney may or may not be aware that he will not be included in the ballot by virtue of the fact that he is the Leader of a party. It will not be a ballot in the true sense of the word, because not every Member will have a chance to take part.

Mr McCartney:

What Mr Morrow says has no relevance whatsoever to the arguments that I made. In my party we have other Members, such as Mr Hutchinson, whom we heard today, who are quite capable of delivering a relevant and powerful speech. It has nothing to do with whether my name is in the ballot or not.

It is to do with each party having proper representation and a proper pro rata opportunity. After all, if we have imported the d'Hondt system to ensure equality in the selection of Ministers and in the selection of Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen, surely we can devise a better system than a lottery for allowing Members, other than party Leaders, to represent the views of their party.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Members must understand that if we do start to operate this on the entirely proportionate basis that is being referred to, Members from quite a number of the parties will not get an opportunity to speak at all in some of the debates. In the debate this afternoon the parties are not being represented on the basis of their size. All parties will get a chance to speak and then subsequently we will try to parcel out the time on a proportionate basis. That means that the smaller parties will get an opportunity to speak at a much earlier stage and more regularly than would otherwise be the case.

I am entirely the servant of the Assembly and will accept whatever system the House chooses. However, it is important to understand that if one chooses another system it may not have precisely the outcome one wants. Let us not forget that this is the very first day we have used this mechanism, which your representatives decided to use on this occasion, and these things usually work out more reasonably when taken over a period of a few months. Taken over only one day, clearly there will be a skew. If we change it so that in all debates an entirely proportionate basis is used, then it will be rather difficult for me - and part of my responsibility is to try to make sure that smaller parties, independents and dissidents get a chance to speak - to ensure that this happens.

Mr Dodds:

I am tempted to say that since everything else about this process has been well and truly rigged, it would not be too hard to rig the ballot to suit particular outcomes. The underlying principle should be that everybody gets his fair share and his fair say.

With regard to this fundamental issue about the rights of speakers and how often parties should be represented in Adjournment debates, and also with regard to the point that Mr Weir made about communication with Members, those are matters which should be considered by the Standing Orders Committee. It can look at all these issues and try to come up with a system that is fair to everybody and has a degree of consensus across the parties. This is the best way of handling this issue rather than entering into a long involved debate which will end with the result that a lot of people who have asked to speak will not get to speak. I have no vested interest in this.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I appeal to Members to take heed of what Mr Dodds has said. I do feel it is incumbent upon us to ensure that those who are expecting to speak, get a chance to speak, even if that means going a shade over six o'clock.

Mr McCartney:

This suggestion from the Chair that if you have a lottery it may in some way balance out over time is akin to the argument that if a monkey were let loose on a typewriter and given infinity it would produce all the plays of Shakespeare. The idea that we should be committed to a lottery is something which I find fundamentally offensive. Nor need the rules in relation to Adjournment debates be those that govern the manner in which we deal with general debates, where the practice of giving one Member from each of the parties an opportunity to speak before introducing any proportional methods for the rest of the speakers is working and is generally accepted to be fine. I still make the point that we ought as rational beings to be able to produce a fairer system than that which is produced by random lottery.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I want to bring this debate to a close. It has had a fair degree of airing. It should not be assumed that the system which we have had up until now whereby all of the parties have a first bit of the cherry before consideration is given to other Members is universally accepted and welcomed. Such an assumption would be unwise.

Mr McCartney:

Maybe some of us should get out of the Assembly in those circumstances, if we are not going to be heard, Mr Initial Presiding Officer.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

It is not a question of people not being heard. I am simply trying to ensure that everyone is fully informed of the reality, which is that it is not entirely accepted all round.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Item six on the Order Paper is described as an Adjournment debate. Of course it is not an Adjournment debate as that term is understood in other places. However, we are structuring it in this way, particularly in the absence of Ministers. Twenty-four Members submitted applications to speak and were included in the ballot. Six Members have been selected and will speak for up to ten minutes on a subject of their choice.

Motion made:

That the Assembly do now adjourn. - [The Initial Presiding Officer]

City of Belfast: Development

 

5.15 pm

Dr McDonnell:

The issue I want to address is the development of the city of Belfast in the widest possible context. Most of us are aware that in the last century Belfast was a tremendous industrial powerhouse, and some of us would like to see it being a powerhouse again - perhaps in the technological sense of the twenty-first century. The one thing militating against that is a tremendous lack of co-ordination across all the Government Departments. I raise the suggestion in passing that when the Assembly gets organised perhaps we should have a Junior Minister for Belfast to co-ordinate work across the Departments, but I will leave that for the moment.

The whole community in Belfast has made tremendous strides in redeveloping and rebuilding the city, in both physical and human fabric terms. I have serious concerns, about the opportunities missed and squandered, just as I am pleased about the opportunities used. I would like to draw attention to some of those concerns, and I hope I will have a chance to debate this at greater length at a later stage.

While there are piecemeal plans, there is an almost total absence of any overview, co-ordination or integrated plan for the development of the city, and that is my overriding concern. There are a number of component parts to any worthwhile development strategy: constructing the physical attributes; developing a transport system; connecting the education system to the strategy; the economic aspect that involves people rather than bland structures; and generally ensuring that the health and social services underpin the whole thing so that when things go wrong, or when people are either ill or at a disadvantage, they are supported.

I could further subdivide the components, but it is not essential to do so at this stage to make my point. In our system, as I see it, all these parts function independently, and there is little linkage between them. Much, but not all, of the potential synergy is lost at a considerable cost to the city in both financial and human terms. Some five or six years ago, those of us who were on Belfast City Council were permitted to raise a small amount of money from the rates to promote the economic development of the city. We raised £1 million and we used that to unlock a further £1 million of EC funding. Tremendous strides have taken place, with many of the targets achieved across a whole range of programmes, unlocking some of the bottlenecks and providing opportunities for the people. I pay tribute to my colleague Mr Empey, sitting fornenst, to use the Ulster-Scots word. He has done an outstanding job in providing leadership, strength and drive.

In the city council we have built our whole agenda around three themes: community economic development; the development of existing businesses; and promoting inward investment where possible. I must emphasise that in most cases we have surpassed our own expectations, and successes range right across the whole spectrum including community projects, those which strengthen our retail sector, those working to build confidence and capacity in small business and those helping to build a formidable network of friends and allies across Europe and North America with a view to supporting the work of the Industrial Development Board.

We have mobilised and encouraged people and empowered them to believe in themselves and achieve their full potential.

I am seriously concerned that the efforts of the council and its staff are often frustrated by what can only be described as a distinct lack of enthusiasm. I have heard others put it much more strongly, using terms such as "lack of co-operation" or "petty rivalry". In that context I refer to some of the Government's organs and agencies.

One of the issues that concerns me is European funding. It is great at the moment with structural and social funds. We even had the peace and reconciliation fund. But Objective 1 status is at risk, and the question that must be answered is what happens when the funds run out. Who will organise the exit strategy and who will be left holding the baby?

I am particularly concerned about land availability and the structured land-use strategy that we need. Land use is fundamental to any development plan, but we do not have a strategy, and I am not sure whether we even have a complete list of land availability in Belfast.

In addition, we have tremendous problems with the Planning Service of the Department of the Environment. For all sorts of petty bureaucratic reasons, it exerts a stranglehold and obstructs much necessary and desirable development.

There is poor co-ordination between the various subsections of the Department of Economic Development. They all do their own thing, sometimes communicating with each other but often acting like strangers. We desperately need a united, co-ordinated approach. Another concern is the total lack of any transport strategy for the city. We have Translink, Citybus and Northern Ireland Railways, and we all have a lot to learn.

The gasworks development has been left idle for the last two years because of petty obstruction by the planners. First, they said that Belfast City Council had to spend £500,000 on widening the Ormeau Road some 600 to 700 yards from the gasworks site. That project was needed in any case, but they saw the opportunity to lumber the city council with the burden for it. Now that that matter has been resolved, they have blocked the developments because they have decided not to allow any cars on the gasworks site. I am at a loss as to why they insisted on widening the road for cars supposedly coming in and out of the gasworks when it now transpires that there is not to be any adequate car park for those who are there. There are some 1,000 to 1,200 jobs hanging on that bit of petty bureaucracy, and that situation cannot be allowed to continue much longer.

The north foreshore is another issue. Some 330 acres of European prime site would be ideal for a bio-technology park, where the universities could co-operate and we could create a massive web of twenty-first century jobs. The city council has spent over 40 years reclaiming land from the sea and recently spent £20 million on cleaning it up. Some 120 acres of it are now ready for development. It is ideal for the science and technology park that this city and country badly needs. The Department of the Environment has fobbed us off for the past three or four years, saying that the Harbour Commissioners wanted it. We now know that they do not want it; but still we cannot have it. Thousands of pounds worth of methane gas, which could have been used to make electricity, has been blown off that site.

I will briefly mention the D5 and hypermarket developments. Sainsbury's at Forestside has devastated the Ormeau Road, as will the D5 development the city centre. There has been much indecision in relation to the city's southern road approaches and the inner-city distributor box. That box will cut a swathe through the southern centre of the city, from the Grosvenor Road, through Durham Street, Hope Street, Bankmore Street and across through the gasworks, seven acres of which has been blocked because of that.

Finally, I want to raise the issue of the privatisation of the port of Belfast. Will that privatisation be like the airport one, where millions were made? Who will be the beneficiary of the port's privatisation? Some 2,000 acres of the best development land in Europe are attached to the port of Belfast - 600 acres on the Antrim shore and 1,400 on the County Down shore.

This offers the potential for jobs to a much wider community than those ratepayers in Belfast.

Many opportunities have been squandered due to muddle and confusion. I would like to have the opportunity to raise this issue in a more general debate, but I emphasise the urgent need for a co-ordinated strategy here, and I believe it falls to the Assembly to take the lead in this. We should discuss how we can co-ordinate development in this region, and it may be that, in due course, we will need a junior Minister for Belfast.

 

Equality Commission

Mrs E Bell:

I would like to make a few comments concerning the establishment of the Equality Commission.

I agree with some of the comments that were made about the ballot; we do need to think about this again.

Equality is defined as "the condition of being equal with more than two persons in quality or in having strength, ability et cetera". Equity is "fairness" and also recourse to "principles of justice to correct or supplement the law". I start with these definitions because the term "equality" - like many other words, such as "inclusiveness", "identity" and even "peace" - are not always used in the correct way, but rather to support a certain slant to suit other perspectives. In every society, every citizen is different, there are different incomes and living situations, but that should not mean that those who do not enjoy full employment, good health or sound minds should not be equal to, or at least feel equal to, others as regards basic rights and a proper quality of life.

We in this Assembly have a chance to ensure that all our citizens, whatever their circumstances, have the right to realise their full potential and to have their place in the sun. However, our hands are being tied by what I believe is the premature setting up of the Equality Commission. The Belfast Agreement stated that decisions on the establishment of this new Commission would be "subject to the outcome of public consultation". The consultation process produced only 18 replies in favour of the merger out of a total of 123, yet it is still being debated and will become law before the new Assembly is even finalised. It will be cut and dried before the proposed Department of Equality can start its work.

A number of points are still unclear. It has been suggested that the Northern Ireland Office is to allocate a budget of £4·8 million to the Equality Commission. The current budget for the Commission for Racial Equality, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Fair Employment Commission is £5·5 million. Who will be supervising the allocation of this smaller budget to the different departments of the new Commission? Will that be done by Westminster or by the new Assembly? How will it be administered and how will that affect the staff of the existing equality bodies?

These are important points. But I would like to go on to what I consider are more important points. Emphasis is being put on eliminating religious and political discrimination, but there seems to be no clear process proposed for reducing other types of discrimination such as that based on gender, disability and race. The political imperative to focus on equality issues in respect of the two major groups in our community may undermine those of smaller, less vocal groups. For instance, the members of the minority ethnic groups are only now finding a voice through the Commission for Racial Equality and are in danger, along with others who feel that they have a need for recourse to the other equality bodies, of losing out on the attention of the new Commission, which will be remitted to attend to all the different interests.

It is essential that the Assembly is empowered to ensure that this Equality Commission is seen to be fair and to work for all who need it. Rights must not only be protected, they must be promoted. Any downgrading of gender, disability or racial rights should be challenged as patently discriminatory.

Another point of concern is that the legislation, as it stands, could lead to some problems with affirmative action programmes. For instance, certain measures are currently taking place to increase Catholic representation in the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The Bill does not allow for this, but I think it should, as there is a precedent laid down in the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights, for example.

5.30 pm

Sex discrimination is another crucial area that needs specific attention. Women, as with those with disabilities, face the reality of inequality in all areas of economic and social life. The Equal Opportunities Commission has demonstrated that there is still work to be done in the area of equal pay for work of equal value, and it has recently encouraged Government Departments, agencies and local councils responsible for economic development to include a gender dimension in their policy development.

Female Members in the Assembly will agree that the Assembly must adopt such a stance in its own legislative practices. I am glad to note that the shadow Commission is already looking into the possibility of childcare provision for Members and staff.

To conclude, I should restate my concern and the Alliance party's concern at the timing of this proposal to set the Commission up, especially when it is clear that so many organisations and groups have expressed similar concerns. The amalgamation of the existing equality commissions can only suggest a certain lack of confidence on the Government's part that the Assembly will deal with equality issues in a proper fashion. No one is disputing that there should be a review, but it should have been delayed until the Assembly was fully set up, and we also want to think about the new Human Rights Commission.

I am sure that we all want to create a Northern Ireland where citizens can live, work and play in a fair and equitable society without fear or discrimination. The Assembly will play its part and be committed to that goal. The Government should have shown more faith in the devolved Administration's ability to achieve this.

Mid-Ulster Hospital (Acute Services)

 

Rev William McCrea:

I should like to raise the retention of acute services at the Mid-Ulster Hospital. Some weeks ago, the Northern Health and Social Services Board decided to follow the Government's line on the Golden Six acute hospitals. In the review, and in response to the Government's request, the board decided to remove the acute services from the Mid-Ulster Hospital.

It was interesting to note that no sooner had the proposal been put by the chief executive of the board - an official of the board - than the meeting concluded. The proposal was accepted and a press release on behalf of the chairman and the chief executive was released immediately. It seems that the decision had been made before the meeting took place. This is not a proper way of dealing with the Health Service and the future health of our people.

On that occasion Mr Baker, an SDLP Councillor from Cookstown, and I made representations to the board. The members listened courteously but were quick to go ahead with their own proposals.

The present review ought to be stopped because its findings will in time prove to be nugatory. Given where the Golden Six hospitals are situated, the principle and the design of that policy is fundamentally flawed and out of date.

The review was commenced under the Tory Government and, when the Tories went out, the new Labour Government permitted it to continue. It may be that the decision about acute services will not be taken by the Labour Government. It may become a responsibility of the Assembly and of a Minister of Health in Northern Ireland. For that reason we should be looking for support for the Mid-Ulster Hospital from within the Assembly.

There are many headings, and one could consider why acute services should be retained as they are. Because of time constraints I can deal with only some of them. The first issue is accessibility. The time that is taken to reach skilled medical attention is critical in all emergencies, and it involves consideration not only of distance but of the condition of the roads and the route to be followed in getting patients to that point of assistance. It is generally accepted that the roads in the two council areas that are covered by the Mid-Ulster Hospital - Magherafelt and Cookstown - are some of the poorest in the Province. Journey times to the hospital, especially from the western half of the district, would increase significantly if acute services were to be placed in Antrim rather than in Magherafelt. The Automobile Association states that it would take 52 minutes to travel from Pomeroy to Antrim as opposed to 22 minutes to Magherafelt, and 50 minutes from Stewartstown to Antrim as opposed to 24 minutes to Magherafelt.

In 1994, the Northern Health and Social Services Board produced a report on the development of hospital services in its area. The report stated that an acceptable journey time was considered to be 40 minutes. The board's 'Customers' Charter' states that, in an emergency, an ambulance should arrive within 14 minutes in an urban area, 18 minutes in a rural area and 21 minutes in a remote area. Obviously, those times could not be complied with if the services were moved from the Mid-Ulster Hospital and placed in Antrim. The life expectancy of the person requiring immediate medical attention is put at risk.

The Northern Ireland Ambulance Service is currently undertaking a study into response times for calls if the rationalisation of acute services proceeds. Under a new system that is currently being piloted in Great Britain, the service will be expected to meet 75% of category A calls - immediate life-threatening calls - within eight minutes. This is highly unlikely to be the case if the Mid-Ulster Hospital loses its accident and emergency department.

There are travel delays in Toomebridge and although a new bypass is agreed and proposed, it will be several years before that is completed.

We have to consider equity. Cookstown and Magherafelt have fairly high levels of deprivation, and more difficult access to acute hospital services would result in the transfer of costs to those who are least able to pay, thereby reducing access to acute services. That also contradicts the Department's guidelines. Its aims, which are set out in 'Targeting Health and Social Needs', are to reduce inequalities and to ensure that the changes do not increase variations in availability or access to health care. Reduction in services would cause job losses, resulting in a further negative impact on an already deprived area. The transfer of acute services can only increase inequalities and reduce accessibility. That contradicts in practice the Department's statement that

"the effectiveness of targeted resources, programmes and services must be assessed to ensure that they are succeeding in reducing and not inadvertently perpetuating or increasing variation in health and social well-being or in the availability of or access to health and social care".

The Government have stated their vision for the Health Service. It is to provide

"a comprehensive Health Service, publicly funded, publicly operated, free at the point of use and available to all on the basis of need, not on the ability to pay".

If the policy dictated by the review were to be followed then the only safe place to be sick in this Province would be east of the Bann. Your chances of survival, west of the Bann - an area of the greatest deprivation and disadvantage - would be greatly diminished. The situation is totally unacceptable. All you have to do is look at a map of the Province to see that five of the six golden hospitals are going to be east of the Bann. That is not apportioning health services relevant to need or social deprivation.

On behalf of all the people of the mid-Ulster area, from whatever side of the political spectrum they come, I wish to make it clear that existing acute services at the Mid-Ulster Hospital ought to be retained. Failure to do so will result in an increase of inequality as regards access to acute services in the Cookstown and Magherafelt District Council areas. That is unacceptable. There will be longer response times in emergency situations with ambulances arriving outside the stated response times. Journey times will increase by 30 minutes, with some well above the acceptable journey time of 40 minutes, as stated by the Northern Health and Social Services Board. There is likely to be an increase in mortality rates on journeys to Antrim Hospital. There could be a possible reduction in self-referrals for acute hospital services, further reduction in the significant underprovision of services to the people living in the west of the Province and a negative economic impact on an already deprived area.

God forbid that what happened in Omagh had happened in Magherafelt, had the services been removed. I remember the fight to keep acute services in Omagh. There would have been a vast number of fatalities, and they would certainly have been significantly higher. I want to see our community getting the same acute services as the rest of the Province. In health terms that would be justice for all our people.

 

Parades

Ms Rodgers:

Thirty years ago a group of people, mostly though not all from the Nationalist community, proposed to parade peacefully into the city of Derry to protest about a system of widespread discrimination based on religious belief and political persuasion. On this day, exactly 30 years ago, that parade was banned. Why? It was after all a peaceful protest, a parade into a city with a Nationalist majority ruled by a Unionist minority.

It was banned because of a mindset which held that Nationalist rights were limited by the extent to which they were acceptable to Unionists. It was banned because of a tradition based on an inequality of power between Nationalists and Unionists, a tradition whereby it was taken for granted that marches by the Loyal Orders and associated with the Unionist tradition had the absolute right to march in town centres, Nationalist areas and Unionist areas. At the same time parades associated with the Nationalist community had to be confined to Nationalist areas.

The Civil Rights march, exactly 30 years ago today, challenged that supposition, and what ensued exposed to the world the system of deep discrimination and injustice which lay at the root of that mindset. It is ironic that 30 years later, at a time when political leaders, many of them coming to terms with the need for change, with the need for equality and for a mutual acceptance and respect for each other's traditions, that the parade's issue is still here to haunt us, so to speak. Indeed, it has the potential to inhibit and to damage the difficult process in which we are engaged. However, it is not surprising because the parades issue symbolises the very inequality that has lain at the heart of Northern Ireland's troubled history.

5.45 pm

Drumcree is not about a 15-minute march down the Garvaghy Road; it is about a demand for change and equality on the one hand and the fear of change and the resistance to that change on the other.

The 5 October march in Derry was a protest about real grievances as the Cameron Commission subsequently confirmed. It was not part of a plot to subvert the state. In the same way, the conflict in Portadown arises from a real sense of grievance born out of the experiences of a small Nationalist community in a large Unionist town, a community to which it has been clear over the years that their rights must be restricted and not equal to those of the majority.

The Portadown District of the Orange Order failed to recognise that there is no such thing as an absolute right, that all rights must be exercised with due regard for the rights of others and that all rights carry responsibilities. It is in a situation such as that at Drumcree that a conflict of rights can only be resolved through dialogue and accommodation.

I have no doubt that the sense of grievance felt by sections of the Unionist community about the Drumcree situation is real and strongly felt. Undoubtedly the changes to the status quo proposed by the Good Friday Agreement are seen by some as threatening. It is a pity that an agreement which represents a balanced approach to the rights of both Unionists and Nationalists, an agreement at the core of which lies the principle of consent, continues to be represented by some as a threat and a sell-out.

To portray the re-routing of parades, as has been carried out this summer, as an attack on the cultural heritage of Unionism is a gross distortion of the reality. Of the 3,242 parades that were notified this year - I repeat: 3,242 - only 2% were restricted, and those restrictions were imposed in areas where dialogue had either failed or had not even been attempted.

The emphasis this year has been on the Drumcree situation and the running sore of Portadown. On a more positive note, and there have been positive notes, I have no doubt that the courageous voice of the Rev William Bingham speaks for many in the Orange Order who have been appalled at the events surrounding Drumcree. The small turnout at recent demonstrations sends a clear message as well.

Mr Berry:

Will the Member give way?

Ms Rodgers:

I will not as I have not got much time left.

I read in today's 'Irish News' that a Church of Ireland Archbishop and Bishop and 150 clergymen have publicly voiced concern and deep unease about the events surrounding the Drumcree church service in recent years. That is a welcome development as well.

Over the summer potential flashpoints have been defused from Derry to the Ormeau Road and Dunloy where common sense prevailed, where both residents and Loyal Orders, to their credit, reluctantly accepted unpalatable decisions in the interests of the common good. And that was true of both sides in those areas.

Another positive note to have been struck recently was the decision by the Ballynafeigh Orange Lodge to hold a seminar at which Nationalist, Unionist and Loyal Order views were expressed. I would encourage that. And a further step forward would be to engage in dialogue with the local residents.

However, I will return briefly to the situation in Portadown and to the fact that the Orange Order still refuses to enter into dialogue. Stand-offs, demonstrations and confrontations continue. We saw the consequences of that in 1996 and 1997, consequences with which we are all too familiar. This year we witnessed the surreal spectacle of Army reinforcements being helicoptered into a field at Drumcree in support of the RUC.

The relatively small Nationalist area of Portadown was surrounded by steel barriers and protected by troops and police. A visitor from Mars might have concluded that the third world war had begun. The stand-off and vicious nightly attacks on the security forces went on for over a week, all because a group of men persisted on returning from church through an area where they were not welcome rather than along the alternative route from which they had come. Where was the sense of proportion?

Mr Boyd:

On a point of order, Mr Presiding Officer. There is an implication that the Orangemen were responsible for attacking the police, which is absolute nonsense.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

That is not a point of order.

Ms Rodgers:

Regrettably, it has not ended there. For three months now the Nationalist community in Portadown has suffered intimidation and harassment. It has even been suggested by a representative of the Orange Order that the harassment could stop if they were allowed down the Garvaghy Road. The implication of that is clear.

Three Catholic-owned businesses in Portadown have been burnt down and others have been threatened; all of the town's traders have had their trade seriously affected; and a young policeman lies in hospital with serious brain damage. He has a young wife and three children, and he is fighting for his life.

Who gains from such a situation? Not the Nationalist nor Unionist communities; not the traders; not even those who continue to protest and demonstrate; and certainly not Frank O'Reilly - the young policeman - or his wife and baby and two other children.

Surely it is time to stand back and apply common sense. It is time for the local leaders of Unionism to support publicly the need for dialogue. Surely the experience of the previous three decades is enough to prove to us all that violence and confrontation compounds our differences and ensures that everyone pays the price.

We are together here today, but our differences have not gone away. I hope that during the talks some of us have come to a better understanding of each other. We have agreed to disagree in some areas, but we have committed ourselves to working together to resolve our remaining differences. None of us is less true to himself for doing that. Entering into dialogue is not giving way on fundamental principles; it is a recognition of the reality that conflict cannot be resolved any other way.

The failure to break the deadlock over Drumcree must be addressed. It is unacceptable and intolerable that a small, unelected group of men in Portadown should continue to hold both communities to ransom simply because they will not enter into dialogue.

Mr Dodds:

I wish that I had the time to deal with that subject. Is it not ironic that it was wrong to use the full force of the state to stop a parade in 1968, but it is right to use it now in 1998? That was an interesting commentary on how things have moved forward for Ms Rodgers.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I am intrigued by the connection between this and the subject on which you have chosen to speak.

 

Whiteabbey Hospital

Mr Dodds:

I want to speak about the future of Whiteabbey Hospital, although Rev William McCrea has already dealt with some of the broad issues, because the hospital to which he referred falls under the same health and social services board as Whiteabbey Hospital.

One of the issues for many people in the North Belfast, Newtownabbey and south-east Antrim areas is that while more than 50,000 people signed a petition at the start of the year outlining their opposition to some of the board's proposals, there does not seem to have been as much attention paid to that as to other hospitals. That is why I am taking the opportunity to raise this matter.

I want to appeal to the Minister. It has been assumed that the Assembly will have the final say on some of these issues, and I hope that that will be the case. However, that is not absolutely certain, and the message from the Assembly must be that the elected representative should take the decisions that will affect the provision of health care.

It should certainly not be made by the Minister in advance of a full debate and consideration of all the issues by the relevant Committees and the House itself.

It is easy to say this hospital is special, that it is a local hospital providing essential services. Everybody can make a case for a local hospital or a local school, so it is important to look at the issues as objectively as possible. I would therefore seek to measure the decision that has been taken by the Northern Health and Social Services Board against the criteria which it has adopted.

This is a reasonable approach and better than adopting criteria of our own choosing. There were five key criteria used by the Northern Health and Social Services Board in relation to the future of acute and emergency services and medical and surgical in-patient services in hospitals in its area. There were initially three options and option three has proved successful. All options involved severe downgrading of services available in the Mid-Ulster and Whiteabbey Hospitals. Accident and emergency services and medical and surgical in-patient services were to be removed under all options.

But let us turn to the five key criteria: ensuring high quality care, access to appropriate local services, efficient delivery of care to meet patients' needs, equity of access to care and patient-centred care services. These are sensible, reasonable criteria. But how were they applied in the case of Whiteabbey Hospital? Now with high quality care, every hospital authority throughout the United Kingdom is looking at the question of centralisation. What is the best way to provide high-tech services, acute services and accident and emergency services?

Mr Hilditch:

I agree with what has been said by Mr Dodds. Whiteabbey Hospital's catchment area straddles three Assembly constituencies: North Belfast, South Antrim and East Antrim. The recent decision by the board about services comes as a great surprise. There is disappointment and grave concern in Carrickfergus and Newtownabbey that the whole Assembly constituency of East Antrim will be left without adequate medical or emergency services.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

May I interrupt on two counts. It is quite proper for Members to ask to intervene, but we are in danger of allowing Members to take the opportunity of their Colleagues speaking to speak by intervention. It is a little unfair to the Member who is speaking as well as to other Members.

It was intended that this sitting would end at 6.00 pm, but a short extension would enable Mr Dodds to finish his speech and Mr Wilson, the last Member on my list, to make his. Do Members agree to that course?

Members indicated assent.

Mr Dodds:

The points that my Colleague made about Carrickfergus, Larne and Newtownabbey were well made, and the people in those areas will be grateful to hear that the Member made them on their behalf. I hope, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, that you took care that my time will not be reduced.

In relation to the point that I was making about high quality care and so on, this sort of process has been happening throughout the United Kingdom for some time.

Many people who are dealing with the Whiteabbey Hospital situation are annoyed because it seems that the decisions were taken some time ago. There has been much investment in the Causeway Hospital, and in the new Antrim Hospital and, as a result, there has been no investment in the Whiteabbey Hospital. There is a feeling that the process is under way and that there can be only one possible outcome.

There is a parallel with the Tower Block in Belfast. As soon as such a building is in place, many other decisions inevitably and consequentially flow from it and there are financial consequences. The guiding principles should be need and what best serves the communities in those areas. That is the approach that we should adopt to all these issues. I hope that the Assembly will have an opportunity to adopt that approach, and that we will not be presented with a fait accompli.

Another matter is that of ensuring access to appropriate local services. Rev McCrea has already dealt with some of the issues in relation to transport and so on. The Northern Health Board proposes that local services will be provided under option 3, but it makes no attempt to define the range of investigations, procedures and treatments that could be provided within key settings, such as minor casualty services. It deals with that in a broad-brush way, and many people will want to see detailed recommendations before they are prepared to give their assent.

The third criterion is to ensure effective delivery of care in keeping with patients' needs. We know about travel time in relation to rural hospitals. It applies equally to Whiteabbey Hospital because its catchment area contains some of the largest and most deprived housing estates in Northern Ireland. Some people do not have access to a car or other transport, some depend on public transport, in which there are many deficiencies and difficulties.

The Ambulance Service has not been improved in line with proposals and suggested changes. It is essential that improvements to the Ambulance Service are made before there is any relocation or centralisation of accident and emergency services. There should be a review of the impact of any relocation or change in services to find out how people would get to hospitals.

Public transport should be looked at. The policy appraisal and fair treatment review reported that travelling time for more than 70% of people would be significantly increased, yet about 40% of all patients of Whiteabbey Hospital have no car or access to one. All issues must be considered before decisions are made.

Do patient centres and care services offer value for money? It is disturbing that we will be asked to approve more than £40 million to bring about changes. Nobody has been able to demonstrate to the Whiteabbey Hospital action committee or to me the economic advantages. I should like to know how much extra it will cost.

6.00 pm

The final issue is implementation. The board's document refers to consultation with local people, although it seems that the board is not listening to local people at all. It has brushed their concerns to one side. It also makes it clear that the local GPs will be consulted. I have spoken to some of the local doctors, and they say that their contribution will be essential if this alternative of a community-style hospital is to work. So far, they have not been consulted. Before anything more is done, they should be consulted.

I am concerned about the historical investment pattern that has led to major investment in Antrim and Coleraine. In saying that, I do not disparage those two fine hospitals. There should be necessary improvements to ambulance services and public transport, and the board should clarify to everybody's satisfaction the advantages and disadvantages of transferring services to other hospitals.

 

Pollution

Mr J Wilson:

I am the last to speak, but since my name begins with W for Wilson, that is not unusual except, of course, when I top the poll.

Before commenting on the desirability of restructuring the Department of the Environment, I should declare a personal interest. My long-standing involvement with the angling fraternity has brought me face to face with numerous pollution incidents in the Province's river systems. Some of these have been relatively minor, but others have proved totally destructive.

Even those Members who might not list fish kills following pollution incidents as being items at the top of their daily political agendas cannot, in recent times, have escaped hearing the news of disasters which have hit the River Bush, the Upper Bann, the Blackwater and the Sixmilewater, which is in my constituency. There was also another incident elsewhere, just a couple of weeks ago. I could go on - the killing is endless.

My close association with the Ulster angling scene and the condition of our waterways could, of course, be seen as a narrow and specific interest, but I feel that it heightens one's appreciation of the whole spectrum of environmental degradation and highlights the concerns of other environmental interests about matters such as planning, industrial infrastructure, the impact on tourism, the marine environment, wildlife, farming practices, and so on.

In recounting a little story I want to make a serious point. An individual who wished to make contact with the Friends of the Earth organisation telephoned the Department of the Environment to enquire about telephone numbers and received the testy reply "Look, this is the Department of the Environment, we are no friends of the earth".

The widespread popular cynicism concerning the sincerity of numerous governmental assertions about protection of the environment is, I believe, well founded. Many issues are facing this Assembly, but I feel that a concerted drive to protect, and be seen to be protecting the environment, properly and effectively, would receive enthusiastic support from all parties and the majority of the electorate.

The Ulster Unionist Party has long argued that the poacher and gamekeeper structure, which was highlighted in the Rossi Report, should end, and let me say that I am not satisfied that yet another executive agency should be the model to be considered.

If Members have not read a Northern Ireland Audit Office report published in April this year on the control of river pollution, they should obtain a copy; it makes very interesting reading. I am not interested in engaging in some form of Department-of-theEnvironment-bashing contest. I want to see efficiency in all areas of Government but that efficiency must not be achieved at the expense of accountability.

Here is what the Ulster Angling Federation said about the Comptroller and Auditor General's report earlier this year:

"This scathing report comes as no surprise. It confirms what anglers have known for years. Raw sewage periodically enters most of our rivers from treatment works and storm overflows. Consented discharges to our rivers from industry often fail to meet conditions imposed and are often ignored by the agency which is supposed to protect the rivers - the Department of the Environment.

On the rare occasions when prosecutions are taken, the courts impose derisory penalties when the maximum fine is £20,000. The poacher/gamekeeper situation whereby the Department of the Environment's Water Service is policed by the Environment and Heritage Service - another Department of the Environment agency - must change.

England, Wales and Scotland have environmental protection agencies independent of Government. We suspect that if Northern Ireland had an independent agency, it would expose the disgraceful state of most of our sewage and water treatment plants and would be a major embarrassment to Government.

Lord Dubs recently announced that much of Northern Ireland's sewerage system was close to collapsing and that an extra £50 million per annum was required to bring the system up to standard. This is a welcome recognition by the Government of the problem, and a change from a succession of Ministers who could only talk about a clean and a pleasant land where sewage treatment plants smelt like roses."

I am reluctant to argue for a simple division of the existing Department, and while I favour the concept of a powerful watchdog body, I most certainly have no intention of creating a new quango. My point is that we do need a vehicle empowered to be the effective guardian of the natural environment.

We need to get this right, and we should be prepared to take a little time to do it. There are subject areas within the existing Department which are properly the remit of local government. If these were to revert to local government -and that begs a further question regarding the possible changes to the existing local government structure - then self-evidently such areas would not need to be covered by branches of the Department of the Environment, nor for that matter by executive agencies.

It seems obvious to me that there are existing branches and agencies in the Department of the Environment which could be transferred to other Departments. One might cite for example the Public Record Office and Land Registry, which could be returned to their traditional home in the Department of Finance.

Maybe we should focus on maintaining an environmental Department centred around an existing branch to deal specifically with environmental conservation, protection and preservation. Such a department would have an environmental impact assessment role in respect of all other Departments, but this role could not be permitted to become a process of bureaucratic strangulation of the function of the other Departments.

Herein is the nub of the issue. I recognise that there are many possible permutations, and I do not want to run headlong into change for the sake of change. I want, through consultation, to arrive at a situation whereby environmental protection in Northern Ireland becomes an example to the world of how things should be done. While sharing the impatience of others to get on with the job, I would caution against undue haste in respect of any piecemeal revamp or interim or temporary change.

The people of Northern Ireland deserve value for money, given that they have had some 30 years of an ever expanding public-service sector which fails my test of efficiency and value for money.

Adjourned at 6.13 pm.

<< Prev