Dr Hendron:

As somebody who has attended people with broken bones, broken bodies and broken hearts for many years, I feel that I have some important points to make.

First, I want to address the Member for Lagan Valley, Mr Roche, who had the cheek to give my party a lecture on democracy. Let me remind him that the SDLP, with our Leader, John Hume, at the helm, has been at the forefront of democracy and real politics in this land for over 25 years.

Secondly, I listened to the very eloquent and passionate speech by the DUP Member for Mid Ulster, Mr McCrea, a speech that I have heard many times before in the House of Commons. While I can agree with some of the points that he made, I thought there was a certain hypocrisy about the general timbre of what he said. I recall very clearly - and so does a large proportion of the population of this land - his standing on a certain platform.

I hesitate to make this point because a certain other person on that platform was foully murdered after that. At the time the Member said that his actions were in support of the right of that person to speak, that it was to do with democracy. I say to him that, to many thousands of people in the North of Ireland, he was by his actions giving succour, either wittingly or unwittingly, to the organisation to which that person belonged and which had murdered many people. That incident was not very long ago. Let us have no hypocrisy from Mr McCrea.

Having spent the last 30 years in medical practice in West Belfast, taking in the Nationalist Falls Road and the Unionist Shankill Road, and having been a public representative for 25 years in the same territory, and elected to conventions, Assemblies, Belfast City Council, the House of Commons and this Assembly, I have some experience in these matters. Though it does not seem so long ago, it was in 1975, in the Northern Ireland Convention just after the fall of the power-sharing Executive, that the UUUC, the combined Unionist parties, led by Harry West, sat across this Chamber.

I was pleased to see Mr West recently in this building and am glad that he is very well. At that particular time, opposite the UUUC sat the SDLP, the Alliance Party and Brian Faulkner with his small band of Unionists who belonged to the UPNI. The key words on both sides that year were "magnanimity" - everybody talked about it - and "trust". I had never heard anything like it. One would have thought that there was a love affair between the two sides. However, the truth was that nobody trusted anybody.

We have come a long, long way since 1975. We have moved mountains since then, and I salute all the people and politicians in both communities who have brought that change about. As the Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party and First Minister (Designate) has said many times, people can change. Those previously involved in violence and paramilitarism on both sides - many good people who have made mistakes and have done things that were wrong - have given brilliant leadership.

It was in 1975, in this Chamber, that Bill Craig broke away from the UUUC - or, to put it more correctly, was pushed away because he proposed voluntary coalition. The Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party was part of that grouping, but at least he was trying to make some progress. The years have passed on since then.

I could go on about the many people I have known in West Belfast, patients and constituents, who have been brutally murdered. Indeed, I still see some of their family members.

4.30 pm

With regard to the attacks that have been made on Sinn Féin here. I am not a member of that organisation. I took on its party Leader at four Westminster elections, having taken the seat from him in 1992 and then, after a massive redrawing of the boundaries, he took it back again. I have no problem with that.

We would be wearing blinkers if we were to say that they were separate organisations. I totally agree with that. But there is an element of hypocrisy in the Chamber today. I believe that those people who were elected for Sinn Féin in the North of Ireland are trying to lead the Republican movement down the road of democracy, and that is the important thing about this. We can all scream and shout about things that happened in the past, though my experience of families who have lost loved ones is that the great majority support this agreement and want the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) to set up the Executive and the North/South bodies.

In the past we have had Vanguard, Ulster Resistance and the crowds acting like the grand old Duke of York's men who went up the hill waving hundreds or thousands - I am not sure - of gun licences. Some would say that they were legal. Perhaps they were, but they were winding up the paramilitaries.

Many times in Nationalist West Belfast I heard of other people wearing little red berets. I am not saying that they were directly involved in violence, but by their actions they were winding up the paramilitary organisations. I am tired of hypocrisy

I come again to Sinn Féin and decommissioning. My Colleague Mr Durkan, the Member for Foyle, made the point clearly that this is not the responsibility of the First or the Deputy First Ministers (Designate). I am aware of people who have been banished by the IRA; I know some of them and have intervened on their behalf. Almost every week I see families who have been intimidated by the IRA, and I am sure that there are families who have been intimidated by Loyalist paramilitaries. I cannot speak with any authority on that.

Members may ask why I do not support some of the points that have been made on the other side of the House. The answer is, as I have just said, that I actually trust the people from Sinn Féin who have been elected here - they do have a mandate and politically it is not in their interest for somebody to go out and smash somebody's knees.

In 1975 there was much talk about trust. We have moved a long way since then and there should be less talk about decommissioning now and more action. As Mr Mallon said this morning,

"In politics you do not stand still; you either move backward or you move forward."

Mr McCartney, the Member for North Down, who moved the motion - and I do not mean this in any condescending way - spoke with great integrity. I believe that he is an honourable man. He speaks with great clarity and gives much thought to what he is going to say. He makes his point with clinical precision but politics is the art of the possible, and this is not a court of law. You cannot take the situation as it is and find a perfect solution; it is not like putting all the little bits of a puzzle together. I do not mean this in any condescending way. I accept the sincerity of the points that he makes, but if we follow the logic of what he and some of his Colleagues are saying, we are not going to get any agreement.

The people who are giving leadership in both communities to organisations that have been involved in murder should be supported, and that, I believe, is the will of the people of the North of Ireland.

My speaking time may be running out, but the days are running out as well. People on the Falls Road and on the Shankill Road - and both communities are represented here - are calling for this agreement to be implemented and for the First and Deputy First Ministers (Designate) to form the Executive. They also want the North/South Council to be formed along with the other bodies associated with it.

Mr P Robinson:

I fear that when a word is used as often as "decommissioning" is, people forget what it means. The Northern Ireland newspapers have been trying to remind us what it means. On 31 October 1998 the 'Belfast Telegraph' listed the arms and explosives still hidden.

Under the Republican catalogue it says that they have: 2,658 kg of the Czech-made plastic explosive Semtex; 1,204 detonators (not 1,203 or 1,205); 588 AKM assault rifles; 395 other rifles; 40 sub-machine guns; 29 GPMG machine guns; 25 heavy weapons; 1·5 million rounds of ammunition (one for everyone in the Province); seven Russian-made flame throwers; 9 Sam 7b ground-to-air missiles; 11 RPG 7 launchers; 46 RPG missiles; and 2 Barrett Light Fifty rifles. That is just the IRA's catalogue of weaponry - a substantial hoard. It is no recipe for peace. These are not the resources that one would expect a "peaceful and democratic" organisation to have.

Some say "Give away 95% of it." Five per cent of that list would be sufficient to carry on a campaign of some significance, and they could replenish whatever stocks were given up. The reality is that those who wish to follow "exclusively democratic and peaceful means" do not need guns and explosives to make their case.

In practice, these weapons end up being used for criminal purposes, as happened in South Africa. Their removal also takes away a threat which gives Sinn Féin/IRA an advantage in bargaining. They do not give up their weapons because they provide them with an edge that they can take into negotiations. They are saying "If you do not give in to us then we will be out on the streets using these weapons."

The key issue is one of trust. The joint declaration stated the rules for entry to the political and democratic process: there had to be a permanent end to violence; parties had to be exclusively committed to peaceful and democratic means. The refusal of Sinn Féin/IRA to offer the word "permanent" suggested to the Unionist community that their organisation had not yet left violence behind and that they intended, if they did not get things their own way in the proceedings that would follow, to use the weapons again to further press the people of Northern Ireland.

I opposed the agreement because decommissioning was not required. The participants simply have to use their influence, such as they have, to try and bring about decommissioning. Not only was there no requirement for decommissioning; there was to be no sanction if it did not take place. It is wrong, therefore, for the Women's Coalition to suggest that if, in two years time, the guns have not been handed over, the whole edifice collapses. The agreement does not say that. There is a requirement in any society for those who are legitimate, constitutional, peaceful and democratic to give up any weapons they may have at their disposal.

The clearest parallel in the agreement to decommissioning is that of the release of prisoners. Both are within a two-year time frame, and the legislation on sentences links decommissioning with the release of prisoners. It indicates that the Secretary of State has the power, if parties have not established or are not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire, to take them off the list. One reason for doing so is if they are not co-operating fully in the decommissioning scheme. Sinn Féin/IRA are not doing that: therefore the release of their prisoners should not continue.

There has been much talk about the 71% of people who voted for the agreement. The Democratic Unionist Party has been asked what it is doing in the Assembly as it opposes the agreement. We are in the Assembly because we have been given a mandate. As democrats, we recognise the fact that 71% of the people supported the agreement. They voted for promises that were made by the Prime Minister and the First Minister (Designate) in the referendum campaign.

It was clear, during that campaign, that the overwhelming majority of the Unionist community intended to oppose the agreement. The opinion polls that were regularly obtained by the Northern Ireland Office showed that. Focus groups were set up to find out why the Unionist community intended to vote in that way.

The Prime Minister put all his team into Northern Ireland. Presidents, Prime Ministers, pop stars, party leaders and business leaders were wheeled into the Province to try to change the views of the people of Northern Ireland. It did not work. The Prime Minister had to give pledges interpreting the agreement and showing what it would mean to the people of Northern Ireland. In the House of Commons, Mr Hague said to the Prime Minister

"May I welcome what the Prime Minister has said in the past about the need for decommissioning to take place before Sinn Féin members can serve as Ministers in the Assembly? . Does he agree that prisoners should not be released early until the organisations to which they belong have substantially decommissioned their weapons?"

Hansard does not record exactly what the Prime Minister said in response. I raised this with the Speaker of the House of Commons on a point of order. The Editor of Debates in the House of Commons wrote to the Speaker as follows:

"I can confirm that certain words were deleted. That deletion was carried out by us.

The Prime Minister's exact words were 'What is essential is that any agreement must be signed up to in full, as we said, and the answer to his question is yes of course it is the case that, both in respect of taking seats in the government of Northern Ireland and in respect of the early release of prisoners, the only organisations that qualify for that are organisations that have given up violence and given it up for good.' "

The Prime Minister came to Northern Ireland to campaign. On 14 May he said

"People need to know that if they are sitting down in the room of the Executive of the Northern Ireland Assembly with other people then they are not sitting there with the guns under the table, outside the door and all the rest of it. That can't happen and we must make it absolutely clear that that can't happen."

During that campaign the Prime Minister signed an advertisement containing five commitments to the people of Northern Ireland, two of which are relevant to this issue:

"Those who use or threaten to use violence must be excluded from the government of Northern Ireland, and prisoners kept in unless violence is given up for good."

His most telling comment appeared in the Belfast 'News Letter' and, I believe, in 'The Irish News' on Friday 22 May - the day of the referendum itself:

"I have spent a great deal of the time talking to people about their concerns, and I believe the fundamental concern is this; how can people be sure that the present cease-fires are not merely tactical and that the terrorists will not reap the benefits of the Agreement, while retaining the possibility of a return to violence?

The Agreement itself is specifically designed to prevent this happening - and I have made clear in the pledge I gave on Wednesday that I will make the Agreement stick. There can be no accelerated prisoner releases unless the organisations and individuals concerned have clearly given up violence for good - and there is no amnesty in any event. Representatives of parties intimately linked to paramilitary groups can only be in a future Northern Ireland government if it is clear that there will be no more violence and the threat of violence has gone. That doesn't just mean decommissioning but all bombings, killings, beatings and an end to targeting, recruitment and all the structures of terrorism."

The Prime Minister identified decommissioning and dismantling as the requirements for entry into government, and before the release of prisoners would take place.

I hope that every Unionist and every democrat in the House will support the motion in the name of Mr McCartney. There can be no place in the Government of Northern Ireland for those who still leave themselves the option of going back to violence if they do not get their way within the Cabinet. Let all Members declare very clearly to Sinn Féin/IRA that the guns must be handed over or there will be no room for them in an Executive.

4.45 pm

Mr McCartney:

This has been an interesting and illuminating debate, not only for what has been said but also for what has not been said.

The contributions of the First and the Deputy First Ministers (Designate) can only be described as an exchange between Basil Fawlty and Manuel - do not mention decommissioning.

There was a total absence of any reference to the decommissioning issue at all, and some other Members, notably Mr Farren and to some extent Mr Durkan, decided that they would take on the mantle of not mentioning decommissioning, though otherwise they made very interesting and worthwhile contributions. In winding up I would like to respond to as many contributions as possible, and it may be necessary to group some of them.

First, I want to deal with the contributions of the First Minister, Mr McGimpsey and Mr Foster, who seem to be under the delusion that there is some inconsistency between my previous view and my support for this motion. There is no inconsistency, as I will explain.

I have always said that the agreement did not, expressly or by implication, put any obligation upon any of the parties actually to decommission. Indeed, it is quite clear that paragraph 3 of the decommissioning section only requires parties to use such influence as they may have upon those who possess weapons to decommission within two years. But, if they do not decommission, it will be virtually impossible to prove that those who have influence actually used it.

I have always held and advocated the view that is central both to my opening speech and to the motion that no agreement, no Government and no mandate can supersede or set aside the fundamental requirements of the democratic procedure itself. A person simply cannot be a democrat, possess weapons and say that if the democratic process fails to give him what he wants, he will carry out violence against those who deny him. That is a fundamental principle of democracy, whether it is in the agreement or not.

My opposition to the agreement is that this fundamental democratic requirement was never explicitly spelt out and that, by that failure, Sinn Féin was afforded some legalistic and literal opportunity to say that it was not required to decommission. For the present, I am delighted that all the pro-Union parties feel that they can, whatever the various routes they have taken to arrive at the conclusion, support this motion.

Mr Foster:

Will the Member give way?

Mr McCartney:

I will not.

I make no mention of the Alliance Party because I have difficulty in discerning where it is, but that is a problem which even Mr Nesbitt has difficulty in getting his mind round.

Let me move on to some of Sinn Féin's contributions. I am delighted at this seasonal and festive time to note that the works of Hans Christian Andersen and the Brothers Grimm have been added to the "green book". We have listened to fairy tales about the absence of any connection between Sinn Féin and the IRA. These fairy tales extend to the PUP too.

I assume that the tooth fairy and other mythological creatures are operating in vast numbers in West and East Belfast, and that it is they who are really the villains whom the police should be asking about the broken bones, the murders, the drug peddling, the creaming off of a percentage from drug dealers, the extortion, the racketeering, all the oppression, the intimidation and the enforced exiles.

Mr Ervine talked about people having a pension - I think he meant "penchant" - for creating bridges. It is obvious that he saw himself in the role of bridge builder. But what bridges are being built and of what are the materials that those organisations, the PUP and Sinn Féin are using? They are murder, mayhem and mutilation. These people talk as if they have discovered the wheel of ecumenism as if they are at the forefront.

To those who see me as some sort of wrecker I can say that I have never murdered, maimed or made any sectarian comments. I have absolutely no baggage of a sectarian nature, nor has my party. Representatives like Mrs de Brún and Mr Martin McGuinness say that people like me are opposed to the equality agenda or to fairness, or that we are the sort of people who "would not have a Fenian about the place". I believe that by "Fenians" (a very dismissive term) Mr McGuinness means Roman Catholics. Well, I have news for him. I have full cousins who are Catholic; my son is married to a Catholic; I have been in almost every Catholic church in Belfast and many in Rome. I believe passionately in the reformed faith, but I am so confident in that faith that I have no difficulty in exposing it to the faith of others. I have been employed by the Catholic Church as a professional barrister, I have been employed by Catholics, and I have employed Catholics.

I have no problems of any kind with Catholics, Nationalists or Fenians, but I do have an enormous problem with gunmen, thugs and villains who use violence for the purpose of achieving any aim, whether it be alleged social equality or some other form of equality. I have no desire to enforce my views upon anyone, but I will not be subjected to violence or to the threat of violence.

I hear some of these reformed criminals speaking, yet they are the sort of people who supported Loyalist gangs who went in with machine guns and sprayed teagues and Catholics.

These are the people whose inmates had murals on the walls of the Maze saying "Yabba Yabba Do, any teague will do." These are the people who say that democrats - people who believe in the rule of law and in sharing but who oppose this agreement politically and democratically - cannot be good unless they have previously been vile. A Member cannot be good unless he has a record of destruction, murder and mayhem. I am delighted that the UUP, DUP, UKUP and, I sincerely hope, members of the SDLP do not share such views. The SDLP Leader once said that there could be no discussion with guns outside the door, or on or under the table. I respect that view and I agree with it.

I have already quoted the Foreign Minister of the Republic, who said that there could be no question of gunmen looking at the democratic process, not liking what it has to offer, and going back to what they do best. John Bruton, who at the time of the Downing Street declaration was the Fine Gael Opposition Leader, said that the joint declaration meant that guns had to be handed in now. "Now" is a short word, but it has a clear meaning. It means immediately, forthwith, at once, without delay. There is no equivocation about its meaning now. That was the basis on which all Unionists and all democrats were led to believe that this process was founded. That was the direction that we were all to take.

Why is there an absence of trust and confidence in the pro-Union community? Because at every stage of the process those who were asked to give trust were the pro-Union community. According to paragraph 34 of the Mitchell Report, they were asked to believe during the negotiations that there would be parallel advancement of decommissioning and political negotiation. I did not agree with that. I agreed with Churchill's comment about negotiating and compromising with Fascists. He asked where was the point of compromise between the fireman and the arsonist.

No guns or explosives were being used by the parties represented in the main line pro-Union community. There were no guns in the SDLP, but there were guns in the possession of Sinn Féin and the UVF - fronted by the PUP. I again return to the political ecumenism of Assemblyman Ervine. His party said that even if Sinn Féin were to decommission, the UVF would not. That helpful and charitable statement was made when, perhaps, there were greater prospects of decommissioning than at present.

I was honoured that Joe Hendron had sufficient confidence to retain me as his leading counsel when there was a petition to unseat him. I reveal no secrets that were not declared in open court. Evidence was given, not about guns, but about the behaviour of Sinn Féin as democrats during an election. The SDLP election agent had to be moved about from house to house during the election campaign for his own safety. If I am wrong I will give way to Joe Hendron. The windows of the SDLP offices were covered with human and animal faeces.

SDLP workers were subjected to all sorts of vile and physical abuse, to threats and intimidation. This was not going on against pro-Union candidates, this was the dirtiest kind of internecine political warfare against a democratic party.

I, for my part, will work with Nationalists and will endeavour to understand and meet their needs. As Nationalists their aspirations are different from mine, but I will share with them - I have no problem about that. I will go along with all their equality arguments, provided that they are based on justice and proportionality. But, in return, I ask them to throw off the yoke of their pan-Nationalism which binds them to a collection of people who demonstrate all the attributes of Fascism.

I beg them, I implore them, to put democracy above party politics and lend their support to this motion.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Under Initial Standing Order 12(1) the decision of the Assembly on the motion and the amendments will be taken on simple-majority basis. Let me remind the Assembly of what I said at the beginning of the debate. If the first amendment is carried, it will supersede the substantive motion and no further vote will be necessary. The same applies to a second amendment. If the third amendment is carried, the words will be added to the motion, and a vote will be taken on the amended version.

I also indicated that because the Standing Orders do not permit a closing speech in respect of amendments, I would formally ask the mover of each amendment if he still wanted it moved.

Amendment 1: moved or not moved?

Mr Neeson:

Moved.

Question put: That amendment 1 be made.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 5; Noes 74.

AYES

Eileen Bell, Seamus Close, David Ford, Kieran McCarthy, Sean Neeson.

NOES

Ian Adamson, Fraser Agnew, Pauline Armitage, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Tom Benson, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Joan Carson, Wilson Clyde, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Bairbre de Brun, Nigel Dodds, Pat Doherty, Boyd Douglas, Reg Empey, David Ervine, Sam Foster, Oliver Gibson, Sir John Gorman, William Hay, David Hilditch, Derek Hussey, Billy Hutchinson, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, John Kelly, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, Alex Maskey, Robert McCartney, David McClarty, William McCrea, Barry McElduff, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Martin McGuinness, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Pat McNamee, Monica McWilliams, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Jane Morrice, Maurice Morrow, Mary Nelis, Dermot Nesbitt, Dara O'Hagan, Ian R K Paisley, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Sue Ramsey, Iris Robinson, Ken Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, George Savage, Jim Shannon, John Taylor, David Trimble, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Jim Wilson, Sammy Wilson.

Question accordingly negatived.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Amendment 2: moved or not moved?

Mr McLaughlin:

Moved.

Question put: That amendment 2 be made.

The Assembly proceeded to a division.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley:

The doors are locked. In any other place the doors remain open until the voting begins.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

For the last vote I asked that the doors be closed on the expiry of the three minutes. I did not ask that they be closed at this point for this vote.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 20; Noes 59.

AYES

Eileen Bell, Seamus Close, Bairbre de Brun, Pat Doherty, David Ford, John Kelly, Alex Maskey, Kieran McCarthy, Barry McElduff, Martin McGuinness, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Pat McNamee, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Sean Neeson, Mary Nelis, Dara O'Hagan, Sue Ramsey.

NOES

Ian Adamson, Fraser Agnew, Pauline Armitage, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Tom Benson, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Joan Carson, Wilson Clyde, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, Boyd Douglas, Reg Empey, David Ervine, Sam Foster, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Derek Hussey, Billy Hutchinson, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, Robert McCartney, David McClarty, William McCrea, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Monica McWilliams, Jane Morrice, Maurice Morrow, Dermot Nesbitt, Ian R K Paisley, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Ken Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, George Savage, Jim Shannon, John Taylor, David Trimble, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Jim Wilson, Sammy Wilson.

Question accordingly negatived.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Amendment 3: moved or not moved?

Mr Neeson:

Moved.

Question That amendment 3 be made put and negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

Noting that

a. no proposals under paragraph 16 of strand one of the Belfast Agreement have yet been made,

b. actions set out in paragraph 8 of strand two of the Belfast Agreement have not been achieved,

c. any party inextricably linked with a paramilitary organisation retaining arms cannot give a total and absolute commitment to exclusively democratic means of resolving differences on political issues or oppose the use or threat of force by others for such purposes,

this Assembly calls upon the First Minister Designate and Deputy First Minister Designate to lay a report on these matters before the House within 14 days.

Motion made:

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

Rev Dr Ian Paisley:

On a point of order, Mr Presiding Officer. I believe that you said you did not think that anyone from the Women's Coalition had taken part in the debate yesterday. In fact, Ms McWilliams did speak yesterday.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I accept your correction and welcome it, as I always do when you are right and I am wrong, which happens from time to time.

 

Science and Technology (Business)

TOP

5.30 pm

Mr McClarty:

On 13 May 1998 the Chancellor, Mr Gordon Brown, said

"Northern Ireland needs more small businesses, but it also needs higher value-added businesses with potential to grow into the drivers of Northern Ireland's future. That is why we are establishing an enterprise excellence programme. It will provide training, advice and access to finance to help today's senior managers and research academics to become tomorrow's entrepreneurs."

His comments and subsequent announcements from the Government make it clear that science-and technologybased companies could be the means by which Northern Ireland might excel in the future.

The potential for the growth of science- and technology-based companies has been described as being equivalent to the onset of the Industrial Revolution. Those regions which are able to offer a market advantage and are willing to bring about the change necessary to embrace new products and innovative thinking, even though lead times will be longer, and expenditure on research and development will be higher, will be the affluent areas of the future.

Science or research and enterprise parks are widely accepted as providing a focus for knowledge - intensive development through research network groups and start-up or spin-off companies and an environment that is conducive to it. The relationship between the knowledge factories and other relevant economic actors is essential for an efficient process of knowledge transfer.

Existing technology and incubator programmes, both in Europe and the United States, indicate that the presence of certain characteristics and features in a region are vital to the success of this type of initiative. These success factors include proximity to a major university with a critical mass of high technology expertise and research and development activity; a business climate that encourages and supports innovation and entrepreneurship; a well educated and skilled workforce and a source of incubator clients; access to appropriate training and specialist services; and availability of seed and venture capital and appropriate support from public-sector agencies.

Experience in other regions which have embarked on a similar road in terms of science- and technology-based industry suggests that success is dependent on the ability of the university to promote its areas of excellence into the private sector and, at the same time, continue to nurture the embryo ideas into commercialisation. This approach raises many issues concerning ownership of the product, finding the right mix of entrepreneurs and scientists, the development of patents and licences and market testing and commercialisation.

The successful development of science and technology parks in areas such as Pittsburgh, Boston and Horsholm in Denmark has not taken place in a random manner. Home-grown science- and technology-based companies have been nurtured in incubator units within the universities for many years before reaching maturity. Their potential to transform depressed areas ravaged by industrial decline is evident in the success of these regions, both in terms of low unemployment and the high quality of life reflected in the above-average salaries commanded by employees in these fields of excellence.

To capitalise on the research strengths and to maximise the benefit for our local economy, an infrastructure will have to be developed that stimulates and sustains the growth of spin-out companies after they leave a university campus incubator.

The inclusion of funding for science park development as part of the Chancellor's recent innovation funding package for Northern Ireland is therefore a very welcome development that could help meet this objective. It will provide an opportunity for Northern Ireland to capitalise on the excellent research and development programmes already established at its universities - most notably in Belfast and Coleraine.

The Coleraine campus, for example, is widely recognised for its outstanding work in the development of health and life technologies, based on its biomedical science, which has attracted top rating among all UK universities. This clearly gives Coleraine the pillars on which a successful biotechnology science park could be established. Similarly, other campuses in Northern Ireland offer potential for sector-specific excellence which will bring benefit to the whole Province.

It is important for Northern Ireland to grasp the concept of science parks and distinguish them from industrial parks. The future for science- and technology-based industry will revolutionise the modern world, and there are the opportunities in our present university system to capitalise on these dynamic developments.

The commitment of the Assembly to the process and acceptance that we are working towards the long-term prosperity of the Province by stimulating a new and dynamic industry sector can be of use only if the areas of excellence where this research exists are used as the foundations.

Human Rights (Legislation)

TOP

Mr Attwood:

It is important that the Assembly acknowledge that last Thursday was the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and it is important for two reasons.

First, the Universal Declaration informed the notion of protection rights, which is central to the Good Friday Agreement that gave birth to this Chamber. Secondly, while not diminishing the conflict in our community, we are part of the international community where conflict has affected more people in more ways over more time.

While the Universal Declaration expresses our world's best hopes and achievements, it does so in the context of our worst fears and practices. The evidence confirms this. Last year there were extrajudicial executions in 69 countries, prisoners of conscience in 94 countries and torture in 124 countries. Thirteen million people were refugees, and 300,000 under the age of 18 were child soldiers.

However, experience communicates better than these facts and figures. This week last year, Bairbre de Brún, David Ervine, Robert Coulter, Davy Adams, myself and others were in Soweto, outside Johannesburg. All of us can now conjure up images of Soweto informed by countless media reports of defiance, dignity and death, but nothing can prepare you for the experience of Soweto.

Amid the noise of up to 5 million people, a silence fell among us. Nothing needed to be said, faced as we were with the rights issues of Sowetans - inadequate housing, sanitation and water, corrugated iron homes, standpipes and mobile lavatories at best. We saw extreme poverty, but far from extreme powerlessness. The issues are similar to the issues here, but far more intense.

What relevance can our conflict and our rights issues have to Soweto? I will return to that question later.

More locally, issues of rights have been central to and representative of our conflict. The right to life, the right to a fair trial, freedom from discrimination and freedom of assembly and procession are all issues that have been part of our political conflict and the culture of our political communities.

Often, when some have demanded rights, others have seen in those demands an attempt to deny their rights. People have felt that the ownership of rights has been more the possession of one community or the other rather than a common possession. The agreement of Good Friday offers a radical and refreshing perspective on how rights can be claimed by all for all.

The agreement properly places the present and future protection of rights in the context of our recent past. The agreement says that we must never forget those who have died or been injured or their families. We can best honour them through a fresh start in which we firmly dedicate ourselves to the achievement of reconciliation and to the protection and vindication of the rights of all.

As citizens, it must be acknowledged that this is a hard perspective for us to accept and that there will be some who may come to accept it slowly, if at all. We here are not just citizens; we have a wider public duty, and to fulfil it we can join together on the issue of rights.

Speaking in Belfast 10 days ago the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, touched on this theme and talked about how those who congregate around issues of human rights are enriched by what she called "a drama of discovery". She talked of how the marginalised understand more than victimhood, legal experts more than the law, and trade unionists more than jobs.

This should also be the case in the political community. But vigilance and vigour will be required as the rights and requirements of the agreement are translated into policy and practice.

First, the words of T E Lawrence, better known as Lawrence of Arabia, should be regarded as a call for vigilance:

"When we had achieved and the new world dawned, the old men came out again and remade the world in the likeness of the former world they knew. They thanked us kindly and made their peace."

The imprint of the old men in the North's bureaucracy could be seen in the draft Settlement Bill, where some with influence and input frustrated the intent and content of the Good Friday Agreement. An external community lobby with internal political pressure reclaimed the agreement, but the need for vigilance persists.

The specification for the new post of Chief Commissioner in the Human Rights Commission is a case in point. As the only full-time Commissioner, this person will lead the consultation on a new Bill of Rights; he or she will promote awareness of rights, bring court proceedings and much more besides. Yet the Government's job specification relegates a knowledge of human rights to being merely "desirable" and promotes management and bureaucratic skills with an apparent weighting towards a manager and a bureaucrat - weighting towards a civil servant as Chief Human Rights Commissioner. That is not the way to proceed. The UN Commissioner recently said that any human rights commission

"composed of individuals committed to and with a strong record in the struggle for human rights is a prerequisite for the protection of the rights of all."

Vigilance is required.

Secondly, there is the question of funding for the newly merged Equality Commission - a merger which the Government say is not cost-driven. There are at least two tests of their assertion. In Britain the Government have given differential funding to the Disability Commission and the Equal Opportunities Commission - £1 million and £6 million - to reflect the emphasis on disability rights, compared to gender rights.

Will they accept the same principle in respect of the merged Equality Commission here? Given the increased functions of the fair employment branch of the new Equality Commission, particularly the new monitoring of public authorities aspect, will they match new funding with the new powers? This Government - and Minister Paul Murphy in particular - have responded to the human-rights lobby in the past; it is time they did so again.

Thirdly, vigour is also required to ensure that the Human Rights Commission's consultation on a future Bill of Rights for the North enjoys a full and free-standing budget and that the Commission does not have to borrow from its annual budget to fund a broad public debate on the content of the Bill. It is crucial that as a Bill of Rights is an essential building block in the creation of a culture of human rights, the Commission's consultation is broad-based, local and international and involves other jurisdictions and agencies with specialist insight and information.

Fourthly, given that the Government failed to honour the Paris principles and the powers of domestic human rights institutions, particularly on powers of investigation, the Assembly should follow the example of the British Government which has agreed to co-operate with any human-rights-commission enquiry or investigation. This would be symbolic as a substantial demonstration of our conviction and commitment to the emerging new order.

Last week the First Minister (Designate) said that he

"had serious reservations about the merits of using any conflict as a model for the study, never mind the solution, of other conflicts".

Perhaps, on one issue at least, Mr Trimble will reconsider. Whatever differences there are between people in conflict, they all share the issue of rights. As a late Queen's University academic, Frank Wright, said,

"In national conflicts, law, order and justice are not issues that happen to arise from other causes. National conflicts, once they are fully developed, revolve around those issues".

Without rights there is no protection against summary detention or trial. Without equality there is no guarantee against discrimination or disadvantage. Different conflicts have common experiences, and with those common experiences come common solutions.

5.45 pm

Our agreement to resolve our conflict moves right away from the margins and into the mainstream. That is part of its uniqueness. It is that part which is most accessible and understood internationally, and by peoples in conflict everywhere. As Mary Robinson said,

"That is why the world is interested in our agreement - why the world observes us."

In working out and living through the purpose, potential and promotion-of-rights protection in our agreement in order to end the conflict, we might inform and inspire others to work out and live through their conflicts. That is how our experience is relevant for the people of Soweto. We have a duty to succeed.

Roads (East Antrim)

TOP

Mr Beggs:

I wish to bring to the attention of the Assembly the need for improved transportation links in east Antrim. There are urgent pressures for improving the main Larne to Belfast road, the A8, the main Carrickfergus to Belfast Road, the A2, the Larne-Carrickfergus-Belfast rail-link and the port of Larne.

The port of Larne has been designated as a major gateway to Northern Ireland in the "Shaping our Future" document. Larne-Cairnryan is the shortest sea crossing between Northern Ireland and Scotland, and is one of the busiest roll-on, roll-off ferry terminals in the United Kingdom. It also provides a container service to other mainland ports. It provides a highly efficient and frequent service, and is an essential umbilical cord for many of our manufacturing companies and their English, Scottish, Welsh and European customers.

The port of Larne presently receives only 50% grant aid. The trust ports such as Belfast and Londonderry receive grants of up to 75%. There must be a level playing field for fair competition to take place.

The main Larne-Belfast road is an essential part of the Dublin-Belfast-Glasgow/Carlisle trans-European network. There are several accident blackspots on that road - the Millbrook and Ballyloran junctions -which are costing lives on this key transportation route. Many houses have been built on the west side of the dual carriageway, and commuters find it difficult to cross because of the high levels of road traffic. The high-speed nature of accidents on the road has resulted in some fatalities this year. The latest non-fatal accident occurred only 13 days ago. This is an urgent safety problem which must be addressed with or without the help of the Chancellor's package.

The 'Shaping our Future' document shows that 1,750 new houses are planned for Larne by the year 2010. This will add further pressures. The Belfast-Larne road - on the Belfast side of the Kilwaughter junction - becomes a single lane carriageway and offers no opportunities for overtaking. Our vital strategic transport link can be impeded by slow-moving vehicles on this single-lane trunk road.

Urgent safety issues need to be addressed at the Ballynure-Templepatrick junction where the road divides. The trans-European network continues to Belfast, and the other road carries traffic to Antrim and Londonderry. New housing developments at Ballynure have added to the pressure at this junction. Major safety improvements are urgently required.

I shall now deal with the Mallusk M2 slip road. The junction fails to carry the main commuter traffic. Two lanes on the M2 merge with two lanes from the Mallusk roundabout, and motorway traffic is frequently brought to a standstill. This causes a severe bottleneck that delays commuters and adds to the distribution costs of our companies. I urge an investigation into the design of that junction to devise a better method of maintaining traffic flow at peak periods.

The lack of improvements to the A2 Belfast-to-Carrickfergus road is exasperating commuters and inhibiting industrial development in the Carrickfergus area. There is a dual carriageway from Carrickfergus town centre to Seapark. There is then single-lane traffic to the University of Ulster at Jordanstown, where there are two lanes of traffic in each direction. This bottleneck adds up to half an hour to journeys between Carrickfergus and Belfast during peak periods. This morning I met an ambulance coming against the traffic flow, and on such occasions, critical time is wasted.

I am dissatisfied, as are other representatives in the area, with the recent 'Moving Forward' document - a transport policy statement by the Department of the Environment. No reference was made in the document to the A2 bottleneck at Greenisland. Why should Members care about the A2? Traffic is so heavy on the route that many travel five miles inland to join the Belfast-to-Larne route - joining the trans-European route and adding to the congestion at Mallusk.

In the constituencies of North Antrim, South Antrim, Mid Ulster and even East Londonderry, the failure to upgrade the A2 is impinging on commuters and hauliers.

The Department of the Environment advised of a traffic movement increase of approximately one million kilometres per year - from 34 million in 1994 to 38 million in 1998. It is predicted that this will lead to gridlock in Belfast in the next five to 10 years.

What suggestions to alleviate the problems in my constituency have been made in the 'Moving Forward' document? None, I suggest. There is a suggestion of bus lanes, but as there is only one lane on the A2, how could a bus lane be provided?

There is talk of the promotion of rail transport. The Belfast-to-Dublin and the Belfast-to-Bangor lines are being upgraded. Again, East Antrim has not been mentioned in the document. There is a need for the Belfast-Carrickfergus-Larne line to be upgraded. Bus and rail need to be upgraded.

I was pleased to learn that Bangor station is being upgraded, but I must again ask when some money will be spent to upgrade the stations in my constituency and other parts of east Antrim. Only when funding is provided to upgrade the rail service in east Antrim will commuters choose to let the train take the strain. Proper car parking provision must also be provided at stations.

I appreciate the commencement of improvements that are currently being carried out at the Carrick town bus/rail station car park. However, at present this purely involves putting tarmac on the car park and some security work. The station itself needs to be upgraded.

We need a first-class service that can be relied upon to transport my constituents punctually and in comfort to their destinations. Why should other Members be interested in rail upgrading in east Antrim?

Mr Empey:

Hear, hear. [Laughter]

Mr Beggs:

Well, if commuters do not leave their cars behind -

Mr K Robinson:

Will the Member give way?

The Initial Presiding Officer:

It has been agreed that, as these are maiden speeches, there should be no interventions. That is the convention.

Mr Beggs:

If commuters do not leave their cars behind, Belfast, which is the heart of Northern Ireland, will become gridlocked.

Rail transportation is much more environmentally friendly, and I am pleased to hear that the Bleach Green line is to be upgraded. Members from North, South, East and West Belfast will already be aware of the high levels of asthma among young children, and using rail transport can help to reduce airborne pollution levels.

There is also the issue of equality. The existing rail service in East Antrim is not sympathetic to either the elderly or disabled travellers. Access to stations and carriages needs to be upgraded to allow the less fortunate to use public transport.

East Antrim is a vital link in the transportation network of Northern Ireland.

I urge Members to support investment for East Antrim so that we may have improved safety, increased economic efficiency, an improvement to the environment in the Greater Belfast area and improved access for the disabled.

 

Child Abuse

TOP

Mrs Ramsey:

There is nothing worse than the failure of society to protect its most vulnerable people, and especially its children.

All too often in recent years each of us - regardless of financial standing, creed or class - has been disturbed and angered by the stories of children who have been abused by their families, trusted friends, neighbours or by those from whom one had a right to expect more - for example, teachers, youth leaders and the clergy.

Each scandal tells a tale of young lives ruined by others, of adults who neglected children or subjected them to emotional, physical or sexual abuse. This presents each of us with a fundamental challenge. It asks us to define what we mean by a "good society". But it is all too easy to point the finger at "dangerous" families, at "dangerous" adults, or at the "monsters" who prey on children.

We are failing the children by the comfortable nature of our outrage. We condemn the families, the paedophiles and the social workers who are all too often damned if they do and damned if they do not. We are failing children by not ensuring that educational services genuinely tap into the potential of each child and by not ensuring that the range of services designed to protect children is doing just that.

Children's services are in crisis - a silent crisis - and attention will only be brought to that crisis when an incident happens. There will be outrage then, and people will ask "What, how and when?"

The Children Order 1996 was meant to signal a sea change in the way this issue was to be tackled. The so-called 5Ps are the ideas underpinning this Order. They are: the rights of the child are Paramount; Prevention - an injection of resources to try to support children safely in their families and their communities; Partnership - between all those concerned with protecting children; Permanency; and Participation - by children and families in any decision affecting their lives.

Community groups, political parties and childcare professionals alike welcomed this progressive piece of legislation. But for all of its high ideals, it has one Achilles heel, and that is, of course, a lack of resources in funding and personnel.

The Government have shamefully underfunded this legislation, and health boards and trusts have colluded in this. They maintain to be meeting fully their moral and statutory duties under the Children's Order, while at the same time everyone is concerned that the gross underfunding is putting children and families at greater risk.

I have been speaking of a real and ongoing crisis in children's services. Like other Members, I was invited to a conference on 30 November which was hosted by the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance. It was called Crisis in Childcare. Those of us who attended were shocked at the scale of the crisis in children's services. The most extreme examples can be found in residential childcare.

There are cases of children who have been sexually abused sharing bedrooms with older people who have in the past been abusers. In one incident a child who was a victim of sexual abuse was admitted to a children's home. While there the young person became the victim of an attempted rape. There are also examples of children, who have been removed from their homes because of family breakdowns, sharing accommodation with vulnerable people who have learning disabilities.

Children who are suffering from mental illness are living in residential homes without having been assessed to see if they need specialised care. The level of overcrowding in residential homes is also unacceptable. Children are having to sleep on mattresses on the floor. As the problem continues to grow, staff are being placed under more and more pressure especially when trying to deal with difficult children. Staff also feel helpless and annoyed that they are not consulted about the children being admitted.

Such stories are a damning indictment of a Government which continues to ignore and cover up this problem. Children in residential care are not receiving the service that they deserve, and if the situation is not addressed, the problem will ripple on for generations.

Dr Kevin McCoy, a chief inspector of social services, said after visiting one such residential home that if the home had been run by the voluntary sector he would have closed it. Does this not beg a question? Reports have been written and money has been promised with the aim of giving full expression to the ideals in the Children Order. Planned investment in all areas is needed to make the partnership between statutory, voluntary and community groups a reality. The rights of the child must be paramount.

 

Equality

TOP

6.00 pm

Ms Armitage:

"Equality" seems to be the buzz word of the Assembly, and, having sat here for the past two days, I am not sure that there is anything left to say about it. Mr Initial Presiding Officer, given the two full days of debate, I am sure you and the Members will be quite pleased about that. Equality has also been addressed here before during an Adjournment debate. However, it was discussed from a different political background and from the point of view of a different gender. The political background may not be obvious, but I hope the gender is.

Gender is not an issue with me. I have little time for exclusively women's groups, women in politics, women's coalitions who cannot make up their mind whether they are political or not and women's pressure groups. Perhaps the need to create a party exclusively for women indicates a lack of confidence or an inability to integrate in to an existing forum. It also creates inequality. I do not support quotas for women, places for women or - I heard of this recently - boxes for women. Who wants to be a female jack-in-the-box?

There is more to equality than gender equality. It is an issue in sport. People are excluded from sporting activities because of their job and, more recently, because of their religion - a football match involving the Royal Ulster Constabulary was not allowed to be played even though the people behind its cancellation preach about equality to others.

Equality is an issue in the workplace. Last week I read a report suggesting that a minimum of 40% from one section of the community should be guaranteed a job in a particular workforce. It does not matter how this is achieved, just so long as it is achieved - there seems to be a new meaning for the word equality. Equality in the workplace should reflect ability to do the job, the qualifications required for the job, and relevant expertise and knowledge. Nothing else should matter.

When I attend a conference or seminar it makes little difference to me who sits on the panel or who organises the workshop. If the subject matter is explained in simple, straightforward language, and I can drive home feeling more informed, I do not care whether the panel is made up of men, women or monkeys. What matters is that its members know their subject and be able to make things clear.

Will there ever be equality in everyday life? Listening to Members speaking in Irish does not bother me, but I do not know what they are talking about. Is it equality when only 10% of Members know what is being debated and 90% are excluded?

The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines equality as "the state of being equal". Perhaps those who shout most about equality practise it least. One cannot and should not demand equality on one hand and seek special treatment on the other.

In Northern Ireland some ordinary people will not allow other ordinary people to walk down the road they want to walk down. So much for equality.

Disabled people have not been entirely forgotten - perhaps just put on the back burner. I hope that more money will be made available to adapt housing to their needs. That process has already started, and I congratulate those who have worked hard to provide a comfortable home life for disabled people. There is much more to do in this area in respect of everyday activities such as getting out and about and going to the shops. There is also a need to attend to the lack of low kerbs and suitable transport. The list is endless. We could all agree on this issue because disability is no respecter of class, creed or colour.

It is almost Christmas, the season of peace and goodwill to all. I look forward to 1999, when there will be equality for all the people who live, work and enjoy life in this part of our United Kingdom.

Mr Haughey:

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. I have reflected carefully on what I heard earlier. Should not Mr Empey be severely censured for declaring that he has no interest in the A2? That is a disgusting comment, and he should be asked to withdraw it.

Mr Hussey:

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. It is reprehensible that only the eastern part of the Province should be declared in transport interests here.

Mr Empey:

East Antrim: there was a health and safety warning to stay out of it.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Order. Some end-of-term hysteria seems to be creeping in.

The House is adjourned at the call of the Chair.

Adjourned at 6.09 pm.