A Member:

Eight minutes to get through?

Rev Dr Ian Paisley:

Eight minutes.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Let me say a number of things. First of all, I cannot pronounce about the House of Commons, but I am certainly aware that in the House of Lords the doors are locked. [Interruption]

I am quite aware from the tenor of the discourse that this is not the House of Lords.

One of your colleagues asked about the length of time allowed in the House of Commons. Eight minutes is, of course, correct. The time given to reach the Chamber here is very short - it is much longer in other places.

I have drawn this matter to the attention of the Standing Orders Committee because we would be very ill-advised to draw up our own Standing Orders yet keep the time so short that it was difficult for Members to get from all parts of the building.

5.45 pm

I have been asked whether I have the authority to order the fastening of doors. I do not say this to extend my own authority, but 2(1) Standing Order states

"The Presiding Officer's ruling shall be final on all questions of procedure and order."

It is necessary to fasten the doors because we do not have a Division Lobby procedure where Members can go through and out. The exercise should not surprise Members because it was followed at previous sittings.

I have said that I will make enquiries about the matter. I am sorry that Members feel that they have been caught out, but the procedure seems to be an appropriate way to work. If the Standing Orders Committee takes the view that this is not the way that it wishes to conduct matters, I will be glad to hear about that.

Mr P Robinson:

Further to that point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. The Standing Order that you quoted in reply to Dr Paisley refers to your ruling on questions arising from the Standing Orders. You therefore have to make rulings on the basis of these Standing Orders. Which Standing Order suggests that doors can or should be locked at any time? You must rule on the basis of the Standing Orders and nothing else.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

That is incorrect. I made it quite clear, and it was never disputed by any Member of the Assembly, that the Initial Standing Orders were inadequate. I further indicated that I would base rulings thereafter on my understanding of the Initial Standing Orders, the draft Standing Orders put forward by the Standing Orders Committee and Erskine May.

There was never any dispute about my being able to use other than the Initial Standing Orders. Indeed, several Members from a number of parties have discussed the matter of how Erskine May might be applied. I am not restricted to these Standing Orders as they are inadequate for this task. If there is a problem about making fast the doors - and I have yet to hear what the problem is - I will be happy to hear about it from Members and to look at the question again. These Standing Orders are not adequate for the running of the Chamber. That is why I have indicated that I will refer to other matters as well. There has been no objection until now.

Several Members rose.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Order. It seems that there needs to be a keeping of order on the order. Mr Paisley Jnr rose, followed by Mr McCartney and Mr P Robinson.

Mr Paisley Jnr:

Why is it right for Members to be locked out when there is no specific rule in the Initial Standing Orders to allow that? Are the alleyways for voting part of this Chamber? Dr Paisley and I were in that Lobby and were entitled to come into the Chamber from there.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I have already given a ruling on the first matter, and have indicated that I am undertaking an enquiry into it. It shall become clear where Members are or are not and whether they might vote or not.

Mr McCartney:

Mr Initial Presiding Officer, before I left the building at 5.00 pm I asked your Clerk, Mr Carson, approximately how many Members had yet to speak. I also asked the deputy leader of the DUP, who said that the figure was some 12 to 14 Members. I understand that you had set aside Monday, Tuesday and possibly Wednesday for this debate. I have only now been informed that a Member who has not spoken in the debate may move a motion to the effect that the Question be now put.

The First Minister (Designate):

It has been carried.

Mr McCartney:

I know it has been carried, I do not need to be told that. I am on a point of order, so perhaps this chattering monkey would keep quiet.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I am not clear on the point of order. The Standing Orders make it quite clear that such a procedure is possible. As an experienced parliamentarian, Mr McCartney must know that.

Secondly, I am astonished that some very experienced parliamentarians should be unaware of the political tactic of an ambush. I suspect that they have taken part in such things, and I am astonished that this issue is being raised as a point of order.

Mr McCartney:

Mr Initial Presiding Officer, could I -

The Initial Presiding Officer:

We have already raised a point of order.

Mr McCartney:

I have not completed mine. You asked me to sit down, and I sat down.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I asked you to sit down because I was not clear about the point of order. It is not an occasion for a speech. I will allow your point of order, but I am not clear what it is.

Mr McCartney:

You speak of an ambush. I spoke to Mr Nigel Carson, who said that he could not give me a time at which it would be quite safe to leave the Chamber, but that he would inform me after the procedure had occurred. Mr Carson was clearly aware that something of the nature of a closure motion would arise.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I am still not clear about the point of order. I am clear that it is generally regarded as, at best, discourteous, if not out of order, for questions to be raised about officials or civil servants, who are not in a position to answer for themselves.

Mr P Robinson:

I want to finish with the points of order that have been raised in relation to the voting Lobby and whether doors are locked. I have another quite serious, separate point of order.

It would be absurd for the voting Lobby to be considered as anything other than part of the precincts of the House for the purposes of voting. If my two colleagues were in the Lobby, how could anybody conclude that they were not entitled to take part in the vote?

Secondly, if three minutes are to be given before a vote is registered, may we please have a clear ruling, whether we like it or not, on what time the doors will be locked? Is it at the end of the three-minute period and before the register is read, or is it at some point during the three minutes?

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I have undertaken to enquire into the point of order that was raised by Mr O'Connor. It seems to me that that legitimately extends to a number of issues, some of which Mr Robinson, the Member for East Belfast, has referred to. Questions such as whether Members are inside the confines of the Chamber when they are in the voting Lobby will have to be determined. However, I remind Members that the Lobbies are not presently in use because there is no option to use them under the Standing Orders. The new draft Standing Orders indicate that that may be a possibility.

There are further questions as to whether, for example, a Member who was in the Gallery would be in the confines of the House. Those are legitimate questions, and, as I have agreed to explore that matter, it will have to be looked at as well.

There seems to be an extraordinary eagerness to make points of order. [Interruption] I have not completed what I have to say, and until I sit down it is clearly out of order for other Members to stand.

On the further question asked by the Member, I cannot give him a ruling on the first matter, but I have given a fairly clear ruling on the other matters. Regarding the timing for making fast the doors, the clock will have shown that, three minutes from the time when the matter was raised, I called for the doors to be made fast. We then proceeded to take a vote. I trust that is clear.

Mr C Wilson:

Mr Presiding Officer, is it in your remit to call for an adjournment of this matter? As a member of the Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer, I wonder if it is worthwhile continuing to have such a Committee. We spent many hours with all the parties agreeing a procedure and conditions for debate, only for it to be overturned today.

Also, would you allow Mr McCartney the opportunity of withdrawing his comment about the Clerk to the Assembly, whose integrity he has impugned?

The Initial Presiding Officer:

It is helpful for you to suggest that I give Mr McCartney a chance to speak, but I suspect that he can probably speak for himself on these matters.

With regard to the other questions you raised about the discussions of the Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer, you will be aware that it is not always possible to reach full agreement - for instance, even the recognition of parties is not something that comes with unanimous agreement, but one has to do one's best.

Before I take the next point of order from the DUP, I would remind Members that we have an Adjournment debate scheduled with six Members who are prepared to speak. It would be most inappropriate to call them back tomorrow should it be clear that we are going to move on to further votes. I propose at this stage, unless the points of order last for an extraordinary length of time, to complete the business this evening.

Mr Wells:

Further to the points of order raised by Mr C Wilson and Mr McCartney, while I do not want to cast any aspersions on the Clerk, at some stage this afternoon, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, you must have been aware that there had been a change to the Order Paper. When was that change made, and when were you aware that there was going to be a vote? When did you convey that information to the Chief Whip of my party and those of the other parties?

The Initial Presiding Officer:

The Member's party leader will know that what you are doing is inappropriate. A discussion with him afterwards might be a good idea.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr:

On a point of order. Initial Standing Orders 11(1) says

"after a motion has been proposed and provided that each of the parties present has had a reasonable opportunity to contribute to the debate".

Can you tell us how you came to the conclusion that there has been "a reasonable opportunity to contribute to the debate" for all the parties? Some parties have had over 50% of their Members speak while other significant parties, like my own, the third largest party, has had less than 40% of its Members speak. How can that be considered a reasonable way in which to proceed with the business of this House?

6.00 pm

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Given that I have to adhere to the Order Paper, I try to keep the best balance that I can. When the Question is put that the Question be now put, I have to look at the number of Members who have spoken. I attempt, as time goes on, to ensure a reasonable balance, and I can tell the Assembly this: we have been in debate for around five hours, over 30 Members have now spoken, and all parties in the Assembly have had the opportunity to put forward their view. I am well aware of the strong feelings that are engendered when one party, or more than one party, is, in parliamentary terms, ambushed.

This is how I reached my judgement, but I do not suppose that it will satisfy everyone.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley:

Further to that point of order and to the ruling that you have given, Mr Presiding Officer, I would like you to amplify it so that we know exactly what is happening. I have been a Member of the House of Commons for 30 years, and I have heard Members attacking the Clerks of the House about whether notices have been put in at the correct time. I want to know whether our Clerks are going to be under the same regulations as the Clerks in the Mother of Parliaments, or are we not allowed to mention their names? In the Commons the Clerks are servants of the House, and any Member can raise publicly matters that are relevant to them.

I believe that your ruling comes from the custom in the House of Commons that Members do not attack civil servants since they merely do the work of their masters who are essentially those in Government. That, however, does not extend to the Clerks of the House. They are the servants of the House, and when their work does not please a Member, that Member has the right to raise the matter publicly and criticise what they have done.

Mr McCartney made a statement about the Deputy Clerk, and he is responsible for that statement. But the general issue is a very serious one. Is this House to have Clerks who can do as they like without fear of public criticism from Members?

The Initial Presiding Officer:

The Member is well aware that that is not what I am saying. I am not suggesting that anyone in this House is beyond reproach. What I am saying is that there are appropriate ways of doing these things. You must understand that I feel a responsibility, not only to the Assembly, its Chamber, proceedings and Standing Orders, but to the staff as well.

All sorts of questions may be raised, especially in the later part of the day when points of order are raised in this way. But when something is bounced in respect of the Deputy Clerk, I am sure you will understand that I am fearful of officials being dragged into what is essentially a political dispute among the parties. Even in other places, there exists a general feeling that for officials, including the Speaker, to be dragged into party political debates is improper.

Mr McCartney:

I have a point of order which relates to the statement that you have just made. I accept that you have to make a ruling and that, unless there is an exceptional circumstance, such as I believe occurred here, no criticism should be made of an official.

It was open to you, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, to issue a warning that if there came a point at which you were happy that all sides had had sufficient opportunity to argue their case, and you were asked by a Member who had not previously spoken to put the Question, the Question could be put.

However, by way of indirect apology, if that is what is required, I would have to say that I approached the Clerk and told him that I had a pressing engagement which might take me away from the House for an hour. I asked for some indication of the likelihood of a vote. I treated the official with proper respect. He is a servant of the Assembly, and I, as a Member, am entitled to ask him for advice on matters which are within his area of responsibility.

The point that I am making is that the Clerk told me that, despite the fact that there were 12 or 14 Members still listed to speak in the debate, it might not be opportune to leave the House even for such a short period, and that he would advise me further as to the reasons for this. All of this would appear to suggest that the Clerk was aware that, despite the fact that there were 14 Members still waiting to speak, some kind of guillotine was about to be imposed. In those circumstances, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, you have a duty to inform Members that this kind of thing is about to happen and that Members would be well advised to stay in the House.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

With regard to the Member's dealings with the Deputy Clerk, I do not know precisely what was said, but I will look into the matter.

With regard to the Member's other point which appears to suggest that the Presiding Officer should constantly be reminding Members about the detail of Standing Orders, I have to say that this is not the responsibility of the Presiding Officer. I have done my best to give guidance to the Assembly as to the meaning of particular votes, and so on. I intend to do that when we come to the next item concerning whether or not Rev Dr Ian Paisley will move his amendment. I do this in order to ensure that the Assembly is not uncertain, at any given point, about the precise matter on which Members are voting. But I think you are asking rather a lot of me in respect of your other request.

Mr P Robinson:

I raise this point of order with considerable caution. I am not accusing the Clerk of anything - he works under your direction - but some Members feel that the Chair was aware of the intention on the part of the proposer of the motion to close the debate. As Initial Presiding Officer, you determined that there would be a two-day debate, with a third day if a vote was required. When you did that, you did it in the full knowledge of the number of speeches that could be made in the course of two days' debate. It cannot, therefore, be said that the number of speakers who have taken part in the debate today was reasonable when it had previously been judged that there should be two days of debate on the matter. I ask this because it is not covered by any specific Standing Order, but you will accept the suggestion that it should be covered by Standing Orders.

Some of us feel that, if any circumstances merit a motion of no confidence in the Initial Presiding Officer, these do. I want a ruling from you as to how such a motion might be put forward.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

You will recall that when the question of the number of days was raised, the matter of the time to be allowed for each speaker had not been resolved. You shake your head, but that is a fact. Matters did not turn out in the way that a number of Members felt was appropriate. The question is not whether I want the debate to last two days; it is what does the Assembly want. Does the questioner have the right to put forward the question? Does he have the right to seek the views of the Assembly? Those are the questions I must answer.

I made the judgement that the Assembly had the right to govern itself in this matter. I may have been wrong, but 75 Members seem to have believed that that was correct, although 24 Members wished to take things further.

Mr P Robinson:

That is not the position.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

If I ask for the views of the Assembly and the Assembly votes 75 to 24, then it seems to me that that is the appropriate action to take. I understand the unhappiness of some Members.

With regard to the final part of your question, my understanding is that the procedure for putting down a vote of no confidence in the Presiding Officer is to put it down as a motion, and I think that is the sort of motion that would need to be considered at the next Assembly meeting. I am making that ruling without there being a relevant Standing Order; it seems to me that it is a matter of such gravity that it could not be dealt with in any other way. It would not be possible for a Presiding Officer to continue if there were a feeling that he had acted in bad faith.

As to what the Presiding Officer knows or does not know, surmises or does not surmise, if it is seriously thought that someone can do this job and serve all the differing enterprises and initiatives in this Assembly without being prepared to keep matters to himself - or herself, in the case of a Madam Speaker - then there is not much understanding of what needs to be done. I try to ensure that Members who approach me are as well informed as possible, and some Members, both individually and as parties, take full advantage of that between sittings. If there is not sufficient confidence in me, it would be quite right to put down such a motion and to find an alternative who would enjoy that confidence. If the Member wishes to discuss the matter with me afterwards, I shall ensure that I am available.

Mr McCartney:

The point that Mr Robinson has already made is that everyone in this Assembly was aware that this debate was scheduled to last two days. At some time today, Mr Presiding Officer, you became aware that it might be terminated well short of that. As Presiding Officer, you have to make a judgement that is fair to everyone, but you must have been aware that many Members were making inquiries so as to ensure that they would be present for any vote.

It appears that you must have known that a motion of this kind might be made. Consequently, in justice to all Members and to ensure that there was no misapprehension or unfairness or use of some procedural technique to secure unfair advantage, it was your duty not to babysit Members but to alert them to something that they would not otherwise have been aware of.

6.15 pm

The Initial Presiding Officer:

The Member, of all the Members here, must know that over the last number of weeks I have been made aware of all sorts of possible developments and changes, and I have treated them in a professional way. I have not broken confidence of any kind. I have done that all through the time here, and for whatever short period I continue, I will continue to do that. However, I fear that what is happening is that Members are mistaking their political disgruntlement for something else completely.

We have taken an extensive number of points of order. We are in danger of breaching the Standing Orders, which indicate that this matter is not a matter for debate. While many of these may indeed be legitimate and understandable points of order, it is beginning to become a debate on the issue. That takes us well outside Standing Orders. I was going to say that I do not think there is any Member asking to give a point of order who has not already given one, but I see Mr Sammy Wilson rising to his feet.

This is extending well beyond the question about points of order. I am prepared to take only two further points of order. The two Members who got to their feet at the same time as myself are both out of order. I will, nevertheless, take them as points of order. First of all, Mr Wilson.

Mr S Wilson:

With respect, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, first of all, I do not think you can anticipate what I was going to say. You may have anticipated, because you had prior knowledge, what was going to happen at the end of the proceedings today, but you certainly cannot anticipate the point of order which I was going to make, whether it was a new point of order or a follow-on from some of the other ones.

In light of your ruling today and the consequences of that, I would like some guidance from you on the Initial Standing Orders. Under Item 6, the Business of the Assembly, it states that you, the Presiding Officer, will, subject to the provisions of paragraph 5, publish the business for each day.

Furthermore, under 6(3) you should prepare at least twice weekly when the Assembly is sitting and at least fortnightly when in recess a paper listing notices of future business received. I would like some guidance as to whether or not such a document is for the guidance of people like myself and other Members as to when we will be required to attend and when a vote is likely to be taken. That is my understanding of the notice which I am given.

If that is not the case - [Interruption] It is a point of order.

I understood that the business which we started today would be carried on tomorrow with a vote being taken either tomorrow or on Wednesday. Other Members, who are not here, worked on that basis. In the light of your decision, may I ask whether the papers we get from you represent an aspiration, a fact or a fairy tale which can be altered on a whim? We have heard frequent references - I have counted three - from Members of the Ulster Unionist Party who talk about the fact that they and the SDLP are working this Assembly.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

It is clear that a considerable number of Members are completely oblivious to normal parliamentary practice.

First of all, the paper which comes out twice per week giving forthcoming business is not an Order Paper.

The second paper the Member referred to is not designed to let people know when votes may or may not be taken; it merely gives guidance on what is coming up.

The paper that the Member is looking for should be coming from the party Whip. It will tell him the times, the likely votes, the members of his party who should be speaking and leading in debates, and when there will be a one-, two- or three-line Whip and will alert him to situations where either his party or another one may try to ambush. That is the business of a Whip; that is his responsibility. Even though it is not my responsibility, I have tried to advise the party Whips on these matters, and some of them are trying valiantly to ensure that they attend to everybody's needs. However, the matters the Member refers to are not relevant to the Business Office.

Mr Hilditch:

Having been ambushed and guillotined again, I am asking for a ruling on the putting of the Question. My freedom of speech has been affected. I had been told that I was to speak and was on my feet when I was interrupted. Was the putting of the Question ultra vires?

Rev Dr Ian Paisley:

How is the vote going to take place? Since it is after six o'clock the motion would have to be regarded as having lapsed. Will the House not have to make another decision as to whether it will carry on its business?

The Initial Presiding Officer:

The House does not have to take another decision. In the past the House has continued past the appointed hour, and I said earlier that we would be doing so unless the House voted otherwise. I sought the view of the House, and it was quite clear. I will return to one other issue which Mr Robinson raised.

Mr P Robinson:

Will you look at Standing Order 5 -

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I have taken a number of points of order which have been repetitious.

Mr P Robinson:

This one is not.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I intend to proceed.

Mr P Robinson:

You cannot refuse a point of order.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I can refuse a point of order if it is clear to me that what is happening is an attempt to use procedure to foul up the proceedings of the House.

Mr P Robinson:

Standing Order 5(3) gives the Initial Presiding Officer certain discretion to suspend the sitting for 15 minutes. You are entitled to do that in any circumstances.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I am not going to proceed to suspend the sitting for 15 minutes at this point. I am calling for the vote now. Dr Paisley, is your amendment moved?

Rev Dr Ian Paisley:

Yes, but I wish to ask you one question. You have already said that this House has to decide whether it is going to carry on after 6.00 pm. Why do you not put that question to us?

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I am sorry but you are out of order. I have to inform the House that if the amendment is carried it will supersede the substantive motion and no further vote will be necessary.

Question put: That the amendment be made.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 26; Noes 74.

AYES

Fraser Agnew, Paul Berry, Norman Boyd, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, Boyd Douglas, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Robert McCartney, William McCrea, Maurice Morrow, Rev Dr Ian Paisley, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.

NOES

Gerry Adams, Ian Adamson, Pauline Armitage, Billy Armstrong, Alex Attwood, Roy Beggs Jnr, Billy Bell, Eileen Bell, Tom Benson, Dr Esmond Birnie, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Joan Carson, Seamus Close, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, John Dallat, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Bairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, Pat Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sir Reg Empey, David Ervine, Sean Farren, John Fee, David Ford, Sam Foster, Tommy Gallagher, Michele Gildernew, Sir John Gorman, Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Dr Joe Hendron, Derek Hussey, Billy Hutchinson, Gerry Kelly, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Seamus Mallon, Alex Maskey, Kieran McCarthy, David McClarty, Donovan McClelland, Dr Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Eddie McGrady, Martin McGuinness, Mitchel McLaughlin, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Prof Monica McWilliams, Francie Molloy, Jane Morrice, Mick Murphy, Sean Neeson, Mary Nelis, Dermot Nesbitt, Danny O'Connor, Dara O'Hagan, Eamon ONeill, Sue Ramsey, Ken Robinson, Brid Rodgers, George Savage, The Rt Hon John Taylor, John Tierney, Rt Hon David Trimble, Jim Wilson.

Question accordingly negatived.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

It is clear that the doorkeepers' job is being made very difficult. Let the Keeper of the House note that the doorkeepers have been asked to make fast the doors. It appears that their work is being obstructed. I would appreciate it if the Keeper of the House would free up the doors for them.

Main Question put.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 74; Noes 27.

AYES

Gerry Adams, Ian Adamson, Pauline Armitage, Billy Armstrong, Alex Attwood, Roy Beggs Jnr, Billy Bell, Eileen Bell, Tom Benson, Esmond Birnie, Patrick Bradley, Joe Byrne, Joan Carson, Seamus Close, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, John Dallat, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Bairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, Pat Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sir Reg Empey, David Ervine, Sean Farren, John Fee, David Ford, Sam Foster, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, Sir John Gorman, Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Dr Joe Hendron, Derek Hussey, Billy Hutchinson, Gerry Kelly, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Seamus Mallon, Alex Maskey, Kieran McCarthy, David McClarty, Donovan McClelland, Dr Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Eddie McGrady, Martin McGuinness, Mitchel McLaughlin, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Prof Monica McWilliams, Francie Molloy, Jane Morrice, Mick Murphy, Sean Neeson, Mary Nelis, Dermot Nesbitt, Danny O'Connor, Dara O'Hagan, Eamon ONeill, Sue Ramsey, Ken Robinson, Brid Rodgers, George Savage, Rt Hon John Taylor, John Tierney, Rt Hon David Trimble, Jim Wilson.

NOES

Fraser Agnew, Paul Berry, Norman Boyd, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, Boyd Douglas, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Robert McCartney, William McCrea, Maurice Morrow, Rev Dr Ian Paisley, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.

Main Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved:

This Assembly approves the report prepared by the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate).

Motion made:

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

Mr P Robinson:

On a point of order, Mr Presiding Officer. Earlier today your office circulated details about a meeting of the Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer. As a protest against your actions, I am informing you that the DUP does not intend to be present at a Committee which agrees on the number of sitting days only to go back on it so quickly.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Thank you for raising that matter, as I should have raised it myself. It has been expressed to me that, at this late hour, it would be best to leave the meeting of the Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer at the call of the Chair since there are no pressing issues.

There were eight applications for the Adjournment debate. Two were ineligible and six were successful.

Will those Members leaving the Chamber do so quietly.

Planning: AONBs and Green-Belt Areas

TOP

Mr Bradley:

When Lord Dubs launched the document 'Shaping Our Future' on Tuesday 8 December last it was welcomed across the board by all those who spoke at the event.

I too wish to be associated with the general acceptance of the draft proposals, particularly the positive references to the plans for the A1 Dublin/Belfast road, and to recognise that, at last, the strategic importance of Newry has been accepted - it is to become one of the seven major service centres. I also welcome the importance attached to Warrenpoint, and the proposal that its harbour plays a key role in the future economics of the eastern seaboard.

However, as a representative for the area that includes the Mournes - an area of natural beauty - and the green belt around Newry and Warrenpoint, I am disappointed that no attempt was made to reverse the never-ending planning problems caused in those areas by the 1993 document 'A Planning Strategy for Rural Northern Ireland'. Indeed, if accepted in its entirety, the 'Shaping Our Future' document will exacerbate for the foreseeable future the problems contained in its forerunner.

This major concern prompts me to highlight the problems that exist throughout the Mournes, in rural areas of south Down and, indeed, in a number of other rural regions represented in this Assembly. I refer to the forced migration that is currently being imposed upon large sections of the rural community as a result of legislation contained in the 1993 rural strategy document.

Also, many of the paragraphs explaining the document's purpose are contradicted elsewhere in the same document - often in the administration of the strategy. For example - and here I am being selective - I quote from the 1993 rural strategy document a number of lines which outline its objectives:

"to meet the future development needs of the rural community" [p 20];

"to facilitate regeneration of the rural economy" [p 20];

"the Strategy is an attempt to meet rural society's development needs and aspirations" [p 20];

"Regeneration activities in settlements in the most disadvantaged rural areas will be co-ordinated, where possible, with the actions of the Department of Agriculture, to achieve maximum benefit from the settlement and its rural hinterland" [p 25].

The dwelling house must

" a. exhibit all the essential characteristics of a dwelling house;

b. be in use, or have last been used, as a dwelling house;

c. be in the ownership of the applicant."

However, this chapter has a sting in the tail. A further condition states that the property to be replaced must

"be occupied or capable of occupation with minor renovation".

This clause has been used time and again by planning officers at site meetings, as they explain that the refusals are in keeping with the policy outlined in this section of the planning strategy.

An examination of the number of recommended refusals is a good indication of the problems created by the document. For example, in the area south of a line drawn between Newtownhamilton and Downpatrick, in Newry and Mourne District Council, and in large sections of the Banbridge and Down District Council areas, there have been approximately 1250 recommended refusals during the 20 months of the current local government term. Of these refusals, 610 relate to the Newry and Mourne area alone, and a very high percentage of those relate to rural applications. No doubt, Members from other rural constituencies will produce figures for their areas if the matter is ever debated in the House.

The document prohibits some owners of smallholdings from giving a son or daughter a little garden or corner of a field that would suit perfectly and could be utilised as a building site.

I do not seek the transformation of prime agricultural land or heather-clad hillsides into an urban sprawl. And I know that the vast majority of the applicants that I refer to would have no difficulty in accepting environmentally friendly conditions, such as restriction on size and design, seclusion or external decor that the planners often place - as they should - on approved applications.

The present planning legislation has many wider implications, none greater than the closure of country schools due to lack of numbers. These numbers could be maintained were planning approvals to be granted in the catchment area of these long-established and greatly acclaimed rural seats of learning. I am aware of a number of primary schools that were forced to close their doors in recent years, mainly through lack of numbers. What kind of policy is it that claims to be concerned with our heritage but which simultaneously leads directly to the closure of rural schools?

The current legislation compels many young people to live away from home, relations and friends. Not all young people want to live in the countryside, but I am concerned about those applicants who are prevented from so doing by an unsympathetic policy.

Forced migration from rural areas has reached an unacceptable level in many parts and must be urgently addressed. I look forward to the day when planning, and in particular rural planning, becomes the responsibility of those who know the area and understand the needs of the local people.

Many Members have used a song or poem to illustrate their point. Not wishing to be different, I will quote a line from an old Irish song, 'Galway Bay':

"the strangers came and tried to teach us their way."

I often wonder what understanding or real interest strangers such as the Tory Ministers who ruled us for so long and devised and endorsed such documents had in the well-being of the farmers and their families living on 40- to 50-acre, less-favoured holdings. I doubt whether the landed gentry, who came from four or five thousand-acre farms, could relate to the needs of the small farmer here.

Out of curiosity, I checked the interests of the Minister of Environment who signed the Rural Planning Strategy for Northern Ireland document in 1993. I learned that this very honourable and likeable man, whom I had the pleasure of knowing, was interested in wine, cricket and Sherlock Holmes. This illustrates my point and questions the ability of previous Ministers to understand the needs of those who work the fields and hills of the Mournes, the Sperrins or elsewhere in this part of Ireland.

There is considerable sensible thinking in the document about our landscapes and heritage which the 'Shaping Our Future' document develops, and many chapters cannot be challenged. However, both publications lost their way somewhat by overlooking the needs of such an important section of society, with the emphasis on policies rather than the needs of the indigenous rural people.

7.00 pm

I make a special appeal to rural communities to challenge, where necessary, the shortcomings in any future documents. The onus is not only on politicians but on every committee and representative body in the affected areas to respond to the Minister's draft proposal before 15 February 1999, and support the aspirations of their children and their neighbours' children to live, if they desire, in areas that are their birthright.

I support the view of the Construction Employers' Federation that a February deadline provides too short a period for serious consideration to be given to submissions. I request Lord Dubs to stall any final decision on the strategy until the matter is fully discussed in the Assembly. It makes sense for the strategy for the future to be discussed and agreed by the elected representatives in the Assembly if devolved government becomes a reality.

I conclude by addressing those Members who, I hope, will one day plan what is best for rural Northern Ireland. They must commence their deliberations on what they believe to be best for the long established rural dwellers and their offspring. If that matter is addressed in a sympathetic, fair and proper manner, forced migration will be brought to an end. Those of us who represent rural areas which include green belts and areas of outstanding natural beauty know that that day cannot come soon enough.

Northern Ireland Sport

TOP

Mr Davis:

I intend to speak briefly on a subject which, I am sure, will produce no division or animosity. Saturday 9 January has been described as Ulster's glory day. One newspaper asked

"Wouldn't it be great if it could be like this all the time?"

I refer, of course, to the victory of the Ulster rugby team. Mike Gibson, Barry McGuigan, Tony McCoy, Pat Jennings, Mary Peters, Mike Bull, Darren Clarke, Jim McKeever, Jimmy Kirkwood and Eddie Irvine are just a few of the people who have distinguished themselves in the sporting world, and they are all from Northern Ireland.

Despite having a population of only 1·5 million, Northern Ireland has produced an enviable and impressive list of world-class sportsmen and sportswomen over the years. In spite of often difficult and turbulent circumstances, sport attracts much genuine local interest and enthusiasm. For participants and spectators it can be part of an enjoyable normality that is a welcome relief from the troubles in our community. It would be naive to suggest that sport in Northern Ireland has escaped the divisions which permeate our cultural, civic and socio-economic life. Sport in itself is neutral, but in our case it also reflects the society in which it is played.

Northern Ireland has two distinct and, some would say, diametrically opposed cultural communities. Some sports, such as rugby and Gaelic football, are symbols of the two cultural traditions. They are learned at an early age within a largely segregated education system. Sports which do not have such a symbolic link can have such links attached to them by where they are played, who watches them and who organises them. These symbolic roles are reinforced by the flags that are flown, the emblems which are used and the anthems which are played.

Sport should bring people together, regardless of religious background or political persuasion. It is often a means of building solid community relations. I am sorry that Sinn Fein Members are not present because I think that that is why Sinn Fein opposed Donegal Celtic's fixture with the RUC. They opposed the match despite the fact that only four members of the RUC were in the team. Sinn Fein were petrified of the consequences of improved community relations. Although the Donegal Celtic story is old news, it serves as a valuable lesson on what could have been a wonderful opportunity to promote sport as an agent of reconciliation.

The way forward is for sports clubs and associations to recruit from both sides of the community. In sports where one section is under- represented, they could specifically target local schools. Sports can also attempt to be impartial by ensuring that administrators and coaches represent both communities and, where possible, ensuring competition in venues that are acceptable to both communities. A number of initiatives are attempting to build sporting bridges across the community divide. We are entering a new era in Northern Ireland which will require a dramatic shift in how we think and act.

I urge Members to think seriously about the enormous benefits of cross-community sporting initiatives. Northern Ireland has produced a wealth of sporting talent in the past, and we now have an opportunity to tap into a well of talent and promote community reconciliation in the future.

An inaugural meeting between the Sports Council for Northern Ireland and Members of Parliament was held on 27 January 1998 in the House of Commons. Two of the points that I have picked up relate to social benefits. According to a survey, eight out of 10 people from all social and religious backgrounds believe that sport can help to build lasting relationships among people from different religions and social backgrounds. Surveys have also shown that for eight out of 10 people in Northern Ireland, sport has managed, in the face of political instability, prejudice, and intolerance, to be a positive social force.

Drugs Task Force

TOP

Mr McClelland:

In recent years, the serious problems of drug misuse and related crime have increased throughout Northern Ireland. Drug misuse has probably affected every area in the North, but in recent months it has eaten into the very fabric of social life in South Antrim. I acknowledge the contribution that was made on this topic at a previous sitting by one of my fellow South Antrim Assembly Members, Mr Boyd, and I look forward to discussing this issue with him. I hope to return to that during the debate. I am sure that all Members will agree that the drugs problem unites all sections of our society, irrespective of political views.

Last November, a European-wide drug prevention week was launched, at the same time as phase 3 of a public information campaign on drugs by the Health Promotion Agency. The Assembly must send a clear message to the people of Northern Ireland that we will address this issue with determination and commitment. We have all been returned to the Assembly to give leadership to our community. Let us make clear our intentions on one of the most pressing social problems facing our people, whether they live in Belfast, Ballymena, Derry or Armagh.

Every other week, we hear about seizures of drugs and about convictions for possession or intent to supply. Only last October, drugs worth £250,000 were seized in the port of Belfast.

In many of the housing estates in our towns and villages, drug pushing is increasing. Frequently - in Antrim housing estates in particular - it is carried out in the open, in full view of the general public and often with children playing nearby. Communities are being slowly destroyed as drugs poison their areas. Crime is rising throughout the North. A recent report suggests that perhaps 60% of crime could be related either directly or indirectly to drugs. Many people in my area have told me that they are intimidated by gangs who run around housing estates to and from houses where non-stop drugs parties are held and drugs of all sorts are openly available.

Local drug barons are continually looking for new customers. They exploit the young, who are at a vulnerable and critical period in their lives, and introduce them to a drugs culture which creates additional social and emotional difficulties. Unfortunately, some of them are led into crime to feed their habit, and a vicious cycle is created.

The Assembly will soon have responsibility for many of the social and community aspects of life here, and should be able to determine how resources can best be deployed in a campaign against drugs.

7.15 pm

I believe that a drugs task force should be set up, with the support of local communities and statutory and voluntary bodies. It could be under the authority of the Assembly and could liaise with the proposed Civic Forum. This body could also take on responsibility for initiatives relating to health promotion and drug awareness.

I acknowledge the efforts of the various agencies involved in work with drugs. Local drugs co-ordination teams have been taking forward programmes specifically tailored to local needs in each of the four health board areas, and I acknowledge in particular, the good work being done in my local board area by the team based in Ballymena, where, according to recent RUC figures, there are approximately 200 people using heroin on a regular basis. These figures are shocking.

As we move towards devolution, the Assembly will need to consider the implementation of anti-drugs initiatives. At present, local drugs co-ordination teams are accountable to the Northern Ireland Office whose policy is directed by the Central Co-Ordinating Group for Action Against Drugs, chaired by the Minister of State, Mr Adam Ingram. Currently, responsibility for some areas of drugs policy is reserved to Westminster, but, if we are to tackle our local drugs problem effectively, we will need to consider what role the Assembly can play in order to resolve it. As the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland, we will, at some stage, have to play a role in confronting and combating drug abuse.

In the document 'Notes on the Clauses of the Northern Ireland Bill', the section relating to clause 4 reads

"This clause . enables matters to be moved from the reserved to the transferred category or vice versa by Order in Council amending Schedule 3."

It further states

"Such an Order ... would only be laid in draft if the Assembly has passed with cross-community support a resolution requesting the change."

At some stage in the future, when sufficient confidence in the Assembly has been built up, we will want to see local politicians taking responsibility for the co-ordination of local drug strategies. I firmly believe that we can beat the drugs problem, but we must be focused and realistic in our approach. We should put in place an innovative and properly resourced mechanism to curb and, in the longer term, fully eliminate the drugs problem. It is important that any such mechanisms draw support from all democratic parties.

Quick-fix actions which bring people out on to the streets in a kind of vigilante-style response are not the answer. This approach only arouses emotions and adds to the overall problem, and represents only a short-term response driven by populist elements within particular political groupings. Past experience has shown that heavy prison sentences and even paramilitary beatings have not deterred the drug barons and the dealers. What we need to do now is to build and implement a structured and realistic community response, and Members of the Assembly should take the lead in this.

Mid Ulster Infrastructure

TOP

Mr Armstrong:

At present, Government planning bodies do not appear to give any priority to the needs of the Mid Ulster area, in respect of commerce and tourism.

The M1 leads from Belfast to Dungannon just south of Lough Neagh; to the north of the Lough the M2 leaves Belfast and stops short of Toomebridge. The Glenshane Pass continues to Londonderry and the A26 connects the M2 to Ballymena and the north coast. To the west, the A5 connects Omagh and Londonderry. Where does Mid Ulster fit into this equation?

Mid Ulster has been socially and economically neglected over the years. It seems to be considered unimportant when it comes to health, tourism, industry, roads and rural development. The announcement of an £87 million investment in Northern Ireland's roads is certainly welcome, but Mid Ulster has been overlooked. The roads that are being developed surround Mid Ulster, but none run through the area.

There are more than 28,000 permanent dwellings in Mid Ulster, of which 62% are owner-occupied, 5% are privately rented and 30% are rented from public authority. Two per cent are rented from housing associations or charitable trusts. Unemployment in the area runs at about 18%. There is a higher than average number of self-employed people with no employees, presumably small farmers. Traffic counts on various roads vary from 10,000 to 4,500 vehicles per day.

The A29, which runs from Coleraine to Armagh directly through Mid Ulster, should be examined and developed. If the A29 were improved, the majority of traffic in the area would use it and contributory roads would be less abused. Cash spent on the A29 would be cash saved on the minor roads.

I call for an investigation into development of the hard shoulder along the A29 to facilitate agricultural and other slow-moving vehicles. Policy should reflect the fact that this is a rural area, while also taking into consideration the commercial and domestic vehicles using the road. I recognise that the hard shoulders were not designed for any volume of fast or heavy traffic, but the width of the road is there and could be better utilised to reduce congestion.

Slow-moving lorries and agricultural vehicles could pull in to a reconstructed secondary lane, as is effectively done in other countries. Road junctions could be set back and the new slow lane used as a slipway before joining or leaving the main line of traffic. On the A29 as a whole, some sections are already suitable for heavy, fast-moving traffic, while others need further investment.

The present bottlenecks at King's Bridge, Cookstown and Carland Bridge near Dungannon need to be removed and priority must be given to the construction of bypasses to avoid the town centres of Cookstown and Dungannon. "Park-and-Ride" services could also be provided for the major towns in this area. This would ease congestion at peak times as well as reducing air pollution in the town centres.

If the A29 were further developed, vehicles travelling from north to south across the Province would have a choice of routes. Traffic across Northern Ireland would be more evenly balanced. For instance, someone travelling from Counties Down or Armagh to Londonderry or the north coast could travel through Mid Ulster instead of travelling east of Lough Neagh. This would also ease congestion at Toomebridge.

Mid Ulster is ideally situated for businesses targeting the whole of Northern Ireland. Of the top 1,000 businesses in Northern Ireland 54 are located in Mid Ulster, and 10% of these are situated along the A29. If Mid Ulster were more accessible, industry would be more likely to set up in the region, thus producing more jobs and encouraging people to live in Mid Ulster, as opposed to the cities.

Unemployment in Mid Ulster is significantly higher than the Northern Ireland average, and there is a higher proportion of self-employed men and women. This reflects the large number of farmers in the area. Due to the present depression in agriculture, farming is no longer providing sufficient income for a satisfactory standard of living. An increase in local industry would enable the farmer to travel to work more easily while also managing his farm. With an increase in industry in Mid Ulster, local people would have a greater chance of obtaining local jobs, and that might result in a reduction in the congestion on the two motorways that head towards Belfast. If jobs were within reasonable distance from home, people could stay in Mid Ulster. The area would still be populated and the possibility of attracting tourists would not diminish.

We have to make Mid Ulster more accessible, and we must promote awareness of the beauty of the Sperrins and Mid Ulster area in general. It has also been brought to my notice that five regional tourist organisations have been established in Northern Ireland, yet the Sperrin area seems to have been forgotten again. Mid Ulster has been recognised as an area of outstanding beauty and an area of scientific as well as historic interest. Mid Ulster provides some of the most varied fishing opportunities in Europe - and that could be developed more. There are also numerous golfing venues and a great variety of outdoor pursuits and indoor leisure facilities.

I hope to see a transformation from the confrontational attitude of those who adopt a "dog in the manger" approach to our traditional parades to one which is more tolerant. The minority culture in the Mid Ulster area must also be protected - some facets of that are only to be seen in rural areas. There must be provision for cultural expression in towns and villages. What a spectacle our respective bands and traditions could provide for visitors from abroad! Mid Ulster has remarkable possibilities for attracting tourism and greater promotion of those possibilities could create more jobs which are much needed in this area.

The health of our people is very important. Over 100,000 people are served by the Mid-Ulster and South Tyrone hospitals. If the roads are not of the highest standard, hospitals are not easily accessible. In the near future, if one hospital is to be built to replace the two existing ones, it would be necessary for it to be easily accessible by road.

In conclusion, Mid Ulster is at the heart of our Province, and like every other heart the arteries leading to it must be free-flowing and of good quality to keep it alive and pumping. The infrastructure of the Mid Ulster area must be further developed, and we must provide opportunities for an increase in business and tourism. Mid Ulster is appreciated by people from all over the world. It must be promoted so that the people of the area can find jobs locally, and it must be seen to be an area of great potential so that it can really become the centre of Ulster.

 

Housing

TOP

Mr Tierney:

I nearly voted along with the DUP tonight! I was told last week that I would be speaking on Wednesday. At lunchtime today I was told that I would be speaking tomorrow night, and two hours ago I was told that I would be speaking tonight. I am not criticising my Chief Whip, but I will raise the matter at our next meeting.

I want to deal with housing. We have an opportunity to give renewed priority to housing. Priority status was taken from the Housing Executive in 1992-93, and every year since then its budget has been cut. That includes this year, as we heard when the Minister made his presentation to the Assembly.

I want to refer mainly to the Foyle area, to highlight some of the problems that we have faced because of these cut-backs. There is a waiting list of 1400, and that waiting list has not gone down during the last 10 to 15 years. There are 411 on the A1 list - that is the emergency list for homelessness - and there are a number of A2s and priority transfers. A homeless, one-parent family would have to wait up to 18 months before being housed. It would be offered temporary accommodation, if available - and usually it is not. That one-parent family will remain homeless.

A young married couple, with no priority status, would be advised to come back in five years. Even then, given the amount of priority transfers and A1 cases, their position may be the same. We need a new Bill to reduce the waiting list of 1400 and to cater for the homeless figure of 411, which continues to rise daily.

Since the cuts, we have been campaigning for a number of areas to be refurbished - there is one in the Bogside that we have been campaigning for for 15 years. Over the last five years the Housing Executive has told councillors and tenant associations that it was on the list to be done the following year. It continues to be put back.

That is one example, and there are others in the Derry area. I stress this one because the area has been described by the Housing Executive as having the worst housing conditions in Northern Ireland with no central heating and flat roofs which cause constant dampness. We have been promised that refurbishment will be carried out this year. The Housing Executive has now learnt to say "subject to finance being available" when it tells councillors and tenant associations who in turn tell the tenants. You can understand the residents' position.

The Housing Executive has admitted that no one else would live in the houses in that area because their conditions are so poor. The people who live in them do so because they are close to the city centre and they have been promised refurbishing, year in, year out. This situation cannot go on.

7.30 pm

Adaptations in the Foyle area take up to a year after application. An adaptation is for someone who is disabled and needs a downstairs toilet, a downstairs shower or an extension for a bedroom downstairs. Unfortunately, some people never live to see the adaptations completed.

The grants section of the Housing Executive deals with new roofs, new windows and rewiring. Another member of the Housing Executive in the Foyle constituency has said "You won't get grants unless your house is in poor condition." But when people say that their house is in a poor condition, it still takes up to two years before the work is carried out, and the poor conditions worsen during that two-year period.

This is not a criticism of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. There has been a lack of funding by the Department of the Environment, and the Assembly will have a chance to redress that if and when a Department responsible for housing is created. In the interim, I ask the Minister presently responsible for housing to reconsider this year's allocation and see the serious effects that a lack of funding is having throughout Northern Ireland, and in the Foyle constituency in particular.

I ask two things from this debate: first, that the Assembly make housing a priority when it has a chance to discuss the matter; secondly, that in the interim the Minister who addressed the Assembly recently and also announced further cut-backs be asked to reverse that decision.

Adjourned at 7.33 pm.

<< Prev