The Initial Presiding Officer:

I must ask you to bring your remarks to a close.

Rev William McCrea:

Let us lay aside the shackles of this unholy alliance and let the Unionist family join together and move forward to a peaceful Ulster, towards peace, stability and reconciliation.

Mr McLaughlin:

Mark Durkan totally misrepresented our party's position. We made very considered and legitimate objections to the proposal to fragment the education Department. It is a matter of record that we put forward sensible alternatives. At the same time, we presented our proposals for a Department of equality. I want to correct the record. We never asked for a children's Department, and for Mark Durkan to make such an issue of that is to quite flagrantly and deliberately muddy the waters. We sought and put in a written proposition for a junior Ministry to deal with the children's portfolio. That is on record.

Mr Durkan:

Will the Member give way?

Mr McLaughlin:

No. You had your say.

Our position is quite clearly as I have stated it, and it is a matter of record. There is no point in Members attempting to misrepresent the positions of other parties. We can criticise, but let us do it on the record and in a factual manner.

The economic policy unit, the equality unit, women's issues and EU issues are all allocated within a very powerful office - the office of the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate). The SDLP and the Unionists must be very wary and careful, and they should listen to the concerns of the other parties and their suspicions, which I agree with. We need to know if there are any secret trade-offs on junior Ministries or if there is a linkage with the speculation about the Presiding Officer's job. Location at the centre does not and must not detract from the potential inherent in democratic structures.

I heard what Patricia Lewsley and Mark Durkan had to say, but the report gives no indication that there is to be a scrutiny committee on equality. I wonder why not. Sean Farren flagged this up on January 18, and there has been no progress on it since. We have two men in charge of the important matter of women's issues. It would be useful if they were to give us their thoughts on how they -

Mr Farren:

Would the Member give way?

Mr McLaughlin:

No, I will not give way. It would be useful if they were to give us their thoughts on how they are going to address that matter.

It is critical that the provisions are spelt out - and I regret that they have not been spelt out in this report - that will enable the parties to have an input into and to scrutinise the office of the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate). They must not be an unaccountable kitchen cabinet. Members should say no to back-door arrangements; to crude power plays; and to new forms of majority rule.

We have heard many contributions from the range of Unionist parties in the Chamber, some very considered, some very intemperate. Since the late 1960s the rising expectations of the Nationalist community have forced the British State into renegotiating its relationship with Nationalism and Unionism. This has brought into sharp focus the role of the British State in Ireland which, in turn - and Sinn Féin recognises this - has had the effect of destabilising large sections of the Unionist community.

This restructuring of the power relationship between Unionism, Nationalism and the British State revolves around a dynamic which seeks to create a political equilibrium between the Nationalist and Unionist communities. But this process is by its very nature unstable, because it has not yet reached that required political equilibrium. We have made a good beginning. The peace process and its product, the Good Friday Agreement, mark a solid beginning of which we all can be proud.

Beginning in the 1980s an analysis of the political mechanisms needed to resolve the conflict has been the basis for a narrow strategic consensus between the SDLP and Sinn Féin. As is obvious from the debates in this Chamber, there are many issues that divide us. But other issues have also formed the basis of this consensus, which was the first building block of the Irish peace process. The appeal of the Hume-Adams initiative was sufficient to bring other major political forces into the frame. Since the cessations of 1994 it has become clear that many within political Unionism cannot handle the absence of conflict or the negotiation process itself.

Today Unionism fights a rearguard action as a way of slowing down its loss of power. Its political stance on decommissioning, the release of prisoners and the segregation even of victims, allied to attacks on Catholics, all represent a strategy to undermine the Good Friday Agreement and to minimise Nationalist political advances.

But Unionism cannot turn back the clock. It can delay the process of change, but it cannot stop the momentum pushing all of us towards a new political dispensation.

These delaying tactics are symptomatic of Unionism's inability to negotiate change. At their core, many Unionists are deeply uncertain about their future. The past is the only reference point around which they measure present political realities, and, unable to shape the change, they retreat into a form of political and moral limbo, while insisting that "Norn Ireland was a great wee place" and that political crisis and instability only began with the formation of the Civil Rights Movement.

They remain blind to their role during the long Stormont years and their part in creating the conflict. They refuse to recognise their role, and therefore they display no sense of responsibility for finding a resolution to the conflict. And this form of political denial, to quote the First Minister (Designate) is "the anchor thought process that forms the basis of the Unionist rearguard strategy."

Where Unionist intransigence meets Nationalists' expectations, Nationalists have had to drag Unionists into the process for change. For many Unionists this creates the perception of a continuous political humiliation, and their only response is to retreat further into the comfort of their own limbo. Unable to shape the future, they paralyse themselves inside a loop of constant political humiliation and defeat.

I acknowledge readily that Unionism is no longer monolithic and that there are Unionists who embrace change. But today Unionism is a volatile entity: on the surface its delaying tactics may appear to be working, yet there is no sense of a confident or victorious Unionism emerging. Indeed, closer inspection of Unionist opinions reveals highly volatile undercurrents.

3.45 pm

The hopeless rant from the anti-agreement lobby; the attitude of the Orange Order in Portadown; the developing mixture of evangelical Protestantism and Loyalism, with the formation of new Loyalist groupings, gives us some indication of the working-out of such undercurrents.

Unionism is now giving the clear impression of being on the retreat. It is in a state of internal turmoil. Its constituency is split between those who support the Good Friday Agreement and those who are opposed to it. There are substantial numbers of Unionists without a political voice in this Assembly who accept the inevitability and the necessity of change. But, instead, we hear from those who seek to minimise the extent of that change.

The peace process, the Good Friday Agreement and today's report have all been necessary because the Unionist relationship with the British Government and the British state has been fractured. It now competes with a strong Nationalist community for the political and economic leadership of the Six Counties, and it is mesmerised by the prospect of changing demographics. The ability of its social organisations, such as the Orange Order, to intimidate Nationalists has been diminished and is being constantly challenged. Its armed wing, the RUC, is a major issue of contention in the wider community and will have to be replaced. The links with its church base and business community continue to be weakened, and it exists on an island where the thrust of the economics is that there should be an island infrastructure. Members should remember that politics and economics are two sides of the one coin, and they tend to follow one another.

Last but not least, Unionism has signed up to a political agreement, and, by doing so, it has conceded equality of political power with Northern Nationalists which strengthens - [Interruption].

Mr Foster:

Will the Member give way?

Mr McLaughlin:

No thank you, I am running out of time.

That strengthens the role of Dublin in the Northern political state. What can we do about this situation? Sinn Féin - I want to be heard when I say this - [Interruption]

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Order.

Mr McLaughlin:

A Chathaoirligh. Sinn Féin is completely and unequivocally committed to contributing in an entirely peaceful and democratic process of discourse with all shades of political opinion towards building the essential and necessary levels of trust referred to by Seamus Mallon yesterday.

We state clearly - and Nationalists have stated clearly - that we see no advantage whatsoever in consigning the Unionist community to the dismal space from which our community is seeking to escape. We seek equality between our communities and within our community. We seek the new political dispensation that was promised in the Good Friday Agreement, and that involves partnership between Unionism, Nationalism and Republicanism.

May I raise as a point of order the fact that Mr Edwin Poots's remarks were very serious and very dangerous? He has, by his comments, clearly endangered many community workers who could now face the same fate that was suffered by Terry Enright and other community workers. The Initial Presiding Officer should address these irresponsible remarks.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I recall that I cautioned Mr Poots about one particular section of his remarks. I will be scrutinising these remarks more closely. Mr Poots's remarks were fairly expansive, and I am not sure that what I was referring to is precisely what the Member is referring to. Mr McLaughlin may wish to acquaint me afterwards with the precise area of Mr Poots's speech to which he refers, and I will take a look at it.

The Deputy First Minister (Designate) rose.

Mr Poots:

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. I should be quite happy to meet you at any time to discuss any of the remarks that I have made. [Interruption]

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I am grateful to the Member.

The Deputy First Minister (Designate):

I note that three minutes have gone on that point of order. I make that point because of the remarks made by Dr Paisley earlier. He stated that "in no other Assembly would the party leaders be given only 10 minutes to speak on a motion of this kind". I agree with him. I also agree that seven and a half minutes each for summing up is not adequate, but then I know the extent of this, for at the last meeting of the Assembly a guillotine motion was imposed on me by the very same party that is now making this point. [Interruption]. I accept it in the spirit that it was given.

I have time to make just four points. First, in relation to the Civic Forum, it is very difficult - those of us who were in the round- table discussions know this - to get the right type of approach and, indeed, to get consensus. But there was a consensus that the Civic Forum was something worth doing, that it was worthwhile.

I want to mention three things that were said about it - and they are on record - which, I think, reflect attitudes which are, to put it mildly, unbecoming.

"If we are to put up with this necessary nonsense"

said Mr Peter Weir - the "necessary nonsense", of course, being the Civic Forum -

"the proposals are quite reasonable, though not ideal."

Necessary nonsense.

Then Mr Paisley Jnr treated us to this:

"The Forum will be a waste of space and a waste of resources. The voluntary/community sector - that sector of failed or aspiring politicians".

That is about groups of people who have given their time, their efforts and their lives to care for people in the community who would not otherwise have been cared for. I leave it to other Members to make a judgement about that.

The third comment came from Mrs Mary Nelis. She described it as a sort of Mallon and Trimble fan club. My mind boggles at that; I can imagine the type of body that might be. [Interruption]

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Order.

The Deputy First Minister (Designate):

That ignores the fact that during discussions we were at pains to make sure that we would not have to make a choice from the nominations that would be put forward by the various groupings. Each of us said that we did not want to do that. We ended up with six, and those six will probably be necessary to redress imbalances. To call that a fan club or describe it as something in which we would have a personal interest is, I think, offensive to the notion of a Civic Forum. It is also offensive to me.

I refer to paragraph 5.19 of the report:

"All nominations to the Civic Forum should adhere to the principles of public appointments being based on equality of opportunity, merit, openness and transparency of process."

That is what is on paper, and that is what we will turn into a reality. There can be no set of circumstances when procedures will not reflect those principles.

Other Members were critical of the numbers, and I can accept that. Some would like more representation for agriculture, others more for education or trade unions. But having heard it said that there should be a reduction in the number representing the voluntary organisations, I have to ask which group of people that those organisations are representing should be dropped? Older people, youth, people with disabilities, women's groups, ethnic groups, carers, families and children? Not one person who made that criticism gave any indication as to what grouping should be dropped. To drop any of them would be to drop the interests of sections of the community who need to have their views represented.

There has also been criticism about the number of representatives for victims. I wish to make the point that every single person in the Civic Forum, like every single person in the Assembly, has had the experiences of the last 30 years and will be able to represent that trauma within the Forum. Is it not fair to say that one of the first things the Civic Forum might do, and one of the things that the Assembly might ask it to do, is consider the whole question of victims and their position? Carmel Hanna, in her very fine speech, said

"The Civic Forum can broaden and deepen the political and public process by bringing a rich diversity of viewpoints to discussions about matters of public policy."

That is what it should and must do.

The question of equality was raised and has been dealt with. Equality does not belong to any one party in the Assembly. It does not belong to any one section of the community represented here. It belongs to the entire Assembly and to the entire political process. That is one of the reasons it makes more sense to have it in the centre. In that way the views of the two communities can be brought to bear on its application, rather than just one, which would be the case if it were working as an isolated unit among the other Departments. There would not be the same opportunity for the cross-fertilisation between Departments which is required.

"Jobs for the boys" is a terrible phrase. "Snouts in the trough" is even worse. But I make no apology on behalf of those whom I represent for trying to ensure maximum representation in the Executive. "Jobs for the boys" would have been very easy in the circumstances in which we found ourselves. It would have been very easy to try to cut our losses and work with the existing structures for the first five years. Then you might have been justified in saying "Jobs for the boys". But where are these "boys"? Some of them are on the Benches opposite. Surely that represents inclusivity, and we should not be quibbling about that.

My next point relates to the £90 million cost. I asked for expert advice from the Civil Service on this, and I was told that a ballpark figure for each new Department would be around £2 million plus set-up costs. That means £8 million for four Government Departments. I was given those figures today. According to Civil Service figures, the Assembly costs £14 million a year. The real benefit of the additional Departments, irrespective of cost or numbers, will be that areas of work formerly subsumed into existing Departments will be able to be dealt with separately. Is that not a worthwhile achievement? Is that not something that the Assembly should be calling for rather than quibbling about?

My final point relates to all the statements I have heard about the weakening of the Union and how this day could be an end to the Union. I leave Members with one last thought about that - and I am no great fan of the Union, as Members may know. The very essence of this agreement is that, for the first time since partition, the representatives of Unionism and Nationalism have agreed on how they will settle constitutional, political, social and economic issues - the first time in 80 years. If we jeopardise that, it will be difficult to see when such a consensus would ever be reached again.

The First Minister (Designate):

May I just pick up some of the points made by my Colleague towards the conclusion of his remarks. There are costs involved in setting up additional Departments, although some of the figures suggested have been exaggerated. I draw attention to paragraph 2.6 of this report, in which we say

"We share the firm view expressed during our consultations with Parties that the additional costs should be offset by rationalising the remainder of public administration in Northern Ireland."

We shall endeavour to ensure that those additional costs are recovered.

Also, it is important that we focus our minds on the positive aspects. We have heard a lot about the negative aspects, the problems and the difficulties. Let us recall some of the positive aspects of what we are doing. Let us recall that all shades of elected opinion in Northern Ireland are gathered here in this Assembly for the first time ever. That never happened until this institution came into existence. That is the first time that we have had all shades of opinion present in a Northern Ireland body. While there have been disagreements, which may have been expressed sharply, we have seen debate conducted in a civilised manner - and that is what representative institutions of this nature are for.

4.00 pm

We are now nearing the end of the transition period after a lot of hard work. This is a staging post towards that, with a crucial point to come in March. I recall that at the first session of this body on 1 July Mr McCrea made the point that there were people present in the Assembly who, in the past, had done terrible things. But they were not all in one corner of the room, and I think that we should acknowledge that.

I said on 1 July that we had never said that those with a past could not have a future. It is because of that future that Members are here, and it is that future that we are constructing. However, when we say that those with a past can have a future, that implies change, not just in terms of this institution's bringing together all shades of opinion, but on the parts of those who have had a past of a particular character. It is that change that we want to see. We want to see people progressing. The whole point behind this agreement and this process is to give people who have been involved in paramilitary activity and violence the opportunity to leave that behind and come into the political process.

It specifically gives to those who have talked about the joint strategy of the Armalite and the ballot-paper the opportunity to leave the Armalite behind, with Gen de Chastelain, and rely purely on the ballot-paper. That is how we want to see things progressing, and it is because we want to see things progressing that we have carried this process so far and look forward to the remaining stages that we shall all have to go through. We want to see the process develop and power transferred to this institution.

I look forward, as I am sure all Assembly Members do, to the point where decision making on Northern Ireland issues comes to this Chamber, when Members will play a part through the Executive and all the Committees. But let there be no doubt that the transfer of power to this Chamber must be on a basis which maintains integrity. As the Deputy First Minister said in the House of Commons, this agreement must be implemented in its entirety and in its integrity. That integrity must be maintained.

I hope to see serious progress on the decommissioning issue by 10 March with a credible beginning to that process. I also want to see progress in other ways. I recognise that there has been some progress in the last fortnight, that there appears to have been an end to paramilitary beatings and shootings by Republicans. I hope that that is not just a temporary response to our call, but something more substantial. I recognise that there appears to have been some reduction in UVF beatings and shootings - I hope that that becomes total and that it follows the example set by the Republicans. I welcome the call by John White to the UDA to do likewise. I want to see all organisations of that nature ending those attacks, just as I want to see decommissioning in order to bring power to this body.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Members will recall that I asked for, and gained, the leave of the House to have one debate to deal with item 4 on the Order Paper, the amendment to item 4, item 5 and the amendment to item 5. We will now take the four votes in serial fashion. We come therefore to the amendment to item 4 - the amendment standing in the name of the Rev Dr Ian Paisley. I remind the Assembly that if amendment 1 is carried, it will supersede the substantive motion, and no further vote will be necessary. The vote on this, and the next two votes, will require a simple majority, but the final vote will require cross-community support.

The amendment to the first motion: moved or not moved?

Rev Dr Ian Paisley:

Moved.

Question put: That the amendment be made.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 28; Noes 78.

AYES

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

NOES

Dr Ian Adamson, Ms Pauline Armitage, Billy Armstrong, Alex Attwood, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Mrs Eileen Bell, Tom Benson, Esmond Birnie, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Mrs Joan Carson, Seamus Close, Fred Cobain, Rev Robert Coulter, John Dallat, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Ms Bairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, Pat Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sir Reg Empey, David Ervine, Sean Farren, John Fee, David Ford, Sam Foster, Tommy Gallagher, Ms Michelle Gildernew, Sir John Gorman, Ms Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Dr Joe Hendron, John Hume, Derek Hussey, Billy Hutchinson, Gerry Kelly, John Kelly, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, Mrs 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, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Ms Monica McWilliams, Francie Molloy, Ms Jane Morrice, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Sean Neeson, Mrs Mary Nelis, Dermot Nesbitt, Danny O'Connor, Ms Dara O'Hagan, Eamon ONeill, Mrs Sue Ramsey, Ken Robinson, Ms Brid Rodgers, George Savage, Rt Hon John Taylor, John Tierney, Rt Hon David Trimble, Peter Weir, Jim Wilson.

Question accordingly negatived.

4.15 pm

Main Question put.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 78; Noes 28.

AYES

Dr Ian Adamson, Ms Pauline Armitage, Billy Armstrong, Alex Attwood, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Mrs Eileen Bell, Tom Benson, Esmond Birnie, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Mrs Joan Carson, Seamus Close, Fred Cobain, Rev Robert Coulter, John Dallat, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Ms Bairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, Pat Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sir Reg Empey, David Ervine, Sean Farren, John Fee, David Ford, Sam Foster, Tommy Gallagher, Ms Michelle Gildernew, Sir John Gorman, Ms Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Dr Joe Hendron, John Hume, Derek Hussey, Billy Hutchinson, Gerry Kelly, John Kelly, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, Mrs 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, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Ms Monica McWilliams, Francie Molloy, Ms Jane Morrice, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, , Sean Neeson, Mrs Mary Nelis, Dermot Nesbitt, Danny O'Connor, Ms Dara O'Hagan, Eamon ONeill, Mrs Sue Ramsey, Ken Robinson, Ms Brid Rodgers, George Savage, Rt Hon John Taylor, John Tierney, Rt Hon David Trimble, Peter Weir, Jim Wilson.

NOES

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

Main Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved:

This Assembly takes note of the report prepared by the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate), and approves the proposals in relation to establishing the consultative Civic Forum (as recorded in Section 5 of that report).

The Initial Presiding Officer:

The business motion at item 5 on the Order Paper is for a determination, and so, as I said earlier, it requires cross-community support, as defined in the Standing Orders.

Mr P Robinson:

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. The amendment to the business motion does not require cross-community support even though the business motion itself does.

4.30 pm

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Had the Member been a little more patient he would have found me coming precisely to that matter. As he says, the business motion requires cross-community support as defined in the Standing Order. But I remind the Assembly that if the amendment is carried, it will supersede the substantive motion, and no further vote will be necessary. Also, since the amendment is not a determination - on the contrary, it is to negative the determination - according to Standing Orders it requires only a simple majority.

Motion made:

This Assembly approves the determination by the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) of the number of ministerial offices to be held by Northern Ireland Ministers and the functions which would be exercisable by the holder of each office after the appointed day (as recorded in Annex 2 of the report to the Assembly). - [The First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate)]

Amendment proposed: Leave out from "Assembly" and add

"declines to approve the determination by the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) of the number of ministerial offices to be held by Northern Ireland Ministers and the functions which would be exercisable by the holder of each such office after the appointed day (as recorded in Annex 2 of their report to the Assembly) before Sinn Féin Members are excluded from holding office as Ministers or the IRA has decommissioned its illegal weaponry and dismantled its terror machine." - [ Mr P Robinson]

Question put: That the amendment be made.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 29; Noes 77.

AYES

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

NOES

Dr Ian Adamson, Ms Pauline Armitage, Billy Armstrong, Alex Attwood, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Mrs Eileen Bell, Tom Benson, Esmond Birnie, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Mrs Joan Carson, Seamus Close, Fred Cobain, Rev Robert Coulter, John Dallat, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Ms Bairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, Pat Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sir Reg Empey, David Ervine, Sean Farren, John Fee, David Ford, Sam Foster, Tommy Gallagher, Ms Michelle Gildernew, Sir John Gorman, Ms Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Dr Joe Hendron, John Hume, Derek Hussey, Billy Hutchinson, Gerry Kelly, John Kelly, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, Mrs 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, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Ms Monica McWilliams, Francie Molloy, Ms Jane Morrice, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Sean Neeson, Mrs Mary Nelis, Dermot Nesbitt, Danny O'Connor, Ms Dara O'Hagan, Eamon ONeill, Mrs Sue Ramsey, Ken Robinson, Ms Brid Rodgers, George Savage, Rt Hon John Taylor, John Tierney, Rt Hon David Trimble, Jim Wilson.

Question accordingly negatived.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

We come now to the vote on the business motion for the determination. I ask the House to recall the correction to Annex 2, to which the motion refers. The correction, which was brought to Members' attention by the First Minister (Designate), is that "Enterprise, Trade and Development" in respect of a Minister and Department should read "Enterprise, Trade and Investment".

4.45 pm

Main Question put.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 77 (Nationalists 41; Unionists 29; Other 7); Noes 29.

AYES

Nationalist

Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, John Dallat, Ms Bairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, Pat Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, Ms Michelle Gildernew, Ms Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Dr Joe Hendron, John Hume, Gerry Kelly, John Kelly, Mrs Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Seamus Mallon, Alex Maskey, Donovan McClelland, Dr Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Eddie McGrady, Martin McGuinness, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Mrs Mary Nelis, Danny O'Connor, Ms Dara O'Hagan, Eamon ONeill, Mrs Sue Ramsey, Ms Brid Rodgers, John Tierney.

Unionist

Dr Ian Adamson, Ms Pauline Armitage, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Tom Benson, Esmond Birnie, Mrs Joan Carson, Fred Cobain, Rev Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Sir Reg Empey, David Ervine, Sam Foster, Sir John Gorman, Derek Hussey, Billy Hutchinson, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, David McClarty, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Dermot Nesbitt, Ken Robinson, George Savage, Rt Hon John Taylor, Rt Hon David Trimble, Jim Wilson.

Other

Mrs Eileen Bell, Seamus Close, David Ford, Kieran McCarthy, Ms Monica McWilliams, Ms Jane Morrice, Sean Neeson.

NOES

Unionist

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

The Initial Presiding Officer:

The percentages are as follows:

For the motion: Nationalists 100%; Unionists 50%; overall 72.64%. Therefore under Initial Standing Order 12(4)(b) - the 40:40:60 rule - the motion is agreed.

Main Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved:

This Assembly approves the determination by the First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate) of the number of Ministerial offices to be held by Northern Ireland Ministers and the functions which would be exercisable by the holder of each such office after the appointed day (as recorded in Annex 2 of their report to the Assembly).

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Under the revised arrangements for the handling of Adjournment debates, it is my responsibility to select a subject for debate from the topics submitted by Members. I have selected "Problems with the Domestic Supply of Water and Electricity". I stress that Members who have been selected to speak in the debate must address only the selected topic.

Motion made:

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

Water And Electricity Supplies

TOP

Mr Byrne:

A debate on the problems that are encountered by many people in the North of Ireland with the domestic supply of water and electricity is timely. I welcome the opportunity to discuss this extremely important issue, which directly affects the quality of everyday life for many citizens. As Members are aware, the standard of service provided by the public utilities - [Interruption]

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Order. Members who wish to engage in conversation should do so outside the Chamber. Other Members should take their seats.

Mr Byrne:

I think that there is more entertainment outside.

In the past few months, the standard of service that is provided by the public utilities in the North of Ireland has become the focus of substantial criticism, and the services that are provided by Northern Ireland Electricity (NIE) and the Department of the Environment's Water Executive have been found to be lacking in many respects.

In this debate I will focus primarily on the inadequacies of the electricity, water and sewerage services to people living in rural areas. Approximately 42% of the population live in rural areas, which account for 96% of the land area. In spite of this, many rural inhabitants have to tolerate a much lower quality of service than the proportion of the population which lives in urban dwellings.

Many rural people perceive themselves to be treated as second-class citizens and believe that they are not being afforded the same right of access to these essential social services as everyone else in the North of Ireland. Surely if we in the Assembly are to promote social inclusion and equality successfully, there must be a greater awareness of the needs of rural communities. I am sure that everyone would agree that a public water supply and electricity are essential for everyday existence.

The recent storms which swept across Ireland over the Christmas period demonstrated acutely the inadequacy of the provision of electricity to many rural areas. Many rural dwellers suffered considerably, with some families having to go without power for up to five days.

Mr Hussey:

I am sure that Mr Byrne will agree that the fact that the rural community is supplied by overhead lines in the main, as opposed to underground lines, is a major contributory factor to the problems that we face.

Mr Byrne:

I agree with Mr Hussey. I will address the issue of the rural lines in a moment. The frustration of rural inhabitants was compounded further by the severe lack of proper communication between NIE and its customers. Many tried desperately - in vain, I must add - over the Christmas period to get information about when their electricity supplies would be reconnected.

In my constituency of West Tyrone there are many power lines throughout the Omagh and Strabane districts which have not been upgraded for more than 20 years. NIE needs to hire more full-time manual engineers to speed up its current programme of capital investment and the upgrading of the rural network.

There should be some degree of decentralisation of NIE's management structures so that customers throughout the rural areas can have better access to local management and engineering crews when faults arise. It is simply unacceptable that all complaints must be processed centrally in Belfast, and there must be a re-appraisal of the regulatory framework for the provision of this basic utility.

We need to ensure that NIE directs a fair share of its surplus funds into upgrading its network to provide an efficient service for all householders no matter where they happen to live. There seems to me to be confusion between NIE's investment plans and the areas in which the regulator says that it can re-invest.

As we approach the end of the twentieth century and begin to create a new society in the North of Ireland based on the principles of equality and fair treatment, there are many people who are still not being afforded a public water supply, and that is a basic right.

According to the Department of the Environment's Water Executive's consultation paper published late last year, approximately 98% of the North's population is connected to a public water main. The remaining 2% are not connected, and while that may seem to be an insignificant figure, that percentage translates into almost 30,000 people who do not enjoy the modest provision of running water.

Many of their homes are in rural areas, and the people who happen to live in such areas are being made to suffer unnecessary hardship. There are more than 600 properties which do not have this basic amenity in West Tyrone. These householders have to get water for cooking and drinking from nearby wells and springs, which is a constant source of irritation and particularly difficult when the weather is poor.

Furthermore, there is the added risk of poisoning, as some of these wells and springs can contain high levels of ammonia and pathogenic organisms. This situation is absolutely unacceptable as these people - and they pay rates just like everyone else - are being forced to live under conditions which one would expect to find in deprived, developing nations. These people are being treated like second-class citizens under the Water and Sewerage Services (NI) Order 1973 which states that theDepartment of the Environment's Water Executive is not required to do anything which "is not practicable at a reasonable cost".

In this modern era we have the technological expertise to build faster, more powerful computers and to send spacecrafts to the furthest reaches of the solar system. Yet, at the end of the twentieth century, the Water Executive regards the connection of thousands of rural households to a public water supply as not practicable. Surely this flies totally in the face of the objectives of TSN (targeting social need) and PAFT (policy appraisal and fair treatment). The Department of the Environment's officials point out that they are prevented from spending any more than £2,900 on connecting a household to a public water mains, but this threshold has been in existence since 1986 and is totally inadequate for rural areas which are less densely populated and have more scattered housing patterns.

In my opinion - and I am sure that the House will agree with this - we need different thresholds for urban and rural dwellings which take into consideration the different patterns of urban and rural life and the costs of connecting a water supply. The Chief Executive of the Water Executive said in his Charter statement that his aim is to ensure that Northern Ireland is provided with a rising standard of water and sewerage services which will meet the needs of its customers and that he is committed to improving the quality of services to all his customers. The Charter statement outlines the range of services offered by the Water Executive and the standards which it is aiming for, but nowhere is it stated that one of the objectives is the connection of those 7,000 properties, an approximate figure, to a public water supply.

The quality of service clearly falls well below the Water Executive's own parameters in relation not only to water but to the sewerage infrastructure as well. The Water Executive has conceded that the sewerage infrastructure is seriously underfunded and has admitted that this cannot remain the situation if it is to meet the European Union's objectives on effluent treatment.

In Omagh we have an outdated sewage-treatment works and we want this to be upgraded; in fact, we are looking for a brand new sewerage system downstream from the town's current system. Omagh District Council has lobbied, and will continue to lobby, strongly for this. Omagh is a town which has been earmarked as a major growth centre in the Department of the Environment's new strategy for development.

This example serves to illustrate the problem in other main towns throughout Northern Ireland. The Water Executive's consultation paper discusses a range of ways of improving the standards of service as we move into the new millennium and accepts that in the past there has been an underinvestment in the water and sewerage infrastructure.

Almost everyone in the House will agree that the days of relying totally upon public-sector funding are becoming more difficult for major capital investment projects, and alternative funding arrangements will have to be looked at. This may mean bringing in more private-sector finance.

The consultation document does explore constructively some alternative capital funding arrangements, such as public/private partnerships, which could include franchising and private-finance initiatives. These alternative funding arrangements need to be examined in depth. However, while this consultation document assesses the merits of different charging arrangements and discusses the very real possibility of significant increases in the amounts presently collected from ratepayers, nowhere does it address the needs of the many households, the thousands of households, throughout the North which are occupied by ratepayers whose homes are not even connected to a public water supply or, indeed, to public sewerage systems.

I call upon the Water Executive to ensure that those homes which are not connected to a public water supply are connected by the year 2000. That should be the Water Executive's immediate objective.

Surely by any normal standards of fairness and social equity, the conditions which many people who live in rural areas have to tolerate is in contradiction to both Northern Ireland Electricity's and the Water Executive's Charter statements. I call upon both Northern Ireland Electricity and the Water Executive to fulfil the terms of their Charters and reflect upon whether they are providing the same quality of service to all of their customers, urban and rural. And fundamental to this objective, in my opinion, is the extension of these basic rights to rural dwellers who are an integral part of this region and who deserve to be treated as equal citizens.

5.15 pm

Mrs E Bell:

Thank you, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. I agree with Mr Byrne. I shall concentrate on electricity as Mr Byrne has dealt sufficiently with the water problems.

After the Christmas period, there was much comment on the electricity service. All Assembly parties have had meetings with Northern Ireland Electricity and have voiced their concerns about the long power cuts and the lack of information about the restoration of power. All representatives were inundated with calls from terrified elderly people living on their own, young mothers and members of large families. All were distraught about the devastation caused by cookers and lights not working and freezers being useless - in some cases for more than 48 hours.

The breakdown in communication between electricity offices, consumers and representatives made a dreadful situation worse. We have been told that there will be a complete overhaul of communications technology and that Assembly and local government representatives will be given a direct line for emergency use. That is welcome, but I hope that more lines will be made available to enable the public to get up-to-date information. At the meeting between the Alliance Party and NIE officers, we asked about the possibility of spokesmen using local radio to give on-the-spot reports. That was done successfully in Donegal where consumers experienced power cuts at the same time. The media did their best to give up-to-date reports as accurately as possible, but at times accuracy gave way to mild sensationalism, which did not help.

We could all quote horror stories, of people who were stranded with young babies and of accidents in dark homes and in stormy weather. North Down was badly hit, but one of the stories has a humorous side. A woman whose husband was in bed with flu asked me if I could come and milk the cows. Although I was born in the country, I do not have that ability. She could not get the cows milked because she did not have the proper machinery. The outcome was that an RUC officer was able to contact the electricity service and go to her aid. I mention that because, although I thought it funny at the time, dairy farmers were badly hit by the power cuts. They are already under great pressure, and their livelihoods were even further endangered.

As we know, there were many interviews with NIE management who spoke of the unprecedented storm damage and the perilous state of the rural power network. Enormous improvements to power lines throughout the countryside were promised and they are still being promised in the report that Mr Byrne mentioned. Regret was expressed at the disruption to people's holiday breaks at best and the danger to their livelihoods at worst. It was said that most power lines in rural areas were overhead and that it would be far too expensive to put them underground. We asked NIE, as did other people, to ensure that it would look at that again during the overhaul and upgrading of the machinery.

My concern was, and still is, that in spite of promises at that time of compensation and power restoration, the management stated frequently that although it had an obligation to consumers, its priority was to the shareholders. That it is quite disgusting, and that state of affairs constitutes my main argument against the privatisation of public utilities. I hope that that objective will be examined within the overall review and looked at by the Assembly.

The NIE report accepts responsibility for poor communication and states that the company has already started the overhaul of the IT and telephone system. It has acknowledged breakdowns and the inability of customers to get through to electricity offices and has pledged that that will not recur. The setting up of a designated number for representatives should help matters. The compensation system for people who have freezers, with businesses and so on, has been welcomed and appreciated. However, agriculture must be looked at as a special case.

The state of the Province's electricity system, especially in rural areas, will have to be completely updated so that it can withstand the storms and provide an improved service to those in outlying areas who are more vulnerable than others.

NIE has promised an examination of the devastation of trees during the high winds, and I hope it will do that. Such work would be welcomed. I hope that it also undertakes the re-seeding programme that is promised. Our green spaces are being undermined to a great extent, not just by nature, but by developers. NIE should be a responsible, accountable organisation and ensure that its representatives carry out its promises to eradicate these serious problems. The Assembly parties have pledged to monitor the implementation of the report, and I am sure that they will honour that. We all saw at first hand the havoc, distress and danger that our citizens endured at what should have been a happy, carefree time of year.

I should like to highlight some priority issues. Resources are a priority and need to be increased for the programmes within the report. I think that it was Nuala O'Connor of OFREG who said the moneys that it is said will be used for compensation programmes are not additional but are already included in NIE's budget. If that is true, it is not good enough. I hope that NIE shareholders will accept the fact that extra moneys are necessary to repair damage, improve services and ensure that when nature strikes we are as ready as we can be.

People's lives and livelihoods and, yes, even their holidays, should not be put in jeopardy while shareholders' dividends increase. Staffing and emergency procedures need to be reviewed so that customers can be assured of prompt telephone attention and updated reports and are aware of the true situation whatever the weather.

I should like to express my appreciation and that of my Colleagues of the work that was carried out by the workmen on the ground at the time. On a number of occasions over those 48 hours, lives, businesses and homes across the Province were saved by the prompt attention of those who came out in all weathers and at all hours to do the necessary work.

Public utilities must be efficiently and effectively run, and NIE's apparent complacency needs changing. It does not inspire confidence but seems to have impersonal management teams that are more concerned with their shareholders than their consumers. NIE must prove itself to us. If it does not, the Assembly must take the problems on board and confront the electricity providers to ensure that they give the best service to all consumers. Members, few as they are for this debate, must take that on board.

I make no apology, nor, I am sure, does Mr Byrne, for reiterating our concern. Like the Water Service, NIE is a public utility and it must operate properly and efficiently so that people can have confidence in it.

Ms Gildernew:

A Chathaoirligh, in a debate about amenities in the North, it would be impossible for me not to make the connection between services and geography. It is no coincidence that rural parts of Tyrone, Fermanagh and Derry were worst hit by the electricity blackouts as a result of the storms that raged in the Christmas and new year periods. It is no coincidence either that there are homes in these counties that still have no running water almost 2000 years after the Romans had sewers, heating systems and clean running water in homes.

Why is this type of discrimination still being meted out to householders? Because - and make no mistake about it - this is discrimination. The same discrimination is allowing our hospitals to be downgraded, forcing our rural schools to close their doors and making driving conditions on sub-standard roads hazardous and dangerous at times. Discrimination in every form, be it in religious belief, political allegiance and geographical location, was built into the institutions of the Six County statelet and continues to flourish.

Neither the old Stormont regime nor direct British rule gave any consideration to Fermanagh and Tyrone. Priority has always been given to Belfast and its environs. The recent announcement of an £87 million investment package, welcome as it was, has been earmarked for east of the Bann. The A4 which runs from the end of the motorway to the Ballygawley roundabout has one of the highest accident rates in the North, yet we are told that it would cost too much to upgrade it to dual carriageway status at least.

Mr Hussey:

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. We are discussing water and electricity.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I do not see too many disputing the matter, but I think that we need to keep to the Adjournment motion.

Ms Gildernew:

I am getting to that. Other examples include the Derry to Toomebridge Road, the A32 through Dromore to Enniskillen and the A5 between Omagh and Derry. It is inconceivable that these most urgent programmes are subject to the sale of Belfast Harbour.

The same discrimination exists in the provision of the most basic human right of all - a clean water supply. Is it too much to ask that every home be connected to a water supply as we go into the millennium? We do not have a water shortage. The fact that in 1999 people in rural areas still have to rely on water from springs and wells cannot be justified. Parts of Tyrone, including homes in the Clogher valley area, are still without supply, and in West Tyrone hundreds of homes are without water.

When local councils advise water authorities to extend the mains supply to a house, there is no obligation on the Department of the Environment's Water Executive to comply with that request. Lack of finance is the reason cited most often, yet the allowance allocated has remained the same for the past 15 years. Given the lack of will to provide water to everyone now when the service belongs to the public, privatisation should not be considered at all. We talked yesterday about equality. We need to prove in deeds, not words, our intention to right the wrongs of the past.

It is encouraging that most people now enjoy electricity in their homes. The work that was carried out in Fermanagh to supply homes there is commendable, and I hope that the Department of the Environment's Water Executive can follow that example. However, we need to give serious consideration to the hardship being faced by thousands of families, the vast majority of them in rural parts of the country, whose electricity supply was cut off during the winter. We have to learn from our experiences this year and use the next 12 months to take every step necessary to avoid this happening again.

The trauma and distress caused could and should have been avoided. Weather projections are available to us, and this will not be the last time that we will have to endure storms like this. The El Niño phenomenon and global warming have resulted in freak weather conditions such as tidal waves, droughts and storms. We will not avoid our share. Therefore, we must take precautions now to ensure that energy supplies are never affected again in the way they were this year.

5.30 pm

NIE is undertaking lengthy consultations with Assembly Members and councils - a move that I welcome. However, it is essential that recommendations are implemented immediately. I welcome the goodwill payments made by NIE for its failure to get supplies reinstated within 24 hours, but, compared to the colossal profits which that company enjoyed last year, such payments are trivial. Money raised by NIE should be spent on ensuring an interruption-free supply in the future. Higher payments could also have been given to those who are reliant on their power supply to run medical equipment, such as ventilators for asthma suffers.

The fact that so many lines were brought down meant that homes in isolated areas were without heat, light and cooking facilities, some of them for four or five days. This inconvenience in the holiday period, which many of us look forward to as a chance to spend time with family and friends, was very distressing. While I understand that NIE was taken unawares by the extent of the storm and was completely understaffed, I hope that a contingency plan for the future is now in place and that an interruption of supply on this scale never happens again. I encourage the parties in the Assembly to unite to achieve parity of esteem by redressing the balance now. We should use this period to bring spending into line in all parts of the North. Members from rural areas should now be using their influence for the benefit of their constituencies, and the needs of the electorate should be our priority. Go raibh maith agat.

Adjourned at 5.31 pm.

<< Prev