Mr Fee:

I will deal specifically with that later in my address. I am surprised that Mr Robinson has framed his intervention in those terms. Throughout the report of the Shadow Commission it was made abundantly clear that the role and function of the Commission is to act on behalf of each Member of the House and the House as a whole. None of its members are there as party political representatives. No other similar body, as far as I am aware, has people there as party political representatives. The Shadow Commission has largely set aside party political demands in favour of getting the best services for the House and for individual Members as well as the best support services to allow them to represent their constituencies.

That goes to the very core of one of the problems we have with Standing Order 71. First, it steps outside the existing legislation and, without any real rationale, proposes to more than double the size of the Commission. We need to bear in mind that the Commission has to deal with much of the detailed administration of the House: staff complements; terms and conditions; grading and pay rates; management structures; and performance.

A small, tight team is infinitely preferable to a large number of people. The potential for running into legal, fair employment and staff problems is enormous. The House of Commons Commission has only six members and it has to deal with a staff of over 2,500, and a budget of approximately £370m. It is all about efficiency.

If we decide on certain pay or staffing which the staff do not like and so decide to strike, is it possible that we will get better agreement with 11 members representing party political interests or with six members representing the body of the whole House? We should be looking at these areas in more detail.

Inclusiveness is important, but the Standing Orders Committee has only looked at one method of achieving it. I do not believe that this is the best method. This proposal would add four or five people to the Commission but six people or 11 people could not do all the work required. The Shadow Commission has been looking at an alternative and that is the system that pertains at Westminster where most of the work of the Commission is devolved to House Committees.

8.15 pm

Westminster has House committees for virtually every area of work. It has a finance and services committee; administration, finance, computer and communications committees; information committees; a range of domestic committees; a printing and publishing management group; a Whitley committee, which deals with trade unions and staff disputes; and committees for the refreshments department, the Serjeant-at-Arm's department, the Library, the Official Report and the like. The work of the Commission at Westminster has places for hundreds of Members of Parliament.

The proposal by the Standing Orders Committee to expand the number of members of the Commission to eleven underestimates both the amount of work to be done and the possibility of devolving powers to committees of Members who could take on the administration of services in the House. The proposal vests too great a responsibility in too small a group, without taking account of what could be done to bring in other Members.

We have already established a committee to look after the gift shop. That may not sound like an important function but I understand that the gift shop in the House of Lords has a turnover of approximately £500,000 and a lucrative mail-order business. There is an entire management function in that area. We have proposals to establish a catering committee, one of the biggest and most important functions in the House of Commons.

For that reason, we will be voting against this Standing Order. I was remiss in not putting down an amendment. I suppose my party was remiss. We are not throwing this Standing Order out. We are merely using the only device available to buy time in order to consider a system of House committees which would involve all the Members of the House. The House of Commons Commission, which has an enormous budget and an enormous staff, only met five times in the financial year 1997-98, because the vast majority of its work was done in committees.

I recognise that I am rapidly running out of time. Perhaps we could ask the Standing Orders Committee to look at this again - I know we cannot refer it to them. We suggest that the Committee meets the shadow Commission, the board of management here, the Clerk of the House of Commons Commission and the officials in Scotland and Wales.

Mr Molloy:

Go raibh agat a Chathaoirligh. I would like to speak against amendment 87 and in favour of retaining Standing Order 70, which states

"Members may speak in the language of their choice."

Drafting this particular Standing Order was a long-drawn-out process. We put forward various different wordings, but they were not acceptable to the Committee. We would prefer to have had the Irish language mentioned. One of our proposals was that English, Irish and Ulster-Scots be listed. Instead we have Members being able to speak in whichever language they choose. Tonight we have been treated to several different languages. It adds to the character of the Assembly.

If we were to adopt the amendment proposed by Mr C Wilson, we would not have that choice. It is not a matter of his being able to say that he does not want to stop anybody from speaking the Irish, or that he does not want to stop anyone from speaking in whatever other language. By not having that choice we would be stopping people from speaking in the language of their choice. There was a lot of debate about this over the months in the Standing Orders Committee, and we did reach a compromise which recognises the diversity of the Committee itself and of the languages.

In the other devolved Administrations that we have talked about, Scotland and Wales, provision has been made for their languages, and I think that Westminster makes provision for English. We have variations in all these establishments, and it would be sad in this part of the country if we were to make exclusions, and that is the problem with this amendment, by leaving out Standing Order 70 and inserting a new Standing Order making the language of this Assembly English. That would exclude people from speaking in a language of their choice.

I hope that we can move to a new situation. The logic of the argument is in keeping with the agreement, and we do have in the Agreement, and several people have referred to this, including Mr Wilson, provision for the use of other languages. I ask people not to be hostile to the language. The language itself cannot do us any harm. It will not endanger any of us. People should not get too uptight about it and hostile to it.

Referring to Standing Order 71, I agree with Mr Fee that we should vote against increasing the membership of the Commission to 11. The Commission has worked very well over the last months. It has taken many decisions. The two votes referred to by Mr Robinson resulted in decisions being made, but many decisions have been taken with no vote at all.

The very fact that those two votes were taken is an indication of the amount of work that went on. We did have two days in London at Westminster, but we were working on the budgets as well, and we had quite a good working relationship while doing that with the staff of all the different agencies. The Assembly Commission has worked well in its short time in shadow form. It would be unfortunate now if we were to throw the baby out with the bath water. We need to keep in line on this matter.

Mr C Murphy:

Will the Member give way? Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. Does the Member agree that Standing Order 70, which is in front of us at the moment was one that our party had some reservations about in the Standing Orders Committee? We felt that it did not go far enough in granting recognition to the Irish language. Would he also agree that those members who supported it when it was voted for included members from both Unionist parties? In fact, all Unionist parties which were represented on the Standing Orders Committee voted for it, all those with voting rights.

Mr Molloy:

I think that that is correct, a Chathaoirligh. We did have agreement on that line.

Mr Boyd:

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. Not all Unionist parties are represented on the Committee.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I think that the Member referred to all the Unionist parties -

A Member:

With voting rights.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

- with voting rights, but it is quite correct to say that your party is not on that body.

Mr Molloy:

I thank the Member for his intervention. It does clarify the fact that the matter did go to a vote, and there was consensus across the different parties on it. We abstained on that occasion because we did not feel that the Standing Order recognized the position of the Irish language as fully as it might have done, but we are quite happy to go along with the present line that people may choose to speak in whatever language they wish. I ask Members for their support.

Mr McFarland:

I am slightly concerned as a result of Mr Fee's speech. When we left the Standing Orders Committee I understood that we had agreement among all the parties on the Commission. I am concerned on a number of fronts. First, we have heard an enormous amount today about proportionality, about cross-party support and about the ethos of how we do our Committee business and everything else, yet here we have a small committee of five, which cannot be representative of the House, of our strengths or of anything else.

Under normal circumstances, and indeed at Westminster, a committee such as this is a non-party organisation in that it does the daily business of the House. That is fine at Westminster, because there is not the problem there that we have here. But the Commission is about to have referred to it small matters -

Mr Ervine:

It is important to point out that the Commission was not treated by the Committee in the same way as other Committees. In other words, it was not a contentious issue or one of great difficulty. Does the Member agree?

Mr McFarland:

It did not seem to be difficult at the time, but it has obviously become a difficulty since. Two parties have indicated that they are going to vote against the Commission's being proportionate in the same way as the other committees are.

The problem with this - and we are into political reality here in the Assembly - is that the Commission will be making decisions on minor matters such as flags and emblems. It is going to have to decide on whether or not we have simultaneous translation into Irish or Ulster-Scots, or whatever.

A number of things that are extremely political are about to arrive at the Commission's door, and it may be difficult for Members to believe that these very contentious issues will get a totally impartial hearing. For that reason it was felt that we might boost the Commission up to reflect the party strengths and give a proper political view on how these things should function. The reality is that in Northern Ireland it is not possible to take a Westminster-style and completely neutral view on such matters.

Rev Robert Coulter:

I support amendment No 63 in the name of Mr Peter Robinson.

I listened to Mr Fee with great interest. There is one thing which we must take into account and that is the matter of inclusiveness on the Commission. In the House everyone is represented, but we do not have this inclusiveness on the Commission. The argument that the Commission is going to set up a number of House committees is very good, up to a point, but those smaller committees can only bring reports back to the Commission. It is in the Commission that the real decisions are to be made. If we are to support the concept of proportionality or inclusiveness, the smaller groupings in the House must be represented on the Commission. They will not have their rights to full expression and inclusive treatment if they are left out at the decision-making point.

I am not questioning at all the working of the Commission, and I do not think that anybody in the House is questioning that. What we are asking for is that the Commission reflect fully all the groupings in the Assembly. That groupings have a right to be there where decisions are being made. If they have that right at the Committee stage, they should also have that right on the Commission. I support amendment No 63.

Mr Paisley Jnr:

I wish to address my remarks to amendment No 87, standing in the name of Mr C Wilson, to Standing Order 7. Whenever we address the issue of language, we consider whether or not the language is intelligible, comprehensive and comprehensible. That is always important, and at times we see glimmers of hope in the Assembly that it is all of those things.

8.30 pm

At times language is used defensively, and sometimes it is used to perpetuate untruths - often outside the Chamber. Sometimes people allege that untruthful language has been used in the Chamber, and most Members are deeply offended by such accusations. Of course, there can be punishments and penalties for people who make such accusations.

Mr Wilson's amendment draws attention not to where language is used offensively, but to where it is used as an offensive and political weapon. Some Members undoubtedly have a mother tongue other than English. Three Members at most could genuinely claim that position. It would be grossly unfair to the rest of Members to create an imbalance so that a significant minority were advantaged or privileged in relation to the vast majority of Members of all shades of political opinion whose mother tongue is English. It is their working tongue, and they use it in every aspect of their lives.

The Assembly should understand why Members felt it necessary to table this amendment. Irish has been used in Northern Ireland as an offensive political weapon. Not long ago, when I was at university, the Irish language was deliberately used to offend the majority population in Northern Ireland. At times it was frivolous and time-wasting. At one time it was suggested that the menu in the Students' Union should be changed to Irish. When that failed, there was an attempt to subvert the menu by calling the Ulster fry the occupied Six-Counties fry and, of course, that led to a frivolous debate in the union.

Irish has clearly been used as a political weapon. Irish language street names have been imposed in Belfast and in other parts of the Province, and that is an example of its use as an offensive political language. I think that Members will agree that the Assembly is possibly at its most divided when it deals with the issue of language. There is division not only here but when Members go to other countries and raise the issue of the Irish language. That has embarrassed not only individuals, the people who were involved, but the entire electoral process. People take cognisance of that reality.

It would be a frivolous waste of time and money for the Assembly to plough resources, time and energy into special privileges for a small minority of Members who wish to use different languages.

It is important that those who wish to speak in a language other than English are not given those special privileges. Standing Order 70 states

"Members may speak in a language of their choice."

That does not seem to offer special privileges, but there is an opportunity for some Members to turn the Standing Order on its head by trying to create for themselves special privileges that they ought not to have.

Mr Fee:

I challenge the Member on his use of the term "special privileges". I come from a house in which the Irish language was used as often, if not more often, than the English language. That was common in many of the houses in the area. What does the Member mean by special privileges? In the RUC station in Newry I could pick up leaflets on every topic from the Highway Code to criminal law, and they are written in Japanese, Chinese and so on. But in that RUC station, the Ardmore police station, nothing is written in Irish.

Mr Paisley Jnr:

One of the reasons for dialects of the Chinese language being readily available and printed in Northern Ireland is that there is a genuine demand for them, and that demand has to be met. One of the largest non-English speaking populations in this city is people who speak Chinese or a derivative of the Chinese langauge.

Mr McElduff:

Will the Member give way?

Mr Paisley Jnr:

No. It is well known in the House that members of the Democratic Unionist Party do not give way to members of the IRA/Sinn Féin Party.

Ms Morrice:

Will the Member give way?

Mr Paisley Jnr:

I will give way when I finish making my point. Our party has consistently taken the view that to give way to members of IRA/Sinn Féin is in some way to accord them recognition as a normal political party. They are apologists for murder and for things which never ought to have happened and have never been justified in our country.

I will certainly give way to the Member from North Down.

Ms Morrice:

With reference to the development of this argument about using English because it is the majority langauge and so on, would the Member, therefore, support the use of German in the European Parliament since it is the majority language of the European Union? Would the Member and the MEP for North Antrim be prepared to speak German - if they can follow that logic?

Mr Paisley Jnr:

The Member knows that that is not the tenor of my argument. I am not saying that Members should be restricted in any way over speaking any other language. What we must have is a safeguard to ensure that this Standing Order, as it currently stands drafted, is not able to be turned round and used as an opportunity, quite deliberately, to create a situation in which special privileges and opportunities are afforded and more public money, energy and resources are wasted. That would be quite wrong. That is why the language of the Assembly should be English and our proceedings conducted at all times in English.

One of the most genuine arguments comes from a Member whose mother tongue is a language other than English. She readily conducts her business in the House in English. She clearly finds it appropriate to do so because it is convenient to the vast majority -

Ms Rodgers:

Will the Member give way?

Mr Paisley Jnr:

Let me finish the point.

It is convenient to the vast majority of Members, not only on this side of the House but also on her own side of the House.

Ms Rodgers:

I ask the Member please not to misrepresent what I said. I said that I speak English out of courtesy, but that I would rather speak Irish, because I feel more comfortable speaking that language. I also think that if I am not allowed to speak Irish - I reared six children in this country, all speaking Irish in an English-speaking area - Irish will die, and I do not want that to happen. That is why my children speak Irish, my grandchildren speak Irish, my husband speaks Irish and I speak Irish. I want to do the same thing here, but I want to do it comfortably.

Mr Paisley Jnr:

The courtesy, as the Member put it, is appreciated. However, most Members here realise that if she were to conduct her political life and her political business solely in what she describes as her mother tongue, she would probably not get very far. That is a political reality and something that we have to accept.

That is why it is important that we make sure that there is no attempt by those Members who may want to use the Irish language as a political weapon to take this Standing Order and build into the Assembly special privileges and opportunities which ought not to be there.

We should be equal in that sense, and I do not believe that the Standing Order as it is currently framed affords us that safeguard, and we should support amendment No 87 in the name of Mr C Wilson on that basis.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

We have come to the end of the debate on this matter, and we now have to consider and approve the Standing Orders and amendments.

Mr Dalton:

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. Section 40 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 says that the number of persons on the Commission should be five. May I ask the Chair to indicate if the Standing Orders are silent on this matter?

Section 40 also says that the prescribed number of Members of the Assembly should be appointed in accordance with Standing Orders. Can you, Sir, indicate how the Assembly will appoint the Commission in the event of the motion to appoint the Commission, as it currently stands, being negatived?

The Initial Presiding Officer:

It is clear that the appointment of members of the Commission by the Assembly would be by election. That is not the matter at issue. The question that seems to be being asked is whether the Assembly would be in default of the legislation if the Standing Orders were not to include the clause that Standing Order 71 does, giving the number of Members. This is not a straightforward matter. It seems, on initial reading, that the default position is that if there is not a specific clause, the prescribed number is five, but that is not clear. It is necessary to seek legal advice on the matter, and I shall be doing that.

However, this vote tonight will not be a determination of the Standing Orders because they will not become operative immediately. To be operative in advance of the appointed day they would have to be determined by the Secretary of State. Therefore it is possible for the Assembly, in advance of the appointed day, to consider changes and amendments to some of the Standing Orders. The joint Chairmen have indicated that they wish to do that in the case of some of the other Standing Orders or, indeed, to put new Standing Orders.

There is nothing to preclude the Assembly legally from not taking or, indeed, from taking the Standing Order 71 that is here in draft form. The Assembly can take one line or the other without breaching the law.

Mr Fee:

On a further point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Oficer. The minutes of the Standing Orders Committee of 23 February say

"it was pointed out that, unless the Committee wished to recommend a change to the membership numbers on the Commission, there was no requirement for a Standing Order and in any event a Standing Order could be produced, as required, at any point in the Assembly's life."

That was the Standing Orders Committee's understanding of things on 23 February. Part of our reason for not voting for this Standing Order tonight is to work out what has changed over the weeks since then.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I am grateful to the Member for mentioning that, but the statement in the minutes is the Standing Orders Committee's view on the Standing Orders. That is all very fine, but it does not constitute legal advice, opinion, or, indeed, a ruling. I must continue with my current ruling which is that I will be seeking legal advice on the matter. For the present, Members can vote in whichever way they choose and they will not be breaching the law.

Mr Beggs:

Is it correct to say that the Assembly will not be able to change the Standing Orders before the determination because we will not be meeting before then?

The Initial Presiding Officer:

That is not correct. There has been no indication of the date of the appointed day. The advice that I gave the House earlier from the Secretary of State was in respect of the running of d'Hondt. That is not necessarily the same thing as the appointed day. I cannot accept your point of order.

We move to the last grouping of Standing Orders and amendments. We may have to ask the Secretary of State for an extension beyond 10.00 pm if we are to cover this and have the Adjournment debate.

Standing Order 63 (Oath) agreed to.

Standing Order 64 (Administration of Oath) agreed to.

Standing Order 65 (Sub Judice) agreed to.

Standing Order 66 (News Media)

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Is amendment No 65 moved or not moved?

Mr P Robinson:

On the basis of the undertakings given by the Chairmen, not moved.

Standing Order 66 agreed to.

Standing Order 67 (Office of Clerk and Records of the Assembly) agreed to.

Standing Order 68 (Remuneration and Pensions) agreed to.

Standing Order 69 (Suspension of Standing Orders)

Amendment (No 64) proposed: Leave out Standing Order 69. - [Mr P Robinson]

8.45 pm

Question put That the amendment be made.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 21; Noes 64.

AYES

Unionist

Fraser Agnew, Paul Berry, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Mrs Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.

NOES

Nationalist

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

Unionist

Dr Ian Adamson, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Esmond Birnie, Mrs Joan Carson, Fred Cobain, Rev Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, 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.

Other

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

The Initial Presiding Officer:

There voted 85 Members. Of Nationalists, there voted none for and 32 against, which is 0% for. Of Unionists, there voted 21 for and 25 against, which is 45.65% for. The total vote for is 24.7%. I declare that the amendment is lost.

Question accordingly negatived.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

The effect of the negativing of the amendment is that Standing Order 69 is agreed to.

Standing Order 69 agreed to.

Standing Order 70 (Language)

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Is amendment 87 moved or not moved?

Mr C Wilson:

In moving the amendment, may I thank my Colleague Dr Paisley and his party for their support -

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Members must understand that it is not possible to make a winding-up speech. That is completely contrary to Standing Orders. The only words that I can accept are "Moved" or "Not moved", regardless of eloquence.

Mr C Wilson:

On a point of order, Mr Chairman. Several times Mr Robinson, in moving motions, has made a few comments. I am certain of that.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

On one or two occasions typographical errors and other things of that kind have been raised, but no significant comments have been made.

Mr C Wilson:

The amendment is moved.

Amendment (No 87) proposed: Leave out Standing Order 70 and insert the following new Standing Order:

"The language of this Assembly shall be English." - [Mr C Wilson]

Question put That the amendment be made.

The voices having been collected -

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I think the Noes have it.

9.00 pm

Mr C Wilson:

May I ask for a recorded vote? I would like the Ulster public to be aware that the Ulster Unionists are opposed to English being the official language of the House.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

The question has been raised. It is clear that when there is a challenge to the Speaker's view on whether or not the Ayes or the Noes have it, there is no alternative but to have a recorded vote.

The First Minister (Designate):

It was quite clear that no challenge was made to the outcome. That was not challenged. A request was made for a recorded vote for a purely ulterior purpose.

Mr C Wilson:

I do challenge, Mr Chairman.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

In ruling that we will have a recorded vote in three minutes, I do not necessarily dissent from the comments made by the First Minister (Designate).

Ms Morrice:

May I have some clarification please on a point of order? Mr Wilson said that a vote against this would be a vote against English being the official language of this House. I do not see in this amendment any reference to English being the official language or not. I think he is incorrect.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

What any Member or any member of the public takes from any vote in the Assembly is not a matter that I can rule on, and that was not a point of order. Members must vote as they see fit, and they will be able to do so after Mr Ervine has made his point of order.

Mr Ervine:

I do not wish to challenge your ruling, but I fear that, given Mr Wilson's reason for asking for a recorded vote, a dangerous precedent will be set - dangerous from the point of view of the populace outside.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

The position is simply this: a challenge is made in a parliamentary sense if, when the voices are collected, Ayes or Noes are called more loudly on the second time of asking. That is the usual and proper form of challenge. When that happens there is no alternative but to go to a recorded vote or, indeed, to a Division if the Standing Orders become extant. The reason behind the challenge is another matter entirely. We have no alternative but to proceed to a recorded vote.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 23; Noes 62 .

AYES

Nationalist

Nil.

Unionist

Frazer Agnew, Roy Beggs, Paul Berry, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Mrs Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, Denis Watson, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.

NOES

Nationalist

Alex Attwood, PJ Bradley, Joe Byrne, John Dallat, Ms Bairbre De Brún, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, Ms Michelle Gildernew, Ms Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, Mrs Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Eddie McGrady, Gerry McHugh, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Danny O'Connor, Ms Dara O'Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Mrs Sue Ramsey, Ms Brid Rodgers, John Tierney.

Unionist

Dr Ian Adamson, Billy Armstrong, Billy Bell, Esmond Birnie, Mrs Joan Carson, Fred Cobain, Rev Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, 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, Rt Hon John Taylor, Rt Hon David Trimble.

Other

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

The Initial Presiding Officer:

There voted 85 Members. Thirty-two Nationalists voted, all of them Noes. The number of Unionist votes was 46 - 23 Ayes, and 23 Noes. The total number of Ayes represents 27.05%. The amendment is lost.

Question accordingly negatived.

9.15 pm

Standing Order 70 agreed to.

Standing Order 71 (Assembly Commission)

Amendment (No 63) made: Leave out "strength" and insert "strengths". - [Mr P Robinson]

Question put That Standing Order 71, as amended, be agreed to.

The Assembly proceeded to a Division.

Mr P Robinson:

This may be a unique occasion, but is it in order for the Chairman of the Committee, who presented the report on behalf of his Committee, to vote against a part of his own report?

The Initial Presiding Officer:

That was the question. Whether or not it was the intent, it is in order.

The Assembly having divided: Ayes 53; Noes 31.

AYES

Nationalist

Nil.

Unionist

Dr Ian Adamson, Fraser Agnew, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mrs Joan Carson, Wilson Clyde, Fred Cobain, Rev Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, David Ervine, Sam Foster, Oliver Gibson, Sir John Gorman, William Hay, David Hilditch, Derek Hussey, Billy Hutchinson, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, David McClarty, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Maurice Morrow, Dermot Nesbitt, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Mrs Iris Robinson, Ken Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, Rt Hon John Taylor, Rt Hon David Trimble, Denis Watson, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.

Other

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

NOES

Nationalist

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

Unionist

Nil.

Other

Nil.

9.30 pm

The Initial Presiding Officer:

There voted 84 Members, including 31 Nationalists and all 46 Unionists, all of whom voted Aye. The Ayes represent 63.1%, but as there is no cross-community support the Standing Order is not agreed to.

Question accordingly negatived.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

The Clerks at the Table try to accommodate Members who come to them with messages and so on. That practice causes difficulty during a Division, and I must rule that we cannot take material or answer questions during the count. Clerks have to record the responses of Members calling out their votes in different languages and dialects, and the task is sometimes made more difficult by the fact of Members not sitting in their usual places. It is unfair to expect the Clerks to take messages at that time.

Mr Ford:

On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. You said this morning that if you had definitive legal advice on our challenge to Standing Order 37 you would give it before this point in the proceedings. Have you received that legal advice?

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I have sought it but have received no clear legal advice on the matter. I can only reiterate what I said earlier, that the Standing Orders will be scrutinised by the Secretary of State who has a responsibility to ensure that the Assembly's actions do not contravene any of the Government's international obligations. That is clearly in the legislation.

The Secretary of State has a responsibility to ensure that Assembly legislation and the actions of Ministers do not contravene international obligations, and she will guide the Assembly on such matters. I will continue to seek legal advice but I have nothing further to add to what I said earlier on.

We shall now proceed to a formal cross-community vote on the final Question. As I said at the start, to facilitate as smooth a passage as possible I was prepared to take no dissent as indicating cross-community support, but only on the condition that at the end there would be a formal cross-community vote. [Interruption]

Order. I must ask Members to take their seats. We have been trying to contact the Secretary of State to get permission for an extension beyond 10.00 pm, but have so far been unsuccessful. Unless we proceed quickly those who wish to speak in the Adjournment debate will have very little time.

Mr P Robinson:

Mr Initial Presiding Officer, if Members are agreed by voice, are you going to go through the rigmarole of calling out names?

The Initial Presiding Officer:

I am, because that is the one way to be clear that all the Standing Orders enjoy cross-community support. I said at the very start that we would do that, and it would be quite improper if I did not. The Standing Orders are a substantial matter.

We have different languages, without a Mexican wave as well.

Motion made:

That Standing Orders 1 to 70, as amended, be the Standing Orders of the Assembly. - [The Initial Presiding Officer]

The Assembly divided: Ayes 77; Noes 0.

AYES

Nationalist

Alex Attwood, PJ Bradley, Joe Byrne, John Dallat, Ms Bairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, Ms Michelle Gildernew, Ms Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, Mrs Patricia Lewsley, Alex Maskey, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Eddie McGrady, Gerry McHugh, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Danny O'Connor, Ms Dara O'Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Mrs Sue Ramsey, Ms Brid Rodgers, John Tierney.

Unionist

Dr Ian Adamson, Fraser Agnew, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mrs Joan Carson, Wilson Clyde, Fred Cobain, Rev Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, David Ervine, Sam Foster, Oliver Gibson, Sir John Gorman, William Hay, David Hilditch, Derek Hussey, Billy Hutchinson, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, David McClarty, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Maurice Morrow, Dermot Nesbitt, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Mrs Iris Robinson, Ken Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Rt Hon John Taylor, Rt Hon David Trimble, Denis Watson, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.

Other

Ms Monica McWilliams, Ms Jane Morrice.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

There voted 77 Members - 30 Nationalist Ayes and 45 Unionist Ayes. Indeed, all 77 Members voted for. The Standing Orders clearly and conclusively have cross-community support.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved:

That Standing Orders 1 to 70, as amended, be the Standing Orders of the Assembly.

Mr Dodds:

I take it that the absence of the entire Alliance Party for that vote did not destroy the cross-community element.

On a more serious point, and speaking as a member of the Committee, may I say that we owe a debt of gratitude to all those Members who tabled amendments. In particular, my Colleague Mr P Robinson put a lot of work into this.

Mr Haughey:

The Chief Whip wishes it to be known that he is now buying.

 

Assembly Business

TOP

9.45 pm

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Members may be relieved to know that we have just received authorisation from the Secretary of State to continue through until midnight.

I draw Members' attention, as I did on 1 March, to the fact that requests to speak in Adjournment debates can only be accepted up to the start of a sitting, and in the case of today, that was 10.30 am yesterday, as distinct from requests to speak on other motions, which are generally forthcoming throughout the sitting. I also apologise to those Members who were not told that their names had been accepted for the Adjournment debate.

 

Motion made:

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

 

Nursery School Units:
Admission Criteria

TOP

Mr S Wilson:

I can see that there is going to be vast interest in this issue, but I appreciate that the hour is late.

The issue that I wish to raise tonight is one of great importance, that many of our constituents may raise with us over the next few weeks or months. I will give Members some background to it.

This year the criterion for entrance to nursery schools has been changed at the last moment as a result of a dictate from the Department of Education, and that has caused great uncertainty. Many parents thought that they had secured a nursery place for their child, because of the length of time on a waiting list, because of the criterion that the school had used in the past, or because of conversations with the headmaster. They now find themselves, until the end of April, not knowing whether or not their child will have a place in a nursery school.

This situation has arisen as a result of something which many of us would have no disagreement with: the Government have said that preference will be given to children from socially disadvantaged backgrounds. However, people are complaining about the way in which this has been introduced and about the implications of the Government's ruling.

The Minister sent a letter to primary schools on 20 January telling them that he had made a statutory rule. He said that the boards of governors would have to give priority to children from socially disadvantaged circumstances who were aged four before 1 September.

Many parents who thought that their children were at the top of the list, given the existing criterion, now find that that has changed, and in spite of what the Minister says, the change has been made without consultation.

The Minister claims that he consulted with schools and all interested parties when he was consulting with them on the Education Order in December 1997 and on the 'Investing in Early Learning' document, which was published in April last year.

However, no indication was given in those documents that this statutory rule was going to be imposed on the boards of governors. Indeed, Article 32 of the Education Order makes it quite clear that the board of governors of each school shall draw up, and may from time to time amend, the criteria to be applied when selecting children for admission to the school.

Suddenly, on the basis of that Order, the Government are imposing a statutory rule that will take precedence over all the criteria which schools have set down.

Understandably, parents, having been told by school principals what the criteria would be, and having examined the situation in previous years, assumed that they had secured a nursery school place for their children.

The rule includes a definition of social disadvantage, but that also gives cause for concern. The definition of social disadvantage in the statutory rule includes only those children whose parents are in receipt of benefit. That means that people in low-income jobs who have young children - and many people whom I meet in my constituency go out to work for a few pounds more than they would receive in benefit in an attempt to break out of the dependency trap - find that, although they are not at home to look after their children during the day they will be most affected by the new criteria. The effort to target those who should have priority has been poorly thought out.

This rule, which deals with the subject of admission to educational establishments, totally ignores children with special educational needs. They should be given some priority. Not only has an ill-thought-out rule been introduced without consultation, but it actually disadvantages those who are trying to break out of the dependency trap. It discriminates against children who, because of special educational needs, would derive most benefit from nursery education. The rule is yet another example of how the direct rule administration has messed up education in the Province.

Under the Belfast Agreement, all Assembly legislation and every action by its Ministers will be subject to human rights scrutiny. We have here a classic example of a Minister acting without considering the human rights implications. These regulations discriminate between children. I do not have time now to go into human rights legislation, but it is clear that there is a human rights aspect to this.

The Assembly should highlight the injustice of what has been done, and draw attention to the fact that we have a system of government which callously walks over people who, in a proper democratic society, would expect to be consulted and considered before such legislation is enacted. If power is ever devolved to the Assembly, it will be the responsibility of whoever becomes Minister of Education to look into this matter quickly.

Parents who currently have their children's names down for a nursery school place in September are in a state of uncertainty. As a result of the change, they will not know about places for their children until the end of April.

The ruling will also mean that many schools which are vastly oversubscribed - I can think of two nursery schools in my own constituency which, for the past four years, have had 50% more applicants than they have places - will not, because of their location, receive any additional funding from the Department to expand their nursery provision, although there is a clear demand for that.

I am sure that there are schools in similar circumstances all over the Province. Even though there is local demand, and it is quite clear that a school is oversubscribed, the rigid adherence to Labour Party dogma means that schools, perhaps for the next two or three years, will be unable to provide extra places.

I will be interested to hear what other Members have to say on this matter. I hope that I have outlined the main facts of the case in as short a time as possible, and I ask the Assembly for its support.

Mr K Robinson:

I concur with everything that Assemblyman Sammy Wilson has said. I would also like to highlight some of the concerns which have been raised by the parents, governors and principals involved in the current controversy surrounding this new admissions criterion for children entering nursery schools.

I fully endorse the stated long-term aim of the Government to provide good quality educational places for all children in their pre-school year. Indeed, I am sure that every Member of the House has no difficulty in supporting that policy. However, as always, the devil has proved to be in the detail. This project has sought to give priority to those children deemed to be at a social disadvantage. Again, I am sure that no Member disagrees with that guiding principle even though there may well be 108 different views on what constitutes social disadvantage.

The problem which has arisen is that Peter appears to be being disadvantaged in order that Paul may overcome his perceived disadvantage. Unfortunately Peter's parents have noticed this sleight of hand, and they are writing to, and phoning, Members of the House and of that other place as well. They are jamming the airwaves to express their displeasure. They are attending public meetings, filling the editors' postbags of local and national newspapers and letting the Department know how displeased they are with the whole system.

The governors and principals of nursery schools, and primary schools with nursery units, are also less than pleased, but for different reasons. Over a number of years many nursery schools have evolved procedures which enabled parents to register their desire to acquire a pre-school place for their child. This was perhaps done by presenting the child, plus birth certificate, at the nursery school on the child's second birthday. In other instances it was customary to queue up at the school to enrol the child.

These methods allowed the process to begin early and facilitated early notification that a place had been secured. They suited the school and relieved parents' anxieties. This year that process had already started in many places. It is therefore easy to understand the anger and frustration which many parents felt when they were informed by the schools that new criterion was being introduced.

I have letters from parents, governors, principals and education and library board officers expressing their dismay. The method of implementing the new criterion, and the timescale involved, is putting extreme pressure on principals and schools. They are now asking, and I agree with them, that the Department urgently address these problems. They agree with the direction of Government policy, but believe that a transitional period would enable the maximum benefit to be derived by all concerned.

I therefore urge Members to contact the Department of Education to highlight the operational difficulties which this hasty implementation is causing for schools. I have written to the Minister, and I have spoken to several of his senior officials, expressing my concern that what should have been a positive step forward in educational terms is proving to be a disaster in public-relations terms.

Mr Gallagher:

I agree with what the Member has said and also with what the last Member said. Does the Member agree that the problem is not just with the difficulties that are arising from the criterion that has been introduced? The criteria themselves are essentially flawed as they fail to accommodate social disadvantage while attempting to accommodate open enrolment.

10.00 pm

Mr K Robinson:

I agree.

It has undermined the credibility of principals and governors, and many of them feel that they have not been adequately consulted. I have a copy of the consultation document and a list of the bodies which responded to it, and there seems to have been a good response, if patchy, across the country.

It has alarmed those parents who felt that they had shown some initiative and responsibility by enrolling their children using the accepted methods. It may have raised the expectations of parents who are in the target group, but whose hopes, wishes and aspirations may not be realised. As Sammy Wilson said, it has driven a wedge between working parents and those who are unfortunate enough to be in receipt of the designated benefits.

In some areas the location of the extra places may inadvertently lead to the demise of that natural integration which has been a source of pride and strength to local communities. It is incumbent on the Department to make it crystal clear that no nursery provision will be open exclusively to one part of the community. That is very important, since European Union special peace and reconciliation funding may be involved in the provision of the extra places.

It must be clearly seen that the extra places are used to benefit socially disadvantaged children from whatever section of the community, even though we may disagree on the definition of social disadvantage. There is some reservation about the July and August birthday cohort. It is felt by some that, perhaps on educational grounds, it is really the younger child that misses out through his lack of maturity when he finally enters primary school, rather than the older, more developed child who is the current focus of the criteria.

Further concerns revolve around the use of geographical limits. For instance, "residing within the parish of" may lead to a concentration of disadvantaged children, and may prevent that necessary social mixing which research shows is vital to language and special development.

A final group has grave reservations that the new regulation may be in breach of the legislation, and that is causing them difficulty in framing their new criteria. It is also leading to concern that the previous flexibility which governors exercised to enable places to be set aside for children with special educational needs, may no longer be sustainable.

I ask the Minister and his officials urgently to address those problems, which the hasty introduction of this legislation has caused to parents and schools. The need for a transitional period is now obvious to all. It would enable the new procedures to be adopted, and the laudable programme of expansion would then have full public backing. That would be an immense relief to all our weans.

Mr O'Connor:

Does the Member agree that the Government's stated aim to ensure that every child has access to one year of pre-school education will not be met by the criteria? In my area there is a Catholic-maintained nursery school and a state nursery school. One is heavily oversubscribed and the other is about 25% undersubscribed.

The school that is 25% undersubscribed used to take an overflow from the school that was oversubscribed. That cannot happen this year. The undersubscribed school will be forced to take two-year-olds to make up the numbers. Registered three-year-olds will be deprived.

Regulation 2(vi) of the Pre-School Education in Schools (Admissions Criteria) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1998 gives priority to children from socially disadvantaged circumstances who will be aged two before 1 September in their penultimate pre-school year, if their parents are in receipt of income-based jobseeker's allowance or income support. It does not take any account of those in receipt of family credit. The provisions allow two-year-olds to get places before three-year-olds, some of whom will be deprived of pre-school places even though they had registered with a school. That cannot be right.

That is a very real danger. The measure has been ill thought out. There are no guidelines to say that two-year-olds even have to be potty trained or able to feed themselves. What will happen if these children should have accidents at school? Under the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, for their own protection teachers must be accompanied by an assistant when changing a two-year-old child. Who is with the other 20-plus children? Most of the play equipment in these schools cannot be used by children under 36 months. Do Mr K Robinson and Mr S Wilson agree that this whole situation is just a dog's dinner?

Mr K Robinson:

I agree with Mr O'Connor on that point. It is causing grave concern to the teaching profession, which has qualified staff to deal with the children who need to be dealt with, those in their pre-primary school year, but is concerned about the lack of social training that some of the two-year olds have.

Mr Kennedy:

The hour is late, and I am far from home. I knew that I had the capacity for making moving speeches, but I did not think that most of the Members in the Assembly would move out of the Chamber. Indeed the entire Public Gallery has cleared, except for the Doorkeepers who have to steward it. I hope that I do not come into the same category as that described by Lord Byron when referring to his mother-in-law:

"She had lost the art of conversation but, alas, not the power of speech."

I am concerned about the new criteria for admission to nursery school units that have been established by Her Majesty's Government. This is an important topic that has caused much concern among the people in my constituency of Newry and Armagh.

Many Members will have received representations from anxious parents. One such parent, Mrs Sandra McLoughlin, has written to me about the position of nursery places in the Hardy Memorial School in Richhill. Her daughter, Rachel, is two years old, and her parents are anxious to make provision for her education. Mrs McLoughlin queued outside the school from the early morning and eventually registered her child's name at about 9.00 am. She returned home tired but pleased that she had obtained a place for Rachel in the nursery school. But all her efforts were in vain. That method of securing nursery school places has been superseded by the Government's new proposals.

In many schools there are waiting lists for nursery places containing the names of the children of parents who queued to register their children for the 1999 and 2000 intakes. It is not acceptable that the Government have now effectively cancelled these registrations.

It is laudable that the Government should want to provide nursery-school places for all children, irrespective of class, creed or background. All parties in the House endorse that principle. However, the reality is that for the intervening period, before the additional nursery places can be provided, many problems have been created.

There is a real danger that the Government's proposals, which are genuinely attempting to improve the lives of those people considered to be socially disadvantaged, will adversely affect many mainstream children. The Government should exercise care and discretion with this new allocation of child places, and it is in this area that I have some real criticism of the Government in general and of the Department of Education in particular.

The new arrangements appear rushed, and a glaring omission is the non-allocation of places for children with special needs. On this dog's dinner - as it has been called - the Department of Education should liaise closely with the education boards, the boards of governors and the teachers and parents and take account of the prevailing local conditions before proceeding with these wide-ranging changes. I am happy to endorse the comments of my Colleague Ken Robinson and other Members of the Assembly. Although the hour is late and attendance is small, this is nevertheless a very important topic to which the Government ought to respond urgently.

Mr Wells:

Mr Initial Presiding Officer, it was remiss of Members not to place on record their appreciation of the way in which you and your staff handled the debate on the Standing Orders Committee. It was extremely well dealt with, and though many attempts were made to wrong foot you, they all failed. Your colleagues at the front did an excellent job.

It is uncanny that I am the last Member here to speak this evening, as I was the last person in the Public Gallery when the Convention fell in 1976. I was the last Member to speak when the Assembly fell in 1986, and I was the last person in the Chamber before the fire in 1995.

Mr Kennedy:

Would the Member reassure the House that he was not on the Titanic. [Laughter]

Mr Wells:

Lo and behold, Mr Speaker, as I may now address you I am the first Member to call you that, and maybe the last, unfortunately - I find myself the last Member to speak tonight. Could this be an omen, not that I believe in such things? Could it be that this is the last speech of the last evening of the Assembly. I do not know, it could well be. That is pessimistic, but it could well happen.

I am not here to crack jokes, Mr Speaker; I am here to speak on a sensible subject, that is dear to the hearts of many of my constituents in South Down.

Last Wednesday evening I spoke at a meeting in Kilkeel that was attended by 145 mothers. I was the oldest person in the room until another Ulster Unionist councillor arrived. They were all incensed by this decision to change the criterion for selection for nursery schools. Those mothers had queued from 4 o'clock in the morning in the rain to get their children a place in the nursery school in Kilkeel. Having sat out all night in very difficult conditions they then found a few months later, that the whole matter of placing children in nursery schools was completely up in the air.

The change means that those who are on income support or getting jobseeker's allowance will have priority. That is the definition of the social disadvantage, according to the Department of Education. Never mind those who are claiming family credit, those who have decided that rather than sit on the dole they will take a lowly-paid job and try to do the best they can for their children. They may be bringing home exactly the same income as someone getting income support or jobseeker's allowance, but they have chosen to go out and earn an honest day's pay.

Those people are not being defined as socially disadvantaged, but people who are on income support are. Those who are on disability living allowance, mobility allowance, invalid care allowance and all the many other benefits which people claim but who do not meet the this new criterion will not get special treatment.

A week before the closing date for nursery place applications a man can walk out of a job and honestly complete an application form for income support in his social-security office. His child then goes to the top of the queue for a place in a nursery school. That is the obscenity of these regulations. Once the child is allocated a place, he can then go back to his job having got his child in. He will have satisfied the criterion, and that is totally unacceptable.

This is the problem in Kilkeel. In some lucky parts of the Province this is not an issue, because they have adequate nursery-school provision for almost all the children.

Mr Dodds:

On the question of provision, one of the Minister's defences, as I understand it, is that the number of places will rise. There are 45% of places at the moment, and that will rise to 55% and 75% by 2001. Does Mr Wells agree that it would have been better if the Minister had waited until those places were available before he implemented this scheme?

10.15 pm

Mr Wells:

The Member makes a valid point.

Little does the Minister know that eight angry housewives from Kilkeel will be heading towards his office on Monday morning and, if he knew as much about Kilkeel people as I do, he would know that a good Mourne man is not born, he is quarried, and his wife has a strong character as well. Those people intend to demand that this scheme is put on ice for a year to enable the provision to be increased and, because the allocation system is in total confusion, to let the dust settle.

Kilkeel is an important part of my constituency and of south Down. If people in Moira or Lurgan were encountering this difficulty, it would not involve a journey to the ends of the earth to take their children four or five miles down the road to alternative nursery education. It might be inconvenient and difficult, but it is possible.

In Kilkeel, twice as many children as there are available places are chasing those places because there is no alternative. The nearest nursery provision is in Downpatrick, which is 24 miles in one direction, or Newry, which is 20 miles in the other. It is totally impractical for those parents even to seek alternative places, and those in Kilkeel are fully booked. Parents are in a difficult position.

I agree with Mr Wilson about special-needs children. It is totally wrong that the criteria have been drawn in such a way that a child with severe learning disability or physical disability is placed at the bottom of the queue, behind those on income support and jobseeker's allowance.

I may be ruled out of order for what I am about to say, but it comes from the heart. It is grossly unfair that those who are working hard to keep their children and to give them the best possible start in life are being put in second place to those who have done little to support their children.

I was asked in Kilkeel on Wednesday night "Where are all of those people who are on income support and jobseeker's allowance when the queue was on outside the school at 4 o'clock in the morning?" They were nowhere to be seen. They did not care enough about their children to come out and join the queue with the working people. But now, through no fault of their own, those people who queued are being penalised while those who did nothing to secure places for their children are going to the top of the queue. That is totally wrong.

At the meeting on Wednesday night, we agreed to take an all-party delegation representing all sides of the community and, in particular, the parents of children with special needs, to see the Minister. We intend to be forthright with him and tell him that the situation is unacceptable.

Mr Dodds:

I apologise for yet another intervention. I agree with almost everything that the Member has said, but I should be grateful for clarification on his point about people queuing. I take it that he did not mean that every person on income support does not care about his or her children. There are sometimes good reasons why such parents are unable to avail of the opportunities to register.

Mr Wells:

That is an important point, and I am delighted that the Member has given me an opportunity to clarify the matter. I did not intend to imply that those on income support are any less loving or caring towards their children, but rather that when there was an opportunity to secure places for their children, very few of them took it. Those who had to go on to do a full day's work had to queue to secure places.

I am not asking for preferential treatment for working parents or for those on family credit or income support. I am asking for fair treatment - for everyone to be treated equally in the allocation of places.

Just in case this is the last speech on the last day, may I thank you, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, for your tolerance. You have had to endure my rather twisted and strange wit, which is difficult to live with. It has been a pleasure to serve under your Chairmanship, and I hope that we will be back in a few weeks time and that you will be, in your rightful place as Speaker.

The Initial Presiding Officer :

On behalf of my Colleagues, the Clerks, the Hansard staff, the interpreters, the Doorkeepers and those who laboured in the Business Office to produce that enormous list of Marshalled amendments, under great pressure at times, I thank the Member for South Down (Mr Wells) for his kind comments.

In having such an extended sitting, we have required the staff to do rather more than they would be expected to do even in other places where the hours are long. I take your kind words as being essentially for the members of staff too. They have served us exceedingly well.

Adjourned at 10.21 pm.

<< Prev