uuptoday.org

Even Sinn Fein are now realizing we have a fairer, more tolerant,more meritocratic and more open and transparent society here than in the Republic,but what is missing is accountable democracy.While the Republic undoubtedly has become more secular and multicultural ,the Celtic tiger has also created a deprived underclass whose votes Sinn Fein have successfully targetted. It is with this vision of a fairer,inclusive and more meritocratic society that we must reach out as a party to pro Union Catholics who can benefit equally from the social ,welfare and public service provisions of the United Kingdom.For this reason we have changed our values and objectives clause in our party rules to espouse the need to promote and strengthen the Union rather than just maintain it.

The Union has been strengthened as a result of the vision and decisions taken by UUP in 1998.The benefits are now clearly seen as illustrated in the recent ‘Life and Times’ survey commissioned by the Electoral commission and carried out by the two Universities which shows more Catholics accepting that the Union remains the only practical constitutional arrangement for the foreseeable future.The results show 32%of Catholics now recognizing the Union as an acceptable way forward and wanting to stay within the Union(previous survey 25%)This clearly illustrates the Union is now more secure .

We also see the two governments now recognizing the Union as the only practical way forward for Northern Ireland.We no longer have Irish governments playing the green card as in the days of Haughey or the Labour Party in Britain flirting with Irish unity.The Irish political parties are now justifiably concerned at the threat of Sinn Fein with their criminality and growing power base which has found succour in growing social and economic inequalities.The conclusion of the ‘Life and Times’ survey clearly illustrates that the Union is secure as noted by The Sunday Times 10 July,’partition is unlikely to be abandoned within the present generation and that even among Catholics a majority would not abolish the border……all the signs in the survey suggest Northern Ireland is stabilizing under direct rule from Britain with Irish government input’ .We see Sinn Fein accepting a partitionist settlement as the only practical way forward and while they talk of unity by 2016 they realize Northern Ireland is now a more fair,meritocratic,multicultural tolerant society.

UUP took risks electorally and it has taken time to reap the rewards, Northern Ireland is stabilizing under the Union with Irish government input and this appears be an acceptable way forward for both communities.

Similarly while many in UUP are wrestling with our consciences over the link with PUP,this may not be electorally popular in the short term but in the longer term this vision again shows UUP taking risks for the benefit of all communities in Northern Ireland.We can not ignore these deprived loyalist areas and have an obligation within Unionism to reach out to bring them in from the cold.Improving standards and aspirations in these communities depends on making NI work and giving jobs and prosperity to all.Too often DUP rhetoric espouses the opposite as it remains in their and Sinn Fein’s electoral interests to perpetuate polarization through the politics of fear.Only the UUP can offer the politics of progress and can work for a Northern Ireland that works and is united and at ease with itself through a truly tolerant and inclusive society.

Our new values and objectives also emphasize the UUP as a party that promotes a tolerant and inclusive society where individuals have equal rights to welfare,education and health benefits regardless of race,gender or creed,this is an essential basis towards creating a truly secular and fair society.

It is to be welcomed that the DUP are finally engaging in the assembly committee set up to restore devolution,it is notable now that recent Sinn Fein statements are showing the party getting cold feet as devolution suddenly is being talked up after the summer’s work.But we in Unionism must be careful DUP walked away before when a deal was near in 2003 with the ’sackcloth and ashes’ speech which scuppered those talks.The truth is DUP are so uncertain and split about where to go they are paralysed into inaction and run for cover everytime they are pushed.What of their new agreement?While we see progress in Stormont,the proposals are basically just a repackage with tweaking of the Belfast agreement and if there is no agreement all that is on offer is more increasingly hard nosed direct rule with joint stewardship the new buzz word government speak for a watered down version of joint authority.We are now faced with unpopular decisions imposed by Blair to blackmail us into devolution on education,RPA,rates ,water rates and even a threatened police precept charge.The big prize is Sinn Fein acceptance of Police which will be lost if the DUP fail to engage seriously .We will then be consigned to joint stewardship ,with continued north south bodies as each deal on offer gets worse for Unionism.We in the UUP are engaging seriously and will work with DUP where possible to ensure the best deal for Unionism.We will continue to reach out confidently and represent Unionism to promote the Union and make Northern Ireland work within the Union for the benefit of all its citizens

Meanwhile the biggest single issue facing the majority of voters is increasing levels of crime,with vandalisim,petty burglery and antisocial behaviour which have all become a recreation.Until we get a grip with the real problems in deprived areas through our own tailor made policies for tackling these real issues these problems will only increase.There are signs that society is breaking down partly due to breakdown in traditional family structures which are leading to an increasingly lawless society.

UUP’ ‘lets get real’ campaign projects radical family friendly policies to encourage the family,with childcare provision and implementation of the proposals of the Hart report to provide counselling support at an early stage to prevent family break-ups.

There is in the report a consistency of clarity. Confirming that the restoration of a devolved Assembly would not only be good for Northern Ireland it would also be better for the economy.

I suspect that the evidence given from the economic coalface was indicating a sense of despair with our Direct Rulers.

I believe that those we depend on to drive the economy would trust locally elected representatives to talk-up Northern Ireland, to boost its opportunities for economic outreach and go the extra mile in encouraging investment rather than apply the N.I.O invective to imply that Northern Ireland was a failed economy.

It would be unfair to single out one contribution because all were thought provoking, needed to be heeded and for justice to be done advanced by either a restored Assembly or by those in charge of directing Direct Rule.

However, I would ask the House to take note of the contribution in particular from Northern Ireland Youth Forum.

Regrettably, it must be said that the absence today of Sinn Fein is just another insult to those young people and all others who feel that this House remains still, the best opportunity to provide effective Leadership in terms of facing up to and addressing our current and future economic challenges.

And there is an issue here Madam Speaker.

If Sinn Fein can’t share space in this place today; if Sinn Fein can’t participate in a debate on a report they signed up to – then why would Sinn Fein expect the House to ever embrace it in sharing in our work at any other occasion.

Does Sinn Fein think that by insulting guests of the House, by disrespecting their M.L.A colleagues by displaying disdain for a report on the economic challenges facing our country – that it will advance their inclusion and automatic entry later, into an accountable role of responsibility dealing with the economy or any other devolved matter.

Frankly Madam Speaker these Laurel and Hardy antics are not the type of behaviour my party wish to be associated with…..

During the course of this debate, my Party Leader Sir Reg Empey and colleagues Esmond Birnie, Roy Beggs and Leslie Cree who attended meetings of the Economic Sub-Group will along with Ken Robinson and other Ulster Unionist experts in particular fields, expand on much of the detail and recommendations contained in this 1st report.

I think we can all agree it is a very comprehensive 1st report which against a tight schedule makes it all the more remarkable that the work completed is in front of us today.

Meetings of the Preparation for Government Committee and its Sub-Group on the Economy – illuminated some very interesting thoughts from the most unlikely quarters.

There were moments when considering the small matter of putting together an Economic package/peace dividend was joined in such competitive enthusiasm there was a danger of it turning into an auction.

Having agreed that the Irish Republic should make a significant euro contribution – Sinn Fein kicked off with a bid that both the Irish and British Governments should make available ‘£10 billion’ over the next 10 years.

But not to be outshone by their Irish unity aspirational soul-mates the S.D.L.P weighed in with their own bid of ‘£20 billion’ over the next 10 years.

Needless to say that whilst all bids have been banked – the report presented today falls short of concluding a recommended sum - perhaps a figure can be identified in the second report by the Sub-Group due for endorsement by the P.F.G. Committee on the 4th of October.

Nevertheless and thinking of the key elements of proper negotiations being talked up for next month in some Ulster-Scots bolthole.

It is encouraging to note that skills of negotiation are to be tested in direct talks with the Government in terms of securing an appropriate sum to be used in delivering an equitable form of Economic regeneration.

For my Party’s position, the auction idea is superfluous to the positive identification of the problems, their real needs and ensuring that the distribution of any package is used for specific purposes, and not wish lists.

In that whilst people can talk, speculate and prepare wish lists – there remains the unresolved underlying factor of a requirement to see the books – to peruse the balance sheets and find out why Northern Ireland stands accused by Direct Rule Ministers of not paying its way.

Madam Speaker the bid frenzy did not stop at those seeking a package for Economic regeneration.

We had a fairy godfather emerge who within a few days was out fairied by one of his party colleagues.

And this is important in considering how corporation tax reductions are to be paid for – who may suffer as a consequence as much as who may gain and use their gains to bring overall benefits to the Economy – needs to be thought through.

On two separate occasions different members of the D.U.P sprinkled fairy dust on the Corporation Tax magical reduction formula.

The first D.U.P proposal was that our Headline Corporation Tax be reduced to lower than 12½% and if that proved unacceptable to the Treasury then the D.U.P would look at a cocktail of incentives to achieve the same reduction.

Perhaps the mixture of fairy dust and cocktails proved too intoxicating for the D.U.P when a few days later the D.U.P told the Sub-Group that the lower than 12½% figure it wanted for Corporation Tax was10%.

Madam Speaker, what brilliant tactical negotiators we have in our midst.

The anti-British who can’t set foot in this House today, but who want £10 billion of peace money to repair the carnage they caused to all aspects of life here including the Economy.

And the great self-anointed best negotiators who announce in advance what they are going to the table looking for.

Of course we require and deserve an Economic package and of course we should help business compete with the Irish Republic –and we will assist in driving the competitiveness issue!

But this Economic Report thankfully is more important to our people than either an eye-catching sound bite or a fleeting Hansard reference.

Ulster Unionists share with employers and employees the seriousness of facing up to the Economic Challenges detailed in this report.

We take employment seriously. Providing better services to schools and hospitals; training young people; helping people back to work, not taxing people out of their homes; we take every element of Government seriously.

We also take seriously the ugly and nefarious side of our Direct Rulers using the stress and strains of the Economy and of personal and company taxation as a means to blackmail and spin against the integrity of every member gathered here today.

There are grubby hands wielding dirty sticks to beat out of us an endorsement of foul smelling concessions made over to those not here today.

However, members will have noted that in this extensive report covering over 1000 pages there is ‘NOT’ a recommendation compelling us to rush forward demanding the keys to the devolved Economic vaults.

I referred earlier to seeing the books as essential. So too is knowing how the impediments highlighted in this report can be rectified.

Excessive bureaucracy and regulation; departmental paperchase bottlenecks; highs on strategic tittle-tattle; lows on implementation and decision taking.

Poor spatial planning; a poor planning process; poor literacy and numeracy level in school leavers; a skills deficit.

Lamentable urban regeneration; the infrastructure deficit; transport problems.

An uncompetitive fiscal environment; low incentive for business expansions.

These are the crucial issues in front of us and facing the Government here and now.

It took a well-organised and highly publicised public protest to shake the Government over Manufacturing Rates relief. To the extent that the Secretary of State has formed a Working Group to look further at the issue. Is protest to be the only process open to civic society?

At the top of the impediments list is the matter, which only local politicians can resolve – that is the issue of support for the Institutions and the Police.

Political stability and its lasting staying power are bound to be high on any investors enquires about Northern Ireland.

That is why after consultation with Sir Reg Empey, the Ulster Unionists insisted that reference to two recent statements by people who should be aware of Unionist sensitivities be recorded in this report.

Our views on comments by Peter Hain MP and Sir Tony O’Reilly are expressed in pages 30 & 31 of Volume 1 of this report.

Madam Speaker, moving now to bring to a close my contribution to this debate.

I would draw member’s attention to the performance of Maria Eagle MP, last week in front of the Economic Sub-Group.

It would have been unfair to expect the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State with Ministerial responsibilities for Enterprise, Trade and Investment – for Employment and Learning and for Education – on her return having been away from her desks for a month – to have read a report, which her departments hadn’t received.

But it was disappointing to find that she had not been briefed on the work completed.

This is where so-called joined up Government becomes jumbled up Government.

I say this because the most senior personnel from each of the Minister’s three departments appeared in person at meetings of the Sub-Group. And there were regular publications on the web site of the Sub-Groups activities.

Unfortunately the Minister’s preparations for her meeting with the Sub-Group were not the best!

Which is why I am pleased she has agreed to be better prepared for the next meeting she has promised to attend.

I am pleased also, because I expect a response from the Minister on two Ulster Unionist proposals – one relating to initiating a knowledge bank which is recommendation No. 6 in the report and the other referring to recommendation No. 7 establishing a dedicated post in the Department of Education for driving improvement in science education.

Madam Speaker – working on the P.F.G Committee and its Economic Sub-Group has been so far a privilege and a useful exercise. It hasn’t been pistols at dawn – all in all the scoping work is steady as she goes with much remaining as work in progress. On behalf of the Ulster Unionists I offer our sincere thanks to all the staff without whom the committee’s work could not be reported here today.

As a Company Director and a senior shareholder in a £20m company, I am involved, in investment opportunities on a nearly daily basis. We have operations in Northern Ireland, The Irish Republic, Great Britain, Western and Eastern Europe. When a business is considering its options in terms of new investment locations, quite obviously it is looking to see were it can gain most competitive advantage and highest returns within which ever sector it is competing.

Since we have gained our relative peace Northern Ireland Industry has been faced with several new challenges. The ever emerging threat from the Far East has loomed large on the horizon for many years and has undoubtedly created casualties but for the companies that have survived and prospered an even bigger threat has now emerged from much closer to home. Eastern Europe and North Africa have a low cost economy in many ways. As part of the Euro they have significantly lower interest rates than the UK. Their wages are a fraction of ours, as are their energy costs and, unlike the Far East they are only a few days from our markets. To counter that we in Northern Ireland (and the rest of the UK) have much more business friendly employment regulations and our employee related social costs compared to many of our EU competitors are cheaper. In Northern Ireland we have a significant skilled and equally importantly, an increasing supply of unskilled labour, to improve our own competitive edge.

We all agree that Northern Irelands private sector is too small and whilst it is great to see the service sector go from strength to strength I believe that this is only sustainable if we have an innovative, world-class, manufacturing sector, creating wealth and employing the resources that the thriving service sector will supply. It is against this back drop that the plans for Industrial De Rating defy economic rational. We are investing millions trying to attract world class manufacturing here through Invest NI. Why then risk our indigenous manufacturing base for the few millions that this policy, if fully implemented, will bring in?

We now know that Government forecasts about the number of migrants expected to come to the UK were wrong. In 2004 the Government casually predicted that the number of arrivals from these countries would be around 13,000 a year. However, official figures released by the Home Office this week reveal that over 600,000 people have come to work in the United Kingdom during that time. Unofficial data suggests that this could be closer to a million.

Next year, two new Member States, Bulgaria and Romania, are scheduled to join the EU and debate is raging across the UK over whether restrictions should be imposed on the 140,000 workers that could arrive from these two countries, not to mention the 20% of Moldova’s population who have acquired Bulgarian passports. Having so-badly miscalculated with the previous accession states, the Government cannot do so again.

During the troubles Northern Ireland was somewhat sheltered from the debate over migration but now it is part of a UK wide discussion. According to official estimates, there are around 30,000 migrants in our Province alone - most coming from Poland, Latvia and Lithuania.

The unexpectedly high arrival of so many eastern Europeans has brought economic benefits to Northern Ireland. Many of these workers have plugged holes in the labour market compensating for historic shortages in certain industries. However, the unmanaged arrival in the UK of 600,000 people from Eastern Europe has caused significant problems, not just for the cohesion in local communities, but also for key public services such as health, education, housing and welfare provision.

Because of this it is quite clear that the Government’s open door policy cannot be applied to Bulgaria and Romania. When they join the EU next year the Government, in line with the rest of Europe, must place common-sense restrictions on workers from these countries entering the UK.

It is in the interests of local people, local communities and the migrant workers already here that the UK does not simply open the door to Bulgarian and Romanian workers. Doing so would put severe pressure on our social fabric, key public services and could be exploited by racist groups seeking to increase community tensions.

I was shocked to read reports of Polish aid teams being sent to Britain to help thousands of migrant workers from Eastern Europe who have fallen into homelessness, alcoholism and prostitution. How exactly will an open door policy benefit these people?

If the Government does not place restrictions on workers from the 2 new EU Member States, it will ultimately lead to the most disadvantaged and vulnerable in our society being exposed to the crudest of market forces and effectively hung out to dry. An unchecked flow of workers from the new Member States could disadvantage the members of our society who can least afford it. At present Northern Ireland’s public services are having difficulties coping with the number of migrant workers and their families already in our society. Rather than making the problem more difficult, we should be addressing this issue.

In a visit to Dunganon last week I saw for myself both the negative and positive effect of migrant workers from other parts of the EU. On the one hand, in a tour of a local meat plant, I saw the economic benefits that can flow. But on the other I visited local community groups facing the challenges of integrating migrant workers into their communities.

In addition we cannot afford to ignore recent Police statistics that indicate an increase in racially motivated attacks. Society in Northern Ireland must clearly signal its rejection of such racism and fascism. This can have no place in a decent society.

As with most political issues sweeping generalisations will cause more harm than good. In the words of Sir Digby Jones, former director general of the CBI, “immigration is a good thing is no more accurate than immigration is a bad thing”. The politics of migration has always been difficult and there are no easy answers in the migration debate, but there are winners and losers. The challenge is to ensure that the gap between the winners and losers does not become too wide.

I must remark what a change this is from 10, 15, 20 or 30 years ago. Throughout that time we had snowballs being thrown at the Irish Premier when visiting Belfast, abuse being directed at some Unionist politicians who dared to visit the Republic of Ireland to put forward our case to the southerners, for decades I never visited the Republic of Ireland and the greatest violation of all was how this part of Ireland was used by republican terrorists as a safe haven, often following the brutal murder of innocent victims from Northern Ireland. It always appeared that this was at the least being overlooked by the Irish government or at worst being facilitaed by them.

However things have now progressed. It is our collective shame that in the year 2006, in a developed world country, we still have to make speeches on how to reconcile orange and green.

Many have wrestled with this and connected issues for hundreds of years, and time and time again politicians and society have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

This week is itself part of the reconciliation process, individuals from a host of backgrounds sharing their opinions in a frank and open manner, for too long the reluctance to air such feelings has hampered progress.

When one considers the ongoing ‘war on terror’ and the differences between Christians and Muslims, or the Middle East where many are still caught up in a bitter, violent war, it makes the differences between orange and green, unionist and nationalist, protestant and roman catholic seem but a trifle.

It is somewhat of a cliché but the inescapable fact is that we have much more in common than many would care to admit. We all want to live and work in a peaceful, prosperous society, one in which we are free to observe our religious and cultural beliefs, and pass such a society on to our children.

In rural, farming areas protestant and roman catholic neighbours have traditionally banded together to help win hay, or assist in a difficult calving case, decades ago such acts were often a matter of life and death.

Very often we as a people from different community or religious backgrounds have worked together, visited each other and helped each other, however I believe we have never truly integrated. I can often remember my younger days when working on the farm and some local Roman Catholics helping out, during the working days and around the dinner table there were very seldom discussions about what we differed about, no discussions about the GAA or Orange Order or about the differences in our church traditions. Maybe that is where our ancestors were wrong, we need to be more open with each other about our own traditions, which could hopefully lead to a better understanding of each others beliefs and traditions and help build respect for each other.

Such traditions of mutual help and support continue, sadly the actions of a few from both sides during the troubles meant that distrust and suspicion flourished, many such relationships in border areas and city estates were gravely damaged.

However such experiences show that if there is a common goal, something to benefit everyone, then reconciliation can take place. At a time of political uncertainty and polarized representation, there are common goals that require cross party, cross community, and yes, cross border cooperation.

Poorly funded infrastructure, rationalization of essential services, a struggling private sector, loss of EU funding to eastern European countries, cross border racketeering to name but a few all require a united sense of purpose.

A clear, unambiguous direction from those in power is required if these issues are to stand any chance of being tackled effectively.

It is further useful to look more indepth as to how we as a people from different traditions have moved forward in recent years.

· No longer has the Southern Irish government a territorial claim over Northern Ireland following the removal of Articles 2 & 3 from its constitution.

· We do not currently have the murderous campaign of many innocent protestants and roman catholics that we endured in the 70’s, 80’s and early 90’s.

· We have many Unionists who previously poured scorn on the very idea of visiting the Irish Republic or meeting Irish government officials now engaged in pro-active discussions with the Irish government, including the Irish Premier.

· We have Irish republicans, many of them were possibly IRA members accepting partition and having played, and still wanting to do so again, an active role in a Northern Ireland Assembly, within the constitutional position of Northern Ireland being an integral part of the United Kingdom. Did the IRA Hunger Strikers of 1981 die to have Sinn Fein and the IRA play an active role in Stormont?

· Gone are the days of the calls of ‘No return to Stormont’ on one side and ‘Smash Sinn Fein’ from the other side.

But we must also not attempt to force opposing traditions together. Any attempt at reconciliation or coming together must be cushoned along and given time and space to develop.

There must be further acceptance that there is never going to be widespread recognition and participation of traditional organisations from opposing communities, e.g. GAA is traditionally Irish Nationalist organisation whose participants come mainly from the nationalist/Roman Catholic community. On the other side the Orange Order is an organisation whose participation is mainly from the Unionist/Protestant community. There must be a respect for these traditions from the opposing communities and an acceptance that it is unlikely that we are ever going to have any meaningful participation from the opposing community.

In this year, the 90th Anniversary of the Battle of the Somme was commemorated across the globe. Yet much closer to home we saw the Irish government finally commemorating its own great losses in that battle, a battle which has been a major part of the Ulster psyche since that fateful day in 1916.

Such an event was unthinkable a few short years ago. It took decades of work by many to bring about such an event, sadly it is too late for many from the Republic who fought in the many of the campaigns of the First World War.

I was lucky to be present at the service on 1st July at Dublin and spoke to an elderly gentleman from Dublin who had served in the British Army and his father had been a survivor of the Somme, his main regret was that his father never had the opportunity to celebrate this event in his own country. However it may be cold comfort for many but its better late than never.

From my own perspective, as an Orangeman I am delighted that this year’s twelfth celebrations passed off so peacefully, this is how my forefathers and the founders of the order perceived the commemoration to take place.

The founding principles of the order, if adhered to, can only but benefit all in the Province, be they Protestant, Roman Catholic, Muslim, or Jew.

Sadly portrayed by many as an organization with the sole purpose of attacking the Roman Catholic church, it is, if anything, designed to be defensive to the teachings of the entire Christian ethos and principles. It is unfortunate that Irish republicans have sought for many years to deprive this organisation of its freedom and civil rights.

The erosion of such unique traditions is sadly a common feature of the ‘global village’, the ‘golden arches’, I-pods and the like have meant an amalgamation of traditions right around the world. We watch with wonder as China opens up to western culture in a way that would have been unthinkable a few decades ago.

There is of course now a large number of people from other nationalities living and working throughout Ireland, with many communities having great difficulty dealing with the many diverse issues that they bring. Dublin has now one of the largest multi-cultural city population in Europe.

This issue gives everyone from both Northern and Southern Ireland a new focus and challenge outside our traditional orange and green difficulties and differences.

Our traditions must be preserved for future generations be they orange, green or other.

Of course it would be remiss of me not to look at the future of the Northern Ireland institutions. Will we have the restoration of the Assembly?

I have highlighted earlier in my speech how issues have progressed in both Northern and Southern Ireland during recent years. There is a clear coming together of the two main parties in Northern Ireland.

· It is no longer unattainable for representatives of these two parties to share a TV studio or even a debating platform like this together.

· Quite often we recognise that republicans are not discouraging their people to directly involve themselves with the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

· The two main parties do not have any difficulty in equally sharing the Chairmanship of the Assembly Preparation for Government committee.

With this mutual willingness of the two main parties I therefore believe it is inevitable that during the next eight or nine months it is highly possible that we will have the restoration of the Northern Ireland Assembly and a power-sharing Executive.

But this comes with a warning, how commited will republicans be to the stabilisation of the entity of Northern Ireland? When this was followed through in the past republicans always sabotaged the process, even when a deal was close in December 2004, the Northern Bank robbery was being planned, many strongly believe that this was carried out to ‘shaft’ the Unionists who may have entered into the Comprehensive Agreement of that time. If republicans have been prepared to do it several times in the past, will they not do the same again?

I cannot ever see a time when I will trust Sinn Fein because of their history and links with the IRA that have murdered many of my friends and those from my community. There appeared to be a recent campaign in which republicans were attempting to justify their murderous campaign since 1969, but nothing they can ever put forward will justify their brutal past of killing their fellow countrymen.

However as we move forward, while it is obvious that we will not always have agreement, all communities must exercise tolerance and respect for each other.

I make no apology for having been critical of the Government’s ill thought out handling of our water and sewerage problems in recent times. Conveniently Mr Cairns sidestepped some important issues, which need to be addressed.

The current problem emanates from over thirty years of neglect by successive British Governments. During this time ratepayers paid for the service.

In the mid nineties the Government invested heavily in the service in England and Wales. At the same time £50 million was agreed to be paid annually to Northern Ireland for water and sewerage improvements. It would appear that the money simply went into “the pot”.

The upgrading of the services was necessary because of a European Directive.

One wonders when the improvements may have been made if Europe had not intervened?

The Governments current proposals remain unfair for a variety of reasons despite their fumbling and reluctant concessions as a result of pressure from many quarters.

Developers should pay for the provision of services to new housing. Now conceded but still no sign of the saving been passed on to the consumer.

Road drainage costs should be paid by road users and not by water consumers – still no change.

The latest references by Government to the introduction of an affordability tariff are unclear. Does this mean that to qualify one has to be in receipt of benefit? Or does “low income” mean some system of “means testing?

A call to the Water Reform Office today did not provide any clarification. “We hope to make a further announcement on metering in the autumn”!

Certainly the modern standards of water and sewerage provision must be applied and a fair system of charging implemented. It must be clear and easily understood. It could be on the Regional rates or if an alternative system is agreed, metering must be provided. The former Minister said there was no alternative to the present proposals. That’s a pretty flimsy reason to continue down this route. If a bad idea is the only idea the Department can come up with, it’s not unreasonable for people to object.

If the Government is serious about interest groups producing alternatives, then it should put a freeze on the process until a full debate has taken place on the Assembly floor.

I had tabled a motion for private members’ business on 19th May 2006 but the Secretary of State has not yet agreed for the issue to be debated.

Mr Cairns in his article again draws attention to Northern Ireland paying less than the average that people living in Great Britain pay. I wonder if this is the reason? This comparison glosses over regions in Great Britain where Northern Ireland compares favourably.

It also ignores other factors such as average wages in N. I. are around 20% less than the rest of the UK. We also pay substantially more for electricity and around two thirds more for our gas than the mainland. Regional price levels also show that we pay on average more than Scotland, Wales, the North East and Yorkshire/ Humberside.

Mr Hanson, another Minister in the Government has told us that the increase in the Regional Rate this year will raise an estimated additional £42 million from domestic properties in Northern Ireland. The introduction of 25% rating for manufacturing companies will produce a further £18million in 2006/07. Non-domestic vacant rating is estimated to raise a further £5.5million.

There are other bigger issues in the Governments intentions. Water charging is planned to commence next year and by 2010 the full charges will be applied. At this time water and sewerage services will transfer from the Government to the Regulator, he or she will then decide the charges.

It may be that the sole purpose of separate charging is to prepare the water service for a quick sale.

The experience across the water does not provide much comfort. The water companies wrote off £960 million in bad debts last year. Fifteen percent of householders consistently refuse to pay their bills. Leakage targets set by the Regulator are not achieved. Thames Water applied for an emergency drought order. These are the “benefits” of 17 years of privatisation.

Whilst I have no difficulty in supporting private industry as a principle the Government has left too many imponderables for the matter to be a success.

However in the South Belfast DCU the City Centre is added in. This creates a clear discrepancy when compared to other parts of the City. Looking at the most recent figures for total offences recorded in each DCU for 2005-2006 we can see that North Belfast has 8,637 offences recorded, East Belfast has 5,372, West Belfast 6,625 and South Belfast has 13,080.

Over the past two years South Belfast has registered almost double the crimes than any other part of the city. These figures reveal much about the unique conditions which exist within the area.

The City Centre, with all of its shops, pubs and restaurants is naturally busy. With so many people concentrated in a relatively small area the crime figures will of course be higher.

In other parts of the United Kingdom the demands of policing the commercial centres and nightspots require a separate approach. There have been numerous television programmes dedicated to police activities at the weekend in cities like Newcastle and Nottingham. Look at what happens in the capital: London operates a Metropolitan, a city of London and a Transport Police service. While Belfast and London are of course not comparable in terms of size, the London example is indicative of how to approach policing in urban centres.

I believe it is time for the city centre to have its own dedicated DCU with its own manpower, so as to avoid resources being severely overstretched in other parts of South Belfast. We have the same number of police officers in South Belfast as in other parts of the city but they are effectively doing double the workload. The demands of city centre policing are bleeding the rest of South Belfast of a proper and meaningful police presence. The people in this part of the city are being neglected.

The city centre is by no means the only drain on resources in the area. 10% of the 250 quota is earmarked to patrol the Holylands. So at times, particularly weekends, South Belfast as a whole is severely undermanned as officers are re-deployed to cope with city centre incidents.

There is no reason why the PSNI should not create a dedicated command unit targeted specifically to operating within the commercial and retail heartland of our capital. This would ensure the best possible policing option for the city, and south Belfast residents.

Last week the PSNI started a recruitment drive for part time officers. While this is to be welcomed, it is nonetheless a drop in the ocean for south Belfast. It just won’t begin to deal with the problems of the area

I contend that it is a primary duty of government to ensure the security of the person, especially for those engaged in the course of their normal legitimate employment.

I also contend that it is the responsibility of Government to create a regime of law and order which contains penalties which will act as a real, effective and specific deterrent to those who would threaten the security of the person in the workplace, thereby creating at atmosphere where individuals may feel secure in the execution of their duties at work.

Nowhere is the Government more in dereliction of its duty than in guaranteeing the security of the person of health workers engaged in the normal course of their duties whether on Hospital premises or on emergency call or on a mercy mission. This includes the security of nurses and doctors in accident and emergency wards and it includes the security of ambulance staff and fire-crew on emergency call-out.

The litany of violent incidents involving attacks of health workers has become a depressingly regular feature on the news.

Whether it is a knife wielding hooligan attacking a security guard at Dundonald Hospital last March, or shots being fired at an ambulance in the Dunclug Estate in Ballymena in May, or a lady doctor being attacked in the accident and emergency department of Dundonald Hospital in January, all of these incidents are unacceptable. They are a wake-up call that action is needed.

It is, I believe, a sign of a breakdown of the norms which govern the proper operation of our society. If it is not addressed in a robust and effective manner it will lead to a serious breakdown of the fabric of society. I believe, therefore, that early and effective action against violent attacks on health workers is not just about protecting workers from assault, however commendable that may be, it is about drawing a line in the sand for the whole of society saying clearly that this is a line you do not cross, this is the boundary of what will be tolerated, and this is one of the immovable norms which govern the way we all lead our lives in this society.

Common assault is no adequate redress for a physical attack on a health worker. This is not just a question of penalties. It is a matter of the definition of the crime itself. There is nothing common about assaulting a Nurse, a Doctor, an Ambulance Worker or Fire Fighter while engaged on their duties. It is not just a matter of assault. It is a different class of crime altogether. It is beyond the pale.

When I considered this whole problem, what struck me about it was that existing law was inadequate to deal with it. What we were really doing was using the old assault laws and fitting them to what was essentially a new situation. People in the past did not assault Nurses, Doctors, ambulance workers and fire fighters. So there was no need for a specific law to deal with it.

This was a new class of crime. It was different to assault because it involved attacking mercy workers. It was a crime against society and the norms of society. It was not just a matter of someone throwing a punch at another person, or attacking another person, however violently. It was, therefore, a crime which should not come under the classification of common assault.

It was very uncommon assault. It was a crime which offended against all that makes for a decent, civilized society.

It was at that point, in the thinking process, that I realized what would be needed to deal with attacks on emergency workers was a specific new law and not a mere tinkering at the edges of existing law. Such a piecemeal, bitty approach as adapting existing law failed totally, in my view, to recognize that there was a separate and frighteningly new problem and it failed to tackle the scale and seriousness of the issue.

Law-making should begin with the problem rather than simply tacking it on to an existing and known crime because, otherwise, it fails to identify when serious new problems arise in society and often, in consequence, fails to adequately deal with them.

That is what I found so refreshing in the approach taken in Scotland to this problem. Scotland has a new Parliament with new way of doing things.

It is not hidebound by all the flummery and woolly, old-fashioned thinking which has so befuddled law making and law enforcement in this country. By pulling all of these attacks together – whether on Nurses, Doctors, Ambulance Workers, Fire Fighters - into a new Emergency Workers Law, it was proclaiming that : we, as a society, have a problem and here is exactly what we are going to do about it.

Having explained the rational process which underpinned my way of tackling this problem, I want now to explain what exactly I hope to achieve in a new Emergency Worker’s Act, specifically designed for Northern Ireland.

To begin with I must admit to a fair degree of frustration because the Northern Ireland Assembly at Stormont is not functioning properly at the moment. I cannot emphasis too strongly at this point the dismay some of us feel at the procrastination and delaying tactics employed by some political parties at Stormont. Like many of my Assembly colleagues, I want nothing more than to get on with doing a job of working for and serving the people of Northern Ireland and in tacking the real issues which affect the lives of ordinary people – like you and me.

This Emergency Worker’s Protection Bill should be on the statute book but it is being delayed by the self-interest and self-seeking machinations of some politicians who are depriving the Assembly of law-making powers by preventing early agreement on the formation of an Executive. It joins a long list.

Another colleague, Sam Gardiner MLA, for example plans to introduce a Corporate Manslaughter Bill to improve the safety standards for building workers in particular and another, Ken Robinson MLA plans to introduce Anti-Knife legislation and Dispersal Orders to break up the Gang culture on some of our streets. In addition to all that there is the need to take action over rates increases, water charges, educational change and the reform of public administration.

I mention all of this to show that the Assembly would do a lot, change a lot and improve a lot but it is being prevented from doing so by people playing political high-wire games. The public need to know this and need to be made aware of this.

As I said, I had planned to introduce a Private Member’s Bill and was in close touch with the Bills Office on all the details of what should and should not be included in the Bill, but the rules governing the so-called Hain Assembly preclude Private Member’s Bills. I have, therefore, submitted a Resolution calling on Her Majesty’s Government to introduce legislation to create Emergency Worker’s Protection Legislation in Northern Ireland. This Resolution contains the essentials of the Bill I was planning to introduce.

The Resolution reads :

That this Assembly calls on Her Majesty’s Government to introduce legislation in Northern Ireland to make it an offence punishable by imprisonment for a period not exceeding 9 months or by a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale (£5,000) or both for all persons assaulting emergency workers engaged in the pursuit of their duty or impeding persons assisting such emergency workers.

These emergency workers are to include all registered nurses, registered midwives, registered medical practitioners, ambulance crew, fire fighters, prison officers, social workers and mental health officers when they are in pursuit of their duties either on or off hospital premises or such place where they normally might pursue their professional activity.

I would like to explain what exactly I am trying to achieve in this Resolution.

First of all I want to achieve the separate categorization of the offence of assaults on emergency workers which sets them apart from the ordinary common assault laws. This underlines their seriousness and emphasizes how unacceptable they are.

Secondly, I am also trying to achieve an appropriate sentence for such an offence, to “make the punishment fit the crime” as Gilbert and Sullivan would have said.

According to Table S.42 of the Home Office’s own Criminal Statistics for the year 2003, the average sentence for assault occasioning actual bodily harm was 4.5 months, though sentences vary and can be as low as 2 months. Clearly, a differentiation had to be made and that is why I opted for a nine months sentence in my resolution and Bill. I also did this for reasons of conformity with Scotland, where the Bill prescribes just such a tariff of punishment.

Thirdly, I want to create a new climate of respect within society. By setting Nurses, Doctors, Ambulance Crew and other emergency workers apart, I am hoping to create the first building block in a new climate of respect and order within our society. To put it in the vernacular, we need as a society to get a grip and to prevent the slide into social disorder. We are coming out of the trauma of the last thirty seven years of civil strife. Often, in post war situations we see a fragmentation of society. The same happened in Germany after the First World War, for example. Very often social disorder, criminality and violence follows civil strife. It may seem illogical but that is what happens. The PSNI for example recently revealed that the knife culture here was twice as bad as during the years of the Troubles.

The respect agenda should become the informing principle which lies behind much of our legislation. I cannot imagine a body of people to whom the respect agenda should be deservedly applied than the medical, care and emergency professions. Respect lies at the heart of what Nurses deliver to their patients, and to the public. It is only right that the public respect them and that they reinforce that respect by hedging them about with greater protection under the law for anyone who commits and assault against them.

The Emergency Workers Protection Law should, of course, only be a beginning. As well as providing a new raft of underpinning legislation we must also act in a day to day practical way to counter this new culture of casual violence which is invading so much of the life of our society, as well as our accident and emergency wards and emergency call-outs.

Police presence on hospital premises is another option which needs to be looked at. Self-defence training for all medical and emergency staff has already been successfully tried in Glasgow. I believe all medical staff should be trained in a range of skills including risk assessment and exit strategies for aggressive situations, using verbal skills and non-aggressive body language to defuse angry confrontations and martial arts-based “physical intervention techniques”, or self-defence for more serious situations. Greater security through surveillance cameras throughout hospitals is yet another option.

This is an issue that cannot be got wrong. Let’s examine the key questions. Is the location right? Are the finances right? Are the aims and intentions right?

Launching the Maze blueprint, David Hanson argued that the Maze site could see security installations turned into “symbols” of renewal and growth.

This is very similar to what Tony Blair said during a visit to Belfast four years ago.

Announcing plans to hand over installations to the public in 2002, the Prime Minister said there was a “great symbolic importance” in handing over assets from the “bad old days”.

Symbolism is a driving principle behind the Maze. But symbolism is not a decisive argument for committing hundreds of millions of pounds from the public purse to a landmark development.

Labour did that once before – and the result was the Millennium Dome.

And what of the H-Block hospital building that forms part of the package – now dubbed the ‘Conflict Transformation Centre’?

David Hanson says that preserving what many view as a shrine to republican terrorists will promote “learning… internationally about our experience here of the move from conflict into peace”.

And DUP MLA Edwin Poots has said that the centre highlights the “deficiencies in terrorism and send(s) out a clear message that people should move away from terrorism and conflict”.

Anyone who saw republicans gathering at the site last month would not have seen ‘deficiencies in terrorism’ exposed, they will have seen the activities of terrorists venerated.

Politics and symbolism are at the heart of government decision-making. It certainly isn’t based on financial considerations. How could it be? We still haven’t seen a business plan.

Big-ticket, multi-sport venues look good on paper. More so when the big idea is to design and deliver it for an Olympics or World Cup.

But the journey to delivery crosses white elephant territory. The experience of Japan and Italy post-World Cup, and Sydney and Athens post-Olympics, shows this.

The question of how a national stadium secures revenue streams after the Games needs to be satisfactorily resolved.

But no one has explained how a site at the Maze will consistently fill 42,000 seats year-on-year after the Olympics. Yet £7.4 million of public money will now go towards an appraisal of the project.

Overall, the estimated cost of the Maze project has risen from £85 million to £400 million. How many more increases are on the horizon? Are we not in danger of bequeathing a flash-in-the-pan money pit to taxpayers of the future?

Location is vitally important.

Architect Rod Sheard, who worked with Sir Norman Foster on the Wembley Stadium, said recently that one of the big changes in city planning is the importance of locating sports stadia in city centres.

NITB chief executive Alan Clarke said that “infrastructure in central Belfast is capable of supporting the likely footfall of a new stadium and will therefore realise the project’s full economic and tourism potential”.

The Belfast Chamber of Trade and Commerce said that “international experience” has shown that stadia work best when they are served by the necessary social and physical infrastructure.

When considered in those terms, the Maze is not Northern Ireland’s top location. How on earth can there be no alternative site for the national stadium?

Recently one acre of land in Coleraine topped £1.5 million at auction. There are 360 acres of land lying vacant at the Maze site. How on earth can there be no alternative plan for the Maze?

In 2002, the Prime Minister said installations were being “handed over to the Northern Ireland Executive” – or in other words, the people of Northern Ireland. In practice, the Whitehall wing of the Labour Government has handed these installations over to the NIO wing of the Labour Government.

In a wide ranging address to those gathered Donaldson touched upon issues connected with; Party structures and management, succession planning, youth development and recruitment. Donaldson also gave his understanding and interpretation of recent political developments including; David Ervine’s joining of the Ulster Unionist Assembly Grouping. Extracts of Kenny’s speech:

“You are aware as well as I that our Party could very well be facing Assembly and local Government elections within the next two years. Present indications are that our Party will require approximately 60 new Council candidates and I would suspect that we will require 10-12 new/additional Assembly candidates also. Where will these candidates come from?

“It remains unclear the precise content and powers Super Councils will have. However, it is certain that the new Councillor posts will demand full-time commitment. Presently it is being muted that salary will be in the region of £15,000 plus expenses per annum. How confident are you that we can attract the necessary number of candidates at the calibre required to fill the void which will be left from our more experienced Councillors who feel it is time (for whatever reason) to leave the stage.

“On this critical issue I have requested that a piece of work be done as a matter of urgency. I have asked that all sitting Councillors are asked of their intentions as to whether or not they intend to stand for election to the new ‘Super Councils.’ I feel this is essential so that we have factual evidence of the pool of sitting Councillors which will be available to us.

“Having spoken of the difficulty which we face in attracting candidates, I have given detailed thought as to how we might go about addressing the issue. I am firmly of the view that there are potential candidates out there who if approached in the correct manner could be brought under our banner.

“The sector where I believe; skills and experience exist most suited to the role of a Councillor, is the community and voluntary sector. As European funding dwindles many community development workers face redundancy or substantial reductions in their hours of employment. They will require another form of income.

“Community workers are often the first point of contact communities have, they operate on the coal-face. On a daily basis community workers interact with the statutory agencies in attempting to deliver positive change on the ground.

“Community workers have a wide array of experience in issues such as; community planning, community safety, peace building and reconciliatory work. The community and voluntary sector prides itself upon being; the ‘champion of the masses,’ or the ‘grass roots representatives.’ Isn’t that where we need to be as a Party?

“Let’s be clear; community workers can hold immense sway with people and are often the determining factor in how an area/community develops. Sinn Fein is notoriously well versed in recruiting and selecting candidates who come from community activist backgrounds. I believe we should be investing time in learning the lessons of the Republican Movement’s electoral rise.

“I have recently requested that a piece of work be commissioned to identify on a Northern Ireland-wide basis all those employed within the community and voluntary sector as front-line community workers, I have then asked that time is given to identify the political allegiances of these individuals. When in possession of this information I believe approaches should be made by our Party in attempting to recruit suitable individuals.

“It is my view that this piece of work will be of critical importance in loyalist working class areas. If we are to be successful in our quest of transforming these communities, we must pin-point people within these areas who hold key positions of responsibility and who have the confidence and trust of local residents. In my view, no-one can deliver the change necessary within these communities except those who already hold a stake.”

Kenny added: “This leads me onto recent developments; namely the decision by the UUP to accept David Ervine as a member of the Ulster Unionist Assembly grouping. This issue has caused many within and outside our Party discomfort but I say to you tonight; now is not a time for tucking tail and running, now is a time for strength and courage.

“We must be strong and resolute in our convictions. We have nothing to be defensive or fearful about. We have strengthened Unionism’s hand in any future devolved Assembly and Executive by denying Sinn Fein of a Ministerial post and ensuring a Unionist veto on the Executive. We have also sent a clear message that, just as we said we would, we are intent on bringing those involved or linked with Loyalist paramilitaries in the from the cold, while repeatedly stating our outright opposition to their activity.

“I believe that this issue has caused so much controversy in recent times because it is a wake-up, this issue and its’ associated outworking has pricked the conscience of many within mainstream unionism who have lived in denial as to their responsibility for the conditions which led to the conflict, which fuelled its’ continuance and which continue to be its’ legacy. Mainstream unionism used and abused loyalists throughout history and yes there is substance to the argument that the DUP were and are the worst offenders. However it’s not good enough for us simply to pass responsibility for the wrongs of the past onto others. We too need to look at ourselves squarely in the mirror and set about building a more peaceful and stable future. We must remove the shackles of the past which continue to haunt us to this very day.”

Kenny continued: “Let’s be open and honest, many young protestant men and women joined paramilitary organisations because they followed an ideology which allowed for an armed element. Many of these young men and women rotted in jail for the younger years of their lives, they were ostracised and used as scapegoats by ourselves and others.

“It is my view that many of these men and women can contribute to impacting positive change within the community. We have a moral and political obligation duty to democratise “loyalist problem” communities, we must not stand idly by again in allowing more young men and women’s lives to be destroyed. Many of these areas have become mafia-gang zones and are being ruled by criminal gang lords who are sucking the lifeblood from our young people.