15/01/2013 Stormont Today

fairly limited. Hello, and welcome to Stormont Today. A new day on the

hill, but the same issue dominating proceedings. The political

divisions highlighted by the recent flag protests and accompanying

violence. The Union flag is the flag of this country, and it's

everybody's flag. Mr Nesbitt said, and I quote, the Union flag is

everyone's flag in this region. That's not true. Also, why did the

Health Minister feel the need for a political lesson? This House will

make the laws, and courts will interpret those laws, not the other

way around. And a political correspondent from

the detail - Stephen Walker gives us his take on the day's events.

Even before business began a point of order was a taste of the

fractious atmosphere to come. He wanted the Speaker to look at

comments Alex Massky had made about the ongoing trouble in east Belfast.

Advise this House what action can be taken against a member who

breachs the code of conduct, in particular reference to the

personal conduct of members who have a duty to uphold the law and

to act on all occasions in accord Wednesday the public trust placed

in them. Furthermore, in respect of promoting good relations where

members will act in way that is conducive to promoting good

relations and promoting a culture of respect for the law, in specific,

reference to the member for south Belfast, Mr Massky who on Sunday

said that the Short Strand residents were behaving with

impeccable pave your despite evidence of them wearing Balaklavas,

wielding bats, throwing bricks at protesters. Furthermore, last night

on various media outlets saying his response to the violence visited on

members of the Short Strand would be to meet it with violence.

Clearly, in those circumstances what action can be taken to a

member who has flouted the code of conduct for members? First of all,

members will know I do give members some latitude on points of order,

but secondly, this is not a point of order. Thirdly, this is not an

issue for the Speaker, but certainly I would direct the member

to the Provisions Committee or to the clerks here within the

Parliament buildings but it's not a matter for the Speaker and not a

point of order. Is it an order for the member

across the floor to misquote another member in this House

whatever happened inside the House and as you pointed out yourself, Mr

Speaker, it didn't deal with this House and the member has been

misquoted. THE SPEAKER: Order. I want to say

to the whole House, order. Order. Let us all be careful -- in

whatever contribution we make in this House. Let us all be careful.

Let us not make a bad situation worse outside this chamber. Let

always be careful, and we all have a responsibility as political

parties in this House to behave in a appropriate manner. Order. Let us

all move on. Alex Maskey got his opportunity to respond to that

point of order during the subsequent debate AUUP motion on

inclusivety called on the Assembly to reconfirm its commitment to

peace and democracy and for all parties to respect the spirit of

the Good Friday Agreement. I was shocked to watch the discussion on

the late news last night to hear Alex Maskey state if he lived in

the Short Strand he would be out throwing stones at the street

protests. I condemn the violence visited upon the residents...

THE SPEAKER: Order. A point of order, Mr Maskey. Order! I welcome

your ruling earlier on at the beginning of this session, and I

listened to Mr Nesbitt start off his comments about today is not

about what happened yesterday or last week, but about what we do

from here on in, but I would actually strongly advise Mr Nesbitt

not to misquote me in this chamber today. There is a transcript -

there is a full transcript - there is a transcript available, as Mr

Nesbitt as a former journalist will know. He should not misquote me in

this chamber today. THE SPEAKER: Order. Order! The

member has it on the record. Order. Order. Mr Nesbitt, order.

Speaker, thank you. I am confident that I reflect the spirit of the

words I heard last night on UTV's late-night news. Mr Speaker, my

party calls for a return to the spirit of the Belfast Agreement. I

acknowledge the DUP having an amendment down to that part of the

motion. We're not down the ditch over that as long as we get this

opportunity to explain exactly what we mean by the spirit of the agreat.

There was another area where the Belfast Agreement was an

unqualified success, and that is in regard to the constitutional

question which was settled in 1998 and endorsed by a referendum.

Northern Ireland is part of the UK, and that means the Union flag is

the flag of this country, and it's everybody's flag. I want to come to

a conclusion, Mr Speaker, to the issue that I have heard various

Nationalists and republicans allude to. They have complained this is a

one-sided forum. Unionists talking to themselves won't solve the

problem. Mr Speaker, in some respects I agree with that. It

won't solve the problem. The involvement and the capacity for

both the SDLP and Sinn Fein to involve themselves in the outcome

of the Unionist forum is essential. If there's disadvantage in the

Unionist community, and there is, we want to hear what you're going

to do about it, about the disadvantage - the sectarianism,

the one-sided inquiry process, the diminishing of Britishness at the

expense of the promotion of Irishness - we want to hear your

proposals about that. Yes, we do. What I see in terms of the flags

protest is a continuation of the denial that's represented by

bringing forward this amendment because the amendment on its own,

if it had not removed the reference to the Good Friday Agreement, was

perfectly acceptable. Asking me to repudiate that agreement is not on.

It is a denial of the progress that we've made on the basis not just

for the progress that has been made since the Good Friday Agreement,

but the value that was added in the negotiations in terms of

Halisborough and St Andrews. ways of the past cannot be the way

of the future, yet what we're hearing from the leader of the DUP

is that violence is a result of the Alliance Party, changing what he

called the "established status quo in the City Hall". How has all this

violence been brought about just by one action? Then on the other hand,

we're told the next day a whole plethora of things is what it's

about. There is no mention in any of that about the 40,000 scurrilous

leaflets that were circulated in east Belfast intended to bring

about the sort of violence that we have. I and my party will not

support the amendment from the DUP which is wholly unnecessary and a

concerning attempt to dilute the motion and remove a reference to

the Belfast agreement. Indeed, it's deeply concerning that Mike Nesbitt,

the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, does not see that as a

concern as a key signatory to that agreement. They're entitled to be

republicans and Nationalists, so they'll put forward a particular

agenda. We have the alliance who claim themselves to be a non-

sectarian party, and let me deal with that in a moment or two.

THE SPEAKER: Order. But in terms of all of this, whenever we have

particular agendas being met and fulfilled, that can cause real

damage to a community. For example, when it comes to historic inquiries,

for example, when it comes to public inquiries - there seems to

be entirely a focus - what is aimed against the loyalist community and

people who have engaged in loyalist terrorism... I think it's important

we recognise the Good Friday Agreement was not about endorsing

someone's aspirations. I, let me repeat this, am not remotely

interested in whether anybodying a there's I am entitled to or have

aspirations. I have no aspirations. I have political objections and

rights. What I am fearful about is if I was a listener to this debate

outside of this House today by the end of this debate I would have to

work out as a member of the public out there, have I anymore

confidence at the end of this debate about what's going to happen

on our streets in the days, weeks and months ahead, or am I going to

be less confident by what I hear in this chamber? I am disappointed the

member that's just spoken didn't actually deal with the furore going

on around his comment, Mr Speaker, when the motion is explicit around

condemning acts of violence, pace and all of that. Given what he said

in respect of if he was living in the Short Strand - he can correct

this quote if I am wrong - I'll certainly give way to him. He said

given what was happening there, if he lived there and his property was

being attacked, he would be out throwing stones as well. I'll give

way to the member. I am very happy to clarify that because I want to

make it clear, as I said to Mr Nesbitt early on people student be

misquoting anybody. Unless people stand up and say what the problem

actually is and identify the problem, then you will not deal

with it. And I made it very clear - I will actually defer to another

member because members of his party - colleagues sitting beside him

commended him last year for shooting at people who he said were

attacking his home. He has made an assertion about something he knows

nothing about, and his assertion is wholly and completely wrong. He's

made it on radio as well, and he should be very careful about what

he's actually stating. Mr Speaker, we can't support the final sentence

around the Belfast Agreement because that agreement, indeed - or

some of the reasons why people are so aggravated and annoyed and out

on the streets, so that is why we couldn't support that. I note Mr

Nesbitt has clarified what he meant of that in terms of the spirit of

the Belfast Agreement. I accept on that context what he's said, but

the letter of the Belfast Agreement which the members opposite have

said that we should be accepting we're wholly opposed to. Others who

have created the tensions that exist, include the Prime Minister

David Cameron, apologising for what happened around Pat Finuken. What I

hear is an apologist for how the security forces defended our

country, and they exploit a particular narrative that

republicans want to portray that they were the heroes, the security

forces were the bad guys, and the Prime Minister is pandering, and I

note Raymond McCartney nods his head in agreement - no surprise,

and the Prime Minister then panders to that particular narrative, and

that's wrong, and that's why people are out there agitated. The flag is

flown on designated days here in Stormont, but the Unionist Parties

forgot to tell their protesters that they forgot to explain that in

agreements that are reached, you have to reach compromises, and what

they have been doing is pretending that things are the same as they

were before. Things are not the same, and it's better for everyone

that they aren't. Mr Nesbitt said, and I quote, the

Union flag is everyone's flag in this region. That's not true.

Consenting, as we do as Nationalists, to this region

remaining part of the United Kingdom as long as its people wish

it to, is not becoming British. I'm joined now by Stephen Walker,

political correspondent with the website The Detail. A bad-tempered

debate today. It doesn't augur well for a solution on the streets if

they can't agree on the hill. agree. It was a fractious debate,

the second they have had in 48 hours. Yesterday wasn't ill-

tempered, but showed the capacity to go in that direction, but today

we have seen a lot of argument. I think that's reflective of the fact

that despite us being seven weeks into this crisis, we still have no

united political response. All the parties condemn the violence, but

as we saw from today, thereafter they then divert off into different

arguments, counter one another on why the crisis happened, where it

might go, how it could be dealt with. As I say, I think that's

reflective of the fact we don't yet have a united front from Stormont

in the face of what we're seeing on the streets, and of course, it

doesn't augur well for the wider picture and doesn't augur well for

the visit of the two governments, which is due for Thursday. What

when it comes down to it, then, there was a lot of discussion about

Alex Maskey today, but he did end up having a surprising ally. Again,

a lot of the heated elements of the debate focused on the comments that

were thrown back at him today. He defended his remarks and said he

had condemned vile eands was referring to attacks on

individuals' homes. That obviously didn't satisfy the DUP, but there

was some surprise to see he got if not backing, then certainly some

understanding from Unionists. That was Mr Copeland from the Ulster

Unionist party. Mr Copeland obviously represents the east

Belfast constituency and is familiar with what's going on there,

and he said having seen homes of his constituents being attacked, he

understood where he was coming from. That was a surprising twist in the

debate. When it comes to the motion, then, and the DUP amendment, how do

you see that playing out next week? Well, on the one hand, it's a

largely procedural issue. There was a request that the vote be held

today. That wasn't possible. It has been kicked into the session due to

take place Monday, but I think what's more of interest about it is

that the - it all centres on a request on the part of the DUP to

have a reference to the Belfast Agreement, the Good Friday

Agreement, removed from the motion. That then led to an argument in a

sense about the significance of the agreement, so we're about to mark

its 15th anniversary, and here we are still at Stormont still having

arguments around that peace deal. Thank you very much.

Staying on the theme of the ongoing civil arrest, the Justice Minister

was asked this afternoon whether the PSNI's current resources are

sufficient to deal with it. He said they had been up until now, but if

the trouble continues, the police budget could face pressures this

It's an operational matter for the Chief Constable. I have been in

frequent contact with the Chief Constable over the past weeks,

including yesterday, and have received his assurance that he, at

present, has adequate resources to deal with the situation. I can also

inform the House, that the Chief Constable has commissioned an

internal assessment of PSNI resilience to meet the demands of

the coming years. 2013 will be a challenging year for the PSNI, with

the G8, World Police and Fire Games and the City of Culture. These

events take place during the parading situation and it Mr Will

place pressure on the police in terms of financial resources.

notice the PSNI say they have adequate resources at present,

could he tell us what contingency is in place with regard to

resources and assessment of the impact of current policing demands

on the PSNI budget? Well, I'm advised by the Chief Constable that,

if the current situation on the streets persists, alongside the

issues which have to be faced in terms of a severe threat from

terrorism, there may well be pressures on the police budget

within this current financial year. That is currently being worked on

by the police and I have no doubt the department officials will have

to play a part. It may well be there will be a role relating to

the department of finance and personnel. Wider issues, in terms

of the non-financial resources, are an issue for the Chief Constable to

address. Clearly, there are issues like mutual aid from other police

services in connection with events like the G8. Minister, we have

learnt to date that it has cost �7 million for the ongoing street

protests and I listen with interest with the member who asked the

question there. He is one of the people who initially encouraged

people on to the streets. Does the minister agree with me that this

cost will have a negative impact on policing resources? Well, I can

certainly agree with Mr Linch there are costs being incurred by the

police at the moment. �7 million which appeared in the media was an

extrapolition from the figures published the, the detailed figures,

which police had costs for a fortnight in December. Those costs

were something in the region of �3.8 million. Clearly, some people

have worked on from that. I understand we will not see the full

detailed figures for another two three days for the cost into

January. One of the costs which is unnecessary on policing, if we

could resolve matters further in this place, is the cost of policing

our divided community. There is a responsibility on members in this

House to do all they can in the actions they take to assist in

providing a community that is less divided and, therefore, reduce the

cost to policing? Well, Deputy Speaker, it is certainly the case

there are very significant costs for the Police Service because we

are a divided society, as I've just said, I believe there are

significant obligations on each of us to do what we can to avoid that

and reduce tensions. It is difficult to estimate what those

costs are. There is no doubt, by comparison with what would be the

case for a similar police service in any part of Great Britain, or

indeed areas that the gardai, with a similar population, the costs of

policing in Northern Ireland are significantly higher. That is a

cost which falls to us at the expense of other public services.

Back in October, a High Court judge ruled that a ban on gay and

unmarried couples adopting children was ill Lille. Today, Edwin Poots

confirmed that he has lodged a notice of appeal against the

decision. The issue was raised by the Green Party leader, Steven

Agnew during question Time. A child growing up in a loving family home,

with a gay parents, would somehow be worse off considering especially

as gay individuals can adopt? of course we are always looking for

the best interests of the children. That is why we want to bring new

adoption legislation to the Assembly. That's a course of work

we are currently engaged in. That is with the office of First and

Deputy First Minister at this moment in time of I hope it will be

brought before the Executive quite soon. In all of those things we are

wanting to move things forward. In the course that piece of work, a

public consultation was had. That public consultation elicited the

views of just short of 1050 people and organisations, of that, over

1,000 of those persons and organisations were opposed to

changing the law away from the existing stance. The member shakes

his head. He may want to listen to the views of 3% or 4% of the

community and ignore the views of 95% or 96% of the community. He

would do well to pay attention to what the community is saying?

Account minister outline if he believes or if if he had legal

advice or indication that the current legal process, whether he

is going to appeal or not appeal, could or would hold up current

timetable of the adoption bill? Well, I don't think it should. We

can proceed with the adoption bill. Afterall, we need to be very clear

about this. When it comes to these issues, this House will make the

laws. Courts will interpret the laws, not the other way round. It's

for this House to make the decisions. We are the elected body

of the people who make laws and we should not give up that position of

making the laws. That is something that has been given to us by the

people, not to other organisations, we should make the law, and the

courts should interpret the laws. Would the minister agree with me

that there are so many children still waiting to be adopted that it

is a good idea to widen the pool to have more people to be able to

adopt children? No, I wouldn't agree with her at all. We already

have a wide pool and the numbers of children that are waiting to be

adopted, in Northern Ireland, are not considerable compared to other

areas. We always have to act, first and foremost, in the best interests

of the child. I will always act in the interests of the child because

it is not a human right to adopt people need to get that very clear.

We must always ensure that the human rights of the child are

ensured. We will look at all of the issues relating to foster care,

relating to care in homes and all of these things, we need to reform

the system, we need to move the system forward. We need to advance

the system. People can get up on particular hobby horses, but they

don't provide solutions. I'm looking for solutions. How will the

new legislative proposals tackle delays? Currently, our adoptive

process is a Low slower adoptive are cress as is the case in England.

We believe we can shave eight months off the adoptive process if

we carry out the legislative process we are looking at. There is

work to be done. The process needs to be adopted, amended and changed.

That is the course of work we are looking at. We will not be

distracted by other issues in moving this forward in the best

interests of the children. You might remember the controversy when

Marie Stopes, the first private clinic to offer abortions in

Northern Ireland, opened in October. Well, representatives of Marie

Stopes were put under the spotlight by the justice committee on

Thursday. As we can hear now, in our weekly look at Committee

Business: Marie Stopes is providing services within the framework which

was found to be lawful and in line with NHS provision and medical term

nition of pregnancy. It has been, it always has been, without

question, our goal to work with ) inaudible) to be regular lailted by

that body to ensure that politicians and that the public can

have confidence that our centre and services provide the highest

quality and standards of care within the law as it currently

exists. How many clients have you dealt with in terms of providing

termination? What we need to be very clear about, the services we

provide in Northern Ireland, we provide them because men and women

come to us they absolutely trust us and we are a trusted provider. We

will not be releasing any figures or any numbers around the number of

men and women that we've seen within our clinic. How would

releasing the figures reveal the confidentiality of anyone? Well,

within, again, we want to make sure that Northern Ireland is a small

place. There is only our one Kleinic werk want to maintain the

confidentiality and of the men and women of the clients we see. In

England we release figures on a national basis. If the law changed

within Northern Ireland and we were asked to do that we would

absolutely fully co-operate. are saying that you are doing the

requirement that you have to do, but there are other circumstances,

the Chair referred to this, where openness could be required. You are

dealing with elected members for whom this is a very important issue,

I presume that I'm going to receive that openness. Does the

organisation make a decision that the medical, clinical assessment

that is have been taken comply with the law? Is that their position to

assess every individual assess thament is made and decide that

this clinic is complying with the law They are a regulator who have

delegated authority from the Department of Health to make sure

that healthcare providers operate within the legal framework and

within the law. They come in and they inspect to make sure that that

is happening. We welcome them coming to our centre as many times

as they wish to a I assure themselves and other wrest

complying with the law. I repeat again. They do that in respect of

the environment, record-keeping, employment and arrangements for

staff, procurement, storage and dispensing of medication. I ask the

specific question, do they have a role in making an assessment that

the clinic, clinical assessments made to justify a termination of a

pregnancy being carried out is within the law. Is that their job

to say the doctor got it right? points. One is that clearly they

don't make the regulations. There are other bodies that do. What they

will be able to do. We really welcome that, as you described,

they will be able to make sure that the doctors and healthcare

professionals are suitibly qualified. They make sure we have

the proper governance arrangements in place. We have auditing in place.

That we employ... That we have... That we meet the law, in terms of

administer ing drugs, which is specific to here today, around

medical termination of pregnancy under nine weeks. I'm satisfied by

opening our doors to them they will make an assessment of the service

that we are providing working within the current law and

regulations and framework that currently exist. Are you sure that

you are covered to carry out your services within the law? Absolutely

and categorically, yes. The speaker we heard earlier on made his

feelings clear about politicians showing leadership, do you think

they are listening? We didn't see in the clip the initial comments

made in measured tones. He spoke about his right as a Republican

under the Good Friday Agreement to lobby for constitutional change. He

said to the unionist representatives that he recognised

the status quo in Northern Ireland's current position under

the terms of the agreement. He seemed to be trying to stress his

point in references to those members in particular. It was so

pointed we wondered was it almost a dress rehearsal for the politician

who seems placed to become the next speaker and then he was indicating

his ability to understand his own benches as well as those opposite.

It has been interesting well, just briefly, on the fact that people

are living on the peace lines we heard a lot of discussion about

that. That seems to have been lost in the Assembly chamber? There were

very interesting comments made this morning in particular, as you say,

as the debates unfolded today, it probably got lost. We had comments

from community workers representing Protestant families and a

representative for Catholic families. They clearly said they

wanted tensions removed from their doorsteps and stressing they want