29/04/2013 Stormont Today

Gay marriage is debated again, but This is an issue of redefining

marriage. Regina Purdey will be here on with her analysis. And the health

minister explains more about the recommendation to locate children's

heart surgery in the Republic rather than England. I was wholly opposed

to that idea from the outset, and getting it to an all Ireland network

that dominated discussion in the halls of Stormont today. MLAs were

debating a Sinn Fein motion that called for legislation to allow for

same-sex marriage fewer than six months since a similar motion was

defeated. Martina, how come we are back here again? As you say, the SU

was raised last October, but since then, in the Republic, the has been

a constitutional convention to examine whether the Irish

constitution should become changed, and there was a 79% vote in favour

of same-sex marriage. It was in that context that Sinn Fein wanted to

return to the assembly to note that development and ask the elective to

legislate in favour of what they say is equal marriage. That has caused

some resentment within the chamber. Some are saying it is too soon to

revisit the issue, but obviously Sinn Fein feel very strongly, and

they want to be consistent. Alliance party tabled an amendment

today? The Alliance party tabled the amendment, and they passed an

executive motion in its party last October saying that they would be in

favour of same-sex marriage provided they were safeguards for faith

groups such as churches, and that was the amendment that the party

tabled today. The difficulty from the Alliance perspective is that not

only was it rejected by the assembly, but not everyone in the

Alliance party supported the amendment. Stay with us, Martina.

Let's hear exactly what happened in the chamber during today's debate.

Barriers are breaking down, step-by-step, but there is more to

be done. You cannot support equality and be a racist, and you cannot

support equality and perpetuate sexual discrimination, and you

cannot support equality and be homophobic. MLAs represent every

section of our society, including our LGB team members. In a speech on

the community, Hillary Clinton said that progress comes from being

willing to walk a mile and someone else's shoes. She said we need to

ask ourselves, how would it feel if it were a crime to love the person

that I love? How would it feel to be discriminated against for something

about myself which I cannot change? There are two main reasons for the

amendment. The first is that we believe that the current motion from

Sinn Fein is deficient, and it is not clearly ballads in support for

same-sex civil with another knowledge meant of religious freedom

and the rights of faith groups. As far as we are concerned, this is an

essential prerequisite around the Alliance party's endorsement of

same-sex marriage, and I believe that view is shared with many others

across the society. The second is that lively and land league --

blindly calling for immediate legislation. We could send a

powerful message about support for same-sex marriage alongside a vital

acknowledgement of the need for engagement and the need for mutual

respect. There is clearly a difference between my position and

that of many, including many in this house who share my personal values

and my faith. For them, a Christian should uses influence in the public

sphere to put forward Christian values, not only by example but in

legislation. That is not my position. I have never felt it in my

duty to impose my values on other members of society. If I lived in a

Islamic state, I would oppose the introduction of Sharia law. I oppose

the motion, not because I oppose anybody on how they choose to live

their lives, but because we support something. What we support is the

Institute of marriage, and the traditional, long-standing,

centuries-old definition of marriage. I am a great believer in

marriage. In fact, I am getting married in December myself, if

things go the way I hope. But my view on this, Mr Speaker, is that

marriage is an institution that we can all value. When two people love

each other and are prepared to commit and share their lives

together, I think that should he supported. But I think when two

people of the same-sex commit and love each other and want to commit

their lives together, that should be supported as well. My view on gay

marriage isn't that it threatens the institution of marriage, in fact it

strengthens it, and it extends it to those people who want to be married.

In the previous debate I made clear my opposition to any change in the

current legislation to allow same-sex marriage. That remains my

position. It is a position based on my own religious beliefs. It is a

position which I believe is consistent with the teaching of my

church, the Presbyterian Church, and indeed, consistent with publicly

expressed views of other churches, including the Roman Catholic Church

and the Church of Ireland. And finally, it is a position which is

fundamentally consistent with the teaching of holy Scripture. Mr

Speaker, I listen carefully to Mr Ford, and this is where I differ. As

a Christian involved in politics, I very often recall the words of

Cardinal Wolsey. He was the confidante of Henry VIII. He said, I

would that I had served my god as I have served my keen on his deathbed.

The truth is, there is a generation of young people, and I see them

every day in my office, who, because of their treatment by society, find

themselves feeling on the margins, feeling excluded and feeling

prejudiced. We need to be careful. We need to be careful that what we

say does not drive some individual to feel further worthlessness, or to

be more inclined to take their own lives. This has been put forward as

an issue of equality. It is not an issue of equality. This is an issue

of redefining marriage. And not marriage is defined by the state,

but marriage as has always been understood. In fact, the state did

not define marriage. All the state has simply done is enshrined in view

that always pertained, even in ancient societies, long before there

were religious views in this, that marriage is between a man and a

woman for security, comfort and support, and the procreation of

children. What will happen, and this is where people's right will get

trampled on. If the definition of marriage is to be changed, once

there is a change in the legal definition of marriage, then those

who take a contrary view will find themselves up against the law. Their

rights will be infringed. As far as this house is concerned, we have

introduced concern today. I believe that we have got every right to

introduce this concern, because our position on this, we believe this is

such an important issue that it is one that it is appropriate to use

the mechanism which allows to stop reckless legislation in this

assembly. The DUP's Sammy Wilson. Martina is still with me. The DUP

tabled a petition of concern, effectively vetoing the motion

today. How did MLAs wrote? majority voted against the motion,

53 to 42. Set effectively the DUP veto wasn't needed. But it does on

the core -- the depth of feeling within the DUP. All the Sinn Fein

MLA is turned up to vote in favour of the motion. What about the and

the STL the? They voted against with two exceptions. The party leader,

Mike Nesbitt, wasn't there to vote because he was away on assembly

business. But he is on record as saying that he would have voted

against it, but he believes that civil partnerships are sufficient.

Out of the 14 MLAs of the SDLP, eight voted in favour of same-sex

marriage alongside Sinn Fein. There were five no-shows. What about the

Alliance party? Stephen Agnew of the Green party voted yes. Basil McCrea

voted yes. David McNarry voted no. Jim Allister voted no. David McCarty

was unwell and not here to vote. In terms of the Alliance party, you

could say they were all over the show. The party tabled an amendment

seeking safeguards for faith groups to ensure that churches would not be

forced under the law to perform same-sex marriages. But not everyone

in the Alliance party backs this amendment. Trevor Lunn opposed it,

and others abstained. When it came to the substantive motion, the Sinn

Fein motion, the party's official position was to add stain, and that

is what the party leader, David Ford, did. The minister would have

abstained but he had to leave before a meeting. But notably, Trevor Lunn

voted against same-sex marriage, as did Judith Cochrane, and Anna Lo was

the only member of her party to vote in favour. And just finally, the

issue has now been debated twice. that over and done with, or will it

be discussed again? This has been an issue right across Europe, and

indeed North America. It is not going to go away. Campaigners will

keep on pressing, and it will be part of the assembly soon enough.

Martina, thank you. MLAs had an hour and a half to debate the motion

today, but not everyone got their say. The time was allocated by the

gimp business committee, and not everyone was happy with how that was

that not enough? If Chris Little had not let me speak, I would not have

got time to say anything. It was interesting when I listen to how the

voting was going, many of these votes are won or lost by what the

Independents do. It would have been better for democracy if we had a

chance to speak. If you had got five minutes, what would you have said?

would have said that everyone is a son or daughter, they are an

individual and the way democracy should be judged is how we deal with

minorities. That is what you would have said. You were not given that

platform. Is it your contention that increasingly Independents are being

squeezed out of important debates? Absolutely. The debate should not

have been limited, it is huge issue. We finished at 4:30pm, we

could have spoken a lot longer and got everyone who wanted to speak to

talk. I know that Jim Allister wanted to speak as well. What is the

rationale of the committee for setting a time limit on the debate?

This place is criticised for not debating a big issues. Their

rationale appears to control the agenda and what is obvious that most

of the good speakers in the Assembly, who do not always agree

with, but we do not get a chance to speak. That is why a lot of the

debates are so boring. They are determined to control the agenda, it

is not good democracy and I do not believe it should be allowed to

continue. Is this a bigger problem? Yes. You will see it during question

time, you cannot get motions put forward, this is all done in a

controlled fashion and it is no wonder that people are upset.

can you do about it? You're not happy about it. We have all raised

it with the powers that be. Hopefully in the elections, we will

be in a position to do something about it. It is a long way away. We

will take our arguments through different channels, through the

media, but it seems to be silly when we are having this big debate about

important issues and key people with good electoral mandates are not

allowed to speak in the Assembly. will see if the issue is addressed.

Thank you. The health minister told the Assembly he will try to retain

some form of children's heart surgery in Belfast. Last week a

report recommended that all paediatric cardiac surgery soon be

centred in Dublin. The health minister said he is in discussions

on the best way forward, but first he updated MLAs on the state of the

accident and emergency unit at the Antrim Area Hospital. I visited the

hospital to hear at first hand the concerns of the consultant. I am

advised by the trust it is working with the emergency Department

consultants to mitigate the potential risks to patients within

that department. The trust has put in place a range of measures to

improve performance at the Department. My department has

invested �9 million in a new emergency department at the hospital

which will cater for up to 90,000 attendances a year and a new unit is

expected to be operational from June 2013. Will the Minister put more

resources so that we have got more bed so we have a hospital that can

function on the ground or otherwise it is time that we had someone else

running this department, because at the moment it is going horribly

wrong? Having inherited a mess from his colleague, we are actually doing

the work that needs to be done. There are more nurses in the

hospital now than there was under the minister when his party was in

control of this hospital. I understand that they have huge

problems in the hospital, they are inherited problems and we will get

on top of them. There is a lot of good work going on in the hospital

and I get letters from members of the public indicating that, in spite

of the headlines, they have received excellent care and I want to commend

the staff are working in the Purcell D under huge pressure. We have a

particular problem in that department and we are looking at

that. We are looking at it in a clear way. Does he inspect -- does

he accept, that all those who campaigned against the closure of

the accident and emergency at the city, and we have seen problems

elsewhere? The Ulster Hospital has been having a lot of problems. The

Royal picked up most of the work. Its figures have improved

dramatically. There are issues in and around the populace in the

Ulster Hospital and we know we have an older population and the

consequence of that appears to be that there have been a lot of winter

pressures. I have said that before I make my decision, I want to take the

opportunity to hold discussions with our counterparts in the Republic of

Ireland and explore the scope for flexibility in the location and the

future delivery of the service without compromising any aspect of

patient safety. My key priority is to ensure the delivery of a safe and

sustainable service for these vulnerable children and I want to

ensure that we have fully explored every possibility for addressing the

concerns which have been raised by parents and bike cardiology

consultants and I will now take time to consider the report and its

recommendations in full and I will make my decision shortly. I will

continue to work to see what best we can achieve, so there is more work

to be done, more discussions to be had and I really welcome the fact

that we have moved away from any suggestion that all of this carer

should be provided somewhere in England, because I was wholly

opposed to that idea and getting it to an all Ireland network in the

first instance is a success and if we can achieve some surgery in

Belfast, and I do not know if this is possible, that certainly would be

something I would be positive about. The Health Minister. Taking a break

from what happened in the chamber, there was important business taking

place elsewhere on the parliamentary estate. At Stormont Castle, the

first and pity first ministers met the Secretary of State and the

attorney shtick aiming Gilmore. The meeting took place amid suggestions

that the Westminster government will agree a proposal to improve

community relations. The press Conference began with Mark Devenport

asking to reserve the leers if the proposed economic package is still

linked to the publication of the long-awaited shared future document.

It would be great of an overall strategy was published. It is more

important that programmes go forward. They are happening. As I

have heard this morning, they have got even bigger plans which I am

sure in due course they will want to share with the public. They are

thinking in very ambitious ways about how to bridge long-standing

sectarian divisions and I welcome the efforts they are making. It is

right to say we have been working for a long time on these issues. It

is important to us in terms of what we see as the two major difficulties

that we face, one is dealing with the economy and one is the shared

future agenda. Irrespective of what would be happening elsewhere, we

would be reaching the agreements that we are reaching that the

present time and we will be relaying those to the public. It is an added

advantage to us if by doing that, it levers down some additional support

from the United Kingdom government, but it would be irresponsible of

us, as leaders of this administration, to say that we would

only bring out shared future proposals if the government puts its

hand in its pocket. We will be doing this anyway, they are ambitious

proposals and we do not want to outline them yet, before we announce

them publicly. We formed a working group and we are involved in a

good-faith effort to try and get a comprehensive agreement in terms of

how we move forward. Unfortunately, one or two other parties decided to

detach themselves from that because they did not get own way. It is on

the public record that these issues that were contentious during those

discussions, which represented and minority, when you look at the good

work that was done and the level of agreement which was vastly

outweighing the disagreements on how we've moved forward, but those

issues are there for everyone to see. It is the issue of parades and

flags and the issue of how we learn from the past. Our attitude is that

we should not allow those issues to hold us back. We should move forward

decisively with the projects that will add to the already good work

and huge sums of money that we are pouring into the issue of sharing

and integrating our society. Martin McGuiness. Martina Purdy is with me

again. The keeping that seemed to come out of this was a concession

that an all encompassing shared future document seems to be off the

table for the time being and instead certain elements will be introduced

individually. The Secretary of State seems to be more relaxed about this.

For some time, there have been strained relations between

Hillsborough's Castle and Stormont Castle. It is about the lack of

progress on community relations. In recent weeks that ends been reported

that trees of the Lears would be linking progress on this strategy

within economic package from London and it was cleared up that she is

not looking for a great leap forward, she does not expect

progress on all the issues because there are difficult issues around

flags and parades but if they can get progress on community relations

then there can be sent economic support from London. A lot of talk

about the economy, there was talk about a possible investment

Conference taking place here later in the year. The G8 summit is coming

up and it is important that world leaders do not come here and leave

and we do not get a huge amount of economic benefit. The plan is to

have the Prime Minister encourage world leaders to bring end investors

here in the autumn. We had an investment cough the -- Conference

here in 2008. Because our economy was flatlining, anything could be

seized upon as a welcome development. There is a lot of work

going on in the background. The Justice Minister has told the

Assembly that all communities need to work together to solve interface

violence and bring down the peace walls. David Ford said a lot of work

is being done to solve the problem but more is still needed.

objective is the removal of all interface structures. We know that

will take time, but we must work to bring about the conditions that will

give people the confidence to support change. A key priority for

my department is addressing the safety and security of residents

living in these areas. My officials and the police are assessing how to

reduce the fear of crime in these areas. There is more to do but there

are many positives and I thank the communities and their partners for

their work. Can I welcome the work that the Minister is doing with

local communities to address interface structures and ask if he

agrees with the analysis of the DUP Minister for Finance that if we give

everyone a job, the interface structures may disappear? About my

colleague for that question. I think he would know that my view is whilst

we need to address economic issues and are issues are undoubtably

through lack of jobs engaging in anti-social behaviour and crime,

there is no doubt that even when the economy is booming, there have been

problems in these areas and that is why there has been a concentration

as part of a programme for government to reduce tensions in

these areas, work with local communities and to see the kind of

successes we have been able to report in recent years. There may be

more so-called peace walls and there were at the time of the Good Friday

Agreement, but at the moment they are coming down and opening up not

been added to. Would he agree that sense of trying to impose a solution

in these community's would be counter-productive? I thank you for

that. I agree. There is no sense in which we are trying to impose on

local communities. It is also the case that we are not intending to

proceed at this pace of the slowest. We will facilitate and

encourage and do all we can to build the conditions that enable those

structures to be removed. Minister alluded to the fact that

the community is at the centre of the discussions. Would he agree that

central to the very substance of ensuring that peace breaks out and

community start to relate to each other more directly in interfaces,

that there has to be community confidence, but they will not come

under attack when the fences and walls come down and that they must

get back confidence in both communities before we can begin that

process? I do not know that I agree entirely with that. We need to work

to build confidence but to suggest that we need total confidence before

we can do anything is at variance with what we have been doing. We

have seen work on temporary opening of gates and barriers, work done to

address with CCTV and white lights, the opportunities to enable

movement. We cannot get everything right before we do things, we need