Order. The Business Committee has agreed to allow two and a half hours for this debate. The Member moving the motion will have 15 minutes to speak and there will be 15 minutes for the winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have a maximum of 10 minutes.

Three amendments have been selected and published on the Marshalled List. The amendments will be moved in the order in which they appear on the Marshalled List, which reflects the order in which, if they were agreed to, they would stand in the resolution. When the debate has concluded I shall put the Question on amendment No.1. If amendment No 1 is made, amendments No 2 and No 3 will fall. If amendment No 1 is not made, I shall put the Question on amendment No 2. If amendment No 2 is made, amendment No 3 will fall. If amendment No 2 is not made, I shall put the Question on amendment No 3.

If that is clear — [Laughter.]Members will understand as we go on. I shall proceed.

I beg to move

That this Assembly notes the recent publication by the Equality Commission of its Annual Monitoring Report on the Northern Ireland workforce, and calls on the Commission to investigate trends in recruitment, particularly in the public sector, in order to ensure that the workforce being recruited is a reasonable reflection of the working age population in Northern Ireland.

This debate is on one of the most relevant and important of all aspects of life in Northern Ireland today. The reason that the motion mentions the public sector specifically is that over 60% of our entire workforce is employed in the sector, making it far and away the largest employer in the country. I hope that this debate does not turn into various declarations of under-representation in one part of Northern Ireland being countered by another.

The essence of the motion relates to trends in recruitment, particularly in the public sector. I hope that that will mean that we can avoid repetitive worn out clichés regarding past alleged disparities when there were no equality or fair employment guidelines or legislation — now we have one of the most tightly regulated and monitored workforces in Europe.

If there is under-representation in such a highly regulated regime — and I will demonstrate that there is — serious questions must be asked and changes made to resolve the problem. The Equality Commission is the statutory agency responsible for overseeing that. The Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 introduced compulsory workforce monitoring, which means that the Equality Commission publishes the annual returns of all public and private sector firms in a document. The current one is entitled ‘Monitoring Report No. 16 A Profile of the Northern Ireland Workforce’.

Some Members have quoted figures for the numbers employed by a particular firm to deflect attention from under-representation — and I note that at least one amendment does so. However, the DUP’s motion draws attention to current recruitment practice.

The SDLP’s amendment also avoids issues relating to recent recruitment. Therefore the DUP will oppose that amendment, but will support the Ulster Unionist Party’s amendment. The overall workforce includes those who were recruited decades ago, many of whom are about to retire. The Equality Commission keeps defending its abysmal record by using the changing patterns of the working-age population and of the workforce to counter the charges made by those of us who represent a community that feels badly let down by current recruitment practices. The Equality Com-mission frequently mentions that those who have retired from the public sector are predominantly Protestant, whereas the breakdown of those being recruited is more of a mix between Protestants and Catholics. However, that misses the point. No one disputes the religious breakdown of those who are retiring, and no allegations have been made about why that is the case. The core of the matter is what is happening at the entrance to, not the exit from, employment.

Slightly more than 50% of the working-age population in Northern Ireland is Protestant. If there is equality of opportunity and an absence of chill factors, there should be a broadly similar ratio of Protestants being recruited to the public sector across Northern Ireland. That brings me to the security-related sector, which employs more than 17,000 people. There was, and remains, a chill factor that was not created by anything that the employers did, but by what the terrorists did. Intimidation of those who want to join the police is the ultimate chill factor.

The DUP looks forward to when those who used to carry out the intimidation, and much worse, hand over those who are now carrying out acts of intimidation and committing other illegal acts. The number of Roman Catholics who are joining the police force is increasing. However, there would be some such increase even if the state did not discriminate against Protestants to achieve it. The under-representation in the security-related field is the fault of violent republicans, not the State.

Despite intimidation, the recruitment picture for Catholics in the security-related field is improving. On the other hand, the recruitment picture for Protestants in the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) is worsening. The figures that I obtained through Parliament several months ago show that only 34·7% of those recruited to NIHE in the past year were Protestants, which is less than the figure for five years ago. That makes the Equality Commission guilty in the eyes of many Protestants. It, and the agencies that preceded it, have concentrated on addressing areas in which Catholics have been under-represented, but where the figures have been steadily improving. They have not done likewise in areas where Protestants have been under-represented.

That under-representation is getting worse. Republican and nationalist public representatives are also guilty of that charge. They have consistently complained that there is an imbalance in the ranks of the Senior Civil Service. They are right; there is. However, recruitment to the Senior Civil Service is rapidly improving, with more Catholics being employed in that small sector of 200 staff.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Molloy] in the Chair)

However, in the general grades in that same Civil Service, there is an under-representation of Protestants that is not improving. That is in a sector of 20,000 employees. Those who build a political platform under the banner of equality draw attention to a section of the Civil Service where 200 people are employed and Catholic under-representation is improving, yet studiously ignore another part that employs 100 times more people and where Protestant under-representation is getting worse. Those people still maintain the banner of equality over their platform. The word “hypocrisy” is best used to describe that platform.

There are a number of other areas, such as the Child Support Agency and a plethora of localised problem areas, where similar situations prevail. Of course, the ineffective and inactive Equality Commission hovers in the background. I do not wish to pursue localised problems at this juncture, although I hope that there will be another opportunity for us to do so in a future debate, if the matter is not resolved in the interim.

The Equality Commission must begin to establish the trends that are occurring in recruitment, report them to Government and put them in the public domain. The commission must then outline an ongoing plan to deal with any significant under-representation that it has uncovered. I hope that all democrats agree that, if there are varying degrees of under-representation, the area where under-representation is getting worse should be tackled before concentrating on the area where under-representation is improving. Logic would seem to drive us to that conclusion.

The facts, and the Equality Commission’s plans to finally deal with those problem areas, should be put in the public domain. Some of us have been highlighting the problems for more than 20 years. The situation has not arisen overnight; it has been in the public domain since the late 1970s, yet the Equality Commission does not seem to want to deal with the facts as it finds them as much as some of us who elaborate on them.

Once the facts and the Equality Commission’s plans to deal with the problems are in the public domain, the wider community can begin to have confidence that the merit principle and equity will be the guiding lights to careers, particularly in the public sector — not the officially sponsored discrimination that currently exists in the police and the unofficial disadvantage in the areas that I have outlined. Those guiding lights will provide the basis on which a public sector in which everyone can have confidence can be built, and to which people in every section of our community believe that they can apply and be confident that they will be recruited on merit.

I beg to move amendment No 1: Leave out from “calls” to “order” and insert:

“welcomes its continuing analysis of trends in recruitment and its work”.

Complaints of religious discrimination in employment, alongside issues such as housing, electoral arrangements and policing, were a recurring theme during the devolved Government at Stormont from 1921 to 1972. It was on many of those issues, and the principles therein, that the SDLP was formed and on which it has fought for equality to be embedded in society over the past 30 years. The SDLP is not embarrassed by equality, but believes in equality for all.

The SDLP welcomes the work of the Equality Commission. Its 2005 monitoring report showed the extent of progress since effective fair employment laws were introduced in the North in 1989 — 21 years after the civil rights movement highlighted systemic discrimination. Thanks to effective fair employment laws and many other reforms, the Catholic share of the monitored workforce is 43%, but a gap still remains, with the Catholic share of the economically active estimated at 45·4% in 2004.

The work of our fair employment laws is not yet finished. Despite progress, we have still not closed the gap between what is and what ought to be. Catholics are still more likely to experience unemployment, with the 2001 census putting that figure at 1·7 times more likely. However, that is an improvement on 1971, when Catholics were 2·5 times more likely to be unemployed. Thankfully, unemployment is reaching record lows. However, that differential must be taken seriously, and the commitment made in the Good Friday Agreement to its elimination must be honoured.

There are serious differentials in economic inactivity, as well as unemployment. Catholics are more likely to be economically inactive — a particular concern when one considers the findings of an excellent report by the Committee on the Administration of Justice that found that there were far more people who were economically inactive, but who would like to work, than there were people who were unemployed.

The gap between what is and what ought to be has not yet been closed. We should not pretend that equality laws alone can close that gap. Tackling differentials in unemployment and economic inactivity requires clear and coherent socio-economic strategies, of which the direct-rule Administration has none.

TSN was the Government’s policy for explicitly reducing differentials, and New TSN retained a heavy emphasis on that effort. However, the Government’s new anti-poverty strategy barely touches on that matter. The Government have no strategy papers on how they intend to realise their commitment to eliminate differentials, as set out in the agreement, and that is another reason for ending direct rule.

Thankfully, the Equality Commission is not so lax and has done good work in its area of responsibility, which is ensuring fair participation in the workforce. The public and private sectors have changed remarkably since the 1980s; both are now far more reflective of the community as a whole in the North. However, more must be done.

Catholics comprise over 30% of the Senior Civil Service — not 5% as it was in 1985 — but that figure is a long way from where it should be. The same problem appears at higher levels in the Civil Service, excluding the Senior Civil Service, even in areas where Catholics are over-represented at lower levels, such as health and education. Catholics remain seriously under-represented in security occupations — at only 12·5%. While the PSNI is making fast progress, other areas such as the Prison Service, which remains almost 90% Protestant, have made none at all.

Mr Campbell referred to the Police Service and the impact of terrorist activity in the past. Nuala O’Loan’s report on the investigation into the death of Raymond McCord was published today, and I did not see any unionist representation at its launch. That shows why many Catholics did not join the police.

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, what is the relevance of Mrs Kelly’s last point to today’s discussion? That goes over my head. The Member should keep to the motion.

I do not accept that that was a point of order. However, I am sure that Mrs Kelly will elaborate.

I did not introduce the issue of why Catholics did not join the RUC. That was the Member who spoke previously, Mr Campbell.

There is an emerging under-representation of Protestants in some parts of the public sector — especially in health and education — and that must also be tackled. The DUP’s motion singles out the public sector. However, future growth will be in the private sector, where Catholics are less well represented. People working in areas such as health and education face voluntary redundancies and are threatened with potential lay-offs as a result of the review of public administration.

That is not to say that under-representation of Protestants in those areas is not serious. However, it would be wrong to single out the public sector and to exclude under-representation of Catholics in many private sector areas.

It is also wrong to suggest that the Equality Commission is not already working on fair participation in the public sector. That is why the SDLP is proposing the amendment; I hope that the DUP will accept it and realise the good work being done by the Equality Commission, instead of occasionally bashing them. Mr Deputy Speaker, I move the amendment.

I beg to move amendment No 2: Leave out all after “recruitment” and insert:

“, both for a substantial period in the public sector and recently in the private sector, in order to establish if appointments have favoured one section of the community and, if necessary, to take and/or recommend appropriate action.”

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I also thank Mr Campbell for accepting the amendment as a composite motion. He complements much of what I have to say.

Page 1, paragraph 3 of the Agreement reached at St Andrews between the two Governments states a commitment:

“for equality and human rights at the heart of the new dispensation in Northern Ireland.”

I often hear Sinn Féin, SDLP and those from the nationalist community referring to the importance of equality. Well, there is a little bit of history surrounding today’s topic of monitoring. One has to go back to the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 to see where the monitoring came from. It came from the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights (SACHR) report of 1987, which said that if there were a belief that there was discrimination, there should be monitoring of applicants or people seeking jobs and monitoring of the overall employment proportion.

That is where the monitoring actually came from: a belief in discrimination. Indeed, not satisfied that discrimination was gone in a sense, the SACHR report of 1997 further proposed more strenuous measures, indeed the strongest in Europe, for any legislative basis for equality.

Indeed, the SACHR report charged the then Fair Employment Commission to draw up benchmarks for the reduction in the unemployment differential to be dealt with. Dolores has mentioned the unemployment differential; that was brought up eight years ago.

So there is the derivation of all the law — 1989 and 1997. When we look at the Equality Commission in the context of those monitoring reports, we see that it has a clear legislative obligation to do what it has not done. It has ducked and weaved and avoided certain responsibilities, as Mr Campbell said.

Schedule 8 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 makes it very clear that the Commission is to have accounts. Those accounts are to include a financial memorandum, which is to include a corporate plan containing measures of performance in achieving its objectives.

Furthermore, schedule 9 of the 1998 Act said that it should be effectively reviewing section 75 of that Act. Article 8 of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, said that it should, as it were, disseminate information about what it was about.

There is a clear legislative responsibility for the Equality Commission to address what is viewed as the central concerns: combating discrimination and providing equality of opportunity. That should be measured by the Equality Commission. The fundamental question is: has it been addressing those concerns? One looks at the monitoring returns, and that narrative really gives the facts in another guise. We get the overall position, but the issues that are seemingly pointed up as a problem are not addressed.

Even the unemployment differential that the SDLP person has just mentioned: eight years ago benchmarks were to be drawn up — none have been drawn up. I note that in the return he forwarded to the latest monitoring round, the Chief Commissioner said that the unemploy­ment differential “is or could be” a measure of the lack of equality of opportunity. He is raising the old chestnut again about the unemployment differential, which we may come back to.

Then there was a fair employment book in May 2004; again the Equality Commission ducked the issue on certain aspects that are in the motion. A group of Scottish economists, DTZ Pieda Consulting, was paid £110,000 to deal with issues of equality of opportunity.

On behalf of my party I made a strong representation to that group. We met for five hours. However, I noticed that in their report the issue addressed by Mr Campbell’s motion had been avoided again. I was misled by the Government on that issue.

Look at the annual report of the Equality Commission for 2004-05, released in February 2006. One reads on page 28 that one of the key strategic objectives of the commission is:

“to combat discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity”.

However, in the body of the report there is no indication as to whether discrimination has been combated. The statistics that are available are not used to assess that issue.

The commission’s latest report was produced in November 2006. It might be called the “traffic light” report. It is good; I commend it. Against each performance measure it has a green, amber or red light: green if the target has been met, amber if it has been partially met and red if it has not been met at all. Where does the first red light come up as you flick through the book? It comes up at the statement that the Equality Commission has not been able to establish new performance measures to determine whether there has been discrimination or equality of opportunity.

That brings me to the commission’s annual monitoring report. It is important to take note of the data. The report states that the proportion of Roman Catholic appointees is greater than the Roman Catholic proportion of the employee workforce — as it should be. However, it is cautious about the fundamental point that I wish to address: comparing the proportion of applicants with the proportion of appointees. The Equality Commission, the Government, the research agencies and anything else that I have had contact with resolutely refuse to address that. It is the elephant in the room that is being ignored.

The commission says that caution is required because there is overlap between applicants and appointees. One might apply for a job this year, but not be appointed until next year. However, even if that applies to a large amount of people, the point is not statistically relevant.

The problem is that we have a lot of legislation and much rhetoric as to whether there is equality of opportunity or discrimination. In the debate last week there was much talk of disadvantage. Research shows that a key indicator of disadvantage is whether the subject has a job. An important way of getting work is to apply for a job and be successful. However, if you apply, are you appointed?

Comparing the number of applicants with the number of appointments is fundamental to determining whether there is equality of opportunity, yet it is not done. Members who sat on the Committee on the Preparation for Government know that I have put before the SDLP and Sinn Féin a document that explains that. I have asked to meet them, but I have still to receive a response.

The data shows that, generally speaking, for eight out of the last 10 years a greater proportion of Roman Catholics were appointed in the public sector than one might expect from the number of applicants. That can be demonstrated statistically, using a model provided by the Civil Service. Even more striking and important is the fact that, in the last two years, the private sector has also seen a greater proportion of Catholics appointed than one might expect. In other words there is a clear trend.

I do not say that there is discrimination. Indeed, the answer might be that the Catholics are better qualified than the Protestants and should therefore get the jobs. However, where trends are identified in data, they should be examined. Over eight of the past 10 years in the public sector, and over the past two years in the private sector, the trends show that more Catholics have been appointed than would have been expected. In other words, there is a favourable disposition towards one side of the community as compared with another. My amendment seeks to address that situation — and nothing more than that.

I beg to move amendment No 3: Leave out from “particulary” to “sector” and insert:

“and overall composition across all levels and grades in both the public and private sectors”

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Tá mé ag dul a labhairt ar son an leasaithe.

Ar dtús báire, gabhaim buíochas leis an DUP as ucht an díospóireacht thábhachtach seo a thabhairt chun tosaigh: déileálann sí ní amháin leis an chomhionannas ach leis an Choimisiún Comhionannais.

B’fhéidir go gcloisfimid ón DUP i rith dhíospóireacht an lae inniu tiomantas — nó rún fiú amháin — cumhacht a roinnt le náisiúnaithe agus le poblachtanaigh ar bhonn comhionannais. B’fhéidir go gcloisfimid aontachtaithe ag admháil gur cuireadh na sé Chontae ar bun mar stát Prostastúnach do mhuintir Phrotastúnach agus gur cothaíodh an stát sin trí leatrom córasch i gcoinne Caitliceach, agus go háirithe i gcoinne náisiúnaithe.

I thank the Members opposite for the equality that they have shown to the native language of Ireland. [Interruption.] Does the Member wish to make a point?

It is already made.

I thank the DUP for tabling the motion on equality and the Equality Commission. Perhaps during the course of the debate we will hear a commitment and an intention from the DUP to share power with nationalists and republicans on the basis of equality. Perhaps we will hear an acceptance and an acknowledgement from unionists that the Six Counties were developed as a Protestant state for a Protestant people; that they were built and maintained by systematic discrimination against Catholics —

May I make a point of order?

Order. A number of requests have been made to Madam Speaker in relation to order in the Chamber when Members are speaking, and particularly when female Members are speaking. Everyone will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate, and all are entitled to be listened to. I ask Members to listen to the speeches and make their comments while maintaining good order in the Chamber.

Perhaps we will reach agreement on a comprehensive anti-poverty strategy that targets resources and intervenes positively and proactively for the most vulnerable in society, based on objective need, and objective need alone. Then again, perhaps anti-agreement unionism is still unable and unwilling to accept responsibility for discrimination.

We all need to show political leadership, and that means empowering communities — all communities, whether they are working-class communities on the Shankill, the Falls, Derry, Downpatrick or Kilkeel. However, my concern about the narrowness of the DUP’s motion is not that they have been converted to the equality agenda, or, indeed, to any belief in the need for greater resources and powers for the Equality Commission. My concern is that the motivation for the narrowness of the motion is sectarian in itself.

If the party opposite is so concerned about equality and has become converted to it, will the Member tell the House what equality there was in the murderous campaign that the IRA, in its 2005 statement, said was entirely legitimate? A Member from her party said that the murder of Jean McConville was not a criminal act. Where was the equality in those instances?

I was going to say that we had started a direct dialogue, but I will continue with the debate. [Interruption.]

Answer the question.

It is part of a broader attempt to turn the situation on its head.

It is also a rejection of the unemployment differential, which highlights the deep-seated and ongoing employ­ment differences that exist between the communities. That statistic has remained pretty much unchanged, despite decades of fair employment legislation.

However, in order to ensure equality, it is necessary that a fuller investigation takes place, not just of all levels and grades of the public sector, but of the overall composition of the private-sector workforce. That should include an investigation of its recruitment process, promotions and salaries. It is important that we investigate and analyse more deeply all sectors instead of concentrating on recruitment. That will enable us to identify the problems clearly, and, hopefully, we can respond proactively to tackle them.

Child poverty was mentioned earlier, but I thank Sammy Wilson for giving us some particularly important information on it — go raibh maith agat, a Shammy; maith thú. A parliamentary question that Sammy Wilson asked revealed that, in the North, in the year ending 2005, 40,800 Protestant children, 60,600 Catholic children and 5,900 children from other religious backgrounds were experiencing poverty. Those figures add up to over 100,000 children. It is interesting to note that in 2004, comparable statistics revealed that 41,300 Protestant children, 58,500 Catholic children and 5,100 children from other religious backgrounds were experiencing poverty. Therefore in 2004-05 the number of Protestant children who were experiencing poverty decreased while there was an increase in the number of Catholic children and those from other religious backgrounds who were living with poverty. No one should want to play politics with poverty, not least with child poverty. That is the reason that it is valid to argue for a wider, proper and non-sectarian investigation into the composition of the workforce.

Sinn Féin welcomes the reduction in poverty that Protestant children have experienced. No child should live in poverty. Our job is to eradicate it from this island for good. We need to eradicate poverty from the life of every child, not just some children. Indeed, if the Members on the opposite Benches reject this amendment, on some level that is tantamount to their saying that, as unionists, they are afraid to share power that is based on equality. Sinn Féin has been at the forefront of the challenge to eradicate all forms of discrimination since the foundation of the Northern statelet. The days when Catholics were denied the right to vote, to housing and to employment are over. There can be no more second-class citizens. I know that some unionists in the Chamber want to use the politics of fear against their own people. However, I make it clear that Sinn Féin and republicans have no desire to do to unionists what the unionist establishment did to us.

Although people’s lives have changed — [Interruption.]

Order.

Although people’s lives have changed as a result of the peace process, there is still a considerable distance to travel and a number of barriers to overcome before equality can be achieved. At the heart of Sinn Féin’s commitment to equality is the belief that poverty, discrimination and marginalisation must be challenged and eradicated. That is why we put an effective anti-poverty strategy that is based on objective need at the heart of our recent negotiations in St Andrews. The problem of discrimination against Irish nationalists and Catholics in the North of Ireland has not gone away. It demands affirmative action. Disadvantage must be identified, and resources must be directed to reduce it that so that people experience equality. There must also be recognition of the fact that particular groups suffer as a result of structural and endemic inequalities that arise as a result of the nature of their society.

The benchmark of the success of anti-discrimination legislation is the difference that it makes to people’s lives. We are a long way from achieving an end to the discrimination from which many sectors of our society suffer; we are a long way from achieving equality of opportunity and outcome. In essence, the problem still remains: the Northern state was founded on and maintained by inequality and discrimination. More than 35 years after the civil rights movement launched its campaign to highlight the nature of the state’s structural discrimination in housing, voting and jobs, those issues remain at the core of sustained inequalities, which, in the main, continue to detrimentally affect the nationalist community.

Thirty-five years on, according to the latest statistics, nationalists are more likely to suffer from poverty; less likely to be in employment; more likely to be unemployed; more likely to be among the long-term unemployed; at greater risk of living in lower-income households; and at greater risk of experiencing multiple deprivation. There are a greater number of Catholics on housing waiting lists, and Catholics — [Interruption.]

There is no need to be a misogynist. Equality for women is part of the equality agenda; perhaps it would be good for the DUP to learn that.

Catholics will also spend on average one and a half times as long on the housing list as Protestants.

We just need to look at high-level strategies and inward investment. In key areas of Government policy the failure to make equality the benchmark means that inequality continues. There is a great imbalance in assistance within Belfast, west of the Bann and in border areas.

Please draw your remarks to a close.

Over the past few months I have listened to excuse after excuse about how high-level policies cannot be equality-impact assessed and been told in the most patronising way that the programmes that come out of the strategies are equality-impact assessed. Frankly, we find that insulting. Let us test the DUP’s new-found selective concern about equality.

Time is up. I am sorry about all of those interruptions, but that is the situation.

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was rather surprised at the remarks you made about the House not giving fair play to females. As the leader of the largest party in the House, I would like to know who made that objection and where the evidence is for it.

A number of the Whips, including from the Member’s party, put forward objections to the Speaker about order in the Chamber. Madam Speaker asked for co-operation from the Whips to ensure that there would be good order and proper decorum in relation to Members speaking in the Chamber.

Further to that point of order. When I brought this matter to the attention of the House, I was referring to the fact that Members opposite were on their feet when Madam Speaker was addressing the House. As a matter of fact, the point raised this morning related to Mr McElduff — who was never a female Member. I repudiate the idea that there are constant attacks whenever female Members are speaking.

The matter discussed by the Business Committee related to all Members, and to female Members in particular, who tend to come under particular attack from some Members in the Chamber. Good order in the Chamber applies to all Members.

Further to that point of order. Is it not the case in this debate that the only Members who have spoken against the motion have been female? No male Members have been speaking against the motion so far.

That does not make it right.

So it is OK to barrack males and not females?

Order. Members from all parties will be speaking in the debate. I ask for respect for all Members, regardless of which party they come from or whether they are male or female.

Further to that point of order. As the matter was discussed outside the House, will the Deputy Speaker talk to Madam Speaker and ask her to inform Members as to what took place? Members are entitled to be informed about the matter in the House, not when some other Member does not like the asides that are being made to her.

The matter will be discussed through the usual channels. The Business Committee will discuss the matter further tomorrow or on Wednesday.

I look forward to having the same protection that you afforded to the Member who has just finished her speech, Mr Deputy Speaker. I find it very difficult to take lectures from Sinn Féin about equality, when, at the age of eight, I was forced out of my home by republican terrorism. We have heard a lot today about a Protestant state for a Protestant people. Of course, that is contextualised by the fact that at the same time there was a Catholic state for a Catholic people in the Republic of Ireland, and we know from our Protestant colleagues across the border what they suffered throughout the years.

I want to respond to a point that was made by the SDLP Member for Upper Bann. She told the House that 45% of the workforce is Roman Catholic, and I take her word for that. However, perhaps she could explain why, in the past year, 51·8% of those appointed to the Northern Ireland Civil Service were Roman Catholics, along with 49·3% to the Child Support Agency and 55·3% to the Housing Executive? Those are startling figures, which indicate to me that there are huge difficulties in this area, especially in relation to the Equality Commission.

Although this is a separate issue, this point must go on record: the Equality Commission takes on cases and drops them at the last hurdle. Many people who come to our offices have had cases taken up by the Equality Commission and have been left hanging at the end of the process.

Some Members have referred to public sector bodies west of the Bann. I only wish that they would look at the statistics for Protestants in those bodies. They would see that the numbers are at a low ebb, especially in the health sector.

Recently, a number of my constituents have come to me for advice on systematic harassment and bullying in a public body west of the Bann. If they take their concerns through the appropriate channels, the bully boys in that organisation target them even more on a sectarian basis. Several of my colleagues have been approached by their constituents also. Indeed, some of those who have come to us have suffered ill health, and, unfortunately, in one case, a gentleman endured a breakdown.

Where should these people go? They are not listened to internally by the public body or, indeed, by the Equality Commission, and the reason given is that they need witnesses. Often, however, discrimination is insidious and hidden and carried out purposely when no one else is around. When one person complains, I take notice. When two people come to me from the same public authority, I wonder whether something is going on. However, when 10 people come to my office, with complaints of harassment and bullying about one Government agency based in one area, I have to say: “res ipsa loquitur” — the facts speak for themselves.

In cases such as this, the composite nature of the complaints should start alarm bells ringing in Govern­ment and, especially, in the Equality Commission, which has a statutory duty to promote good relations. Even if the Equality Commission does not accept the cases that I have mentioned as being discrimination, it has a statutory function to promote good relations and it is not doing so. In addition, the monitoring returns that go to the Equality Commission do not show why people leave employment. Quite a few people, I would say, leave employment because they are pushed out.

Over the past year, while looking into this issue, I have seen many equality strategies. However, if they are not implemented throughout that organisation, they are not worth the paper on which they are written. Indeed, many cases that have been brought to me state that the job criteria were written to favour one person in particular, and there is nothing that Protestants can do about that when they do not get the jobs.

I want to end by referring to the comments — and I have a right to respond to comments — that the SDLP Member for Upper Bann made about “the former RUC”, as she called it. She made sweeping remarks about collusion. Of course, the SDLP would say that collusion took place: Nuala O’Loan has said that it did, and anything that she has to say is all right.

The SDLP Member for Upper Bann has perpetuated the nationalist myth of systemic collusion. If there is evidence about individual officers committing illegal acts, let us have their names; let us have them prosecuted. Members should be certain that the RUC officers who worked tirelessly over the years do not wish the name of the RUC to be brought down to the gutter by the actions of a couple of officers. If their names are known, let us have them. However, she does not have an evidential basis for making those remarks. They are allegations, and she should acknowledge that.

Some Members:

Hear, hear.

A LeasCheann Comhairle, I support amendment No 3. Its purpose is to ensure, first, that investigation into employment trends is not restricted to the public sector but includes the private sector, and, secondly, that monitoring considers overall staff composition not only at recruitment stage but takes account of promotions and salaries.

The sixteenth Fair Employment Monitoring Report’s analysis of monitoring returns submitted by 121 public bodies and 4,117 private-sector employers found that the monitored workforce totalled almost 518,000 in 2005. That is an increase of 22,000 from 2004. The composition of the monitored workforce was 57% Protestant and 43% Catholic. The number of Protestant and Catholic employees increased overall, with an increase of 0·7% in the Roman Catholic share of the monitored workforce. Private-sector employment levels rose by 5·2% during 2005.

From statistical evidence that has been produced over the years, we all know that the continuing decline in the manufacturing industry has affected Protestants notably. Evidence also shows that public-sector employ­ment rose by 3·2% and that the Catholic share in that sector grew by 0·7%. The part-time workforce increased by 7·2%, and females accounted for 51·8% of all mon­itored employees. A comparison of the same sections of the monitored workforce in 1990 and 2005 shows that the Catholic share has increased by a mere 7·3%.

Looking at the public sector alone, its recruitment stage is working reasonably well, but many problems remain with its composition, largely as a result of the legacy of previous practices. For example, the latest monitoring report shows that only 9·5% of staff in Castlereagh Borough Council are Catholic.

It is strange that the DUP focuses on recruitment in the public sector, given that, of 24,557 public-sector appointments that were made in 2005, there was a fall of 5·5% on the figures for 2004. The number of Protestant appointees dropped by 6%, while the number of Catholic appointees dropped by 6·7%. Those factors led to an increase of 0·1% in the Protestant share of public-sector appointments to 50·2% overall.

Between 2004 and 2005, overall full-time public-sector employment rose by 2·5% from 156,841 to 160,737, which is an increase of 3,896 employees. That new total consists of 86,669 Protestants, 66,273 Catholics and 7,795 employees of non-determined community. The community composition of full-time public-sector employees, excluding those who were non-determined, was 56·7% Protestant and 43·3% Roman Catholic. In 1990, Roman Catholic full-time representation was 35·3%.

The public sector comprises five main sectors: health, which employs 34·9% of all public-sector full-time employees; the Civil Service, which employs 25·6%; the education sector employs 14%; security-related employment accounts for 10·2%; and district councils employ 5·7%. Sinn Féin wants a broader investigation that will consider all sectors, not only the public sector and recruitment. Such an overall investigation should include promotions, for example.

In the private sector, only those companies with 251 or more employees are monitored for promotion statistics. A total of 3,530 monitored employees were promoted in 2005, representing an increase of 13·7% on 2004. Of those, 57·2% were Protestant and 42·8% were Catholic. In the overall workforce, there was a net rise of 2·4% in the number of monitored Protestant employees; among Roman Catholics, the net increase was 5·5%. Combined, those factors produce a 0·7% increase in the Roman Catholic share from 42·3% in 2004 to 43% in 2005.

I support amendment No 3, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

I was expecting a few more contributions before my own, but I accept that as there are several amendments, three or four people will be making winding-up speeches, so time is short.

The proposer of the motion started his contribution to the debate by saying — and I paraphrase — that he hoped that the debate would not turn into a counter-argument on discrimination, that parties would not fight their own corners or throw figures back and forth at one another about who was discriminated against. Lo and behold, he then entered into a raft of allegations of discrimination against the Protestant community.

Are they not true?

I am not denying that any of the allegations are true. I am saying that perhaps the debate today should be about whether we can agree that discrimination is wrong, regardless of what quarter it comes from. The DUP and the Ulster Unionist Party will have to remember that they opposed every piece of legislation that was fought for down the years, largely by the nationalist community.

At one stage, youse claimed that discrimination did not take place in this part of Ireland — but you meant that discrimination against the nationalist community did not take place. Now you have realised that there may be some discrimination against the Protestant community, and you are demanding that that be rectified. Youse are absolutely right, but where youse miss out on your argument is —

On a point of order. Every time that the Member refers to “you” and, as he puts it, “youse”, he is of course referring to the Chair. I do not know whether the Chair agrees with his allegations. Certainly, however, the Member should be corrected.

I remind the Member to address his remarks through the Chair.

I am always keen to learn something from Nigel Dodds. His opinion is always of value to me, as I am sure it is to the DUP executive.

Those on the Benches opposite, and their forefathers etc, opposed all anti-discrimination legislation and continued to do so right up until this summer, in the Preparation for Government Committee. When that Committee was discussing equality, discrimination, etc, Sinn Féin put forward several proposals to enhance the powers of the Equality Commission, which may have actually helped in relation to the cases Arlene Foster mentioned earlier. Each proposal was met with a resounding no from the DUP. How does the DUP propose to ensure that discrimination, no matter by whom, and upon whom, it is inflicted, is eradicated? As each demand comes forward from those involved in equality and anti-discrimination work, the DUP says no. I know that it is the party’s favourite word, but if it wants to end discrimination, it must adopt those measures. Sinn Féin — [Interruption.]

I am coming to policing, trust me. [Laughter.]I would not have risen, a LeasCheann Comhairle, if I was not going to speak about it. Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

Last week, in the Chamber, we debated under-attainment in education, and some Members opposite referred to statistics, such as 27% of young Protestant males leaving school without any qualifications — or perhaps with only one. If Gregory Campbell’s figures are correct for people entering the public sector, they speak volumes about why we cannot ensure that young Protestant people are coming up through public organ­isations. That day, some Members from the Benches opposite referred to the need for an independent report into why that was the case. Surely this is again an example of why we need an independent report.

Sinn Féin is prepared to work with the DUP and the other parties in the Chamber to eradicate discrimination from the face of society. Everyone should have the right to go forward and earn a living in their respective places of work. There is no point in simply saying no to every amendment or proposal that a political party makes to enhance the powers of the Equality Commission, the setting up of which the DUP also opposed. It opposed section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 too.

No matter how many times we have explained that section 75 and the equality legislation is a double-edged sword and that the DUP should promote its use by its own community, that party still opposes it.

The Member is going back into history. During a debate in this House in the old Stormont, it was the Democratic Unionist Party that fought for the Mater Hospital. To come more up to date, in this Assembly, it was the DUP that got a special debate in order that we might put the view that there must be fairness for all and not just for one section of the community. The Member, however, has condemned that and said that we have never done anything of the sort.

I welcome the contribution from Dr Paisley. I have not at any stage in this debate accused any of the unionist parties of blanket discrimination. What I am saying is that they have always opposed any anti-discrimination measures that have been introduced, from the civil rights movement onwards. I have no doubt that in certain cases there is discrimination against the Protestant and unionist community, and I condemn that. However, if the legislation is not in place to correct that, how do the Members opposite propose that we remove discrimination from society? Proposals put forward by Sinn Féin in the Preparation for Government Committee last summer were met with a resounding no.

In earlier remarks, a LeasCheann Comhairle — and, as this is a winding-up speech, I would like some time to address these points — about policing and the reasons that Catholics did not join the old RUC, the adage came up that they did not join because of armed actions by the IRA. It would be more the case that they did not join the RUC because they had no wish to be associated with their oppressors. If that were taken on board, the reality of the situation would become clear. Nuala O’Loan’s report today outlines why young nationalists and republicans would not wish to be involved.

We have heard from the Benches opposite, a LeasCheann Comhairle, about the need for Sinn Féin to support the structures of law and order. To the best of my knowledge, the Ombudsman’s Office is such a structure, but today every unionist politician who mentioned the publication of the report condemned it as a vindictive campaign by Mrs O’Loan. I would have thought that it would have been the duty of the defenders of law and order on the opposite Benches to demand that the truth of the allegations contained in Nuala O’Loan’s report be brought before a judicial system and that those guilty of the heinous crimes referred to in the report be dealt with properly. [Interruption.]

A LeasCheann Comhairle, I hope that they do ask for it. I have been listening to the radio all morning as I was preparing other work, and I have yet to hear any unionist politicians say that. That is why it is so difficult for republicans to take lectures from them on law and order; they are not qualified to give the lecture.

The Ombudsman admits that she does not have the evidence, yet the hon Gentleman is trying to say that we should be blamed for that. That is not fair play; that is pure acceptance of one person’s statement. Does the hon Gentleman not believe that people who make allegations should be asked to prove them?

The reason that Mrs O’Loan does not have the full evidence available to her is that the evidence against those who committed crimes was systematically destroyed.

I am grateful to both Members for their contributions. I hope that Dr Paisley remembers the remarks that he has directed at me in the Chamber. Many allegations have been levelled at Sinn Féin without any evidence. What about those in the RUC and the PSNI who have destroyed evidence and obstructed the course of justice? I am not a lawyer, but I know that there are a number of barristers on the opposite Benches, and, as far as I am aware, obstruction of justice is a crime.

Does Dr Paisley support Raymond McCord’s call for an independent inquiry, given the shameful way that he has been treated?

If we can come out of the Chamber today agreeing on one thing — that we are all opposed to discrimination — the next move is to go forward collectively and put in place proper legislation to remove discrimination.

I try to base my comments on evidence rather than emotion — on what the data say or do not say. I will comment on what Members have said, primarily those from Sinn Féin and the SDLP.

Mrs Kelly said that the gap between those available to work and those in work is greater than ever. I ask the SDLP spokesperson to read the footnote on page 3 of the Equality Commission’s ‘Fair Employment Monitoring Report No. 16 - A Profile of the Northern Ireland Workforce’, which states clearly that such comparisons cannot be made. They are not made on the same basis. If one is to make any comparison at all, it is between long-term trends, and we find that Government policy has had no effect on those gaps.

Mrs Kelly said, as did Ms Ruane, that we are singling out the public sector. However, my amendment to the DUP motion includes both the private and public sectors.

Caitríona Ruane spoke about a Protestant Parliament for a Protestant People. I noted Arlene Foster’s remark on the issue, but let me be precise about that quotation. The comment was initially made in Southern Ireland, and when it was made in Northern Ireland it did not include the word “for”. The comment was that just as there was a Catholic Parliament and a Catholic people, there was also a Protestant Parliament and a Protestant people in Northern Ireland.

It should be quoted verbatim in context and not used tritely, misquoted and misrepresented to imply somehow a slight that was not made at the time.

Ms Ruane also spoke about the non-acceptance of discrimination, and she said that we had a long way to go. I have never denied that there was discrimination. Evidence shows that there was discrimination on both sides in Northern Ireland; however, I look for evidence of whether it is still present. Ms Ruane said that we are a long way from achieving an end to discrimination. She should look at the Equality Commission’s book ‘Fair Employment in Northern Ireland: A Generation On’, especially the chapter on social mobility. When the figures were subjected to critical path analysis the conclusion was — and the book describes it as one of the most significant conclusions — that there was no direct reference to religion as a factor.

In other words, in 1996-97, religion had no direct bearing on appointments and promotions. Indirect factors could include a person’s father, mother, grandfather, grandmother and number of siblings. The number of siblings affects the years of education, which affects qualifications, which in turn affects whether or not a person can get a job.

Proper analysis does not show that there was discrimination in 1996-97, at the very time when the Secretary of State was talking about combating discrimination. In 1998, legislation was introduced that was stricter than any in Europe.

I do not demur from the legislation; there is a benefit to it in that it ensures that discrimination does not occur. However, let our arguments be based on evidence. Where is the evidence that endemic or systemic discrimination existed when that legislation was introduced in the 1990s? It does not exist.

In the same breath, I do not deny that individual cases of discrimination occur. On average, four to six such cases are brought to tribunal every year on religious grounds by Catholics and Protestants and on grounds of gender. However, those figures should be put in context and the actual evidence of proven discrimination upheld by tribunals should be considered. Members must therefore be careful when saying that achieving the elimination of discrimination is a long way off.

I must also add that, yes, disadvantage exists. I do not doubt that; nor do I doubt that unemployment is a measure of disadvantage. Disadvantage can occur for many reasons. However, disadvantage and discrim­ination are two entirely different elements in the labour market and should not be confused.

I note Ms Stanton’s points about the fall in the numbers of Protestant applicants and how numbers of Catholic applicants fell further, resulting in a change of 0·7% in the Catholic share of the workforce. That may be true, but it is not the comparison to make. Instead, we should consider that if 40% of applicants are from one section of the community, with other things being equal, one would expect a similar proportion of appointees from that side of the community. However, agencies have refused to examine that issue.

Mr O’Dowd said that unionists opposed every piece of legislation. I do not oppose equality legislation. Mr O’Dowd also said that there was a whole raft of allegations about discrimination against the Protestant community. I assure Mr O’Dowd that I did not use the word “discrimination”. In fact, I was careful to say that the difference between the proportion of applicants and the proportion of appointees does not mean that there is discrimination. The Hansard report will show that I also said that it may be that Catholics are better qualified than Protestants, perhaps because Protestants go abroad for their university education and do not come back.

There are many reasons to explain the disparity between the proportion of applicants and the proportion of appointees. However, I have never said in this Chamber, or in anything that I have written, that this is discrimination, so do not lambaste unionists and say that we go on about discrimination against the Protestant community.

I certainly would not lambaste any elected representative for going on about discrimination against anyone. My closing remark was that if dis­crimination exists, let us work together to eradicate it.

I shall quote the Member’s remarks ver­batim. He said that there has been:

“a raft of allegations of discrimination against the Protestant community”.

That was the accusation that he levelled at those from this side of the House. I rebut that accusation because there is no evidence that I have ever made such an allegation.

All that we have done, and all that I have tried to do, has been based on evidence. I produced documentation on this issue and invited the SDLP and Sinn Féin to discuss it with me during the summer. My invitation was genuine, but no one responded. I note — and the Hansard report will show — that Sinn Féin said that its representatives were on holiday at the time, but that they would respond on their return. I understand that Caitríona Ruane was on holiday at the time; she has obviously returned, but I have not yet had that dialogue in order to explain my comments on this matter. No response came from either of the two parties sitting to my right.

I make a genuine request: all that I ask is that the apparent disparity between applicants and appointees be examined, so that we can understand why it exists and the Equality Commission can make recommend­ations or take action to address any disparity. That is not an unreasonable request.

My final comment — and it is very contemporaneous — is that Saturday 20 January 2007 was the closing date for responses to the Council of Europe document on minorities.

The Council of Europe is a body to which we all pay respect. It is the home of the European Convention on Human Rights. The United Kingdom Government were asked for their comments on fair employment in the report, to which they are legally obliged to respond. However, they said that the report has no relevance — yet another example of ducking out of a response. That is my main concern. I ask that the amendment be accepted because I seek a response from the Equality Commission to a genuine trend that must be addressed. Until that happens, the answers to the questions that I have posed will not be known.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have been sitting here for some time trying to get something positive from the debate. Perhaps the fact that the DUP and Sinn Féin talked to each other directly across the Floor was good news, even if it was at some disrespect to you. I am glad that you gave them the latitude to do that. Perhaps that is as much as can be said.

I want to take the opportunity in making my winding­up speech to pay tribute to the Equality Commission.

I want to clarify that a Member had asked another Member to give way, and that caused an altercation to ensue between the two parties.

I did not intend to show you any disrespect, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I am sure that Lord Morrow will forgive me and that behaviour is better in the upper House than it has been here this afternoon. — [Interruption.]

Another Member is showing disrespect to the Deputy Speaker, and he must stop.

I want to pay tribute to the Equality Commission. I will divulge a little personal business. One aspect of the Equality Commission’s work relates to land and property. It is three years since I tried to acquire a constituency office in Limavady. The Equality Commission had to go to court last Thursday in order to get the names of the objectors. On a personal basis, therefore, I know a little about what happens. Indeed, while I was sitting here during the crescendos I had flashbacks to my childhood when my father found it extremely difficult to get steady employment. If it had not been for the building of the M2, which went towards Ballymena rather than Derry, he would not have had any long-term employment at all.

Thanks must be given to those people in the Equality Commission who are responsible for monitoring statistics. That is important. It is true that the number of Catholics who are appointed is slightly higher than the percentage of those who apply. That also takes me back. I have had loads of opportunities to reminisce this afternoon. I bought my first new car with great pride. I bought it on the basis that sales had gone up 300% in the previous year. I then discovered that the number of sales the previous year had been 24, which meant that it had gone up to 72. If there are higher percentages of Catholics achieving employment, it is because they are starting from a low base.

Unemployment differentials can be dealt with by targeting areas of high unemployment. Contrary to some theories, the differential is not some magic constant. It has fallen since 1971. However, it has not fallen quickly enough. If Members are to leave the Chamber next week, I hope that they will go into an election that is based not on naked sectarianism but on a desire and a will to lead this part of Ireland out of the dark ages of the last three decades, and to focus on and promote equality not just between Catholics and Protestants, but between male and female and all other categories.

When the new Assembly is restored on 26 March, I hope that it makes full use of the Equality Commission to ensure that all its decisions are based on the principle of equality. I do not believe that there is anyone out there who would complain about that.

Chill factors that dissuade applications remain, and that may explain why some people are under-represented. From personal experience, that is true in local government, where unionist-controlled councils have been reluctant to carry welcoming statements where there is an under-representation of Catholics. That is disappointing.

Looking positively to the future, each Member has a role to ensure that equality in all its forms is paramount. To do that effectively, we need the Equality Commission. It is needed to monitor trends, identify issues and offer advice and solutions. That poses no threat to anyone. The Equality Commission helps to underpin democracy and is one of the cornerstones of a new society that all sensible people have been crying out for during the past, dark ages.

I make a personal appeal to our unionist colleagues opposite. For God’s sake, stop trying to undermine your own people and telling them that they have failed. Encourage them to stay at home, because that is one way to ensure that representation of the Protestant community becomes higher than it is. The best brains have left. Sensing hopelessness, they have gone to university across the water and have not returned. We need those people to come back to join their Catholic counterparts, and others, to ensure that, once the next couple of weeks are over, we have a new image and a new era in which the tribal remarks that were heard today are a thing of the past. I have confidence that we can do that, and I hope that we are successful.

(Madam Speaker in the Chair)

This is a useful debate because equality is an important issue. I am glad that Members have ‘Monitoring Report No. 16: A Profile of the Northern Ireland Workforce (2006)’ from the Equality Commission. The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland’s ‘Annual Report 2005-06’ has also been received. It is only when one has the facts that a situation can be analysed sensibly.

My colleague Gregory Campbell mentioned the public sector. It is important that some time is spent on that. One of the best examples of the public sector is the Housing Executive, which, with 3,532 staff, is a major employer in Northern Ireland. In its workforce, not only are people from the Protestant community under-represented, but when the number of recruits that have been appointed in the past year is examined, the situation is exacerbated. Mr Campbell stated that 34·7% of recruits were Protestant. That is lower than the 47·7% in the current staff. Therefore, over the past year, the situation in the Housing Executive has deteriorated. That is also true for a number of other bodies in the public sector.

Mrs Kelly and Mr John O’Dowd commented on the under-representation of Catholics in the security forces. It is true that there is an under-representation, although that does not seem to have prevented members of Sinn Féin from seeking employment with MI5.

Spooks, spooks.

Yes, they are well qualified for that sort of thing.

Several Members have referred to the main reason for that under-representation. For years, the party that is represented across the Chamber had a military wing that carried out a terrorist campaign against members of those security forces. It is no wonder that people from the community that they represent did not want to join: if they had, they would probably have been murdered.

I am grateful to Dermot Nesbitt for the points that he made about some of the more technical aspects of the equality legislation, how it is implemented and its failures and shortcomings. He is right to say that it is not sufficient to produce reports and facts; we need action.

I am grateful also for his comments about Caitríona Ruane’s repetition. Once again, she talked about a Protestant Parliament for a Protestant people, and she continued by saying that this was a state that was founded on discrimination. I must say that Caitríona Ruane does not disappoint. She will always resort to type and rehearse the traditional republican rhetoric.

I think that I am right to say that Ms Ruane comes from Mayo. If one were to think about discrimination, what county would come more to mind than County Mayo? The Mayo library case has gone down in the history of this island. The case was taken because the entire Mayo community — with the exception of the Protestants — deemed it to be totally inappropriate and impossible to have a member of the Protestant com­munity employed as a librarian there, because she might give out books that would corrupt the good, upright, properly reared Catholic people of County Mayo. In the end, the poor woman had to be removed from her job in Mayo and given a job in a back room somewhere in Dublin, well away from the good people of County Mayo.

I remember listening to Ms Ruane on the radio telling us that she had never known discrimination until she came to Northern Ireland. Obviously, the events in County Mayo, where the political and public communities agreed with the council’s decision not to appoint a Protestant librarian, have slipped her mind. The people in County Mayo even went so far as to say that it would be inappropriate for them to have a Protestant doctor, because he or she might do things and provide services that were inappropriate for the good Catholic people of County Mayo.

Do you mean heal people?

Do what things?

That would be too much information, I think.

Order.

It is time that Sinn Féin, nationalists and republicans woke up to the fact that there were serious flaws in the Republic of Ireland.

Some Members:

There still are.

Indeed there are. However, Sinn Féin, nationalists and republicans can focus only on the constant justification that they seek for their allegations of discrimination in Northern Ireland.

It seems that the Members opposite are insinuating that discrimination in the Irish Republic is a thing of the past. The Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB) recently published a study entitled ‘Border Protestant Perspectives’. It states that somewhere in the region of 30% to 35% of Protestants in the border counties of the Irish Republic were discriminated against or felt intimidated, and that remains the case.

I am grateful to my colleague for those comments. A couple of years ago, I attended a conference in Monaghan where a person from a Catholic background, who is prominent in peace and recon­ciliation work in that area, told me that closet sectarianism was a big problem down there. He said that it was not out in the open and that it was not necessarily talked about, but he acknowledged that there continued to be closet sectarianism at the heart of that community. Interestingly, it was not I or someone from the Protestant community in the Republic who said that; it was somebody from a Catholic, nationalist background who endorsed what Mr Storey just mentioned.

Arlene Foster mentioned the situation west of the Bann, and rightly so. That is an important issue that should not be ignored. However, in my remaining time, I want to consider sectors other than the public sector, because we have spent some time on that already.

It is always good to start at home, so I want to refer to the Equality Commission in particular.

Its 2005-06 annual report states:

“The Commission completed its own Article 55 report this year. Although the report demonstrated some improvement in applicant numbers from the Protestant community, the representation of Protestants in our workplace fell over the review period.”

If Members look in detail at the Equality Commission’s figures, one report states that 40·7% of its workforce is Protestant and almost 60% is Roman Catholic. However, if one looks at the 2005-06 annual report, the table in appendix 2 on page 59 tells us that 35% of its staff is Protestant.

Will the Member give way?

I will give way as soon as I complete the figures. According to the report, out of a staff of 140, 57·1% is Roman Catholic and the religion of 7·9% cannot be determined. It is a serious issue that Protestants are under-represented in the very organisation that is tasked with dealing with equality in recruitment. The Equality Commission is an organisation that is supposed to promote affirmative action and work to eliminate discrimination, yet it cannot get it right in its own house.

None of us disputes the Equality Commission’s staffing figures — it has been up front about them.

Can the Member tell me how the DUP plans to encourage people from its community to apply for jobs in the Equality Commission?

I am happy to respond that I had folk in my office recently who were querying the fact that, having applied for a job in the Equality Commission, they found that their applications had been turned down.

Members should look at the sector to which the Equality Commission belongs — I tend to include it with other organisations that come from what we term “the voluntary sector”. NICVA represents community organisations across Northern Ireland. Figures show that 38% of its staff is drawn from the Protestant community and 61·4% comes from the Roman Catholic community. That organisation does not represent people in a particular area, locality or community — it is the “Northern Ireland” Council for Voluntary Action. Therefore it should reflect the general community in Northern Ireland. It should not be an organisation in which people from the Protestant community are seriously under-represented.

If NICVA were the only voluntary-sector organisation that had such Protestant under-representation, one might look for another reason for it. However, look at the Rural Community Network (RCN). The RCN has a total of 33 staff, yet it reports that it has fewer than 10 Protestants working for it. It does not tell us exactly how many; however, if it is fewer than 10, arithmetic tells us that it is nine or fewer. At best, it works out that about 25% of the RCN’s staff is drawn from the Protestant community.

I looked at reports from the past three or four years and found that that under-representation is not a one-off blip or an accident with the figures. Year after year, that has been the staffing pattern for those organisations. Where is affirmative action being taken to put right those figures?

Let us consider a few more organisations: the Community Relations Council (CRC), an organisation with which I am involved as a member of its board, has an under-representation of Protestants on its staff. I have raised that issue with the CRC. Protestant employees of the Community Foundation for Northern Ireland total only 41%. Protestants are under-represented across the voluntary sector.

Is that persistent pattern due to discrimination? In some cases, I would say that I do not know, because I do not know the organisation. I suggest that it is not necessarily down to discrimination but to a differential in the strength of the community sector in the nationalist and unionist communities. In other words, when those large voluntary umbrella organisations recruit, fewer Protestant people are available for them to recruit, but a plethora is available in the nationalist community.

Therefore they probably draw from employment pools that differ in Protestant and Catholic areas but that reflect the differential in community-sector infrastructure in those communities. The figures that I have quoted strengthen the case for greater investment in community and cultural development in Protestant areas, because the outworking of the differential is there for all to see.

However, it cannot be left at that, because those Province-wide voluntary organisations play a prominent role in policy-making, have a consultative role with Government and are even trying to play a part in community planning. Until those organisations get their own houses in order, those roles must be seriously challenged. I welcome the debate and the report, which have enabled Members to speak about the large organisations in the public and voluntary sectors.

As a résumé of the debate, does the hon Member agree that, as other Members have said, the under-representation of nationalists, or Catholics, in the voluntary or public sectors has generally been diminishing in recent years? That is true almost everywhere. The converse is equally true: where there is unionist, or Protestant, under-representation, under-representation is getting worse. The Equality Com­mission must address that situation, yet it has failed to do so.

Some Members:

Hear, hear.

Will you draw your remarks to a close, please, Mr McCausland?

Yes. I thank my colleague for making that point, because it is at the core of the matter. Under-representation of the Protestant community may be being ignored, whitewashed or forgotten, but it is certainly not being dealt with. The Equality Com­mission’s report provides strong evidence as to why that under-representation must be addressed.

Some Members:

Hear, hear.

I remind Members that if amendment No 1 is made, amendments No 2 and No 3 will fall.

Question, That amendment No 1 be made, put and negatived.

Question, That amendment No 2 be made, put and agreed to.

When the business is concluded, Madam Speaker, may I raise a point of order on a separate matter?

I am about to put the Question on the motion as amended.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly notes the recent publication by the Equality Commission of its Annual Monitoring Report on the Northern Ireland workforce, and calls on the Commission to investigate trends in recruitment, both for a substantial period in the public sector and recently in the private sector, in order to establish if appointments have favoured one section of the community and, if necessary, to take and/or recommend appropriate action.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Given recent speculation, will you confirm to the Assembly, at the earliest opportunity, the status of the political affiliation of the Member for Mid Ulster Mrs Geraldine Dougan? Has the Speaker’s Office received any confirmation that Mrs Dougan now wishes to be considered an independent Member of the House, and, if so, can that information be relayed to Members?

Rather than allow you to continue, Mr Kennedy, I inform you that the political affiliation of a Member is not a matter to be raised in the House. However, I will inform Members of any change to Mrs Dougan’s affiliation as soon as possible.

Adjourned at 3.59 pm.