|
||||
Home | Campaigns | photographs | international | join | news | executive | discussion forum | contact us |
||||
Please click on image above to see (better quality) poster.
You are invited to a public meeting to discuss the current chaos in our education system.
Balmoral Hotel, Dunmurry
Tuesday 30 June
6.30pm
Panellists:
The National Union of Journalists (NUJ) is protesting outside Laganside Courts on Thursday 11th June 2009 at 9.30am to support Suzanne Breen the Northern editor of the Sunday Tribune newspaper. Please join them to show your support for the protection of journalists and their sources.
The SDLP Executive vowed to support Suzanne Breen on 9th June.
Support Suzanne Breen on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id= … 092&ref=nf
Sign the petition:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/protectsources/
Background:
Hi Folks
We are now 15 days away from winning back the SDLP’s seat in Europe. The campaign is gaining real momentum and Alban is playing a blinder. Political commentators are realising Alban can take a seat. Jim Nicholson is realising his seat could now be lost, and Jim Allister admits: “the SDLP could slip into a second seat“. The SDLP have a real chance to represent NI in Europe for the next 5 years. We can win and you can make it happen.
We must all do our best over the next 2 weeks to get our friends, family, neighbours and community behind Alban. There are canvass teams out on the ground every day in every constituency, and I’d urge you to support them.
Party HQ has organised a Grand Prize Draw with proceeds in aid of Alban’s European Election Campaign Fund & Local Branches. Prizes include a brand new car from Donnelly Group, three cash prizes, and All-Ireland tickets.
1st Prize: New Mitsubishi Colt
2nd Prize: £2,000
3rd Prize: £1,000
4th Prize: £500
5th Prize: 2 All-Ireland Tickets (2009 Football Final)
Tickets are sold at £1 per line or £10 per card.
I was sent a batch of tickets to sell about a month ago, but time flies and now there’s only a few days left, so I’d appreciate your help!
£10 isn’t much and look at the prizes! I’ll buy £20 worth myself and I’d encourage others to do similar!
Please get in touch if you’d like to purchase some tickets (info AT sdlpyouth.com). I think the deadline is this Friday and the draw takes place on 30th May. There are lots of ways to pay and you’ll get full proof of purchase!
Best wishes
Peter Armstrong
Chair
SDLP Youth
Someone tweeted this and I thought this was a really good video. I’m not sure who tweeted it though, so sorry, no credit!
PS - There’s only 15 days until election day! Vote Early, vote Alban!
When the SDLP Party Executive met on 9th June, they vowed to support Suzanne Breen, the journalist who is refusing to comply with PSNI demands that she hand over computers, phones and papers which contain information relating to stories she wrote about the Real IRA.
The PSNI attempt could seriously undermine investigative journalist, and the traditional sacrosanct between journalists and their sources. It could also put journalists at considerable risk from paramilitary organisations.
The SDLP have attempted to put motions of support to Belfast City Council, the NI Assembly and Westminster but the debates have been refused due to the impending court hearing, which is coming up later this month (SDLP Youth will be showing our support).
Yesterday, the Sunday Tribune ran an article SDLP backs ‘Tribune’ legal battle which gives some more information:
SDLP leader Mark Durkan… backed a campaign supporting Breen in her legal battle with police.
The campaign has attracted significant national and international support. It has been endorsed by journalists, writers, civil liberties groups, trade unionists, and arts and cultural figures.
Last week, the SDLP attempted to table motions in the House of Commons and the Stormont Assembly supporting Breen saying the PSNI’s actions could seriously undermine investigative journalism.
SDLP Assembly member Alex Attwood said he was stunned when told that neither chamber could debate the matter because it was sub judice (under judgement).
The SDLP Party Election Broadcast was launched this morning at a Bloggers Breakfast in Dukes at Queens Hotel in Belfast.
I think this is an exclusive. I’m claiming it anyway! It’s on TV this evening, on BBC Two at 17.55, UTV at 18.25 and BBC One at 18.55.
Alban Maginness is asking young people to vote for him on June 4th. He wants to restore the voice of the people of Northern Ireland, with a very simple message - When We Win, You Win!
SDLP European Election candidate Alban Maginness is to host a bloggers’ breakfast to mark the launch of his Party Election Broadcast on Tuesday 12 May at 10am in Dukes at Queens Hotel, Belfast.
Mr Maginness is inviting media and bloggers alike to the first screening of the film which will air on YouTube ahead of its broadcast on television later that evening.
The SDLP team will update guests on the online campaign and are encouraging attendees to blog, tweet or flickr live from the event with the use of free WiFi.
In what is believed to the first political event of its kind in Northern Ireland, Mr Maginness will invite tweets to his twitter account which will form the basis of an Ask Alban webcast later this month.
To confirm attendence email albanforeurope@sdlp.ie with the words Bloggers’ Breakfast in the subject header.
Tetchiness is becoming a hallmark of the Sinn Fein - DUP double act. Poor Martina Purdy took the brunt of Peter Robinson’s bile in the Great Hall, but Martin McGuinness is not always the easygoing grandpa he likes to project. He had a go at Dolores Kelly because of her criticism of inaction in the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, but the Lady from Lurgan was well fit for him. The occasion was a discussion on the Barroso Report, which has been lying in his office for the last year:
Mrs D Kelly: I welcome today’s statement. I am sure that it is entirely coincidental that it was scheduled after the SDLP tabled a no-day-named motion to discuss the Barroso report.
The Executive’s response to the report has taken almost as long as the Barroso Commission took to report in the first instance. I am disappointed about the lengthy delays. …. The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister asked how specific actions will be measured against outcomes contained in the Barroso report. How will we take that process forward?
The deputy First Minister: It is difficult to respond to that ramble. However, when some people ask questions, they are interested only in engaging in a point-scoring exercise. I prefer people to approach the matter from a genuine point of view as opposed —
Mrs D Kelly: I am.
The deputy First Minister: I do not accept that. We are involved in an important body of work, and Members will be aware that considerable work was undertaken in order to develop a response to President Barroso’s report.
Dolores had asked him: Why did the deputy First Minister’s response make no reference to Commissioner Hübner’s offer of a place at her Cabinet table for a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly? Will the Executive accept that offer? If so, how and when?
Martin waffled around that one but Peter Weir - one of the UUP’s Baby Barristers before he jumped to the DUP - made one of his usual flat attempts at smartassery:
Mr Weir: I wonder whether the deputy First Minister will look again at the SDLP’s offer to reconsider the Hübner appointment. After all, it may be the only route by which Alban Maginness can get into Europe in the next few months - unless he enters the UEFA Cup next year.
Alban was soon on his feet:
Mr A Maginness: Despite Mr Weir’s Cassandra-like prediction, I assure the deputy First Minister that when I am elected on 8 June 2009, I will engage fully with the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister.
It is proper and necessary that MEPs do that, and it is also proper that the Assembly co-operates with the European Union in order to develop relationships. My party certainly supports and welcomes today’s statement, in so far as it goes. Although the statement is lacking in some detail, it is nonetheless a positive first step towards building that relationship.
The development of a relationship between ourselves and Europe is dependent on everybody’s working together. That means not only those in the Assembly, but those in the Executive. How do the First Minister and deputy First Minister propose that all Departments be involved in the fullest development of policy and co-operation in the European Union? I see that as the key element in moving forward.
Next business was a motion from Alasdair McDonnell:
That this Assembly recognises the threat to future prosperity and well-being posed by educational underachievement in many communities; and calls on the Executive, and the Minister of Education in particular, to produce a cross-cutting departmental action programme designed to tackle educational underachievement.
Baroness May Blood tells a story about going into a school in the Shankill and asking the children what they wanted to be when they grew up. One lad put up his hand and said: “A Loyalist ex-prisoner”. That sort of situation formed the backdrop for Alasdair’s presentation.
Educational underachievement is one of the biggest challenges and threats to the political, social and economic stability of our society. Although the damage and the lasting effects of it may not be realised for 10 or 15 years, nevertheless, I believe - and many will agree with me - that it is a serious threat. Huge swathes of our children and young people are living in disadvantaged areas in predominantly, but not exclusively, loyalist working-class areas. They are being failed severely by our political system and with respect to educational achievement.
When many of those children are asked what they would like to be when they grow up, some as young as seven have told me that they want to be like former paramilitaries or drug dealers. That is because when they look around them they see that those who are living on the edges of crime have a lot of money and drive big cars. In other primary schools, principals have told me that children as young as seven are having suicidal thoughts. Furthermore, those principals are deeply concerned that an increasing amount of staff time is being taken up with social-welfare work, such as completing disability living allowance (DLA) forms for parents, rather than with teaching.
The DUP naturally used the occasion to get in the odd dig at Caitriona Ruane, but possibly the most perplexing outburst came from the UUP:
Mr B McCrea: The facts destroy all of the political rhetoric and ideology that comes from Sinn Féin. Sinn Féin has no notion about education because its members did not bother to understand the facts. They come out with some standard Marxist line about equality as if that is the answer to everything. Equality does not work in this context because, although all children are valued equally, they are not all equal. What we need is intervention, where people -
Sinn Fein’s Caral Ní Chuilin is said to have sworn an oath not to smile until Ireland is free, but she is an increasingly competent parliamentarian:
Ms Ní Chuilín: Will the Member give way?
Mr B McCrea: I will.
Ms Ní Chuilín: I will not take up much of the Member’s time. I simply want to remind him that the Ulster Unionist Party signed up to section 75 and to the equality implications of the Programme for Government. Is that party changing from that position, as part of its new journey into conservatism? [Laughter.]
The motion was passed without a vote.
Next up was a UUP motion on social housing:
That this Assembly notes, with concern, the Department for Social Development’s recent priority change which gives greater emphasis to the refurbishment of social housing, as opposed to redevelopment; further notes the huge detrimental effect this will have on the most vulnerable people in our society; and calls on the Minister to provide social homes fit for the twenty-first century throughout Northern Ireland.
Margaret Ritchie’s position on social housing has always been very simple: ‘Give me the money and I will build the houses’. Due to falling NIHE house sales and the difficulty of selling off land for good prices, money is very short and to protect social housing new-build, major refurbishment schemes have had to be curtailed. Thomas Burns laid it out:
Mr Burns: The motion seems to suggest that the Minister does not want to demolish old houses, redevelop rundown areas or build new homes and that she prefers to give a few houses a coat of paint. Nothing could be further from the truth. The motion also states that the Minister is getting her priorities wrong and has made bad choices. That is totally untrue. The motion, as it stands, misses the point. I make that very clear. The Department for Social Development does not have enough money to do what needs to be done. The Minister is doing her best to make savings within her budget, but the fact is that, for the most part, the DSD is a spending Department. More money must be found for the DSD budget. I do not mean that the Minister should wait for a few handouts from the monitoring rounds; I mean that there must be a review of the entire Budget and of the Programme for Government.
And Pat Ramsey rammed it home:
Mr Ramsey: There is, however, as many Members have said, a major hole in the Budget, caused by the collapse of the housing market. That means that people are not purchasing their Housing Executive properties as they did previously. As a result, Housing Executive revenue was down £80 million last year. That is a serious amount of money that the Minister could have spent on modernisation and refurbishment. Revenue will fall by a further £100 million in the next two years. Given those circumstances, which affect other Departments as well, one might have expected that there would have been a new Budget or, as was said by a Member on the DUP Benches, a “re-profiling” of the existing Budget and a re-profiling of the Programme for Government and a new investment strategy. The SDLP has been making those points for months.
The DUP’s Jim Shannon then rowed in. We bring you his contribution without further comment:
Mr Shannon: Las week A wus aa a plennin maetin aa Airds Cooncil where thair wur 38 options tae pit aff oan the schedule - monie o’ thaim wur plens fer hoosin schemes at wur provisionally mairked fer social hoosin - hits gyely important at the Meenester’s Depairtment waarks wi’ the Plennin Service fer tae mak siccar at social developments ir gien aa needfu’ hefts tae mak’ siccar at the plens ir wi’ in what bes acceptable tae the Plennin Service an’ at they ir passed.
Strategically, Sinn Fein’s aim has always been to restrict and damage the sole SDLP minister, but they have chosen a particularly blunt instrument for this purpose; Fra McCann, social development spokesperson. Fra has failed to land a single significant blow on Margaret, and she beats off his attacks so deftly and completely that one almost has sympathy for him (almost). But on this occasion she put Fred Cobain back in his box:
Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie): The motion refers to a “recent priority change” in my Department that favours refurbishment over redevelopment. I must admit that I was not aware of that change, and I thank the Members for bringing that phenomenon to my attention. It is, of course, a nonsense. There has been no priority change or policy shift. From my first day in office, my priority has been to address housing need wherever that need exists. I have already brought forward change that will deliver the most modern social housing ever seen here, and I have re-prioritised my budget to ensure that we provide housing solutions that support those in greatest housing need.
Two weeks on and our “New Priorities in Difficult Times” document is still defining the contours of the political debate. It has the backing of a number of independent economists and nobody has even tried to knock any major holes in it. In fact, even the few attack statements from DUP sources - as usual, the economically illiterate SF camp couldn’t even work how to attack - had to acknowledge our positive contribution before trying to rubbish it. Peter Robinson, for example:
The First Minister: I welcome the fact that the SDLP has taken an interest in efficiencies and matters relating to the Budget. It has always had the opportunity to bring forward proposals in the Executive, as it is part of the four-party mandatory coalition. The fact that the SDLP brought its proposals to the public’s attention, as opposed to bringing them to the Executive, might indicate the mindset in that party - one might even think that there was an election in the offing.
It is important that all parties, not only the SDLP, look at how we can best use the resources that are available to us. To be frank, having looked at the SDLP’s proposals, I see that a significant number of the better ones are proposals that my party has made in the past, proposals that have been considered by the Executive or proposals for capital spend that have been outlined already - in the Varney report, for instance.
Some of the SDLP’s proposals are inaccurate and some are grossly exaggerated, but at least the SDLP is looking at efficiencies and recognising that, given that we have a finite Budget, choices must be made. …The SDLP’s paper is significant in that it identified that, if more money is to be spent in some areas in order to inflate the economy, the resources for that must be found elsewhere. The whole House needs to start examining its priorities.
Considering how tetchy and nasty Peter the Great was with Martina Purdy of the BBC in the Great Hall a couple of weeks ago, that was pretty mild. However, he tried once again to muddy the waters on our voting record: “… contrary to what is said in the SDLP’s statement, the SDLP did not vote against the Budget - the House accepted, and is tied to, the Budget unanimously.
Dolores Kelly soon put him right:
Mrs D Kelly: I welcome the First Minister’s statement, although I must correct him: he said that all parties voted for the Budget, when, at one stage, he accused the SDLP of almost bringing the House down by not supporting the Budget. Therefore, there are some inaccuracies in his comments.
Peter was making a statement on the setting up of a cross-sector advisory forum composed of social partners and other stakeholders in the economy. The forum is a very good idea but it would have been a better one if they could have got it up and running last year when we first called for action. That was Declan O’Loan’s point:
Mr O’Loan: I also welcome the statement and the creation of the advisory forum; I regret only that it was not established sooner…. I welcome what he said about meaningful discussions leading to action as a result of the meetings of the advisory forum. Does the First Minister see the striving for consensus leading to action that will carry through into the political arena? I welcome his positive comments about the SDLP proposals. More broadly, will he assure the Assembly that he will take a positive and constructive approach and spirit to all the political parties’ intellectual energies in addressing what he referred to as the current crisis and to the longer-term task of the Assembly to revitalise the economy?
Peter waffled his way around that one but there is no question that he is under great pressure to re-open his budget and Wednesday’s budget statement in Westminster will increase the pressure. And he threw us a few more bones later:
“….if one takes even the SDLP proposal - its Members will forgive me for mentioning it because they, at least, have a proposal to be discussed - even at its fullest, if one were to believe it as they have outlined it, that proposal would only mean a 1% change in the overall Budget for Northern Ireland. [Interruption.] I think there is some double-accounting on the part of the SDLP, which it needs to take into consideration. There are valuable elements in the SDLP’s overall proposal, but many of them are already taken into account by Government.
When Margaret Ritchie took over at Social Development she inherited a Strategic Business Review of the Social Security Agency. The equivalent review across the water resulted in swinging cuts and reductions in direct counter contact with the public, and there were a lot of negative rumours and briefings circulating from certain political quarters. Her statement to the Assembly was a model of clarity.
Whatever else Members may have heard, the review’s proposals are designed to modernise and safeguard service delivery in order to benefit customers in the local office network. That is the straightforward and simple objective. …Let me restate the facts: there will be no loss of front line services for any local office or town; no offices will close; and no staff will lose their jobs…. Members will recall that I made it clear that I would not accept solutions that would result in large numbers of staff - some on low pay, some with caring responsibilities - having to move lengthy distances to a new place of work. That remains the case.
Some people have trouble recognizing good news even when it jumps up and bites them. Disinformation has become such a habit for Sinn Fein that they have trouble getting out of the groove:
Mr F McCann: In her statement, the Minister said: “we must not buckle or panic just because we may be subjected to vigorous lobbying by vested interests.” Does the Minister agree that those vested interests include staff, who are concerned about whether they will have a job at the end of the process, and the trade unions, who seriously dispute her Department’s assertion that job losses will not be a part of the process? Will the Minister tell the House whether any jobs will go as part of the strategic business review?
The Minister for Social Development: Again, I have to question whether Members are listening: but, of course, Mr McCann entered [the Chamber] in the middle of my statement -
Mr A Maginness: Mr McCann does not listen [Laughter.]
The Minister for Social Development: I reiterate for the benefit of Mr McCann and Members that there will be no job losses and no office closures. The Department will continue to provide the services it has provided up to now. That is because our primary, and most important, concern is the delivery of services to our current and future customers.
Mr A Maginness: I was surprised by Mr McCann’s reaction. He reminded me of a spoilt child who received his Easter egg, but did not like the colour of its wrapping paper….Will the Minister reassure the House and the public - amid wild speculation and rumours of up to 500 job losses - that jobs will not be lost but increased?
The Minister for Social Development: There was indeed talk of job losses, much of which was ill-informed. Some of it was ill-intentioned and scaremongering. No loss of employment will result from the strategic business review. No jobs will be lost, and no offices will close. … Indeed, only recently, I set about recruiting 150 additional staff, and if we need more, we shall recruit more.
Alex Attwood and the party in West Belfast have been active in support of the workers occupying the Visteon plant. Enterprise Minister Arlene Foster came to the Assembly to make an emergency statement. Alex responded:
I thank the Minister for her presence this afternoon, and I acknowledge that, during the recent difficult weeks, she has been available in person and by phone. Given that Ford and its subsidiary Visteon have benefited from millions of pounds of grant aid over many years for operations in Northern Ireland, does she consider it unacceptable for Visteon to get up, go, and close its doors? It is a slap in the face for the company’s workers, who, during many difficult years, always turned up to work for Ford in this part of the North.
Furthermore, is she concerned that the actions of Visteon and Ford, in denying their obligations to workers and by setting up subsidiary companies, could become a model for other international companies that operate in Northern Ireland and which might do likewise in the future? Finally, what contact has the Minister, and other levels of Government, had with Ford in America in order to ensure that Ford and Visteon honour their obligations to the 200-odd workers in west Belfast?
The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment: I have made several attempts to speak to Ford in Europe - I forget the gentleman’s name - but have, unfortunately, been unable to connect with him. I will continue to try to contact him about issues that are within my remit. I encouraged trade union representatives to continue to seek legal advice and to continue to work with their unions. Furthermore, I urged them to look to their contract, which they showed to me, particularly the element that said that their conditions would mirror those of their Ford counterparts - I think that that was the term that was used. I understand that Unite continues to engage with Visteon and Ford, and Government will continue to monitor the situation and do what we can.
For sheer vindictiveness it is hard to beat Iris Robinson, who chairs the Health Committee and leads the DUP crusade against the UUP in general and Health Minister Michael McGimpsey in particular. Caught by a Treasury requirement to produce 3% efficiency savings every year and planning to lay off more than 700 nurses, he faced a DUP motion calling on him to reject the job cuts and a not very clever UUP amendment seeking exemption from savings for his department. Carmel Hanna was sympathetic to the spirit of the amendment, but made it clear that no Department can be totally exempt from efficiency savings.
Mrs Hanna: However, there should be no cuts to front line services. I have sympathy with the Minister in trying to balance a budget for such a demand-driven service, but I believe that the proposers of the motion are engaged in a bit of a cynical exercise. Rather than point-scoring, I would like to have heard some proposals for savings from the Chairperson of the Health Committee that would ensure that there will be no reduction in nursing posts, which is what the motion is about. Have the proposers of the motion asked their colleague the Minister of Finance and Personnel whether he has reviewed his comprehensive spending review policy with regard to the impact on employment and services? Indeed, do they have any suggestions for saving resources?
There is a fundamental contradiction between the loss of nursing jobs and the stated aim of the comprehensive spending review to free up resources to reinforce front line services. Speaking as someone who was a nurse for all too many years, there is nothing more front line than a nurse at the bedside of a desperately ill patient, or a nurse in the community who is an essential member of a primary care team.
I recognise that the reform and modernisation of health and social services is a never-ending and ongoing challenge. We support the Minister’s intent and his commitment towards an ever-greater focus on positive public-health promotion. It is not just about treating the consequences of ill health, it is about appropriate care in the community.
We recognise that the comprehensive spending review efficiency targets have been imposed on the Health Minister in an arbitrary fashion. The SDLP also recognises that given that the health budget accounts for almost half of Executive spending, there must be greater efficiency and enhanced productivity in the Health Service.
The trusts must put in place robust workforce development plans to ensure that registered nurses are adequately trained for the new service delivery that is expected of them. The planned cuts and redeployment of staff will have significant training and professional regulatory implications.
Nurses cannot be treated like pieces on a chessboard: a nurse cannot be taken out of an acute ward and shifted into community nursing without appropriate training, induction and support, or into mental-health nursing without statutory post-registration induction, education and support. Adjustments will certainly be required in the clinical mix among doctors, registered nurses, allied health professionals and care assistants. However, the casualization of nursing skills, which occurred so disastrously in the Thatcher era, cannot be repeated. So much was lost, and we are still trying to regain that ground.
The Royal College of Nursing has produced credible evidence to show that the critical role of the ward sister and other nurse managers is being undermined by the proposals. In some hospitals, ward managers are being asked to work across too many wards and too many locations. When that happens, the role of nursing ward managers as clinical leaders and patient advocates is undermined.
There is a continuing reduction of specialist nursing posts and a tendency to place inappropriate and unpaid leadership responsibilities on band 5 and 6 registered nurses, particularly on night duty staff. Senior nursing posts should be created in every acute hospital, which might convince nurses that their concerns are being listened to.
All changes must, of course, keep section 75 in mind. Any changes must be implemented with equality, integrity and probity, and, at all times, they must put patients’ interests first. The bottom line is that there should be absolutely no reduction in front line services and in nursing posts, as has been stated in the motion.
Tommy Gallagher finished up his speech by pointing up a classic piece of Sinn Fein hypocrisy, trying to blame the Brits for a decision that has their own fingerprints all over it.
Mr Gallagher: I acknowledge the commitment and professionalism of our nursing staff across Northern Ireland. They are, as I have said, true professionals. They are the people who make sure that patients are treated with care, compassion and dignity, whether in their home, in a community setting, in primary care, or in hospital, as is often the case.
It is a disgrace that we are now in a situation whereby more than 700 nursing posts are to be lost. Whether the UUP wants to blame the DUP, or the DUP wants to blame the UUP, this matter is so serious that it needs to be sorted out between the Health Minister and the Finance Minister, because they both have a responsibility from which they cannot escape.
Despite the fact that nurses are such a key group of workers, we know that when these proposals were taken forward by the trusts, there was very little real, meaningful and true consultation with the nurses on the ground. That has only added to the frustration that many of them currently feel.
The Western Health and Social Care Trust, as Claire McGill has mentioned, will lose more than 130 posts, and we have been told by the health authorities - at a number of different levels - that that will be taken care of through natural wastage. We are asked to believe that it will be all right. The reality is that I have had nurses come to me in recent months - well-trained, highly-qualified nurses, some of them at intensive-care level, and many of them young - who have had notification in writing that their contracts are coming to an end. They do not know what the future holds for them.
Instead of cutting nursing jobs, we should be challenged by the task of finding some alternative means of employing them, if it comes to that. If some of those nurses are now to leave our hospitals, there must be appropriate and well-resourced training so that they can move into other settings, because, at the end of the day, they are the people who will take the pressure off the Health Service - the primary-care and secondary-care sectors in particular - and will, with appropriate treatment, screen out many patients before they get to other levels. Therefore, we need more resources if the worst comes to the worst here with regard to working in hospitals.
We have arrived at this point because some Members voted for the Budget, which contained the comprehensive spending review measures; unfortunately, we are now living with the consequences. I notice that the Deputy Chairperson of the Health Committee [Michelle O'Neill, Sinn Fein] described the efficiency savings as British-inspired. Yes, it is a Gordon Brown initiative and in that sense it is British-inspired, but it is here because that British-inspired initiative was voted through by Sinn Féin. Therefore it is time that we all look at the Budget afresh.
Gerry Conlon from the Guildford Four will join Breege Quinn at an SDLP event in Newry on Wednesday evening called ‘Justice Denied: A Public Discussion’.
Mr Conlon, who was wrongfully imprisoned for 15 years, will join the panel alongside Mrs Quinn from Cullyhanna, whose son was beaten to death 18 months ago. Also speaking will be Anne Morgan, whose brother Seamus Ruddy is one of the Disappeared, and justice campaigner Raymond McCord. SDLP Justice Spokesperson Alban Maginness will address the gathering too.
The meeting will offer an opportunity to hear the personal experiences of people who have suffered from miscarriages of justice or have had justice denied to them.
Speaking ahead of the event, Gerry Conlon said: “Thankfully we are now living in more peaceful times. However, for many people, the events of the past still cast a shadow over their lives, and more needs to be done to correct wrongs and bring closure.
“I’d encourage people to come along to this meeting to hear from the experiences of people who have been denied justice, and to share their own stories. This will be a powerful, yet very interesting event.”
Breege Quinn added: “We intend to keep our campaign going until we get justice for Paul, so we welcome every opportunity to speak on any platform to get that message across, especially to his murderers. We have a lot in common and a lot to learn from other families that have lost members by murder.”
The public meeting will take place in the Canal Court Hotel, Newry at 7.30pm on Wednesday 22 April. Admission is free and anyone can attend.
Irish News