northern ireland assembly Tuesday 29 May 2007 Establishment of the Independent Health Coalition Letter from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister about Executive Committee Decisions Committee Business Private Members’ Business Funding for Resurfacing of Roads in the Strangford Constituency The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes’ silence. Mr Speaker: During the sitting on 22 May 2007, the Rt Hon Dr Paisley, the First Minister, raised concerns about accommodation for the public and the press at Committee meetings. I can inform the House that consideration has been given to addressing the difficulties recently experienced by members of the public and press wishing to attend Committee meetings. Arrangements are now in place to provide a number of dedicated press seats in the Committee public galleries. Priority will be given, as far as possible, to members of the public who wish to attend Committee meetings. If, after 20 minutes, any of the press seats are unoccupied, those too will be released to the public. The arrangements will be reviewed during the summer recess, bearing in mind the limitations of the Committee rooms. I am satisfied, Members, that this is a sensible way to try to resolve a very difficult accommodation situation for everyone in Parliament Buildings. The First Minister (Rev Dr Ian Paisley): I thank you for that reply, and I am sure that the general public and the press will be grateful to you for taking immediate steps to solve something that was causing difficulty. Thank you. Mr Speaker: The accommodation situation for everyone in this House is probably the most important issue that the Commission is dealing with at the moment. Also last Tuesday, points of order were raised by Mr McNarry and Mr Kennedy concerning the attendance of the Minister for Regional Development on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development. Members will recall that I indicated at the time that precedent existed for such an arrangement, but I have given the matter further thought. Having done so, I can confirm that, on Monday 3 December 2001, the then Minister for Employment and Learning, Dr Seán Farren, answered questions on behalf of the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, Sir Reg Empey. I further inform the House that Dr Farren gave an undertaking on that occasion that a written answer would be provided in the event of his being unable to answer any supplementary questions that were asked. It appears to me that a clear precedent has been established in the Northern Ireland Assembly for one Minister attending in the Chamber on behalf of another, and I refer Members to page 46 of the ‘Northern Ireland Assembly Companion’. I would not, of course, expect the situation in which a Minister attends on behalf of another to occur other than in the most unavoidable of circumstances, and I will continue to require written notification of a Minister’s absence. I also undertook to consider Mr Kennedy’s suggestion that a Minister who cannot be present in the Chamber might be given an early opportunity, on his or her return, to respond by way of a ministerial statement to issues raised. Members will be conscious that any Minister may choose to make a statement at any time to the Assembly, in accordance with Standing Order 18. I assure the House that I will continue to accommodate the making of ministerial statements in the House. Mr Kennedy: Thank you very much for clarifying the points of order raised, Mr Speaker. Given that we are in a new Assembly — a more democratic Assembly, apparently — I ask whether consideration could be given to any change in the custom and practice that you have indicated, or to the precedent that you have outlined. Mr Speaker: I think that most Members would agree that I gave the points of order that were raised a fair airing in the House last Tuesday evening. I wonder why those points of order were raised, but I must say that I am not prepared to answer any further points of order on the issue. The matter has now been dealt with, and dealt with completely. I understand where the Member is coming from, but I feel that I can add no more to what has been said this morning. Establishment of the Independent Health Coalition Mr Speaker: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from Dr Kieran Deeny, notifying me that a new political party was added to the Northern Ireland register of political parties on 16 May 2007. The new party’s title is the “Independent Health Coalition”. The Electoral Commission has confirmed that party’s registration. Dr Deeny has indicated that he wishes to be known, and to represent his constituents in the Northern Ireland Assembly, as a member and leader of the Independent Health Coalition. Letter from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister about Executive Committee Decisions Mr Speaker: I inform the House that I have received a letter from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister that advises me of three decisions that the Executive took at their meeting last Thursday. A copy of the letter has been placed in Members’ pigeonholes and in other places, such as the Library. Committee Business Mr Speaker: I wish to advise the House that the Business Committee has agreed that the three motions that appear on the Order Paper as Committee Business will be treated as business motions. There will, therefore, be no debate. Committee Membership — Committee for Employment and Learning Resolved: That Mr Alastair Ross replace Mr Jim Wells as a member of the Committee for Employment and Learning. — [Lord Morrow.] Committee Membership — Committee on Standards and Privileges Resolved: That Mr Alastair Ross replace Mr Adrian McQuillan as a member of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. — [Lord Morrow.] Resolved: That the following Members are appointed as the Trustees of the Assembly Members’ Pension scheme: Mr John Dallat Mr David McClarty Mr Trevor Lunn Mr Jim Wells Mrs Michelle O’Neill. — [Rev Dr Robert Coulter.] Private Members’ Business Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for this debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to wind up. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes. Two amendments have been selected and have been published on the Marshalled List; the proposers of the amendments will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes to wind up. I wish to advise the House that, following discussion at the Business Committee, I propose to reintroduce an arrangement that applied previously in the Chamber. Members may recall that when speaking times were limited to less than 10 minutes the Speaker would exercise discretion in allocating up to one additional minute to a Member who had accepted one or more interventions. I hope that Members will welcome the reintroduction of this arrangement, which applies immediately. Mrs Hanna: I beg to move That this Assembly calls for free personal care for the elderly, which was agreed in principle in the last Assembly, to be introduced as a priority within a set timescale. In proposing the motion, I am not anticipating opposition from any part of the Assembly. I also wish to state that I accept the amendments tabled by the Ulster Unionist Party and the Alliance Party. Free personal care has been debated on several occasions by previous Assemblies, most recently by the Transitional Assembly on 19 December 2006. All who spoke in that debate were in favour of the motion tabled, though there were some nuances of opinion and differences in emphasis. The time for debate, discussion and analysis has passed. Members need to move the issue forward: to have it anchored firmly in the Programme for Government; to identify the funds needed for free personal care; to prepare the necessary budget; and to ensure that free personal care is implemented equitably and comprehensively across Northern Ireland within a defined period. Personal care is defined as helping a person with feeding, toileting, washing, dressing and grooming; helping a person in and out of bed; help with mobility; and assistance with medication — matters which do not necessarily require the services of a trained nurse or other health professional, but which, by any realistic definition, are integral to and inseparable from healthcare. The SDLP has supported the principles of nursing and personal care set out in the 1999 Royal Commission report ‘With Respect to Old Age: Long Term Care — Rights and Responsibilities’. Although that report is eight years old, the essential principles have not changed, and we in Northern Ireland are no further forward. From a practical perspective, and speaking as a registered nurse who has worked in assessing domiciliary care for the elderly, I know that no health professional would disagree that it is impossible to separate nursing and personal care. The complexity of trying to separate the two elements is counterproductive and a bureaucratic nightmare. 10.45 am The current system of separation creates great uncertainty about future care for elderly and vulnerable people who are at a stage in their lives when they should be able to take for granted the provision of free care when they need it. That has always been our understanding of the National Health Service. The NHS is still the most socialist, progressive and popular initiative ever taken by a UK Government. The elderly have paid National Insurance contributions all their lives; they expect to receive care at point of need, but it is not available to them. Personal and nursing care are not separated when older people are in hospital, so why should they be separated when patients are at home or in residential care? There are obvious anomalies that can have awful consequences for families. For example, a patient suffering from cancer is entitled without question to free nursing and personal care, but the family of a person suffering from Alzheimer’s disease — an increasingly common condition as longevity and the proportion of elderly people in society increases — can find that their relative is not entitled to personal care. A complex and spurious differentiation is made between health and personal care, and the authorities have interpreted the Coughlan judgement as not applying to mental-health needs —mental health is yet again the Cinderella of the Health Service. Members will recall the Coughlan judgement, which was made in the Court of Appeal in 1999. The ruling was that as healthcare was a primary need for Mrs Coughlan, she was also entitled to personal care. At least two ‘Panorama’ programmes, the last in July 2006, showed that many elderly people were being forced to sell their homes because of perverse, bureaucratic and complex decisions by health trusts and Government that sought to undermine the impact of the Coughlan judgement by complicating matters relating to healthcare with bureaucratic nit-picking over words such as “complex”, “intense” and “unpredictable”. For example, trusts were saying that someone with a medical problem could be admitted to hospital in a crisis, but that if the patient’s condition were stabilised, under Government guidelines the patient could be deemed no longer to require healthcare. It angers me that the bureaucratic prevarications, evasions and legal fees employed by the Government in England and Wales are racking up unnecessary costs which would go a long way to paying for the care required. ‘Panorama’ pointed out that people were being unjustly deprived of their homes to fund their personal care and cited a figure of around 80,000 homes surrendered in Great Britain. I have written to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to request a corresponding figure for Northern Ireland, but I have not received a straight answer. The introduction of free personal care in Scotland was legislated for by the Scottish Parliament in 2002 and provides a useful template for the Assembly. At that time, implementation of the package was costed at £250 million. Usefully for us, the Scottish Parliament’s Health Committee has reported on the experience of introducing free personal care, discussing the positive and negative aspects of the measure and indicating mistakes and lessons that we can learn from. On the positive side, the Scottish Parliament’s Health Committee found that free personal care had provided greater security and dignity. It had allowed for older people to be cared for more readily at home, eased the burden on carers and reduced delayed discharges, so freeing up NHS resources. It had largely brought an end to bureaucratic disputes between agencies over responsibility for the care of the elderly. It had led to fewer complaints to the Ombudsman about care of the elderly. Overall, it had been introduced swiftly and comprehensively. On the negative side — and we can learn from this — the Scottish Health Committee found that the funding formula put in place was too complex, and that waiting lists were in operation. A lack of clarity in the guidelines for eligibility was noted, as was the failure to increase funding in line with inflation, and confusion remains over the exact remit of the policy. The Scottish Committee’s report is certainly essential reading for Members of this House. I am sure that the Minister will learn from the Scottish experience and that he will ensure that any possible loopholes that permit mechanisms that effectively ration free personal care will be closed when the requisite legislation is drafted here. I appreciate that the Assembly has no tax-raising powers and that it administers a block grant from Westminster. In the current year, expenditure will be in the order of £15 billion; I shall stand corrected if that figure is incorrect. I also appreciate that, if the motion is passed, the financial consequences will need to be costed. However, I anticipate that the cost of introducing free personal care will be a comparatively small percentage of the health budget — around 1·82%, which is about £80 million. The financial implications were costed during the last Assembly, and I appreciate that costs will have changed, but that is just a ballpark figure. It is beyond dispute that the elderly population is increasing both in absolute numbers and in percentage terms. Age Concern has estimated that, by 2036, 24% of the population will be aged 65 or over. That is almost double the percentage in 1996. The Health Department has rightly put much more emphasis on the public-health agenda and has focused more on community and primary healthcare — doing the simpler things better and earlier. We all know of older people who have been knocked off their feet, either because they need a podiatrist to attend to their feet or an occupational therapist to approve an adaptation to their home. We also know that older people thrive when they are kept active and physically and mentally alert. If we build on the public-health agenda, people will remain healthy, and we may end up looking at reducing the need for free personal care. It is long past time to give older people the dignity and equality to which they are entitled and to remove them from the shadow of unnecessary worry when they have many other challenges to face. The Minister has many competing priorities, and I sympathise that he has tough decisions to make. I know that he will approach this matter sensitively, and he will certainly have my support. However, the previous Assembly agreed to introduce free personal care. Indeed, had it not been for suspension and other glitches, the money would have been available and free personal care would have been implemented by now. I believe that this Assembly will also demonstrate broad consensus. It is incumbent upon us to act on the matter. Mr McCarthy: I beg to move amendment No 1: Leave out all after the second “Assembly” and insert “, to be addressed as a new priority within the forthcoming Comprehensive Spending Review, and provided for in the 2008-2009 Budget onwards.” I very much welcome the debate, and I thank Carmel Hanna for returning this matter to the Order Paper. It is a pity that Mrs Hanna’s party, and other parties, did not support me on 24 June 2002, when I stood in this very spot and pleaded with all Members, and the then Health Minister, to include my amendments to the Health and Personal Social Services Bill. Had that support been forthcoming, I have no doubt that free nursing and personal care would have been a reality a long time ago and that a great many of our senior citizens would have received that benefit. My amendment gives us the opportunity to practise what we preach. Little progress has been made since the suspension of the last Assembly in October 2002. There must be no more equivocation or setbacks. My amendment states simply that the Executive Budget for 2008-09 should contain funding to introduce free personal care through the comprehensive spending review. Free nursing and personal care for Northern Ireland have been debated on the Floor of the House before. On 27 February 2001, Mr Nigel Dodds, the current Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, and I tabled similar motions, the outcome of which would have led to the introduction of free nursing and personal care for everyone in Northern Ireland who required it. In fact, the Assembly resolved: “That this Assembly notes the decision of the Scottish Parliament to provide the elderly with free nursing and personal care and calls on the Executive Committee to make similar provision for the elderly in Northern Ireland and to promote greater well-being of the elderly in this part of the United Kingdom.” — [Official Report, Bound Volume 9, p327, col 2]. The Assembly also resolved: “That this Assembly calls on the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to implement in full in Northern Ireland the recommendations contained in the report by the Royal Commission on Long-Term Care published in March 1999.” — [Official Report, Bound Volume 9, p327, col 2]. The Royal Commission’s report was a detailed document that examined every aspect of the care of our elderly. Its recommendations were wide-ranging and far-reaching, and they included the cost implications of providing care for those elderly people who need it. One of the most obnoxious and objectionable proposals is that people should use savings, plus the value of their home, to pay for care. MLAs — and people elsewhere — totally disagree with the proposal that people who need care should be forced to sell their home in order to pay for it in their latter years. That must surely be regarded as repugnant and grossly unfair — people have worked hard and been prudent so that they can buy a home, often with the help of family. It cannot be morally justifiable to force those people to sell their home in their twilight years. The state should recognise that, by that stage of their lives, people here have made sacrifices to society, and it should therefore provide the necessary care. Shortly after the Assembly agreed in February 2001 that free nursing and personal care should be introduced, the Executive commissioned an interdepartmental group to examine personal care. In August 2002, that group’s report was presented to the Executive, and, in September 2002, the Executive asked that further work be done on options and costs. Of course, the Assembly was suspended in October of that year and no further progress was made. I contend, therefore, that that report is lying somewhere gathering dust: nothing has been done, and it could be revisited. The Royal Commission’s report is a blueprint for the way forward. All credit must go to the Scottish Executive, who accepted the Commission’s recommendations. Free nursing and personal care were introduced in Scotland on 1 July 2002 and have been successful so far. I am glad that, in the recent elections in Northern Ireland, all the parties included in their manifestos a commitment to introduce free personal care if, and when, the new Executive were formed. Our new Executive have now been formed and are operational. I appeal to Members to support my amendment. It beefs up the motion, and, if agreed, it would give our elderly people and their families the peace of mind that they richly deserve. Let us all move in this new Assembly from promise to practice, and prove that we mean what we say. The need for nursing and personal care comes to many of our constituents. The loss of the ability to care for oneself is distressing enough without the added indignity of being means-tested and charged for services that one would definitely not wish to have to use at all. We must treat our elderly with respect, dignity and fairness. We have a duty to provide what is necessary to meet their needs. We also have a duty to implement the excellent work that was carried out by the Royal Commission team, which included Professor Bob Stout from Northern Ireland. Only this week, he made an impassioned plea to the Assembly to implement the Royal Commission’s recommendations so that our elderly and carers can benefit. Let us not forget that we will all be elderly some day. Some Members: Hear, hear. Mr McCarthy: Tony Blair himself said that he did not want to live in a country in which the only way in which our elderly could receive care was as a result of being forced to sell their family home. He also noted words that the author of the Royal Commission’s report used. He said that: “The moral test of Government is how that Government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly”. The author went on to say that those who are in the shadows of life — the sick, the needy and the disabled — also need to be similarly treated. I hope that the new Health Minister and Executive agree with those words, and that they adopt the Royal Commission’s findings and recommendations and implement free personal care for the elderly without further delay. 11.00 am I ask Members to support my amendment. Enough time has been given to this important subject: the Executive — through the comprehensive spending review — must include funding for free personal care for 2008-09. Rev Dr Robert Coulter: I beg to move amendment No 2: Leave out all after the first Assembly and insert “accepts the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Long-Term Care of the Elderly; supports in principle the introduction of free personal care; calls on the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to report on the fiscal, workforce and administrative preparations required to implement the policy; and asks the Executive to consider the costs and method of delivery in the context of the Comprehensive Spending Review and in light of the other budgetary pressures facing the Executive.” When the Assembly voted in 2002 to introduce free nursing care for the elderly, it was made clear that it would be a transitional position. That was agreed within the context of establishing the cost of free personal care and securing resources for its funding. It is important to remind Members of that, because it sets today’s debate in a proper context — one of fiscal responsibility. That responsibility is the whole purpose of the Ulster Unionist Party’s amendment. The Assembly must make informed and responsible decisions, and I am asking the Health Minister to establish what the full cost of such a measure would be. Today, the Assembly is engaged in unfinished business. That business must be finished responsibly, and Members must remember their accountability for public finances. When the subject was raised in the Assembly in 2002, I said that the identification and the procurement of adequate funding was the only issue that precluded action; that remains the case. That was the responsible course of action to take in 2002, and it remains so today. The Assembly must learn that wish lists — without the ability to procure the money to deliver them — are worthless. While I believe that the time for action is now closer, it is just as important that the Assembly should proceed properly by demonstrating fiscal responsibility five years on. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClarty] in the Chair) Our sister institution, the Scottish Parliament, has provided a good example of how a regional devolved body can make a real difference to social policy. It enables us to get away from the one-size-fits-all approach so often taken at Westminster with no account for regional preference. In 2005-06, free personal care in Scotland cost 1·73% of the Scottish health budget, and that equates to the 1·85% estimate that the Assembly Health Committee reckoned that it would cost here in 2002. Despite some problems with its implementation, the Scottish policy is seen as one of the new Parliament’s successes. This year alone the policy has received a clear, if cautious, vote of confidence from an inquiry by the Scottish Parliament’s Health Committee and from research published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which said that: “Scotland’s go-it-alone policy of providing free personal care for older people at home and in residential and nursing homes has created a fairer system without undue public spending.” However, it is important that the Assembly take note of some of Scotland’s implementation problems. If an enabling Bill is introduced in the Assembly, such problems will need to be addressed for the implementation plan for free personal care for the elderly to work to its optimum. It is not merely a question of how much the free personal care will cost; the modalities of its implementation and delivery are equally important. As the saying goes: the devil is often in the detail. Some people in Scotland who qualify for free personal care are experiencing some problems with their attendance allowances, while those getting free nursing care in England are not similarly penalised. That appears to be partly due to a lack of communication between the Department for Work and Pensions in Westminster and the locally controlled Health Department. Protocols must be put in place to avoid the manifest unfairness of people being paid an attendance allowance in England but not elsewhere. However, the discrepancy appears to be more than mere coincidence. Five years on, the quirks of delivering the policy have resulted in a massive erosion in the differential between Scotland and England — a differential that was wide several years ago, and seems to be much smaller today. In England, contributions to nursing care for those who have been assessed as being in the highest band have increased to £133 per week. As people in England who receive nursing care do not lose their attendance allowance of £62·25 per week, the margins between the two countries are decreasing; Scotland’s funding provides £145 per week for personal care and £65 for nursing care. Those figures have not risen since 2002. A person could receive £195·25 in England compared to £210 in Scotland. We need to consider that differential and establish whether the attitude of the Department for Work and Pensions is not a deliberate administrative act designed to frustrate a regional policy. We must establish the true extent of the differential. That is where a report by the Minister of Health on the fiscal, workforce and administrative preparations required to implement the policy, as mentioned in the amendment, would come into play. In Scotland, the money that is transferred to local authorities to administer the scheme is ring-fenced. There are concerns that it might be necessary to do that here, as councils may be tempted to dip into the pot to offset other programmes. There are other issues from the Scottish experience that need to be addressed in a local Act. One issue is the apparent operation of waiting lists by some councils in Scotland. There is also ongoing uncertainty regarding definitions; for example, what constitutes food preparation and whether that counts as personal care. Clarity in a local Act would ensure that its operation would not be watered down and that the legislators’ intentions would not be frustrated. Essentially, we are asking for a better Act or a better course of action. It is important that the social legislation enacted by the Assembly reflects the current configuration of society. Existing legislation reflects a very different Northern Ireland when, in 1971, some 45·9% of Northern Ireland households were owner-occupied. By 2001, that figure had risen to 68·8%. The dramatic increase in home ownership in Northern Ireland will remove an increasing proportion of people from the publicly-funded personal-care safety net while those with modest savings and who own their homes, which they do not want to realise, will be left vulnerable to prohibitive care costs. It will destroy the lifetime savings of many families — savings that have already been taxed several times by Government — leaving many older people who have been prudent with their savings with no other option but to sell their homes or leave no assets to their families. I suggest that that is just another health tax. Given the current levels of home ownership, that situation cannot be said to represent the welfare state, as it is such a departure from its founding principles. I ask the House to support my amendment, which blends the desire for action on this front with a fiscally prudent and sensible way forward, remembering that we are spending taxpayers’ money. Mrs I Robinson: When in opposition, it is certainly easy, if not always wise, to make ambitious demands. In positions of responsibility, things become more difficult. During one of the previous Assemblies I was delighted when free nursing care was introduced. At that time certain individuals tried to make political capital by saying that free personal care should also be introduced, in spite of the fact that money simply was not there to allow that. In the end it proved better to have half a loaf than none at all. Mr McCarthy: Will the Member give way? Mrs I Robinson: I will not give way. The Member has had an opportunity to speak. I did not hear the SDLP or the Alliance Party indicate how they wish to raise the money for this, given that we have a fixed and finite budget. As we discuss the motion, we must pay careful attention to the costs involved, and I say that as someone who is determined to see free personal care in Northern Ireland at the earliest possible opportunity. An economic analysis of the introduction of free personal care in Scotland shows that the policy has cost more than expected. For example, in 2002-03 it cost £127 million rather than the £107 million that was planned. Similarly, in 2003-04, £143 million was spent rather than the £125 million expected. Nevertheless, this still represents only 0·6% of the Scottish Executive’s total budget of £25 billion, and can have had only a relatively marginal impact on spending in other areas. Unfortunately, however, waiting lists have emerged in Scotland that have restricted the demand among elderly people for free personal care. A statistical snapshot, taken on a single day last February, showed that 4,005 people were waiting to be assessed and that a further 709 people had been assessed but were still waiting to receive a service. The report anticipates that a major increase in the number of people aged 85 and over may lead to a potential tripling of the public costs of personal care by 2053. Mr McNarry: With regard to the costs — and I understand the train of the Member’s thoughts, given the fixed and finite budget — is the Member, as Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, confident that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will be able to negotiate successfully the financial package that we all await this year to boost spending on health in Northern Ireland over the next three years? That would be a great help towards meeting our needs. Mrs I Robinson: I thank the Member for his intervention. Naturally, that will be decided by the Executive, and I am aware that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will push for additional funds, which I hope will be forthcoming. However, we have a finite budget, and we have to live within its means. It is very dangerous to raise the hopes of the public when it may not be possible to fulfil them. Mrs Long: Will the Member give way? Mrs I Robinson: No, I will not give way. I am going on now. [Interruption.] Mrs I Robinson: Another Member keeps interrupting, Mr Deputy Speaker, from a sedentary position. I have already indicated that I will not let him make an intervention. Please tell the Member to sit quietly. [Interruption.] Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Mrs I Robinson: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. However, a further shift towards providing more care services at home, combined with policies to promote healthier life expectancy, could significantly reduce the projected bill. Several wider lessons and conclusions can be drawn from the Scottish experience. Free personal care has the capacity to support clients’ wishes for person-centred care that is sensitive to individual needs. Shifts in the balance of care can moderate costs; it is important that projections of future trends do not merely reproduce existing models of the balance of care. 11.15 am A new approach to costing care packages, which avoids problematic classification of tasks and their allocation to different budgets, could address many difficulties for individuals and for the delivery and costs of service provision. Free personal care has made provision for those of modest means, especially women and people with conditions such as Alzheimer’s, more equitable. For those groups, personal-care payments are no longer a burden, particularly towards the end of their lives when such care is vital. However they still face charges for some aspects of their care. There is a need for balance between nationally agreed priorities and local authority autonomy. I support the amendment. Mr Brady: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the motion. In 2006 there were 181,000 women aged 60 or over and 101,000 men aged 65 years or over in our population. People of pensionable age make up 16·3% of the total population. Sixty-seven per cent of men and 60% of women aged 65 to 70 have a long-standing illness. A survey conducted by Age Concern found that 40% of older people believe that they are treated differently from the rest of the population because of their age. Free personal care for older people should be supported and, once implemented, should be subject to continued improvement, updating and monitoring. The challenges presented by an ageing population impact on all aspects of society. By 2040 the proportion of people over 60 will have doubled, with a 57% increase in the number of people over 75. Therefore, in the provision and implementation of free personal care for the elderly, it is essential to get it right at the political and policy-making levels. Many older people feel that politicians do not empathise with them, so we must listen to what they are saying and be proactive in addressing their needs, concerns and aspirations. Older people require both dignity and security in the way their long-term care needs are met. The views, needs and aspirations of older people must be taken into account fully regarding personal care. Personal care, both at home and in residential care homes, must be provided free at the point of delivery. For elderly people, the need for long-term care is unpredictable and happens through no fault of their own. Certainly, the cost of good quality long-term care is very high, and most people cannot afford to meet it. For the majority of older people, the ability to pay for personal care is outside their means and therefore out of their control. Most care for older people is provided by unpaid carers, many of whom are unaware of their entitlement to a carers assessment, which could improve the help they get and give them some respite. Improving help for carers may lead to a situation where some older people may not have to go into residential accommodation just as quickly, as it is often not the best option. Indeed, evidence from healthcare professionals shows that after going into residential accommodation, elderly people can become institutionalised very quickly. I accept that the whole area of care is complex and expensive, but it is something that we need to address urgently. Go raibh maith agat. Mr Buchanan: I support the motion. Care for elderly people will only worsen if it is not properly managed. Therefore, politicians must ensure that those who require and are entitled to personal care receive the type most suitable for them. Politicians must seek to empower the elderly in our community, giving them the dignity and respect they deserve, particularly when they face the challenge of illness. I welcome the call to put free personal care for the elderly high on the Assembly’s list of priorities, with the aim of resolving any outstanding issues as soon as possible. However, we must recognise that the introduction of free personal care would involve a major funding commitment by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. The Scottish Executive have agreed to provide free personal care to people who are aged 65 and over, whether it is required at home, in hospital or in a care home. The Scottish Executive have also agreed to provide all those people with free nursing care. The statement by the Royal Commission in September 2003 welcomed the action that was taken in Scotland and encouraged other devolved Governments to consider taking the same step. The Royal Commission highlighted the ongoing problems with funding for long-term care, pointing out that most patients are under pressure to finance their own care, burdening both themselves and their families. We, too, should consider that point. Patients and their families cannot be short-changed. In order to avoid unnecessary confusion, it would be beneficial to define what is meant by the term “personal care”. The Royal Commission has set out guidelines that make a distinction between personal care and nursing care. It would aid the process if we had a clearer outline of such differentiations and clearer guidelines on the age at which people will benefit from the proposed free care. Although patients can meet certain costs, the long-term implications have to be considered. External contributing factors need to be assessed because, in the current climate, the economy is growing and prices and the cost of living are rising, affecting the cost of care provision. We are an ageing population, and demand will therefore escalate, increasing the pressures on families who are coping with the needs of their elderly relatives. Providing personal care at home, thus decreasing the number of elderly patients who are admitted to hospital, would, of course, be beneficial if the right practices were adopted to provide that care at a high standard. A high benchmark will have to be set for the quality of personal care, so that patients do not receive a second-rate service. It is worth considering how best to evaluate new management processes, and it is worth asking whether we have enough qualified, trained and experienced staff to deal with an increase in the number of patients, each of whom will have individual care demands. As was discussed in the Transitional Assembly in December 2006, people could be expected to contribute towards living and accommodation costs, for example. However, when people have worked hard all their lives to ensure that there was provision when they needed it most, they should not be expected to pay for personal care. Our primary concern should be people’s quality of life. The service must therefore improve for everyone — the patients, the families and, of course, the staff who work so hard to administer essential care. I support the motion. Ms S Ramsey: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I, too, support the motion. As Kieran McCarthy said, the Assembly has debated this issue several times over a number of years, and all parties have called for the Executive to introduce free personal care. Kieran will be glad to know that our party — because the proposer of the motion has accepted both amendments — will support the motion. I thank the proposer of the motion for securing today’s debate. As Assembly Members, we must commit ourselves to not allowing the issue to be forgotten. Free personal care must be introduced at the earliest opportunity. By 2020, more than half the population of Ireland will be over 60. In a previous debate on the issue, I stated that our society would be judged on how we treated our young people and elderly people. Children and young people are our future but, as Kieran said, the only certainty in life is that we will all get old. Therefore we will be judged on how we treat elderly people. We must address discrimination in the provision of health services to older people. The introduction of free personal care is essential. We must also address the needs of carers — we have all heard their stories. I was formerly a member of the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee, and I have listened to the families and friends of people who need care. They have told me about the work that they do 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I commend all those people who are currently caring for family and friends. We have an ageing population, and some people have complex needs. Care for the elderly is becoming more difficult. Many people want to continue to live in their homes, but they will need support for that. We have a duty to provide that support. In a previous debate on free personal care, and again today, Rev Robert Coulter informed us of the cost of introducing free personal care in Scotland and of the possible cost here. He also said that the UUP made commitments in its 2003 and 2005 election manifestos, and that the issue is, in his words, “unfinished business”. I say to him: let us finish that business; let us work for the introduction of free personal care. I was going to say that I welcomed the Minister’s attendance. He has popped out for just a few minutes, but he has probably the highest attendance record of all Ministers — he has been here every week. That is the reality of taking on the role of Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Health matters will impact on a daily basis. However, I want to commend the Minister’s commitments during a previous debate, in which he said that he would implement all the recommendations of the Bamford Review. Therefore I call on him to indicate today that he will implement — I am sure that he will — all the Royal Commission’s recommendations on free personal care. Several Members referred to the Scottish model. What does free personal care mean in Scotland? Members highlighted some of the difficulties, including the failure of the Scottish Executive to enforce clear guidance in key aspects, such as the preparation of meals. Although we can take on board how the Scottish model has worked, we must learn from it and ensure that any mistakes are not repeated here. In conclusion, I want to give a special mention to all those groups from the community and voluntary sector that have placed this issue at the heart of the Assembly. They have placed their trust in us. Therefore let us ensure that we take this matter forward and implement free personal care for the elderly at the earliest opportunity. Go raibh maith agat. Mr Easton: I am told that in the tiny Buddhist kingdom of Bhutan, high in the Himalayas, it is the expressed ambition of the King to govern in a way that contributes to the maximum well-being of his countrymen and countrywomen. That should be our mission in the Assembly, and no group of people is more deserving of consideration than our senior citizens. I am glad to say that the DUP has an impressive record in placing the needs of older people at the top of its agenda. The warm homes scheme and the free public transport arrangements for those over 65 years of age are examples that spring to mind. The DUP election manifesto set out a number of objectives that, if achieved, would help our senior citizens to enjoy an active and full life in comfort and security. It must be our ambition to honour our election pledges. Helping older people to claim benefit entitlements, preventing cold-weather-related deaths, and having in place measures to make people feel more secure in their homes are important objectives of this party. This afternoon, we will debate the issue of fuel poverty, and, in the near future, we hope to debate the extension of the travel scheme to include those over 60. We hope to support proposals on those matters. It is, however, the matter of equal and free personal care for the elderly that is our current focus. Members will recall that the DUP backed the introduction of free nursing care, and that has benefited thousands of elderly people in Northern Ireland. That was an important step in the right direction, but it stopped short of tackling the difficult issues associated with delivery of free personal care for the elderly at the point of need. We are all familiar with instances in which the savings of people who have prudently provided for their old age and the equity in family homes have disappeared like snow off a ditch when old people become unable to care for themselves or when support is not available or is exhausted. That can be devastating, and it seems very unfair for families to feel penalised in that situation. Families are aware that those who do not own their own homes and have no savings or resources receive the full measure of residential and other care at no cost. It is easy for individual Assembly Members to court popularity by calling for measures that will have broad public support, without considering the financial and other implications. I am aware that we do not have unlimited resources. However, that must not limit our vision for the future. This is a critical issue, and I believe strongly that we must focus our attention on the need to make a commitment at the earliest possible moment to introduce free personal care for older people in Northern Ireland. In considering that, it would be helpful to benefit from the experience of other communities, in particular that of the Scottish Executive and local authorities in Scotland. We owe it to those people, now advancing in years, to show respect for the contribution that they have made to society in very difficult times. 11.30 am The quality of the lives of the older generation has been blighted by 40 years of terrorism and instability. The Assembly must do all in its power to ensure that the debts that are owed to them are honoured in their twilight years. Elderly folk must be treated with the care and respect to which they are entitled. I strongly support the call for the Executive to undertake a review to establish what resources are required for the implementation of free personal care for the elderly. Indeed, I want to know whether the Minister can afford it out of the existing health budget. Mr B McCrea: I support the motion in the strongest possible terms. In particular, I support the amendment put forward by my colleague, the Rev Dr Robert Coulter. I am grateful to Mrs Hanna for bringing the matter to the attention of the House and giving the Assembly the chance to debate it. I am also grateful for the gracious manner in which she has accepted the amendments. It is a pity, therefore, that members of the Alliance Party have sought to introduce a totally unnecessary note of rancour to the debate. [Interruption.] In order to avoid the interjections that are made, pathetically, time and time again — and if the Member will stop talking and listen — let me reiterate: the decision that was made in 2002 to introduce free nursing care but not free personal care was intended to be a transitional arrangement until the cost of free personal care was established. That point was made quite clearly by Mrs Robinson earlier in the debate. It is crucial that the resources be secured to honour that commitment. [Interruption.] Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind Members that speaking from a sedentary position is not permissible. Members must ask the Member who is speaking whether they can make an intervention. Mr B McCrea: In response to Mrs Hanna’s enquiry, I can say that, according to evidence that was provided to the Health Committee in May 2002, the cost of free personal care in Northern Ireland would be between £40 million and £50 million. That equates to around 1·85% of Northern Ireland’s £2·7 billion health budget for 2004-05 — in the region of what is being paid by the Scottish Parliament. I have taken on board the fact that there are issues with that that must be properly investigated. Two Royal Commission reports on the long-term care of the elderly, in March 1999 and September 2003, have recommended the introduction of free personal care underwritten by general taxation and based on need rather than wealth. That is the fundamental point of the discussion. The Royal Commission noted that: “It is true that some 70% of older people in long-term care get some state help with the costs. Many of these people will have had to use their not necessarily large capital, including the proceeds of selling their house, and so suffer the indignity of being reduced to penury before state support kicks in.” That cannot be fair, Mr Deputy Speaker. It should not be the case that people must sell their homes before they can get some form of support. It sends out all the wrong messages; that one should not save or buy a house. That is not the right way forward. Although many people enjoy the current boom in house prices, what benefit will it be to them when they must sell their homes in order to get support? Furthermore, one must pay through the nose in order to have that privilege. In 1999, the Royal Commission made the key point that: “The system at the moment helps people who are poor, demands that people of modest means make themselves poor before it will help, and affects people to a lesser degree the richer they are”. Once again, Mr Deputy Speaker, that cannot be fair or just. The Royal Commission described free personal care for the elderly as being: “in the best tradition of social policy in this country”, ensuring welfare, security and dignity for those of modest means who work, pay their taxes, save and own their own homes. That is at the heart of democracy. Therefore, I support both the amendment and the main motion. The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey): I thank Mrs Hanna for bringing an important subject to the Floor of the House and those who spoke in the debate. Members clearly want to make progress, and, most importantly, the public whom we represent expect the issue of free personal care to be addressed. It is a huge bone of contention for people that, having paid taxes during their entire working lives, they may be forced to sell their homes to pay for care in their twilight years. It seems inherently unfair to many people that only those too frail to continue living independently in their communities have to face that situation. The current charging policy hits the most vulnerable and frail in society. That is why the UUP’s manifesto includes a commitment to introduce free personal care. Bearing in mind what has been said this morning, Members must be clear on what is meant by free personal care. It involves payment to cover the cost of helping people with personal tasks that they would normally do for themselves, such as dressing, eating, washing, bathing, toileting, getting in and out of bed, moving around their houses and keeping safe. In line with the recommendations in the Royal Commission’s report on long-term care for the elderly, it does not mean that all services in care homes would be free. People who live in care homes would continue to contribute, to the extent to which they are able, to the cost of living there, and, therefore, they would be treated in the same way as people who receive care services in their homes. It is useful to bear in mind some of the headline figures to indicate the financial implications on the budget. The estimated cost of providing social care services is estimated at £252 million for residents in care homes and £134 million for those living in their own homes. The figure for charges to people receiving care stands at £78 million. This is not the first Assembly’s debate on free personal care. Some Members have referred to the February 2001 decision of the former Assembly that the Royal Commission’s recommendations, including free personal care, should be implemented in Northern Ireland. It may be helpful for Members if I outline progress subsequent to that Assembly debate. The Executive established an interdepartmental group to examine the financial and other implications of introducing free personal care. When the group presented its report in July 2002, it estimated the cost of free personal care at between £40 million and £60 million. The cost of providing free personal care for those who are in residential homes is reasonably simple to estimate. However, it is difficult to estimate what can be described as the latent demand — the extra demand that would be generated as a result of providing financial support, because some currently informal care may become formalised. The experience in Scotland clearly demonstrates that that happens when free personal care is introduced. The Executive requested that the group carry out further work, but the Assembly was suspended before it could report back. Despite continued calls from Assembly Members, the direct rule Ministers firmly held the view that because of the financial implications and potential wider impact on spending priorities, any decision on free personal care should be left to a restored Executive. As the Assembly is now restored, Members have another chance to discuss and progress the issue. Some progress has been made on implementing several of the Royal Commission’s recommendations. In April 2002, a 12-week “property disregard” was introduced, which means that the value of a person’s home is not taken into account for the first 12 weeks after his or her move into a care home. That period was designed to allow people time to recuperate and regain as much capacity for independent living as possible, before having to make what is often an irreversible decision. In October 2002, payments for nursing care were introduced. That means that £100 a week is paid by the health and social care trusts for those nursing home residents who are responsible for the full costs of their care. It is useful to consider that the Royal Commission broke down costs into three components. The first component was accommodation and food, which was estimated to cost £235 a week. Secondly, personal care was estimated to cost £130 a week, and, thirdly, nursing care was estimated to cost £100 a week. Nursing care is provided free in nursing homes. Personal care in residential homes is not free, and that is the matter under debate. The view of the Royal Commission was that if one lives in one’s own home, or in a residential home, it is reasonable to expect one to make a contribution towards one’s own accommodation and food costs — food, lighting, heating, and so on. Support for food and accommodation costs is subject to graduated means-testing: if one cannot afford it, one gets support. Payments for nursing care were introduced in October 2002. As other Members have pointed out, as far as the Executive is concerned, personal care policy is a work in progress that is moving forward. Since 2002, the limits on the amount of savings or assets that are used to determine how much someone should pay towards the cost of their care — and consequently, how much financial support to which they should be entitled — have increased in line with the limits in England. Those figures now stand at a lower limit of £13,000, and an upper limit of £21,500. That is a form of means-testing. Taking those limits on assets into consideration, it would be very difficult to find a house that is not worth more than £21,500. The point is continually raised that when people become elderly and frail and require support, they end up having to sell their homes. That is clearly unfair. It is important that I point out that those developments apply to all client groups, because this matter does not affect only the elderly. The 2002 work was based on the important assumption that the section 75 equality requirements of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 would not permit the introduction of a scheme that was limited to specific age groups, irrespective of need. That important consideration must be borne in mind throughout all of our deliberations. Section 75, which governs our activities, states that measures cannot be confined to a specific age group. However, many of us view the recommendation that personal care should be provided free as of vital importance. That has not been delivered, and it is my intention to put that right. I view personal care as one strand of the work that we must do to ensure that we treat our elderly with dignity and respect. For too long, care of the elderly has meant little beyond institutional care, isolated from friends and family. That is changing, but I am determined to accelerate that change. We know that, where possible, people want to maintain their independence and remain in their own homes, with appropriate assistance. We must build capacity in our communities to support our elderly. We must provide services that stop our elderly from being unnecessarily admitted to hospital, simply because there are not sufficient services at a time of crisis. Helping elderly people to maintain their independence must be our primary concern. My Department’s reform and modernisation agenda is already seeing resources being redirected to the community to enable us to do that. Moreover, an extra £4 million is being invested in 2007-08 to further develop the flexibility and responsiveness of domiciliary care services in people’s own homes. That is a fundamental requirement for older people who have long-term conditions or other complex needs. 11.45 am I remind Members that domiciliary care covers the costs incurred in a person’s residence, and includes personal care. Therefore, covering personal care has gone part of the way; however, that is not good enough. We must go all of the way. Part of the way does not help care-home residents who must pay for their personal care, and who are, in effect, punished for the misfortune of ill health or disability. In a civilised society that cannot be right, and I intend to do something about it. As much as I should like immediately to implement free personal care, I should be negligent in my duties as a Minister were I to bring forward proposals for consideration by my Executive colleagues, without an up-to-date assessment of the costs and potential implications for other services. The most recent estimate, carried out in June 2005 for a direct rule Minister, put the cost at £45 million. However, that estimate was based on assumptions used by a Scottish Executive interdepartmental group in 2002 and amounted to little more than a superficial update. Such an important decision must not be taken based on assumptions and figures that are more than five years old. An estimate of costs depends on the number of people in care homes and the likely increase in demand for formal care. In the two parts to that calculation, the first is reasonably easy and the second is much more difficult. The number of people in care homes remains fairly static, but the latent demand is difficult to ascertain. The Scottish Parliament’s 2002 report estimated the potential cost of the move from informal to formal care to be up to £23 million. That was the cost then of latent demand. The model of free personal care used by the Scottish Executive for the past five years is available to consider. That means that there are five years of data to access, and it is important that Members take the time to do that. There is also an opportunity to learn from the practical experiences of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly in tackling this issue. I want to ensure that my proposals are based on sound information about costs and volumes, to be clear that all potential options have been examined, and that the final decision is sustainable and in the best interests of the vulnerable people who rely on our services. Reports on waiting lists in Scotland must also be sought. Dr Deeny: Did the Minister hear the leader of his party on Radio Ulster this morning, talking about the subject of costs? Furthermore, was he encouraged to hear a Member of the Scottish Parliament, on that programme, who said that there is a wonderful service for elderly people in Scotland, and who seemed pleasantly surprised to state that free personal care cost less than 0·5% of the Scottish Parliament’s budget. If that equates with here, should it not give all Members encouragement to move on this issue as soon as possible? Mr McGimpsey: That is exactly what I am doing, and I will now set out the steps to move forward. Whatever the final model, significant funding must be found and it must be sustainable. Therefore, I am commissioning a comprehensive update to the information relating to costs that will consider the lessons learned from Scotland and Wales and identify other potential options. I want to move forward as quickly as possible. There are other options that did not form part of the original report. In particular, it cannot be right that the family home is sold to fund care. I have asked officials to report to me by October on the options that can be taken forward under the existing legislation and constraints, particularly with regard to the exclusion of the family home from financial assessment. That is one of the key issues. Introducing personal expenses allowances and raising thresholds before asking for contributions are also being considered. Currently, if an elderly person has minimal assets, their only income is their pension, which is then taken off them and they are given back £20 a week for spending money. That is neither adequate nor fair. Therefore I am developing those three points, all of which are covered by existing legislation. Primary and subordinate legislation must be passed and detailed written guidelines produced if any model that involves making a payment on the basis of assessment is to be introduced. Therefore with the best will in the world, the date that Kieran McCarthy outlined in his amendment is not achievable, although I will question my officials about that again. In fact, 1 April 2010 is the earliest possible date that free personal care can be introduced. That is the earliest date, going through the legislative process — Mr Deputy Speaker: The Minister’s time is up. Mr McCallister: This is a timely debate that concentrates on an issue that should be an immediate priority for this Assembly. The Ulster Unionist Party is committed to providing security, dignity and welfare for our older people. It believes that those values should shape our society’s approach to valuing and protecting the elderly as vital members of the community. Indeed, that has been a long-standing commitment of our party for some time. The motion alludes to the fact that the previous Assembly agreed in principle to the introduction of free personal care for the elderly. Dr Coulter, my colleague Mr McCrea and Mrs Robinson spoke about the decision that was taken in 2002 to introduce free nursing care but not free personal care. That decision was intended to be — as the Royal Commission recognised — a transitional position while the cost of free personal care was established and resources for its provision were secured. However, it is my firm belief that now is the time for the Assembly to act, to take the next steps required and to deliver on this key provision. Two Royal Commission reports — one in March 1999 and another in September 2003 — recommended the introduction of free personal care for the elderly. Such free personal care would be: “underwritten by general taxation, based on need rather than wealth.” As my colleague Mr McCrea mentioned, the Royal Commission made a very strong statement when it stated that: “It is true that some 70% of older people in long-term care get some state help with the costs. Many of these people will have had to use their not necessarily large capital, including the proceeds of selling their house, and so suffer the indignity of being reduced to penury before state support kicks in.” One of the most important statements in the 1999 report stated that: “The system at the moment helps people who are poor, demands that people of modest means make themselves poor before it will help, and affects people to a lesser degree the richer they are and better able to afford the sums required.” All Members who have spoken today mentioned that in July 2002 the Scottish Executive introduced free personal care for the elderly, the introduction of which was supported by all political parties in the Scottish Parliament. Mrs Robinson quite rightly mentioned budgets and overspend. However, the Minister made clear in his statement that whatever results from any discussion of the matter must be sustainable. In a previous debate on prescription charges, I asked why Northern Ireland should be any different from any other devolved region of the United Kingdom. Evidence that was provided to the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety in May 2002 stated that free personal care in Northern Ireland would cost between £40 million and £50 million. As has been mentioned, that equates to 1·85% of the 2004-05 health budget. Mr McCarthy: Will the Member give way? Mr McCallister: Given that the Member has been trying all day, why not? [Laughter.] Mr McCarthy: Will the Member concede that before the recent elections both his party and the DUP — and everybody else — were quite aware of the funding requirements for free personal care, yet went ahead and said that they would introduce it? What is the delay? What is stopping him now from giving the people what was promised? Mr McCallister: Did the Member not hear the Minister? He is not sitting very far away from him. I understand and accept that, because I am significantly younger than him, I am not in such a rush. [Laughter.] The Minister has already made it clear that the earliest that free personal care could be introduced would be April 2010. Every party in the Assembly has commended the Minister on his attendance at health debates. He gave a full account of some of the progress that has been made on all of the issues and with regard to changes to the limits. As I have said, free personal care has to be sustainable. There is no point in delivering it for one or two years and then finding that the Executive has run out of money. It has to be sustainable. Mrs Ramsey mentioned some of the failures of the Scottish system. We should look at some of the failures but also at some of the successes, learn from both, and move forward on the issue. Dr Farry: It is fair to say that this has been a useful debate, if for nothing else then because it has been an opportunity for people to set out their positions on this important issue. We have moved from the situation in opposition, where everyone gave empty promises, to one where we face the challenges of delivery. It seems that we all agree on the principles of the issue, but there are different levels of commitment to delivering it. The Assembly seems to have no problem in supporting the issue when it is asked to do so in principle, but when challenged to commit, the Assembly baulks on every occasion. The key issue is one of priorities. Members are right to speak of a fixed budget. The Alliance Party understands that we have a fixed budget. Mr Weir: I note that the Alliance Party’s amendment refers to this as “a new priority”. Which of the current priorities are they going to drop in order to make this issue a new priority? Are priorities simply going to be added ad infinitum, so that nothing becomes a priority? Dr Farry: I thank the Member for his intervention; I was going to come to that point. The Alliance Party will go further and accept that we are operating within tight fiscal constraints, with an unsustainable financial subvention from the Treasury. The challenge for the Assembly is to find the money within the existing budget, as with any other new spending priority that the Assembly might want to adopt. That is what happened in Scotland — the Scottish Executive found the money within their existing budget, without any new money from the Treasury. The point is that we have a locally devolved Assembly. We are here as locally elected representatives to reflect the spending priorities of the people who put us here. We are not here simply to accept decisions made by other people. Mrs Robinson talked about fixed budgets. If we are talking about fixed budgets, is that not an admission that the Assembly will not change the situation that existed under the direct rule Ministers? The key challenge is to put the issue into the comprehensive spending review. Within that, there will have to be a reassessment of all priorities. Ms S Ramsey: I am conscious that there are two amendments and that the proposer of the motion has said from the outset that she accepts both. I would like some clarification of the difference between Dr Farry’s amendment and the Ulster Unionists’ amendment. Dr Farry: I am glad to give that clarification. Our amendment gives a commitment to delivery on this issue. The Ulster Unionists’ amendment says that it will have to be considered among other priorities; it does not give a commitment at all. Mr McCrea mentioned the challenge of finding between £40 million and £50 million to fund free personal care. I am glad to see that he has got the cost right on one issue — the Minster has referred to £45 million. Budgets change all the time — that is the point of the comprehensive spending review. We have to reflect different challenges and demands on the budget. We all know that there are pressures on health funding. We have an ageing population, and budgets need to change to address that. 12.00 noon The DUP’s Alex Easton referred to Bhutan, which is one of the few absolutist monarchies in the world. It is also one of the world’s poorest countries and has a low life expectancy. I hope that Mr Easton’s comments do not reflect the direction in which Northern Ireland is going. The Minister of Finance and Personnel has said that his target is to find efficiency savings of 3% in the forthcoming Budget. The Alliance Party, in its election manifesto, stated that £1 billion was being wasted annually in managing Northern Ireland’s divided society, which does not allow us to invest in the quality changes in public services that the people of this country demand. If the will is there, the money is available to address the inefficient way in which services are delivered and to find a new way forward. The Alliance Party is confident that the money can be found in the existing Budget limits. It has been said that this issue must be dealt with in a transitionary phase. The issue of free personal care was introduced in the Scottish Parliament in 1999, and legislation was in place by 2002; there were Royal Commission reports in 1999 and 2003. It is now 2007, and we are told that free personal care will be introduced in 2010. That is 12 years from the Good Friday Agreement, in which the Assembly was first envisaged. How long is a transitionary period? Must an entire generation of our elderly people miss out on the opportunity for free personal care because the Assembly does not have the will to address fundamental financial issues and the question of delivery? I urge the Assembly to back the Alliance Party amendment. The issue of free personal care must be addressed in the context of the comprehensive spending review. The people of Northern Ireland should have been given a firm commitment —not empty promises — about delivery a long time ago. The Ulster Unionist Party amendment waffles, procrastinates and gives no firm commitment. The Alliance Party amendment gives the people of Northern Ireland what they asked for and what all parties promised in their election manifestos. [Interruption.] Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I will have to ask the Member for Strangford what he had for his breakfast this morning. Mrs M Bradley: As many Members have said, we will all grow older, and, no doubt, the majority of us will experience an illness of some description in our later years, some people more than others. However, for older couples, the prospect of one partner requiring personal care is frightening, given that for homeowners, their home will be either partly or wholly consumed by the Government to pay for the partner who requires care. That is blatant robbery of the dignity and self-worth of one partner and a basic roof over the head of the other partner. That scenario can cause health problems for the partner left at home; if that partner requires care, his or her home is well and truly gone. The debacle of free personal care has been debated in the Assembly Chamber since 1999, and it is now high time that Members acted. People are genuinely suffering, physically and financially, and the Assembly has the power to ease that suffering or, at least, give those people the peace of mind that they will be looked after with the dignity that they deserve. During the first mandate of the Assembly, my colleague Mark Durkan, as Minister of Finance and Personnel, allocated funding for the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to implement a free nursing-care scheme. However, that first year’s money was returned unspent. The Health Minister and her team did not produce the necessary legislation on time, thereby missing a golden opportunity. That was a shameful and disgraceful mismanagement of fiscal opportunities, given that, when proposals were introduced, the Executive gave a commitment to provide money for free personal care. Acting as a united front, we should not allow incidents such as that to happen during this period of devolution. On 19 December 2006, we sat in the Chamber and unanimously passed a motion that the incoming Executive would prioritise the introduction of free personal care in Northern Ireland. I call on all Members to give their full and unequivocal support to today’s motion to move this issue forward urgently. We owe that much to those in our community who cannot fund their care requirements personally. People who are able to take on that expenditure are few and far between, so it is up to us to help in whatever way we can. The people who need free personal care are those who have struggled for years to keep our country going while its heart and soul were being bombed out. Had it not been for them, it is more than likely that we would not have an economy of any description, poor though it may be at present. Carers, be they family or friends, are under pressure, undervalued and underpaid — that is blatantly obvious. As a spokesperson for the elderly, I have a close working relationship with many charitable organisations charged with looking out for the welfare of older people. The issue of carers, and their role, is high on the list of priorities at every meeting. Carers are normally overworked, yet many would not admit it, as it could be seen as a complaint that they must care for a loved one 24/7. The situation must be resolved. One national charity predicts that, by 2036, the percentage of the Northern Ireland population aged 65 and over will rise to 24%. By 2020, one in four European Union citizens will be aged 60 or over. We cannot wait until those figures become a reality before addressing the issue; we must do it now. Forewarned is forearmed, as they say, so we must heed those figures and pre-empt the total meltdown of our care system. Personal care is a highly emotive issue, and any family that lives with the uncertainty of care or respite provision does not have an easy time. I have personal experience of that, as I nursed my father, who suffered from Alzheimer’s disease, until his death. However, not every family is in a position to provide care, and those families require urgent and immediate help. They do not need another series of reports; there have been enough of those. I am under no illusion. Providing free personal care will be no mean feat or a cheap process. However, none of us in this Chamber signed up for a holiday, so it is time to stand up and be counted. According to statistics, one in four people could require that facility in years to come — that would be the equivalent of 27 out of 108 Assembly Members. That is a scary prospect, but our constituents are living with it day after day. We must not forget young people who are also affected by the situation. We have the power to do something about it and we must act urgently. I welcome the Minister’s statements; 2010 is not far away, and I hope that everything will be properly in place to help those who need it. Mr McNarry: I thank the Member for giving way. I am grateful that Mrs Bradley mentioned the Minister’s date of 2010. In line with the good debate thus far, and the sincerity and sensitivities expressed, does she agree that, in progressing the debate, it would be valuable if Members took account of the 2010 date? It is a realistic target and something to aim for. Members should therefore look more carefully at the amendment that gives a different date of 2008-09. That makes a great difference. Mrs M Bradley: I agree. All parties should come together to deal with the matter. I understand Kieran McCarthy’s emotions in relation to the motion. The DUP appears to have watered down its opinions on the matter, so I would like its Members to come on board. Let us all agree on the way forward for the good of the people who require free personal care. We all believe that it is necessary and important, so let us all support it. Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind Members that if amendment No 1 is made, I will still put the Question on amendment No 2. The Question is that amendment No 1 standing on the Marshalled List be made. All those in favour say “Aye”. Some Members: Aye. Mr Deputy Speaker: Contrary, if any, “No”. Some Members: No. Some Members: Aye. Some Members: No. Mr Deputy Speaker: The Noes have it. The Question is that amendment No 2 standing on the — Mr Ford: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It has been a precedent in this Assembly that, when a significant number of voices are raised, there has always been a recorded Division. On what grounds have you refused to grant a Division on amendment No 1? Mr Deputy Speaker: One has to find out what the definition of “significant number” is, Mr Ford. The very clear indication of the House was that the Noes had it. [Interruption.] Order. Mr Ford: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I was not querying your interpretation of the sounds made in the Chamber; I was making the point that there was a precedent in cases in which a significant number of voices were raised. Indeed, after a similar vote five years ago, the voices of only five Members were accepted and a Division granted. Clearly more than five Members shouted “Aye” today. Some Members: Hear, hear. 12.15 pm Mr Deputy Speaker: It is my intention, therefore, to put the Question again. Question put, That amendment No 1 be made. The Assembly divided: The Assembly divided: Ayes 48; Noes 47. AYES Ms Anderson, Mr Attwood, Mr Boylan, Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr P J Bradley, Mr Brady, Mr Brolly, Mr Burns, Mr Butler, Mr Dallat, Dr Deeny, Mr Durkan, Dr Farry, Mr Ford, Mr Gallagher, Mrs Hanna, Mrs D Kelly, Ms Lo, Mrs Long, Mr Lunn, Mr A Maginness, Mr P Maskey, Mr F McCann, Ms J McCann, Mr McCarthy, Mr McCartney, Dr McDonnell, Mr McElduff, Mrs McGill, Mr McGlone, Mr M McGuinness, Mr McHugh, Mr McKay, Mr McLaughlin, Mr Molloy, Mr Murphy, Mr Neeson, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O’Dowd, Mr O’Loan, Mrs O’Neill, Ms Purvis, Mr P Ramsey, Ms S Ramsey, Ms Ritchie, Ms Ruane, Mr B Wilson. Tellers for the Ayes: Dr Farry and Mr Lunn. NOES Mr Armstrong, Mr Beggs, Mr Bresland, Lord Browne, Mr Buchanan, Mr Campbell, Mr T Clarke, Mr Cobain, Rev Dr Robert Coulter, Mr Craig, Mr Cree, Mr Dodds, Mr Donaldson, Mr Easton, Mr Elliott, Sir Reg Empey, Mrs Foster, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hilditch, Mr Irwin, Mr Kennedy, Mr McCallister, Mr McCausland, Mr B McCrea, Mr I McCrea, Dr W McCrea, Mr McFarland, Mr McGimpsey, Miss McIlveen, Mr McNarry, Mr McQuillan, Lord Morrow, Mr Newton, Mr Paisley Jnr, Rev Dr Ian Paisley, Mr Poots, Mr G Robinson, Mrs I Robinson, Mr K Robinson, Mr P Robinson, Mr Ross, Mr Shannon, Mr Spratt, Mr Storey, Mr Weir, Mr Wells, Mr S Wilson. Tellers for the Noes: Mr Armstrong and Mr Buchanan. Question accordingly agreed to. Question, That amendment No 2 be made, put and agreed to. Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly accepts the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Long-Term Care of the Elderly; supports in principle the introduction of free personal care; calls on the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to report on the fiscal, workforce and administrative preparations required to implement the policy; and asks the Executive to consider the costs and method of delivery in the context of the Comprehensive Spending Review and in light of the other budgetary pressures facing the Executive. Mr Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes for the winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes. Two amendments have been selected and have been published on the Marshalled List. The proposers of the amendments will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes for the winding-up speeches. Miss McIlveen: I beg to move That this Assembly notes that more than 20 per cent of children in Northern Ireland leave school without having achieved the appropriate level of performance in literacy and numeracy; acknowledges the findings of reports by the Northern Ireland Audit Office and Westminster Public Accounts Committee, which indicate departmental failings in strategic leadership and target-setting; further notes that the proposed Literacy and Numeracy Taskforce has yet to be established; demands this is done without further delay; and calls upon the Minister of Education to confirm details of the resources and timescale involved for the implementation of an effective revised Literacy and Numeracy Strategy. I am happy to accept Mr Basil McCrea’s amendment, as the issue of literacy and numeracy is not exclusive to Northern Ireland. On average, there are around 25,000 school-leavers each year. In 2003-04, 37·2% left school with three or more A levels, and 16·5% left with five or more GCSEs at grade C or higher. In 2004-05, 67,769 students were enrolled in undergraduate or postgraduate courses in Northern Ireland. That is the good news. We often brag about the high standard of education in Northern Ireland. Our pupils consider some of the English board examinations to be easier options than those set by our own examining board. However, we need only scratch the surface and look beyond our high-performing schools to learn that 20% of our children leave school without attaining a level of competency in numeracy and literacy that will equip them adequately for life. What is more shocking is that the Department of Education was aware of that figure in 2001; that the figure has not shifted since that date; and that £40 million has been spent on tackling the problem. It does not appear to have been money well spent and the taxpayer is entitled to ask why. It is apparent from the results of assessments carried out from Key Stage 1 through to Key Stage 3 that there is a significant decrease at each key stage. Therefore, as children progress through school, they seem to regress. As the Chairman of the House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts (PAC) pointed out, the longer that schools have the children, the worse their results get. Quite astoundingly, 7,000 school-leavers — out of a total of 25,000 — are likely to leave secondary school with a below-expected level of mathematics. Educational underachievement is particularly acute among boys in inner-city areas. In the Belfast Education and Library Board area, boys trail girls by an unbelievable 29% and the situation needs to be tackled. The problem is more evident in deprived Protestant areas than in deprived Catholic areas: only 17·3% of pupils in schools in those areas achieve A* to C grades in GCSE English. Even more astonishingly, only 4·4% achieve those grades in mathematics. In 1998, the Department of Education published ‘A Strategy for the Promotion of Literacy and Numeracy in Primary and Secondary Schools in Northern Ireland’. The strategy was the subject of scrutiny by the House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts whose report was printed on 27 November 2006. The Committee said in its summary: “progress in literacy and numeracy attainment levels has been manifestly unsatisfactory, and the Department has failed to show sufficient leadership in driving things forward.” After the report identifies areas of deep concern — areas that should have been identified and addressed by the Department — it contains a number of conclusions and recommendations, and calls for urgent steps to be taken to improve the teaching of literacy and numeracy in schools. That need should have been evident from the lack of improvement in basic skills since 2001. 12.30 pm The Department is encouraged to ensure that support is focused on schools in which the leadership and management of literacy and numeracy efforts is weak. It is clear from the evidence that well-managed schools with strong leadership provide the best chance of success for our children. Thorough and rigorous research has been called for to identify and address the significant differences between the achievements of working-class Protestants and working-class Catholics in Belfast in GCSE mathematics and English. Why is there such a disparity, when there is reasonable consistency between equivalent schools in Glasgow? It was noted with dismay that when targets were in danger of not being met they were lowered, or the timescale extended. From the oral evidence given to the PAC, it seemed that the reason for that was that appropriate research had not been done when setting the targets in the first place. That hardly imbues me with confidence. I back the PAC’s call for appropriate target-setting that communicates a clear message and for a consistent approach to those targets to be taken. Targets are supposed to be a tool of accountability. To adjust them willy-nilly makes a mockery of the whole concept. The Department was criticised for its lack of benchmarking against comparable cities. Surely, not to benchmark is to lose a valuable tool for dealing with the issue of literacy and numeracy in schools. The plethora of information that is available from across the UK on what has succeeded and what has failed is such a valuable resource that not to have used it is tantamount to being unforgivable. The PAC also calls on the Department to ensure that teachers have a thorough understanding of relevant literacy and numeracy initiatives; to encourage parents to have a role in their children’s education by engaging with and supporting schools; to gather and analyse data on attainment levels in literacy and numeracy in order to target improvement programmes effectively; to address the underachievement of boys, especially in the Belfast area, by drawing together research on best practice; and to narrow the gap between the highest and lowest literacy and numeracy performers in Northern Ireland schools. In order to deal with the concerns that the PAC raised and the recommendations that it made, the Department announced that a literacy and numeracy task force was to be established in April 2007. April has come and gone, and still we have no task force. That is not good enough. Surely a Department whose knuckles had been rapped so hard would have ensured that it avoided further criticism. What else has not been done? Has the Department begun benchmarking? Is the Department providing more leadership to the education boards? Has the review referred to by the permanent secretary in his evidence to the PAC been completed? If so, does that mean that we now have realistic targets being set for our schools — targets that will not be adjusted because they are unattainable? On 24 May 2007, the Minister announced an additional £3 million to enhance classroom resources for the foundation stage of the revised curriculum and an extra 20,000 laptop computers for primary and post-primary schools. Although extra investment is always welcome, surely the most fundamental concern is that that investment should be used appropriately. It must address the core concern of literacy and numeracy in our society. Without the establishment of the task force to address the concerns of the PAC, will we again see sums of money being thrown at a problem without a consistent plan capable of solving it? Are we to look at another six years in which 20% of our children leave school without basic literacy and numeracy skills? There must be value for money. An investment should always see a return. It is clear that the 1998 strategy has not succeeded. It is clear that there have been gross failings in the Department. It is clear that the proverbial eye has been taken off the ball. The PAC criticised the Department for not showing strong enough leadership to the education boards; it is clear that the Minister should now show strong leadership to the Department. I call on the Minister to establish the task force without further delay, to confirm what resources have been set aside for the implementation of an effective, revised literacy and numeracy strategy, and to tell us when we can expect that strategy to be implemented. I commend the PAC for drawing our attention to the failings of the Department and for producing a report with such constructive and specific criticisms and recommendations. It is time that the Department of Education showed the Assembly that it has learnt its lesson. Mr D Bradley: I beg to move amendment No 1: Insert after the first “numeracy;” “recognises that academic selection and social deprivation contribute to the problems;” Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Tá mé an-bhuíoch díot as an deis seo a thabhairt domh labhairt ar an ábhar thábhachtach seo. Members will have read the reports by the Northern Ireland Audit Office and the House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts. The Department of Education, in its response to the PAC report, put up its hands, beat its breast and outlined how it intends to rectify the shortcomings in its former strategy. Members need to know as soon as possible how that will be done, and I am glad that the Minister is present. The Minister is very welcome, and I hope that she will respond to Members’ questions. As the Member who spoke previously said, we need to know what will be done; we need the task force to be set up; and we need to know what resources will be available to it, because those will largely determine how effective the strategy will be. I am concerned lest the new strategy should deal with the symptoms rather than tackle the root causes of the problem. Evidence shows clearly the strong link between social disadvantage and low educational attainment, which is the result of social deprivation. To address the problem of educational attainment, we must also address social deprivation. Only 37% of school-leavers from the most deprived areas leave school with five or more GCSEs; the average across Northern Ireland is 61%. The skills base in neighbourhood renewal areas also compares very unfavourably when measured against that of the whole of Northern Ireland. In those areas, only 20% of people aged 16 to 65 are qualified to level 2, whereas the Northern Ireland average is 45%. A review of the Northern Ireland literacy strategy, carried out on behalf of the Northern Ireland literacy steering group in October 2006, investigated substantial research on how neighbourhoods influence educational attainment. Tests for the existence of those effects on 2,500 young people in Scotland found a significant correlation between levels of deprivation in the home and the neighbourhood and levels of educational attainment. The study’s conclusions were that policies to alleviate educational disadvantage cannot be focused on schooling alone but must form part of a broader initiative to tackle social deprivation in society. It is now generally accepted that the children who face the greatest obstacle when it comes to raising attainment levels are from disadvantaged families; they live in disadvantaged neighbourhoods or attend schools with many other disadvantaged children. In Northern Ireland there are 102,000 children living in poverty. That indicates the scale of the problems that lie ahead. If social deprivation, which is one of the major causes of educational underachievement, is not addressed as part of a coherent strategy, the vicious circle of underachievement will continue into the next generation unabated. That point is made in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister’s anti-poverty strategy ‘Lifetime Opportunities: Government’s Anti-Poverty and Social Inclusion Strategy for Northern Ireland’. I quote: “Policy must break the cycle and the process that results in children who are born into poverty developing into underachieving young people with limited aspiration and low levels of educational qualifications and skills. They in turn become working age adults living in low incomes often in poor health and benefit dependence, with the prospect of a shorter, less healthy, comfortable and financially secure older age. They are also the adults most likely to be parents of children again born into poverty – with the cycle continuing. Policy must disrupt this process focussing on different priority needs and different times in people’s lives, from early years through to childhood, adult working life and later years.” Reviewing the factors that account for the variance in educational attainment, it is evident that combinations of social disadvantage powerfully affect school performance, with a variation of up to 75% in attainment by 16-year-olds at GCSE associated with pupil intake factors. It is important to research the influence of those, and other factors, on educational attainment. Policies and strategies must be formulated to change attitudes and raise awareness of the role and value of education to the individual. Parents and communities must be provided with the resources and skills to change attitudes locally, and support must be given to the efforts of teachers and other educationalists in tackling the problem. Tackling the multiple deprivations that have persisted in many areas for decades is obviously a priority for the anti-poverty strategy. Education certainly has a major role to play in that process not only through the formal education system but through the home and the wider community. That role should be carried out in conjunction with the Department of Health, the Department for Social Development and the Department for Employment and Learning. The proposed task force should reflect that multi-departmental approach. Academic selection compounds problems further. Gallagher and Smith have highlighted that academic selection tends to produce a disproportionate number of schools that combine low ability with social disadvantage in their enrolments, thereby exacerbating the educational disadvantage of both factors. Mr S Wilson: As problems with reading and writing start in primary school, and given that a reference has been made to secondary schools, how does the Member make the link between academic selection and the inability to read and write? Furthermore, as Catholic schools tend to perform better than Protestant schools in reading and writing at primary-school level, and considering that both sectors put youngsters through academic selection, how does he explain the difference at secondary-school level? Mr D Bradley: The Member will be aware of the well known fact that academic selection skews the entire primary curriculum and has a detrimental effect on the learning ability of primary-school pupils. Mr B McCrea: Will the Member give way? Mr D Bradley: No. I have already given way, and I have more material to get through. I do not accept Sammy Wilson’s claim that this problem cannot be tackled at secondary school. It is something that must be continually challenged throughout the primary and secondary sectors. School factors can raise attainment by up to 14 points at GCSE level for an average pupil, so schools are obviously a good place to improve children’s skills. However, a strategy that focuses solely on improving average school performance is likely to be less effective in reducing educational underachievement than a cross-cutting departmental approach involving communities, families, teachers and educationalists that addresses the causes of social deprivation as well as educational underachievement. There is a broad consensus that early-years intervention is among the most effective means of improving educational performance and outcomes. Such intervention is likely to be an important facet of strategies that help to lift children out of cycles of deprivation and on to positive trajectories. The evidence is promising and suggests that well designed programmes are successful at raising educational attainment and have other positive outcomes in the future. The most successful programmes are defined by early and intensive intervention and include a follow-up component in the later stages of a child’s development. A structured language framework is required, based on a logical model of language that describes the knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate at each year from primary 1 through to year 10. A good foundation programme is also needed, which includes a range of classroom teaching strategies, including phonics, modelled reading, and shared and guided reading, in addition to wave 1, wave 2 and wave 3 forms of intervention. 12.45 pm Mr B McCrea: I beg to move amendment No 2: Insert after the first “numeracy;” “recognises similar levels of under-achievement across the United Kingdom;”. I thank Ms McIlveen for her acceptance of my amendment; her proposal has my full support. The modest amendment I propose specifically addresses an issue that was raised but not properly answered by the previous contributor, Mr Dominic Bradley. The Minister of Education, Ms Caitríona Ruane, tells me that academic selection is responsible for poor numeracy and literacy in schools. That cannot be the case. The former Scottish First Minister, Jack McConnell, said in September 2006: “we can no longer tolerate the tail of underachievement. The bottom 20% for whom standards have failed to rise significantly since 1999 — their achievements, opportunities and aspirations are a national priority”. That is the result of Scotland’s comprehensive system. The Scottish tail of underachievement is very similar to our own. Research conducted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 1997 showed that around 20% of Scots are at the lowest literacy level, while official figures show that the proportion of Scottish pupils from manual backgrounds obtain either low qualifications or none. That is exactly the same situation as in Northern Ireland, except that it occurs within a comprehensive system. In England, a similar situation prevails. A study conducted in 2006 by the Department for Education and Skills into the literacy and numeracy skills of new employees showed that one third of employers had to give remedial English and maths lessons. In response to that study, Richard Lambert, the director-general of the Confederation of British Industry, said that: “The fact that one in three employers ran remedial courses for their staff in the last year is a sad indictment of how the education system has let young people down”. The need to tackle literacy and numeracy rates is a profound challenge that confronts us all. To tinker with academic selection for pupils at the age of 11 is not to acknowledge the extent of that challenge. Were we to accept the abolition of academic selection tomorrow, it would make no difference to the literacy and numeracy issue that we face. Mr Kennedy: Does the Member agree that the position shared by the SDLP and Sinn Féin is that academic selection should be abolished, and that because grammar schools achieve their cohort on that basis, the obvious conclusion is that both Sinn Féin and the SDLP are effectively advocating the abolition of grammar schools? Mr B McCrea: That is the logical conclusion of the argument put forward. However, academic selection is not the focus of this debate. We are merely pointing out that the conclusions drawn by certain Members do not stand up to investigation. The real issue to be tackled arises with the under fives. One of the points that I wanted to make when I asked for an intervention during Mr Dominic Bradley’s speech was that by the age of three, young people have developed 50% of their language skills, and by the age of five that has risen to 85%. If pupils are not helped by the age of five then it is too late, because they will spend only 15% of their optimum language-development time at primary school. By the age of six and a half, a high-performing pupil coming from a poor background will have lost all of the gains that a low-performing pupil coming from a good background will have got at the same stage. Mr McCallister: Last week, I attended an excellent event organised by Mr Basil McCrea, at which Baroness May Blood cited figures to the effect that 4% of children from the Shankill, but 74% from North Down, go on to higher education. Does Mr McCrea agree that a major factor affecting those statistics is parenting skills? Mr B McCrea: I thank the Member for allowing me to raise the discussion that we had with Baroness May Blood. When we were discussing the issues on the Shankill, she said that the problem arises from young people becoming parents at the age of 14. That is an issue of child poverty. If you give people support, they will do well in life. It is too late at the age of 11 — it is certainly too late at the age of 15. It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether one learns one language or another. It is about giving support to people. It is a cultural issue. We ought to debate evidence, rather than people’s opinions and what they think. I have here a report that is supported by many child protection agencies: ‘0-5: How Small Children Make a Big Difference’. I will read part of it to you: “The most important six years in a person’s life are up to the age of five. We really ought not to be born when we are. Our brains and bodies have been busy forming inside the womb, but while we have the requisite number of fingers and toes when we arrive, our brains have not nearly finished taking shape.” It is an evolutionary thing that has to be sorted out. The author of the report goes on to say that he had thought the years 0-5 were the key, but that actually it is the nine months when the child is in the womb. Parents suffer stress — and I do not just mean that they have had a difficult day — because they have no money to pay for their children’s education or their toys, or to feed themselves, let alone their children. Those are the issues that put a person under stress. The result is undernourished, underfed and underweight babies. All of the statistics show that those are the children who will have problems in later life. No amount of investment in later years will make up for the loss that those children experience at that stage. That is the real cause of problems with numeracy. Those cultural issues must be tackled. Not only is academic selection a red herring, it is mendacious to bring it up. It distracts from the real issues. Mr D Bradley: Will the Member give way? Mr B McCrea: I will give way, although the Member did not accord me the same luxury. Mr D Bradley: Had the Member been listening to my speech, he would have realised that 90% of it was devoted to the very points that he is now making: that neighbourhood affects education, and that personal characteristics, prior attainment, gender, health, low income, parental unemployment, social class, housing and parents’ education all contribute to difficulties with literacy and numeracy. However, I also contend that the system of academic selection in Northern Ireland has a backwash into the primary schools that has a detrimental effect on literacy and numeracy. Mr B McCrea: I was in agreement with the Member until six minutes and 57 seconds into his speech, because during that time he talked about social deprivation. We agree that those factors are the real root cause. However, he then moved on to give us a lecture about academic selection. Quite simply, the facts do not back up his statement. Had he actually said that social deprivation must be dealt with, I would have agreed with him. Had he said that he called for an all-party group bringing in the Department of Education, the Department for Employment and Learning, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Department for Social Development, I would have agreed with that. However, academic selection is a red herring. If Mr Bradley goes down that route, he is selling the young people of this country short. The problem that we have had in the past is that we have had misguided policies led by people who did not know what they were talking about. We intend to get it right, and we will challenge information that is patently untrue. Regarding the language issue — parents, as well as children, suffer when they cannot communicate in English with the teachers because they have not had the training and the skills to do so. Mr S Wilson: Has the Member noted that in his amendment, Mr Bradley has put academic selection first? Yet his evidence was so thin that he could only throw in a minute’s-worth at the end of his speech. The Member has quite effectively demolished that minute’s-worth in his speech. Mr B McCrea: As ever, I am grateful to Mr Wilson for bringing those points to bear. The subject will not be discussed in 10 minutes; it will come forward as a body of information that will be discussed in the Committee for Education and the Committee for Employment and Learning. Mr Deputy Speaker: I call Mr Paul Butler. As this is Mr Butler’s maiden speech, I remind Members of the convention that it is heard without interruption. Mr Butler: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom tacaíocht a thabhairt don rún maidir le litearthacht agus uimhearthacht. Is pointe an-tábhachtach é seo, agus creidim gur ábhar uilepháirtí atá i gceist. I broadly support the motion. However, I am concerned about the high percentage of children who leave school after 12 years of education without adequate skills in numeracy and literacy. The motion calls on the Minister of Education to allocate resources to implement an effective, revised literacy and numeracy strategy. All Members must ensure that the Minister is given adequate resources and support by the Executive and the Assembly to deal with the unacceptably high levels of poor literacy and numeracy skills among our schoolchildren. The gap between the lowest- and highest-performing pupils in our education system is worrying. Many children leave school after 12 years with inadequate literacy and numeracy skills, and often have difficulty finding work or training. There is a particular concern about literacy and numeracy in non-grammar schools. There has been focus and debate here about academic selection and the transfer test, and that should not be the sole focus of attention as the problem is much wider. However, it must be acknowledged that the transfer test and academic selection have had an adverse impact on the educational experience of our children, particularly those in primary schools. Considerable time is spent preparing children between the ages of nine and 10 for the transfer tests, which has narrowed the teaching of the curriculum, and has had an impact on the 60% of children who do not attend grammar schools. The curriculum is warped, during those important years, to meet the demands of the transfer test. Ask any of the primary-school teachers who are under pressure to teach children for the test: those children with lower attainment levels are often left without the required level of support, because pressure is placed on teachers to deliver results for the higher achievers. A culture of education must be developed to bring parents on board to support strategies to improve their children’s learning of literacy and numeracy. I welcome the steps already taken by the Department of Education to integrate schools more fully into the community, in particular the extended schools programme and other home and school liaison programmes. Moreover, a high percentage of adults have poor literacy and numeracy skills. Research into adult literacy and numeracy shows that up to 24% of those aged between 16 and 65 — about a quarter of a mi |