NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY Tuesday 4 December 2007 Ministerial Statement Executive Committee Business Private Members’ Business Adjournment The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes’ silence. Mr Easton: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During last Tuesday’s debate on the draft Budget, the Minister responsible for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS) moved to the Back Benches in order to speak out. However, instead of speaking as a constituency Member, he spoke as a Minister. Will you look into that matter and give a ruling on it, Mr Speaker? Mr Speaker: I thank the Member for that point of order. I have already written to the Minister reminding him of the conventions and practices when a Minister is called as a private Member. I have dealt with the matter. Future Delivery Arrangements of the Community Festivals Fund Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure that he wishes to make a statement regarding the future delivery arrangements of the community festivals fund. The Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure (Mr Poots): I welcome this opportunity to make a statement on the future delivery arrangements for the community festivals fund. Community festivals have for some time been important vehicles for local communities to celebrate their social and cultural heritage and the talents of their people. They entertain us, educate us and enrich our lives. Many community festivals have grown from modest beginnings as a result of the vision and efforts of dedicated volunteers who encourage and inspire others to make things happen. They instil a sense of belonging among organisers, performers and audiences and play a vital role in knitting together the fabric of communities. The scale and nature of those events are extremely varied. One of the oldest and best known is the West Belfast Féile, which began some 20 years ago in the difficult circumstances of those times. It is now one of the biggest community festivals in Europe and attracts internationally renowned artists and provides a programme of events that appeals to a wide audience, including visitors to Northern Ireland. With regard to the number of participants and the size of the audience, the biggest event is the Twelfth celebrations, with the largest parade in Belfast and local events throughout the Province. I know that efforts are ongoing on the part of the Orange Order and others to promote the day as a family-friendly festival that benefits the economy through exploiting the potential for cultural tourism. Many other colourful re-enactments of important events in our history are celebrated year on year. There are also smaller festivals in which local communities expound their culture and talents through music, the arts, sport and heritage — for example, the Glasgowbury Music Festival, held in the Sperrins near Draperstown, which brings together emerging performers and fans of contemporary music from all parts of the community and further afield. Another example is Country Comes to Town, held in Portadown, where the town centre is taken over for a day by displays of farm animals, agricultural machinery and all things rural. In my constituency, there is the culinary sophistication of the Hillsborough Oyster Festival. The Lady of the Lake Festival, based in Irvinestown, has been running for many years and is an important date in the calendar for boating enthusiasts on both sides of the border. There are also festivals emerging that are organised by ethnic minorities, which raise awareness of their cultures among the general community, thereby enhancing mutual understanding and good relations. I am sure that Members will all agree that this is an eclectic mix, and I have mentioned only a few of the community festivals organised across the country. All these events, in some way or other, contribute to major Government initiatives such as ‘A Shared Future’. The organisation of such events builds confidence and develops skills and capacity that may be used to address other issues facing those communities. However, as with all such activity, it costs money to organise community festivals. In the past, small pockets of funding were available from a number of Departments, but this was not widely known and, with a lack of capacity in new and emerging festivals, the funds were not easily accessible. Only a small number of specified festivals were supported from public funds. These included the West Belfast Féile, the Ardoyne Fleadh and the Greater New Lodge Festival. Following a review of community-festival funding and consultation with stakeholders, it was clear that a more transparent, fair and equitable funding policy was required. From this process emerged the community festival fund, which came into operation in April 2006. The main purpose of the fund is to improve the capacity of community festivals, so as to make them more sustainable and less reliant on public funding. The fund enables community organisations to celebrate their cultural identity and to strengthen community relations. The budget for the community festivals fund is a relatively modest £450,000 per annum. The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (DCAL) entered into a two-year agreement with the Northern Ireland Events Company (NIEC) as the delivery agent for the fund. In 2006-07, the fund supported 42 festivals from all parts of Northern Ireland, the majority of which had not previously received public funding. In 2007-08, the fund has so far supported 40 festivals. Part of the community festivals budget has also been used to provide training for festival organisers, the vast majority of whom are volunteers. The skills developed through this training become embedded in local communities, thereby increasing their confidence and building capacity to address wider issues. Demand for this was high, particularly in the first year of the fund, reflecting the lack of capacity in many communities. This support for the development of skills and knowledge is a sound investment for the future. During the second year of operation, NIEC commissioned an independent evaluation of the community festivals fund, which was carried out by Community Evaluation Northern Ireland. The report concluded that the fund is making a valuable contribution to the realisation of a number of key Government policies and priorities, including promoting good relations and social cohesion. It also concluded that the events supported make a significant contribution to community life and that, given the number of communities benefiting from the fund, the diversity and range of activities and events supported and the considerable level of voluntary input, the fund represents good value for money. The evaluation also highlighted a number of areas where the administration of the fund could be improved, including the introduction of a less complex application process for smaller grant awards. The application process was seen to be disproportionate to the amount of grant sought, and was likely to inhibit some of the least able groups from applying for support. In the light of that, I have concluded that the community festivals fund provides positive benefits to local communities at a relatively modest cost to the public purse. The fund will, therefore, continue. However, I have reviewed the future delivery arrangements, taking into account the emerging findings from the review of public administration (RPA). Under the RPA, the work undertaken by NIEC was to transfer to the Northern Ireland Tourist Board (NITB) on 1 April 2008. Nevertheless, it was not envisaged that community festivals would be part of that transfer, as that function is not central to NITB’s remit. It is recorded in the RPA that the community festivals fund should transfer as a function to local government and, in the most recent paper from my colleague Arlene Foster, Minister of the Environment, on the emerging findings and next steps, that position remains. The vision of the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA) for new local government is: “to develop vibrant and cohesive local communities, in which all citizens have a voice and opportunities to shape the service which contribute to their quality of life.” It is clear that the logical home for the community festivals fund is with local government. Local councils already have departments that deal directly with local communities, and officers who specialise in community development. That direct interface means that councils are best placed to build capacity at grass roots level, and to identify the events that will benefit their communities. My intention, therefore, is to transfer the delivery of the community festivals fund to local authorities from 1 April 2008. It is a pressing issue, as there is a significant lead-in time for the funding application process. In most cases, planning for festivals in 2008 is already under way, and organisers need to know their budgets to enable them to book artistes, venues and equipment well in advance. By transferring administration of the fund to local government, it becomes much closer to the community and the people it supports, making it more responsive to differing local needs. The Minister of the Environment has confirmed that, given the pressing need to inform festival organisers of funding arrangements, she fully supports my proposals. My Department has taken legal advice, and I understand that there is no legal impediment to an early transfer of the functions to local authorities. No legislation is required, as local authorities already have statutory powers to fund local events. Indeed, many local councils are already involved in funding festivals. My Department has consulted with the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) on the mechanics of transferring the fund to local government. The preferred option is that DCAL retains responsibility for community festivals policy, and that the Department makes an annual allocation to each council under a specific grant process. That model is successfully operated by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to award grants to district councils for their community-relations programmes. Councils will be required to take account of the Department’s policy and guidance framework on community festivals. However, consistent with the ethos of devolving decisions to local councils, they will have considerable flexibility to develop their own application processes, with local criteria. As councils already operate a number of small grant schemes, that should not be onerous to administer. Furthermore, I anticipate that the application process will be much less onerous for festival organisers, and I know that they will welcome that. It is my view that councils should support local community festivals from their own resources; therefore, I shall seek match funding. Many councils already fund community festivals, and will continue to do so, and pooling of the community festivals fund and local support will maximise the benefit. The Department will liaise with NILGA on the detailed arrangements for implementing the scheme. 10.45 am I intend to move quickly to transfer those functions to local government, because local councils will need lead-in time to publicise the new arrangements and to process applications for events that are to be held in the spring and summer of 2008. I am confident that the House will agree that that is the best way forward for the delivery of the community festivals fund. The Chairperson of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure (Mr McElduff): Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Cuirim fáilte roimh ráiteas an Aire. I welcome the Minister’s bringing the statement to the House. I agree with him that community festivals play a vital role in our social and economic life. I am pleased that he referred to Féile an Phobail, and to the scale of that particular community-based festival. In the past, the organisers of Féile an Phobail often felt that fine words were not matched by appropriate funding levels, but I shall leave that issue to one side for now. I also note that responsibility for the community festivals fund is to transfer to local government, which, as the Minister has said, is its logical home. In 2006-07 and 2007-08, how many projects west of the Bann received public funding or support from the Events Company? How was that funding administered and rolled out? Do the Minister and the Department intend to increase the overall budget for the community festivals fund? It currently stands at a relatively modest £450,000, but are there any plans to increase that figure? Moreover, the community festivals fund’s profile was never high enough in rural areas. Can the Minister confirm whether the Ulster Fleadh Cheoil, which was held for two years in a row in Coalisland, received any support or funding from the community festivals fund? Mr Poots: The following councils west of the Bann received public funding: Omagh District Council applied for funding for two events and received £7,000, although Omagh will now get considerably more than that; Limavady Borough Council applied for funding for three events and received £12,000; Londonderry’s council applied for funding for four events and received £38,000; Coleraine is on the Bann, and Coleraine Borough Council applied for funding for five events and received £15,500; Cookstown District Council and Strabane District Council did not receive anything; Fermanagh District Council applied for funding for three events and received £13,200; and Dungannon and South Tyrone Borough Council applied for funding for four events and received £12,090. I suppose that Craigavon is also on the Bann, and Craigavon Borough Council received £24,400, having applied for funding for four events. Almost all those councils will receive an increase in funding as a result of this morning’s announcement. Those local authorities will be able to liaise closely with individuals to deliver that funding. The Chairperson asked whether additional funding would be made available. I want councils to match the budget of £450,000. Many councils already contribute to festivals, so they will not be asked to give more. However, money is to be given out on the basis that councils at least match whatever we give them. If, for example, a council were to get £20,000 from us, it must match that £20,000. Should councils wish to put more into festivals, that is totally their decision. Mr McCausland: I welcome the Minister’s statement. Under direct rule, funding of festivals was inequitable and discriminatory. Year after year, preferential treatment was given to the three nationalist — indeed, republican — festivals in north and west Belfast. Those three festivals were locked into funding, to the exclusion of other festivals. What was the breakdown of funding for festivals last year, particularly for the aforementioned festivals? Will the Minister assure us that we will see a change and that funding of festivals will be an equitable and equality-driven process? Mr Poots: Festivals that were perceived as being nationalist festivals, based on the community-background designation on funding application forms, received £120,242. Festivals that were perceived as cross-community in character received funding of £113,015. Festivals that were perceived as unionist in character received funding of £45,150. Indian festivals received funding of £5,000, and Turkish festivals received funding of £3,000. Mr McNarry: I welcome the Minister’s statement. The measures that he has announced are innovative and in keeping with forward thinking. Will the Minister provide details of what the specific-grant system and match funding mean for the proportion of funding that will be available to each council — particularly for Ards Borough Council, Down District Council, and Castlereagh Borough Council in my constituency of Strangford? Mr Poots: I do not have to hand the details for each council, but funding will be based on population and levels of deprivation. Deprivation has already been taken into account by the Department in deciding on the distribution of funding. It is up to councils what to do thereafter, but they are not under any obligation to consider deprivation in their distribution of festival funding because the Department will already have done that. That is the legitimate and correct thing to do, and that is worth emphasising. Ards Borough Council would receive a considerable amount of money as a result of the measures that I have outlined — without being specific, that will probably be roughly £40,000 in match funding. Mr P Ramsey: I also wish to commend the Minister on his statement and on his leadership in such a short period of time, which will give comfort to groups that have great worries and concerns. Perhaps, at a later stage, he can deal with the issue of community sport. I welcome the fact that funding will be allocated on the basis of population distribution and deprivation levels. In common with other Members, I share the view that the return on such small investment is enormous, in respect of acknowledging and recognising people’s cultural and historical backgrounds. Are figures available on the grants that were awarded by the Events Company over the past two years? One would imagine that the idea of a community festival is to encourage others to come forward with ideas for new festivals — it cannot just be the usual suspects all the time. We must be innovative in allowing other cities and community groups to take advantage of funding. What has the Minister in mind in that respect? I particularly welcome funding for the Maiden City Festival, the Gas Yard Féile, an Gaeláras, and the Golden Links Festival. We want those events to continue, but it is important that others have similar opportunities. Mr Poots: Funding was introduced to assist communities to develop festivals, to introduce fresh revenue streams, to help groups liaise with — and secure sponsorship from — the private sector, and to allow groups to demonstrate to the private sector that festivals can bring significant benefits. It is not the view of my Department that festival funding should remain with the same groups. Once a festival is established and up and running, it may still require some funding — and most of them will. However, as capacity develops, festivals should be able to develop a greater capacity for introducing funding from the private sector, because they should be able to demonstrate the ability to organise a good-quality festival that will bring many local people into an area and bring real benefits for that community, and for the business sector. The training work that took place in the past year should have assisted in that, and should help smaller groups to get established. We want to see festival funding continually moving so that more groups and new festivals are introduced and brought on stream, widening the scope of such funding. Ms Lo: I very much welcome the Minister’s new approach, which will also be welcomed by many communities that, in the past, when applying for funding for community festivals, had to approach their local council, the Events Company, and various sponsors. I think that the new approach will simplify the process. My concern is that if it is cost-effective, we will need to increase the pot of money; first, from the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure and, secondly, using match funding from councils. How will the process work as regards the councils? Do they all have the same capacity to provide full match funding or would some of them be discouraged from providing such funding? Mr Poots: As regards the latter point, for my own council, it would mean finding a sum of between £25,000 and £30,000 from a rate base of £25 million. It should be remembered that most councils already contribute to festivals; therefore, it will be relatively easy for them to provide match funding. However, it will be for councils to decide whether to take advantage of the funding that is on offer, and funding will be redistributed to those councils who wish to avail of it. I am minded to skew such a redistribution — if it takes place, because some councils do not see the value of community festivals — to areas that have taken the greatest amount of festival funding in the past. Mr Shannon: I welcome the Minister’s statement, which again shows that the Assembly, at ministerial level, is delivering for local communities. Today’s announcement is good news. Will the Minister confirm that the community festivals fund will be spread across the 26 council areas? Ards Borough Council has received no funding in the past either through community festival funding or directly from the Government. There are many community festivals in the Ards borough and other events, such as the Ballygrafton Horse Trials and the BASC Northern Ireland Games Fair, as well as the Twelfth of July celebrations, which, collectively, have the potential to bring a lot of people to the area. Has TSN been applied to each of the council areas? If so, will the Minister confirm that Ards Borough Council will be the recipient of financial assistance from the community festivals fund? Mr Poots: Yes, I can confirm that the TSN criteria have been applied and that Ards Borough Council will benefit. I have no doubt that the Member will be very quick to inform groups about the opportunities that may exist — I know him quite well. His colleague from Strangford Mr McNarry asked how much money would be going to the Ards area. If Ards Borough Council is prepared to provide match funding, £18,000 will be provided by the Department. Match funding will raise that sum to £36,000, to be distributed in an area in which, previously, no money was distributed. This is a great opportunity for many areas across Northern Ireland — five council areas, three of which are unionist and two of which are nationalist — to benefit from festival funding. I think that that is good for the people of Northern Ireland. Mr P Maskey: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement, but I do not know whether I welcome it because some issues need to be further teased out. In one of his remarks, the Minister said that if council areas do not take up the offer of match funding, festivals in those areas will not receive funding. That is a flaw. I am not sure whether the Minister has spoken to all the councils. If he has not done so, that is also a flaw and it must be addressed. I am glad that the Minister mentioned Féile an Phobail at the start of his statement. Like him. I recognise the importance of that festival. In earlier comments, the Minister stated that some groups may be being hindered and restricted as regards funding because they have been organising for many years and funding has been reduced. That issue needs to be addressed also. Some of the most important festivals have had their funding restricted over the years — by half on some occasions. 11.00 am Mr Speaker: Will the Member please ask his question? Mr P Maskey: Has the Minister discussed the issue with all the councils? Mr Poots: We have not discussed the issue with the 26 councils, although we have spoken to NILGA representatives. Through the review of public administration, we have consulted local authorities, and it was clearly identified that community-festival funding would come under their remit, as is stated in the emerging findings paper. With regard to match funding, this is a tremendous opportunity to ensure that festivals are expanded, not diminished. Councils must not use these moneys to replace moneys that had previously been allocated to festivals. Councils have a chance to enhance festivals, with only a modest impact on their rates base. Lord Browne: I welcome the Minister’s statement. Will the Minister acknowledge the fact that, historically, cultural festivals have been driven from a narrow culture base? How does he intend to ensure an equitable distribution of future community-festival funding? Will criteria be established to ensure consistency across councils? To what extent will the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure be involved in overseeing the fund? Mr Poots: The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure will set the overarching policy and guidance framework, which will outline broad criteria for funding festivals. However, councils will have considerable flexibility in determining their own processes and detailed criteria. The Department will issue letters of offer to each council, monitor how the funds are drawn down and ask local authorities to publish their assessment criteria, application processes and procedures for making awards. Local authorities will have control over funding decisions and funding levels. I am confident that no one is better placed than public representatives on local authorities to gear festival funding towards local community needs. I am also confident that our local councillors will identify the projects that are best suited to, and most beneficial for, their areas. Mr Elliott: I welcome the Minister’s statement and the proposals that will allow local authorities to deliver community-festival funding. Will the Minister assure the House that measures will be put in place to ensure that groups that do not come from the majority section of a local community will receive fair access to that funding? Mr Poots: All equality provisions and safeguards that apply to local authority decisions will also apply to community-festival funding. I am sure that, if a local authority discriminates against people on the basis of their being members of a minority group, the local community will make its voice clearly heard. It is not in the best interests of a local authority to discriminate against any section of a community. In recent years, there has not been much evidence of that happening, and I trust that that will continue to be the case. Mr Adams: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement, but I do not welcome its content. The Benches opposite have missed the point entirely; there is not enough money for community-festival funding. I declare an interest, because I am a director of Féile an Phobail, and I thank the Minister for his complimentary remarks about that féile, which he recognises as being one of the largest. In recent years, funding for that féile has been slashed, and the community festival fund owes it £30,000. We are now in a situation where £450,000 will be available for 40 community festivals. Will the Minister tell the House whether there are guarantees to ensure that local councils will match funding? Will efforts be made to increase funding? Will the community festival fund repay the £30,000 that is owed to Féile an Phobail? Mr Poots: I cannot guarantee what individual local authorities in Northern Ireland will do — thankfully, for everyone, I do not have that authority. Ultimately, Members will seek to influence their local authorities in the best interests of their communities. I do not think that there is a strong case for anyone not to accept the funding being offered, provide match funding and create the best opportunities for their communities to develop festivals. The West Belfast Festival has been very successful, and its success should lead to more private funding streams. As that festival moves towards receiving more private-sector funding, having demonstrated its success, opportunities can be created for new festivals on the basis of the funding being distributed across Northern Ireland — west of the Bann; east of the Bann; in nationalist and in unionist areas. My Department is not discriminating against people; funding is being allocated on the basis of population and deprivation, and this is an opportunity for everyone to get a slice of the cake. The larger festivals have the capacity to move forward, and, hopefully, smaller festivals will come on stream that can also move forward and benefit from the funding that might not have been available to them previously. Mr Spratt: I thank the Minister, and I welcome his statement. He will be aware that this year’s Belfast Festival at Queen’s was very successful and attracted many visitors to Northern Ireland. Will he assure me that that festival will continue to get funding through today’s announcement? Mr Poots: I am looking at a different mechanism of funding for the Belfast Festival at Queen’s. As the Member is aware, the festival is arts-based and already receives funding from the Arts Council, and I hope that the Arts Council will continue to fund the festival. There was some pressure, particular this year, on the festival, and there was concern about it. First, I hope that there will not be any concern about the Belfast Festival at Queen’s continuing — I want to remove any uncertainty about that. Secondly, I want to see the festival expanding, and I will both work with the private sector and ensure that public money is maintained to grow the festival and make it an even more significant event that will bring huge benefits to the community. Mr McLaughlin: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the establishment of objective criteria; the Minister is approaching the issue from the right direction. Despite the progress that we can record in our communities, some comments from the Minister’s own Benches reflect a shared concern about how the policy will apply in individual council areas. It should be acknowledged that there have been problems in some council areas. Will the Minister outline the checks and balances that will accompany the regulations to ensure that a fair and equitable approach is taken? Mr Poots: As the Member is aware, the equality regulations that apply to local authorities will continue to apply in this case. Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and other equality measures will help to ensure that funding will be distributed on an equitable basis and that people are not discriminated against. Ultimately, local authorities will draw up the criteria. However, I do not get the feeling, nor have I for a long time, that local authorities are out to discriminate against sections of their own communities. Local authorities are there to serve their communities, and they do so well. Those who suggest that local authorities may choose to discriminate against their communities in some shape or form do not reflect their true nature. It is a somewhat disparaging suggestion. Mr McCarthy: I welcome the Minister’s statement and his commitment to the shared future initiative. However, he referred to the Belfast Féile, which began some 20 years ago, as one of the oldest community festivals in Northern Ireland. I inform the House that the Portaferry Gala, which is held annually in my constituency in the second week of July, has just celebrated its fortieth birthday, and it gets better every year. Any Member of the House who has not been to the gala is more than welcome to come this year. Mr O’Dowd: Will the Member come to the question? Mr McCarthy: Indeed. In his statement, the Minister acknowledges that most of the festivals in question are run by community volunteers, and the acquisition of funds is vital to their activities. Will the Minister assure the House that, by handing over the funding of community festivals to local councils, and taking into account the future amalgamation of councils, festival organisers will not be disadvantaged or squeezed out from receiving sufficient funds, because the new larger councils will be further removed from local communities? Mr Poots: Perhaps the Member should refer that question to the Minister of the Environment, who was sitting beside me a moment ago, because part of her Department’s remit is to ensure that, when the new local authorities are established — and they may not be as large as Mr McCarthy thinks, although that remains to be seen — they take cognisance of those communities that are smaller or are on the periphery of the council areas. Much responsibility falls to the local representatives, and, if they state their communities’ case strongly and cogently, I am sure that their council colleagues will listen. Mr Molloy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement and particularly his commitment to giving local government a greater role. As a local councillor, I declare an interest. Will the Minister leave a provision for those councils that may not have community structures in place to avail of the new community festival fund? Last year, local councillors in Dungannon found that sufficient funding was not available for the Flight of the Earls festival, given that it is a sizeable event. It is important that local government has the facility to fund such events. Mr Poots: Councils must develop funding criteria. The community festival fund is, by its very nature, community-based. However, if it is a matter of reaching out to communities and working in conjunction with them, with the council taking the lead, my Department will examine establishing criteria for that. There will be overarching policy guidelines, but the Department is prepared to work with local authorities on the development of their criteria. If that best meets the needs of a particular area, it can be considered. Outline of a Vision for our Education System Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Education that she wishes to make a statement on the outline of a vision for our education system. The Minister of Education (Ms Ruane): Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. When the Administration came into being on 8 May 2007, Ministers in the Executive from every Department faced unique challenges and opportunities. Local Ministers who are accountable to local people are now taking decisions. Unlike under direct rule, local Ministers are accessible, available and, most importantly, working on the ground. One of the principal — Mr B McCrea: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker: I will take the point of order after the Minister’s statement. 11.15 am Ms Ruane: One of the principal challenges facing education has been the need to reform a system that was constructed more than 60 years ago and that is still in place today. For decades, successive Education Ministers talked about dealing with the issue of the 11-plus — and for decades, all we have got is talk. In 2002, Martin McGuinness, in his capacity as Minister of Education, announced the end of the 11-plus. We now have an opportunity to truly transform our system into one that is world class and fit for the twenty-first century. In recent months, I have spoken to teachers, parents, pupils and administrators, and there is a real appetite out there to embrace change, to improve our system and to end the two-tier culture that brands so many of our young people as failures at the age of 11. I relish the challenge of transforming our outdated and unequal education system into a modern, flexible one that places equality of opportunity for every child at its core. Such a system will not only continue to deliver academic excellence for the few but can deliver it for all. That is what local decision-making is all about. The previous lack of local accountability is one of the reasons why no action was taken to change a system that was put in place in the late 1940s and that is still expected to deliver for our children in 2007. This is an Executive with an agenda for change at its core: this is an Executive that has been mandated to transform our society for the better. As I proceed in carrying out the changes to our education system, equality is my watchword; equality of access and equality of educational opportunity. I plan to bring our education system into the twenty-first century and lay down a foundation that will ensure educational excellence and greater participation in the future. My proposals are ambitious. They require further work at a detailed level, but the direction in which I wish to travel is now clear, and the time is right to share that with you. Central to the 1947 education system, through which children in today’s primary schools are still being processed, has been the 11-plus transfer test. Following consultation on the Burns Report, Martin McGuinness announced the ending of the transfer test in 2002. Subsequently, direct rule Minister Jane Kennedy announced that the final transfer test would be held in 2008. That means that the final children to transfer under the existing system will commence post-primary school in September 2009. The Education (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 causes the current admissions arrangements to lapse for September 2010 admissions. That is the context in which I have been focused; the creation and delivery of a fundamentally exciting new vision for the education system in the North. The changes proposed will, with proper planning and effective implementation, have an immediate and positive effect. I have written to my Executive colleagues outlining my vision and I have briefed the Education Committee. I was to have a meeting with the Chairperson of the Committee for Education, but he did not make it, as he was held up in traffic. However, he will be glad to know that under my new arrangements there will be less traffic on the road, and children will no longer pass each other on buses. My colleague Conor Murphy will also be delighted with that. I have reflected long and hard on what has been said to me over the past six months. Additionally, I have taken detailed and considered account of the changing environment in which our education system is expected to function. I am conscious that the debate on education has become narrowly focused on the contentious issue of academic selection as the basis for transferring to the post-primary sector. That narrow focus by sectoral interests has been a matter of considerable concern to me because the debate is really about delivering a vision for a world-class education system reflecting the needs of all our children equally. I am an advocate for dynamic and effective change in education. Today, I am outlining a clear vision that moves us all beyond the outdated concept of the two-tier education system that has failed so many of our children. Such a system will have to provide our children with the life skills required for today’s complex, rapidly transforming, socially changing and globalised world. That system must also provide children with the qualifications and skills required in a modern and dynamic economy. The blue-collar and white-collar world has gone, and with it the primary rationale for a two-gear post-primary system. It is imperative that we develop a more flexible and agile post-primary system. Surely, in 2007, we can develop sophisticated models of school organisation. The reformed post-primary system that I am outlining will, quite properly, have to take account of the full reform agenda that is already affecting the education system in the North. For example, the revised curriculum is being introduced over the next three years. The entitlement framework within the curriculum will introduce new and exciting opportunities for our young people. Before and after GCSE, we envisage access to a broad range of academic, professional and technical courses. I have seen the revised curriculum, which is being delivered in classrooms across the North, beginning to work. Teachers are energised by the revised curriculum and children are stimulated by it, and that combination is helping to ensure that our children get the best possible education. Those changes will be supported by the significant reform of education administration and the establishment of the education and skills authority (ESA). The development of area-based planning will play a key role in that. Tá sé ráite agam roimhe sa Tionól go mbeinn sásta moltaí a thabhairt chun tosaigh atá dírithe ar a chinntiú go mbeidh fáil chothrom ag gach páiste ar an oideachas iarbhunscolaíochta is fearr. Tá sé léirithe agam freisin go dtabharfaidh mé chun tosaigh moltaí chun an córas oideachais a mhúnlú ar leasa an pháiste in áit an páiste a mhúnlú ar leasa institiúide oideachais éigin. On several occasions, I have stated in the Chamber that I would bring forward proposals aimed at ensuring that all the children in this society have equal access to high-quality post-primary education. I have also made it abundantly clear that I will bring forward proposals to mould the system around the interests of the child, instead of a system that matches the child to the interests of a particular educational institution. That is the direction in which the Department will proceed. Children and parents must be able to have confidence that their local post-primary schools will offer the quality and depth of educational provision that they want, need and deserve. I am determined that my Department — in partnership with all educationalists — will ensure that every school is a good one, is sustainable and has a clear focus on high standards. That is why I have brought forward my revised school-improvement policy, ‘Every School a Good School’. I intend to mobilise and co-ordinate the resources at my disposal to build a modern and flexible education system, which moves us away from the outdated 1947 institutional model that divides children aged 11 years into just two school types — grammar and non-grammar. A twenty-first century model will transform that unequal and outdated approach by matching children of all aptitudes to the full breadth of provision that they want, need and deserve to fulfil their maximum potential as citizens and members of society. However, the key principle that underpins the new model of educational provision will be equality. No longer will any child be at a disadvantage because their parents cannot afford tuition or coaching, and no longer will the potential of any citizen be undermined because, as a small child, aged 11 years, he or she fell through the cracks of an unequal two-tier system that was born 60 years ago. Geallaim don Teach inniu go mbeidh cearta comhionanna gach páiste ag croílár an chórais úir. My pledge today is that the equal rights of all children will be at the heart of the new system. During the past six months, I have been told that we have the best education system in the world. Undoubtedly, the capacity of our education system to deliver high-quality academic excellence is widely — and correctly — celebrated. However, regardless of the selective presentation of figures for the academic achievement of one section of our children, the cold reality is that the system still fails a high proportion of our young people. A system that does well for some and does not deliver for the rest is unacceptable. I am the Minister of Education for all children. I cannot — and will not — ignore the fact that every year 4,000 young people leave school after 12 years of compulsory education without the appropriate basic literacy and numeracy skills. I believe that it is possible to develop a system that will not only continue to deliver academic excellence for the few but will deliver it for all. To those — particularly on the unionist Benches — who still believe that our system is not broken, I ask: look at the situation in many working-class areas. Unionist working-class communities such as the lower Shankill, Mount Vernon and Tigers Bay have been left behind, and many are completely disconnected with the education system before they reach the age of 16. The same can be said for many working-class nationalist communities whether they are in the Falls, Downpatrick, Strabane or Derry. That is the reality; and it is a reality that I am not prepared to stand by and allow to continue. Tá mé ag iarraidh córas oideachais a chumadh ina mbeidh fáil ag gach páiste ar réimse cothrom de roghanna ardchaighdeáin sna pointí criticúla ina bhforbairt oideachasúil. Creidim gurb é ceithre bliana déag an aois is criticúla. Let me be very clear; I am not advocating a one-size-fits-all system. Rather, I am seeking to devise an education system in which all children will enjoy access to an equal range of high-quality choices at the critical junction points in their educational development, the most significant of which is at age 14. That will involve building a system that will sustain a range of schools and provision and that will value all of them equally. We want to retain everything that is good about our current system — including academic excellence — and improve on its performance so that it will cater for the needs of all our young people. Making fundamental educational determinations for children at the age of 11 is wrong; and such decisions, for most children, become irreversible. By moving the point of transition to age 14 and by introducing more flexibility and agility into the structures, we will make it possible for the transformed education system to facilitate the deserved and diverse needs of children — reversing the negative demand of slotting children into a system that has historically branded some as failures and others as, potentially, successes. The key point is not that academic selection is unjust, but that it is unnecessary and unjust. I firmly believe that we can collectively deliver all the benefits of academic excellence without the trauma of academic selection at the age of 10 or 11. In my vision, young people will enjoy equal access to their post-14 educational pathway in a number of ways, as determined by the planning of education in their local areas. They will include: access within an 11-19 school; transfer to an alternative 11-19 school; access through an 11-19 school or a post-14 school, which offers the entitlement framework in collaboration with other schools in a learning community. A local area may offer general provision in 11-14 schools followed by specialism and diversity in 14-plus provision. An academic pathway will remain that will be accessed by intelligent, well-informed and mature election and available through modern, organisational flexibility. Testing is not the best way to inform admissions decisions at 14 about a young person’s educational and career pathway. Such decisions should be based on a process of formal, structured election: it will take account of the outcomes of three years of post-primary education and teacher and parental guidance, in addition to careers education, information, advice and guidance resulting in the matching of children to suitable provision. Contrast that with the way in which our current system approaches matching pupils to provision — by using two one-hour tests sat by 10- to 11-year-olds to determine entrance to one of two types of school. 11.30 am Through the entitlement framework, academic courses can be well integrated with challenging professional and/or technical courses, providing a much better base for many future third-level entrants, which is more properly tailored to the requirements of a modern economy. That framework will also ensure the capacity to deliver high-quality professional and/or technical pathways, accessed by choice, available through modern organisational flexibility, and, above all, enjoying parity of esteem. Some may criticise the structural change that my vision may entail. However, it is a fact that structural change will be required, regardless of my approach to post-primary education. After 10 years of dramatically falling pupil numbers, we have an increasing problem with school sustainability and surplus places, resulting in 50,000 empty desks — and that figure will increase over the coming years. Structural reform is unavoidable. George Bain’s independent review is clear about that. Far from being a matter of unnecessary structural change, it is a matter of embracing the massive potential that this opportunity offers us to modernise our service provision and education system. Structural change need not mean vast amounts of new capacity. By reorganising the existing capacity within the framework of my vision for education, I intend to deliver not only effective education, but efficient education. For example, extended access to professional, technical, general and academic courses could be achieved through the process of school and further education collaborations, and the careful management of the schools estate at a time of falling school numbers. Tá an dréachtChlár Rialtais soiléir sa mhéid seo, nó dearbhaíonn sé go mbeidh na focail “cothroime”, “cuimsiú” agus “comhionannas” mar fhocail faire ag an Choiste Feidhmiúcháin agus é ag soláthar a chuid polasaithe agus ina chlár. The draft Programme for Government is explicit in declaring that the watchwords of the Executive, in delivering all its policies and programmes, will be fairness, inclusion and equality. The 1947 education system, which encompasses a post-primary transfer system that brands 11-year-old children as failures, is not fair, inclusive or equal. Because of that, it is my intention, following a period of consultation, to bring forward regulations governing the operation of post-primary transfer for 2010, and for the subsequent interim period before the implementation of a 14-plus system of election. There will be no 11-plus transfer test in the 2009-10 school year. Pupils transferring to post-primary school in September 2010 will do so overwhelmingly on the basis of preference for certain schools, in much the same way that primary schools and preschools are chosen now. From 2010, the criteria will include community, geography and family. I am conscious that many grammar schools have been admitting a wide ability range for some years now, and will receive all their pupils in September 2010 without regard to academic assessment. Some grammar schools may need some time and assistance to adjust to the new system that I have outlined today, and, in my forthcoming discussions with them, I hope to be able to reach an agreed way forward to facilitate that transition. I hope that all grammar schools will see a positive future for the continuation of academic excellence in my vision for education. If any school, however, chooses to operate independent admission arrangements that lie outside the new system of transfer, I want to make it clear that there is no obligation on my Department to assist with funding. It is important that the transfer from primary to post-primary education be as seamless as possible. I am confident that we can find the best way forward to meet the needs of all our children, based on a vision that places quality educational outcomes and equality of educational opportunities for each and every child at its epicentre. Next year will be the last year of the 11-plus. There will be no 11-plus in 2009, nor will I be asking primary school educators to ever again disrupt or interfere with the teaching of the revised curriculum in furtherance of a transfer test. Children in year 5, their parents and their teachers can now focus on the job in hand — educating our young people and concentrating on the curriculum in a way that allows each and every child an equal opportunity to fulfil his or her full potential as citizens in the future. I recognise the critical role that principals and teachers will play in implementing my proposals, and I know that we will work together in the best interests of our children and young people. I have outlined today how we are to proceed in the years ahead. Let the construction of a new education system now begin. This is no longer a debate about the merits of academic selection. My focus now is on delivering a world-class education system for all our children. I ask Members to join with me in building that education system, which will benefit everyone. I believe that these proposals offer us the road map to get there. Tosóimid anois ar an obair thábhachtach seo. Mr B McCrea: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is my understanding that, where a matter is of significance or where there are important cross-cutting issues, it should first be brought to the Executive. Can you give a ruling on whether it is appropriate for the Minister to bring this significant issue to the Floor of the House without having first brought it to the Executive? Mr Speaker: I am responsible for ensuring that business in the House is conducted within Standing Orders. The Minister’s only requirement in Standing Orders is that not less than two and a half hours’ notice of a statement is given to the Speaker. That requirement was met by the Minister of Education yesterday. I also understand that the Whips were contacted immediately. Mr McElduff: Further to that point of order, will Mr McCrea confirm whether the Ulster Unionist Party is a member of the Executive? Mr Speaker: That is not an appropriate point of order. I call Lord Morrow for a further point of order. Mr B McCrea: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will Sinn Féin confirm whether it intends to discuss this matter seriously? Mr Speaker: Order. That is not an appropriate point of order. I call Lord Morrow. Lord Morrow: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. If there is doubt that a section of the Minister’s statement is inaccurate, should it not be brought to your attention? The Minister said: “I have written to my Executive colleagues outlining my vision and I have briefed the Education Committee.” When did the Minister write to her Executive colleagues? Mr Speaker: I hope that Lord Morrow will be able to put that question to the Minister. Mr Poots: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, as a ministerial colleague, I did not receive any correspondence from the Minister. I informed my Executive colleagues that I intended to make a statement on community festival funding, and I gave them a week to respond. The Minister has not given us the same privilege. She should realise that she will not be able to implement such policies — [Interruption.] Mr Speaker: Order. I say to all sides of the House, I am not responsible for Executive protocols and who enforces them. As the Speaker, I am here to protect the House and its protocols, and that is as far as my responsibility goes. Mr McNarry: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In respect of what you have just outlined, and in deep appreciation of it, the House finds itself in a similar position to when the Minister for Social Development took a step that resulted in a legal question being asked about her actions, to the extent that I cannot talk about the issue because it is sub judice. Is it in your interests to rule that, in the interests of the House, there may be legal complications about the Minister’s statement and that the House should reflect on that? Mr Speaker: I have already said that I received notification of the Minister’s statement yesterday. The Minister has followed all protocols, and my responsibility ends with that. Whatever happens within the Executive happens within the Executive, and it is for them to resolve. My main duty is to protect the House and its procedures, and that is what I have done this morning. Before I call Mr Sammy Wilson to ask the Minister a question, I advise Members that there is a full list of people who also wish to ask questions. Therefore, I ask Members to refrain from making speeches and to keep their questions short and to the point. By doing so, they will increase their colleagues’ chances of asking a question. The Chairperson of the Committee for Education (Mr S Wilson): I thank the Minister for prior knowledge of her statement, which she made available to me before the sitting. I understand that some of her Executive colleagues may not feel the same way. I apologise for that, because it is perhaps due to the fact that I rushed her into making today’s statement in advance of the motion that is tabled for next week. As usual, the Minister’s statement contains a plateful of platitudes but only a spoonful of substance. Therefore, I have several questions, and, given that the Minister has had from May to contemplate the matter, I trust that we will get some answers from her this morning, rather than being told that we must wait until the consultation period is over. First, given that there will be a gap between the old and new arrangements, between 2008 and 2011, how will the Minister reassure school principals and parents about what will happen during that period? Secondly, after 2011, how will places be allocated if schools are oversubscribed? Thirdly, given that the Minister emphasises the geographical context of transfers, how will she ensure that her vision of equality and fairness will be met and that people will not simply buy a house close to the school to which they wish to send their children? The Minister said that significant structural changes will be necessary. What will those changes entail? How many schools that currently accept pupils aged 11 to 18 will be required to change in order to accept children aged 11 to 14 or children aged 14 to 18? How much will those structural changes cost? Finally, given that the Minister has ignored the political reality that such changes require cross-community support, as well as ignoring the views of 70% of the public, 65% of teachers, and half of the House, how does she intend to get those proposals through the House? Ms Ruane: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Go raibh maith agat le haghaidh na ceiste sin. First, I confirm that I sent a letter to all my Executive colleagues, and it might be wise for Executive members to check with their officials — [Interruption.] Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister has the Floor. Give her some order. Ms Ruane: On a previous occasion, when I sent a letter to the Minister of Culture, Arts, and Leisure, he wrote back to say that he had not received it, but subsequently confirmed that he had. Executive members will find that the letter has been sent. I thank Sammy Wilson for his comments. I am disappointed that we did not have a chance to talk this morning; nonetheless, his comments are welcome. There will always be popular and oversubscribed schools. We must ensure that every school is a good school, with good leadership, and that children attend the nearest local school. On the question about a postcode lottery — what do we have at the moment? We have a life lottery in which we are playing with our children’s lives using two one-hour tests. Is that fair? Is that right? I believe that it is fundamentally wrong that generations of our young people have been put through two one-hour tests, which amount to a life lottery. We need to build a new vision of an education system. We need to transform our education system for every child. I welcome the fact that young people are here today. For the first time, they will be at the centre of the decision-making. For the first time, their voices are going to be heard. It will not be other people — [Interruption.] 11.45 am Mr Speaker: Order. Ms Ruane: For the first time — [Interruption.] I am answering the question. For the first time, it will not be other people making decisions for them. In relation to geographical — [Interruption.] Mr Speaker: Order, Members. Allow the Minister to answer. A Member: She is not answering the question. Mr Speaker: I am not responsible for how a Minister answers a question. Members ought to know that. Mr McNarry: On a point of order — Mr Speaker: No points of order will be taken. The Minister is on her feet. [Interruption.] I ask the Member to take his seat. Mr McNarry: Is there a time limit as to how long the Minister can take to answer a question? Ms Ruane: I was actually asked aon, dhá, trí, ceithre, cúig, sé ceisteanna. I was asked six questions, and I am answering the six questions. I want to go through the questions that I was asked by the Cathaoirleach — the Chairperson — of the Committee for Education. Regarding the geographical issue, I am bringing forward a school-improvement policy in which every school will be a good school. Regarding structural change and cost, to paraphrase Oscar Wilde, it appears that some politicians in the Assembly know: “the price of everything, and the value of nothing.” I intend to deliver not only effective education, but efficient education. Structural change need not mean vast amounts of new capacity, but, rather, by the reorganisation of existing capacity and the careful management of the schools estate — at a time of falling pupil numbers — we will be able to deliver a better education system, which is the most important thing that we can do for our children. What price do we put on our children’s education? I will be consulting on my proposals, and, as a Minister, I will comply with all my requirements and duties. I want to find the way forward. Political consensus is important to me, as is the agreement of parents, teachers, children and educational administrators. We will have many discussions about our vision for education, and I look forward to those discussions with people from every political creed. Mr Butler: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis an Aire agus tacaíocht a thabhairt di — Mr McCartney: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it appropriate for one Member to refer to another as a “lapdog”? Mr Speaker: I am not taking points of order during questions to the Minister. I will be happy to do so afterwards. Mr Butler: Maith thú, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank Caitríona Ruane for her statement. This is a historic and momentous day for our education system. The statement is good for children, parents, and the education system. It sets out a vision for transforming the education system from one which has been dominated by academic selection to one in which academic excellence will be achieved. The new system will give every child and young person an opportunity to leave school with qualifications. The best education system is one that caters for, and gives opportunities to, all children. The Minister has said that key decisions will be taken at the age of 14, rather than, as now, selection at 11. Will that fundamental change to the education system result in children being better equipped to make those choices at 14, and able to select a pathway by which they can leave the education system and go into the workforce? Ms Ruane: Go raibh maith agat, Paul. There is broad consensus among educationalists that age 14 is a key decision point for young people. Under the current system, that is the age at which young people make important decisions about their courses of study and future career pathways. At 11, pupils have not completed their formative core curriculum, and dividing them into academic and non-academic categories by two one-hour tests — or, indeed, by any other means — lacks educational justification. An individual’s decision on his or her post-14 pathway should be taken within a framework of choice and flexibility, informed by parents, teachers and the career strategy that Reg Empey, the Minister for Employment and Learning, and I have jointly put out to consultation. Ask any young person today what they like, what they are good at, what they want to do more of and what they want to do less of. Informed, mature election at the age of 14 is the way forward, and many educationalists will agree with that. There is consensus in the House around that. Mr B McCrea: Does the Minister accept that, had she come to the House and asked for more resources for early-years education to help tackle educational underachievement, she would have had its full support? Had she talked of increasing parental choice and effort, or asked for more resources for underperforming schools, she would have had the full support of all Members. Is it not somewhat ironic that, instead, someone who chastises the high-stakes, winner-takes-all approach has brought measures to the House that are confrontational, do not build consensus and are unlikely to help? Instead of tackling the issues that she brings — Some Members: Where is the question? Mr B McCrea: Will the Minister undertake to fully involve the House and give it an opportunity to debate her proposals? She does not have the support of this half of the House or of the people of Northern Ireland. She will destroy the education system. This will be the ruination of — Mr Speaker: I ask the Member to draw his remarks to a close. Ms Ruane: I went before the electorate with our policies in relation to academic selection. I have been out and about in every part of the North of Ireland over the past six months. I have met people and visited many different areas; I have met school principals, from every community, who are crying out for change. We are debating the proposals now, and we will have many more debates, which I look forward to, as I look forward to working with all Members in building a new, dynamic education system. The Member described the present system as world-class: I do not accept that. Pupil numbers are falling dramatically. Each year we fill grammar schools with an increasingly mixed-ability intake, and we leave many of the rest of our children to suffer the consequences of shrinking, unsustainable and potentially failing schools. That is despite the best efforts of principals in those schools. Our 69 grammar schools represent 30% of the 229 post-primary schools, but they now educate 42% of post-primary pupils, and the latest NISRA (Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency) figures show that in 2013-14, that will be 45%. Our system is changing negatively and drifting. I am looking to galvanise it. As I have said, I am not prepared to allow the system to continue to fail young people throughout the North. It is unfair. It is unfair to working-class communities, and it is not good for our economy or for the development of life skills among young people. We have to move forward. We cannot put our heads in the sand and pretend that there is no problem. There are difficulties here, but we now have the opportunity to change. It is a unique opportunity. Instead of squabbling, let us move forward together and build the world-class education system that some think we have now. Mr D Bradley: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Tá cúpla ceist agam don Aire. Is it not the case that the age of 14 was suggested as pivotal by the DUP at the Programme for Government Committee’s Subgroup to Consider the Schools Admission Policy? After becoming Minister of Education, Ms Ruane abandoned the recommendations of the Costello Report, initiated by her colleague Mr McGuinness, and went along with the DUP’s suggestion. Furthermore, what plans does the Minister have to ensure that pathways that are chosen at the age of 14 genuinely reflect the ability and aptitude of pupils, rather than primarily coinciding with social and economic advantage? How can she reassure the public that the new system will not replicate the worst effects of academic selection and social disadvantage? Ms Ruane: I have given the reasons that explain why 14 is a key age to choose a pathway, and I have stated that there is consensus on that among all parties, not just the DUP. The Member sat on the Committee that discussed that matter, and the consensus was that 14 is a key age for young people to make decisions. We will do everything possible to ensure that every child is given a fair chance. We will ensure that every child’s needs are met within our education system, and that they are matched to suitable provision. However, choice is a key principle — young people know what they want, along with their teachers, career advisers and parents. There is a much better way to make decisions than the one that was used in the past. We do not need academic selection at 11, or 14, to make decisions. Young people and their parents can do that, helped by the good careers guidance that is crucial to those decisions. Mr Lunn: The Alliance Party broadly welcomes the Minister’s statement, as far as it goes. It is a vision statement, so we shall await concrete proposals. On the last page of the Minister’s statement, there is a reference to what would happen if grammar schools opt for independent admission arrangements: “If any school, however, chooses to operate independent admission arrangements that lie outside the new system of transfer, I want to make it clear that there is no obligation on my Department to assist with funding.” For those of us who like things to be absolutely clear, is the effect of the statement that there is no obligation on the Department to assist with funding related purely to the setting up and administration of those tests, or is there an implied threat to the funding of grammar schools? Is the Minister comfortable with the proposed timescale? The year 2011 may appear to be far away, but that is no time, and to work within that short timescale will be an achievement. In the statement, reference is made to the development of area-based planning, which plays a key role and which the Alliance Party welcomes, but how will that be developed within the proposed timescale? Finally, to repeat a question that has been asked by two Members, but which has not yet been answered: do the Minister’s proposals require cross-community support or not? Ms Ruane: The transfer of the majority of children in the North will occur as it has always done. Most children transfer on the basis of non-academic criteria. I intend to discuss with grammar schools my proposals to move beyond the 1947 selective system, and I am committed to persuading them that academic selection is no more necessary to enable children to have access to an academic education, than vocational selection is necessary to enable children to have access to professional and technical courses. I am aware that some grammar schools may need time to adjust to an intake that is based on non-academic criteria — the system to which I am committed. Therefore, I am keen to explore with those schools transitional arrangements that build on existing practice. In the new year, I shall make a further statement on progress towards an agreement for transfer arrangements in 2010. On securing the agreement, I will prepare draft regulations to underpin it, and I will bring that to the Committee for Education, and the Executive, for consideration. If any school chooses to operate independent admission arrangements that lie outside the new system of transfer, I want to make it clear that there is no obligation on my Department to assist with funding. 12.00 noon Mr Storey: I do not welcome the fact that the Minister has come to the House with proposals that add to the confusion that already exists. She said that her proposals will: “require further work at a detailed level before a number of questions can be answered”. Therefore, the Minister is not even in a position to answer questions in the House. If the statement was as well prepared as the one that she made on the amalgamation of two schools in my constituency — St Joseph’s Primary School in Ahoghill and St Patrick’s Primary School in Aughtercloney — in which she made a fundamental error that is now being reviewed, there will be serious consequences for the announcement that she has made today. Will the Minister state how she intends to deal with her proposals in a legislative framework? Has she any plans to consult with parents, whom she ignores, and their children, for whom she alleges that she has a conscience? I do not know from where Sinn Féin has suddenly got its conscience about children. Will the Minister tell the House what plans she has to consult with parents, so that Members know exactly how parents have reacted to her proposals? When will flesh be put on the bones of the skeleton proposals that the Minister has put forward? Ms Ruane: At present, there is confusion and mess — [Interruption.] Mr Speaker: Order. Ms Ruane: There is confusion and mess amid dramatically falling pupil numbers. I will repeat what I have already said, because I do not believe that the Member heard me. Each year, grammar schools are filled with an increasingly mixed-ability intake. Many other children are left to suffer the consequences of shrinking, unsustainable and potentially failing schools. Our 69 grammar schools represent 30% of the 229 post-primary schools. However, they educate 42% of post-primary pupils. I want to galvanise that provision. I have made proposals that will fundamentally change the system and improve it for all children, by matching them to suitable provision rather than to institutions. Mr Storey: Will the Minister answer the question? Ms Ruane: I am answering the Member’s question. The programme of change will be structured, phased in over several years and locally developed. Of course, parents will be part of that, as will teachers, trade unions, different education sectors and the various Churches. Everyone in society has a stake in this, and it is essential that all their voices be heard. Mrs O’Neill: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement, not least because I am the parent of a child who is due to transfer to post-primary education in 2010. However, I welcome it not only on my child’s behalf but on behalf of all children, who have the right not to be deemed failures at a young age. Will the Minister confirm that she will ensure that those excellent rural primary schools that are not, at present, in close proximity to secondary schools will not be adversely affected by what many people describe as a “postcode lottery”? Ms Ruane: Go raibh maith agat. I understand the Member’s concerns. However, I can assure her that the vision that I have outlined will ensure that her concerns do not come to pass. As I said in my statement, pupils who transfer to post-primary education in September 2010 will do so overwhelmingly on the basis of their preference of school, in much the same way in which children’s parents choose their primary schools and preschools at present. The permitted criteria that are issued to schools include family, community and geographical details. A section that deals with feeder primary schools is contained in the community and geographical criteria. The quicker that the move is made towards area-based planning, the quicker that the concerns about a postcode lottery can be put to bed. Miss McIlveen: The Minister of confusion and mess has said that substantial structural change will be needed and that she will — [Interruption.] Mr Speaker: Order. The Member has the Floor. Miss McIlveen: She has said that she will require the co-operation of the controlled sector, the maintained sector, the voluntary sector and the integrated sector in order to change the nature and number of their schools and the method of their admissions. How does she intend to ensure in her vision the co-operation of all those sectors? Does she intend to enforce structural change on those sectors? Amidst what she said earlier, the Minister did not actually answer Mr Lunn’s question on her threat to remove funding. Which aspect of funding will she not give to those schools who do not comply with her new system? Ms Ruane: As I said earlier, area-based planning will be the way forward. Part of area-based planning, as the Member will know, is about working with all education stakeholders. I am also chairing a high-level group of chairpersons, from all education sectors, to consider how we can move forward with all aspects of education reform. I have answered the question on funding. The Department is under no obligation — let me give my exact words so that I am not accused wrongly. I said: “If any school, however, chooses to operate independent admissions arrangements that lie outside the new system of transfer, I want to make it clear that there is no obligation on my Department to assist with funding.” A Member: I heard that. Ms Ruane: I know that you did. However, I am saying it again because you obviously did not listen to what I said. Mr K Robinson: I am not going to welcome the Minister’s statement this morning. However, I will note it. I note that her message is contrary to that of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, who are currently in America where they are praising our education system and trying to sell it to the Americans as a basis for investment. That is a bit of a mixed message, Minister. The Minister’s statement is high on clichés, platitudes and phrases, and all that that is leading to, and it has been referred to again and again by other Members, is confusion for parents, teachers and children. That is not fair to any of them. The way in which the Minister has brought her statement to the House is reminiscent, for those of us who have served in local councils, of those edgy — and Mr Speaker, I am coming to my question and I will save you from the effort of getting to your feet — planning applications that are presented just before Christmas, Easter or the Twelfth of July. Members in the House will know exactly what I mean. Will the Minister tell us whether she really consulted with her colleagues in the Executive? In particular, did she consult with the Minister for Social Development and the Minister for Employment and Learning? Will she also tell me why she feels that she can bring these proposals to the House when she cannot get cross-community support in her Committee and is also unlikely to get the required support in the House by bringing the matter forward in the manner in which she has done? Ms Ruane: I welcome the Member’s comments on the economy: it is essential that our education system is built for the dynamic economy that will be created by the Executive. I welcome the fact that the First Minister and deputy First Minister are in North America, where they are promoting the North. That is very important. Members will know that I met with the Institute of Directors (IOD), the CBI and other organisations that understand the importance of the economy and the role that the education system plays in it. I know that they will be pleased by the proposals that I have brought to the House today. We are sending out a new message that says that we have a vision of a world-class education system, a vision in which equality for all our children is the cornerstone, and a vision in which life skills and job skills are matched to the needs of the economy. It is a good time for the North; it is a good time for this island, and it is a good time for relations between this island and England, Scotland and Wales. We can be part of bringing about change in the North for all our children and not just for some. Mr Gallagher: I hope that many Members in the Chamber agree that we have to do something about the present education system, which labels and stigmatises so many of our young children as failures. Having looked at the flowery language of the Minister’s statement, there are some worrying matters. I am certain that in September 2010, there will be confusion and chaos. Does the Minister not recognise that, even with the criteria that were outlined today, there will be a free-for-all that will suit the grammar schools but do serious damage to secondary schools? That will sound the death knell for many secondary schools. It is very worrying that, in her statement, the Minister makes much of her contact and discussions with the grammar schools. Will she give an assurance that she will take steps to protect small schools and the rural communities that support them, and that children in rural areas will not have to travel excessive distances to urban centres? Ms Ruane: I do not accept that there will be a free-for-all. This will be carefully managed change. I would not use the term “flowery”; I would use the term “visionary”. [Interruption.] We are creating an education system that places the child at the centre. Unfortunately, to date, the children have not been placed at the centre of the system. We will now be doing that. I share the Member’s view on secondary schools. They have borne the brunt of demographic decline. I have been out and about in secondary schools right across the North, in all different communities, and they are crying out for change. I ask the Members across the Chamber to listen to them; they need to listen. At the moment, we have chaos and the secondary schools are bearing the brunt of demographic decline. It is not fair. We need change. In relation to small schools and rural schools, there will, for the first time, be area-based planning. The people involved in the local education sectors are best placed to put that provision in place. In fact, in many cases, the work has already started, and those people are leading the way. Mr McNarry: Will the Minister give way? Mr Speaker: Order. I ask the Member to take his seat. Mr Brolly: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. As a secondary-school teacher for 35 years, I saw all that was wrong with the 11-plus selection system. I want to ask the Minister, with regard to — Mr Speaker: Order. A number of meetings are taking place around the Chamber. Mr Brolly: There seems to be a feeling that the 11-plus decided how many excellent youngsters — youngsters well capable of academic education — there were. In fact, the number of people who passed the 11-plus depended much more on the number of grammar-school places that were available — as the Minister has said, about 30% of the total school capacity. The 11-plus started life as a way of providing — [Interruption.] Some Members: Where is the question? Mr Speaker: Order. Can the Member get to his question? Mr Brolly: I am going to ask a question now. I am just trying to think of one. [Laughter.] Mr S Wilson: He has worked himself up to it. Mr Brolly: The 11-plus started life as a means of giving scholarships to poor youngsters so that they could get into secondary education. However, when secondary education became compulsory and free, everybody was able to get it, and the 11-plus, unfortunately, was used — Some Members: Question. Mr Brolly: I am going to ask a question. Mr Speaker: Order. I ask the Member to come to his question. Mr Brolly: Some Members took much longer to ask their questions than I am taking. Anyhow, my question is — [Laughter.] Mr S Wilson: He has forgotten it now. [Laughter.] Mr Brolly: Does the Minister agree that the day of the grammar school is now gone, given that grammar schools now go out to the highways and byways to gather up anyone whom they can so that they can receive further funding? 12.15 pm Ms Ruane: Go raibh maith agat as an cheist sin. I believe firmly that we must have academic excellence in our education system. I look forward to working with all schools, including grammar schools, to ensure that the future arrangements — [Interruption.] A Member: Answer the question. Ms Ruane: I am answering the question. I wish to ensure that the future arrangements that I will introduce will guarantee academic excellence in the education system. Mr Ross: I will try to bring a bit of calm to the Chamber. I am glad that the former Sinn Féin MLA recognised the reality of the situation over the weekend: namely that — just as an Irish language Act needed DUP support — to get rid of academic selection, which is safeguarded in the legislation that came about as a result of the St Andrews Agreement, Sinn Féin needs my party’s support, and that of this side of the House. That is not going to happen, and the Minister knew that it was not going to happen. Therefore, it was her responsibility to put proposals that could secure the support of everyone in the House. She has failed to do that. In her statement, the Minister said that she had spoken to teachers, parents, pupils and administrators, and that she plans a further process of consultation. I do not know in which language she conversed with those people, because in successive polls and surveys, and among people to whom I have spoken, the message is clear: there is public support for the principle of academic selection. Parents support it, as do teachers. My question is a simple one that requires only a yes or no answer. Does the Minister believe that her proposals will secure the support of the people of Northern Ireland, the Executive and the House? Ms Ruane: I do. Mr McElduff: Will the Minister’s proposals narrow the gap between respect for vocational qualifications and academic qualifications? It is important, as we go forward, that greater respect is accorded to vocational qualifications. Ms Ruane: Sin ceist an-mhaith. We must ensure that all children have access to various pathways, and that equal respect is afforded to whatever pathway is chosen. It should not be an either/or situation; it can be both. We can provide for choice between professional, technical or vocational qualifications, and the academic route. If a young person wants to be an engineer, is it not better that he or she can study technology alongside maths and sciences? That is common sense. In line with the current curriculum, one third of all courses in all schools must be either academic or professional and technical. The Member has raised a fundamental point: if our economy is to thrive, it is essential that vocational qualifications be given respect. Mr Hamilton: It is very clear on this side of the House that we give the Minister’s proposals a grade F for failure, and that her report card would read, “must do much better.” She has given no consideration to the current legislation, which enshrines academic selection, nor has she given any consideration to what happens between 2009 and 2011, nor the need to achieve cross-party consensus in the Chamber for her proposals. What consideration has the Minister given to the inevitable cost of the upheaval that her proposals will cause — proposals that are doomed to fail? Ms Ruane: I thank the Member for the F grade. The Irish word for vision — fís — starts with the letter f, so I will take that as a compliment. I hope that we will achieve consensus; that is my plan. I hope that we will agree a way forward and create an education system that values all our children. I have answered the question on cost. I believe that we can transform our education estate within the resources that I have, and bring about the changes that are necessary. Mr McCallister: The Minister has not provided much clarity. Has the Department carried out any work on valuing the schools estate, and has it assessed the work that needs to be done? Since the Minister is so confident that she can secure cross-community support, will she give an undertaking to the Assembly that Members will have the opportunity to vote on her proposals? Ms Ruane: My Department and I have been working on these proposals for the past six months. Therefore, the answer to the Member’s first question is yes. I forget his second question. Perhaps he will repeat it. Mr McCallister: Will there be an opportunity for the Assembly to vote on the proposals? I shall ask another question: where are the Minister’s officials today? Mr McNarry: Yes, where are the Minister’s officials? Mr Speaker: Order. Please allow the Minister to answer. Ms Ruane: My officials, who have been working closely with me for the past six months, are working today. They are busy, because this is a very exciting day for the education system in the North. I am grand here on my own. I know what my vision is. In answer to the second part of Mr McCallister’s question, I will make a further statement in the new year on the progress being made towards agreement for transfer in 2010. I will prepare draft regulations to underpin the securing of agreement. I will then bring the proposals to the Executive and to the Committee for Education for consideration and comment before engagement. Go raibh maith agat. Mrs M Bradley: Does the Minister believe that the focus on transfer at the age of 14 brushes under the carpet some of the problems about transfer at the age of 11? There will still be problems with oversubscription and possibly selection by postcode. What steps are being taken to avoid selection by postcode and the related pressures on the housing market? Although Francie Brolly has declared that grammar schools are gone, I want to ask whether secondary schools will be able to obtain funding to make them equal to grammar schools. Ms Ruane: Rather than creating a postcode lottery, I intend to abolish a life lottery. As I said earlier, under the old regime, that life lottery gambled with the lives of children and the futures of families, based on children of 11 years of age completing two tests lasting one hour each. Under my new vision, the watchword will be “equality”. Many families do not have the wherewithal or the personal desire for additional tuition or academic coaching for their primary-school children. Those considerations will no longer be necessary. We have here the outline of a vision that is based on local and area-based planning. The resources for the schools in that system will be allocated in a fair and equal way. Lord Morrow: Having listened to what the Minister has said and read some of the stuff in her statement, I have to say that it is no wonder that the entire education system is totally confused. She says that she wrote to her colleagues. In fact, she wrote to one colleague and delivered the letter today at 10.50 am. That is the consultation in which the Minister believes. However, that tells Members something: the Minister knows perfectly well that there is no hope of her proposals going through. Those proposals have come from a narrow, sectarian, political viewpoint — the Minister’s sectarianism drips from her. We have news for her: not only will she not get her proposals through the Assembly, but she has no chance of getting them through the Executive. That is why she refuses to consult her Executive colleagues. If the Minister thinks that this stuff — Mr Speaker: I ask the Member to come to the question. Lord Morrow: If the Minister thinks that this stuff is going to anywhere in the Assembly, we can tell her today that it is going absolutely nowhere. She had better learn that and learn it quickly. She has introduced proposals and manifestly made an attempt to close all post-primary rural schools in County Fermanagh. She talks about equality, but, in fact, she is going to round up people in Fermanagh — Mr Speaker: Will the Member please come to the question. Lord Morrow: I am coming to the question now. She intends to round up people in rural areas and send them all into Enniskillen town. Will the Minister tell the House where the rural equality is in her proposals? She should hang her head in shame. Ms Ruane: This is a proud day for me. I am delighted with the outline of the vision that I have presented. It will give every child a fair chance in an education system that matches children to suitable provision. The proposals that the Member mentions in relation to Fermanagh have been brought forward by the boards. Lord Morrow: And? Ms Ruane: And it is very important that all political representatives read them carefully and engage with the process. I do not know where the Member lives, or what world he is living in. Maybe he should visit some of the secondary schools in the unionist community, talk to the principals, and hear directly from them how they are being affected under the current system. I have had meetings with principals from all kinds of schools — all the different sectors, all the different creeds and all the different politics. They tell me that we need change. We need an education system that is fit for the twenty-first century. We need a system that puts the children at the centre, and that is what I am going to do. Maybe the Member is willing to live in the past and condemn 4,000 young people to poor literacy and numeracy skills, but I am not. I am the Minister of Education for every child in the North of Ireland, and I am going to ensure that every child has opportunities. Ms Purvis: I welcome the Minister’s commitment to ending the 11-plus, but I am extremely disappointed, as many of those disadvantaged by the current system will be, by her proposal to sustain a range of different types of school. In effect, that is selection, slotting children into schools. It brands the schools as failures or successes. This vision is a new system of social selection, which represents a missed opportunity for the Minister. She has abandoned Sinn Féin’s former policy and she has abandoned the most disadvantaged children in society. It is a missed opportunity to create one system — not a two-tier or two-gear system, but one of equality in schools and education that values each child equally. Does the Minister agree that a ‘ChuckleVision’ view of education does not create a tiger economy? East or west, tiger economies are not based on academically selective systems. Will the Minister outline — and other Members have talked about it this morning — what discussions she has had with her Executive colleagues and with other parties in the Assembly on these proposals, and how she proposes to secure the broadest community support for them? Ms Ruane: First of all, every area is different, as Members will know. One size does not fit all. We are going to look at a range of provision, and I do not accept that it is a postcode lottery. We are going to look at access to an 11-19 school, transfer to an alternative 11-19 school, access through an 11-19 or post-14 school, and transfer to a 14-19 school. The Member needs to understand that everywhere is different. Rural areas are different from urban areas. I will be seeking the views of all the different stakeholders in relation to the provision that we will be having. It is important that we do not go down the road of one size fits all. No child will be disadvantaged, and all children will have access to a wide range of subjects and pathways. Mr McLaughlin: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome today’s statement and the debate that it has begun. It is simply a statement of fact and reality that there is no consensus for the current education arrangements, particularly the transfer system. Therefore, change is required and inevitable. Does the Minister agree that the challenge for Members of this Assembly is to give leadership on this issue, to embrace change and to reject the failed status quo, not to behave as the dysfunctional product of a failed education system? Is she listening carefully to the Shankill Road principals’ consortium and its rejection of academic selection and transfer tests? 12.30 pm Ms Ruane: I absolutely agree that we must show political leadership to match that of the principals and teachers in our schools, who are crying out for it. They understand the impact on secondary schools of 50,000 empty desks, of changing the review of public administration, of creating the education and skills authority (ESA), and of demographic decline. I am confident that we can bring forward proposals that will have the support of the vast majority of secondary and grammar schools. I ask all the political leaders here to show the necessary leadership; we can either hide our heads in the sand and pretend that there is no problem or we can lead by example. With that in mind, I welcome the question. I have been in many different communities, one of which was the Shankill. I have met the principals’ forums and the north Belfast controlled sector forum. I have been to Millburn in Coleraine, and to Ballymena, Derry, the Falls Road — all over the North — and, by and large, the current system is failing working-class pupils. There must be change, and I ask you to work with me, rather than fight that change every step of the way. I will fight if I must, but I would like to work with Members to create the system that is needed. Mr Ford: I would have been happy to join in welcoming the Minister’s vision for education. However, this morning, the problem is that we have a right to expect something more than a vision that could have been expounded a few months ago. There is a huge amount lacking in her statement. For example, can she explain how she will make area-based planning meaningful when, in many areas — such as Antrim, in my constituency — the education and library board on one hand and CCMS on the other have already gone through a rationalisation process? The problem of empty desks remains. In a rare moment of unity with Miss McIlveen — and my colleague Trevor Lunn — I repeat a point that the Minister made and ask what the implications are: “If any school, however, chooses to operate independent admissions arrangements that lie outside the new system of transfer … there is no obligation on my Department to assist with funding.” Does that relate solely to the funding of the new transfer arrangements, or is there an implied threat to those schools in general? Ms Ruane: I have already answered the last question, so I will not do so again. Area-based planning is fundamental. It must be — and will be — put in place with the support of all the education partners. Mr Burnside: Listening to Radio Ulster on the way to Stormont this morning, I was looking forward to an important statement on education. Something along the lines of Dickson academic selection at 14 was being flagged up, and I thought that that meant some progress, with an announcement that could receive cross-community and popular support for our future education system. What disappoints me about the Minister’s statement is its total lack of content and clarity. I therefore ask for a precise answer to a precise question. Referring to the future, she mentioned — after the Irish bit — the introduction of regulations, following a consultation process. Regulations are clearly understood to be under her executive authority as a Minister. Are we, therefore, about to see the destruction of our grammar schools and academic selection by Martin McGuinness mark II, or will that be blocked by the authority of this House? Can she be clear: is it to be regulations or legislation? Ms Ruane: I, too, listened to Radio Ulster today. The principal of Portadown College spoke, and her vision was interesting. She said clearly that the area in which the Dickson method operates has been much more effective than other areas in the North. I differ from the current system in that I do not believe that academic selection is necessary at 14; it is unjust and unnecessary. We can create a system of academic excellence by matching children to suitable provision. I have answered the Member’s question already, so I do not know how much clearer that I can be. I will bring my proposals to the Executive, and I will work with my colleagues in the Assembly. Mr O’Loan: I thank the Minister for her statement. Speaking as someone who was a teacher for more than 30 years, predominantly in Northern Ireland grammar schools, I fully endorse the principles behind the changes, which reflect the need to provide an appropriate educational pathway for every child, and an equal opportunity for every child to realise his or her potential. If places in heavily subscribed schools are allocated on the basis of residential location — the proximity of a child’s home to a school — does the Minister accept that that will lead to property hot spots and, ultimately, to a system in which money talks? Surely a system that allocates school places according to how much money a child’s parents have is even more unjust than one that allocates according to academic ability. Will the Minister guarantee to the House that she will avoid, at all costs, a system that reserves places at the most desirable schools for those who are better off? Ms Ruane: First, I say go raibh maith agat to the Member for his initial comments. There will always be pressure on popular schools in our education system. However, we now have an opportunity, because of excess places in our school system, to be more responsive in future. Secondly, the focus on admissions will shift. The post-14 provision in local areas will be flexible and agile in order to enable all children to be matched to suitable provision through the organisational capacity of larger or collaborating institutions. The key point to make is that no doors will be closed to children. Mr Elliott: I hope that I have more success than other Members have had in getting an answer from the Minister, after the party-political spoof that I have heard from her today. On what does she base her suggestion that her announcement will have the support of children, teachers and parents? It is certainly not what the opinion polls have indicated up to now. Ms Ruane: As I have said, I have been out and about, and I have met with many groups and sectors. An increasing number of people understands that we need change in our system; an increasing number of people understands that we need to create an education system that is fit for the twenty-first century; and an increasing number of people understands that choices for children should not be based on the outcome of two one-hour tests. Opinions on academic selection are shifting. I ask that Members go out and talk to their communities. I have been out talking to them, and opinions are shifting. Members should talk to the IOD, the CBI, all the teachers’ unions, and the various boards and education sectors — they might hear something that they would not expect to hear. Mr A Maginness: As someone who belongs to a party that has been totally opposed to the 11-plus, one would have loved to have come to the Chamber today to say congratulations to the Minister. She has said that this should be an exciting day, because she is presenting her vision for the future of our education system. However, it is a sad day, because the Minister has created only more confusion and a further lack of clarity on the future of our education system. The Minister has talked about there being a range of schools and a range of options. Surely that is antipathetic to the ideal of equality for people in education. Ms Ruane: “Equality” and “diversity” are closely linked words. I am disappointed that the Member does not understand the range of provision. My proposals offer local solutions, because different areas have different needs. I urge Members not to stay in their constituencies but to go out into other constituencies to see the differences that operate at different levels. Equality does not mean that everything need be the same. Equality is a celebration of diversity but with a fair system put in place. Mr Savage: The Minister’s proposals are far-reaching. Can those changes be made within the existing education budget, or will the Minister require more finances to complete the task that lies ahead? Ms Ruane: Many of the changes are far-reaching, and I will use the existing resources to bring about maximum change in the system. Mr Speaker: No more Members wish to ask questions. That brings to an end questions on the ministerial statement. The Business Committee has arranged to meet immediately upon the lunchtime suspension. Mr McCartney: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Standing Order 60(1)(e) relates to the use of unparliamentary language. When Paul Butler rose to his feet to ask a question, the word “lapdog” was called out in the Chamber. Will you rule, Mr Speaker, on whether that is parliamentary language, and if it is not, will you ask the Member responsible to withdraw the comment? Mr Speaker: I continually say to all sides of the House that there are debates that can give rise to some tension in the House. I have always said that Members must be mindful of the language that they use. I will study the Hansard report and return to the House on the matter. As I was trying to say before I was interrupted on a point of order, the Business Committee has agreed to meet immediately upon the lunchtime suspension. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The sitting was suspended at 12.42 pm. On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Dallat] in the Chair) — 2.00 pm Public Health (Amendment) Bill Second Stage Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. The next item of business is the Second Stage of the Public Health (Amendment) Bill [NIA 8/07] — Mrs I Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Are we entitled to proceed without there being a quorum in the Chamber? Mr Deputy Speaker: No, not if the Member has an objection. Notice taken that 10 Members were not present. House counted, and there being fewer than 10 Members present, the Deputy Speaker ordered the Division Bells to be rung. Upon 10 Members being present — On resuming — 2.02 pm Mr Deputy Speaker: We now have a quorum, so it is safe to proceed. The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey): I beg to move That the Second Stage of the Public Health (Amendment) Bill [NIA 8/07] be agreed. The Bill is exceptionally brief but is important nonetheless. Chernobyl and other environmental disasters have demonstrated that ships coming into and leaving port can present a greater threat to public health than the infectious diseases that rats and other vectors carry. Therefore, the 2005 international health regulations, which the World Health Organization issued, seek to strengthen the defences against a wider range of threats, such as chemical and radiological contamination. The Bill is necessary to enable ports in Northern Ireland to implement the new inspection and certification regime. The Bill simply amends the regulation-making powers in section 2A of the Public Health Act (Northern Ireland) 1967. That section deals with the control of certain diseases. The Bill has two clauses. By adding new paragraph (c) to section 2A(1) of the 1967 Act, clause 1 will extend my Department’s power to make regulations to prevent: “the spread of infection or contamination by means of any vessel or aircraft leaving any place, so far as may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of carrying out any treaty, convention, arrangement or engagement with any other country”. Clause 2 sets out the Bill’s short title. In order to be able to comply with the international health regulations, the Public Health (Ships) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1971 and Public Health (Aircraft) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1971 must be amended. The international health regulations were remade in 2005 and agreed with the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is therefore obliged to provide a legislative framework to implement our international obligations under those regulations. This will allow new ship sanitation control certificates to replace deratting certificates, which will have no international validity after this month. The new certificates deal with infection and with rodents that can carry human disease, and, for the first time, chemical and radiological contamination will be addressed. The Bill is necessary so that the Port of Belfast, for example, can have the same certification power as Liverpool and can impose the same sanitation standards as Shanghai or Liberia. We must put in place new regulations for Northern Ireland in the form of subordinate legislation, which requires |