northern Ireland assembly Monday 25 February 2008 Executive Committee Business: Private Members’ Business: Oral Answers to Questions: Private Members’ Business: Adjournment: The Assembly met at 12.00 noon (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes’ silence. Mr Speaker: Before we begin, I wish to say that I have been approached by representatives from several parties in relation to an event that is planned to take place in Parliament Buildings. This is not a matter for the Chamber; it is a matter for the Commission, and the Commission will consider it at the earliest opportunity. I will, therefore, not be taking any points of order on the issue this afternoon. Turning to another — Dr W McCrea: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The deputy First Minister said that he “would have killed” every British soldier in Londonderry in the aftermath of Bloody Sunday. I ask you to rule on the appropriateness of that comment in light of the Pledge of Office that the deputy First Minister took, under which he is supposed to respect: “the rule of law … policing and the courts”. Surely his statement was totally appropriate and, at least, inflammatory, if not inciteful? We need to have an investigation into whether Mr McGuinness carried out any murders of members of the security forces. Mr Speaker: These issues of ministerial conduct are complex matters that I have no intention of trying to address in the Chamber today. I encourage the Member to seek advice from the Business Office, as there are a number of areas that he could consider. Again, on this issue, I have no intention of taking any further points of order from any party. I want to turn, very quickly, to another matter — Mr McNarry: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It seems that it takes only minutes for a Minister to resign in front of the press, but longer than seven days to resign in front of this House. In your estimation, Mr Speaker, when is a resignation a resignation? When can we expect a statement from the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister? Mr P Robinson: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, is it beyond the wit of the Member for Strangford to recognise the difference between announcing an intention to do something, and actually doing it? Mr Speaker: The Member in question remains a junior Minister. His duties are a matter for the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. That is all that I have to say on that matter. I turn to a matter that was raised in the Chamber by Mr David Ford on Monday 4 February. He asked me to consider whether Ministers were in breach of the Pledge of Office, alleging a failure to support the Programme for Government and the Budget. On Tuesday 19 February, Mr Mervyn Storey sought a ruling on whether the alleged actions of a Minister, as referred to in a debate, represented a possible breach of the ministerial code and the Pledge of Office. The issue of whether the Speaker has any authority over the Pledge of Office has been raised in the House on approximately four occasions. I have considered those points of order carefully, and my ruling is that the Speaker has no role in deciding whether the Pledge of Office has been breached. There are, of course, provisions in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 that allow the Assembly to consider a Minister’s, or junior Minister’s, failure to observe any of the terms of the Pledge of Office, and to take appropriate action. A range of sanctions can be found in that Act, and there are conditions on the moving of a motion relating to each of those sanctions. These are complex matters, and I encourage Members to seek advice outside the Chamber, rather than raising such matters in the House. Mr McNarry: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On the issue of wit, I wish to congratulate the wit that the electorate of Dromore demonstrated recently when making decisions at the ballot box. I raised my earlier point of order with you only because of the delay. That delay is not ingratiating itself with this House and — Mr Speaker: Order. I have already addressed that issue, which is a matter for the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. It is certainly not an issue for the Speaker or for this House. Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill First Stage The Minister of Finance and Personnel (Mr P Robinson): I beg to introduce the Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill [NIA 11/07], which is a Bill to amend the Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) Order 1979. Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed. Mr Speaker: The Bill will be put on the list of future business until a date for its Second Stage is determined. Further Consideration Stage Mr Speaker: The Further Consideration Stage is intended to enable the Assembly to debate any further amendments to a Bill. As no amendments to the Budget Bill have been tabled, there will be no opportunity today to discuss the Bill. Members will be able to have a full debate during the Bill’s Final Stage. The Further Consideration Stage of the Budget Bill [NIA 10/07] is, therefore, concluded. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker. Review of the Construction Industry Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. Mr Brolly: I beg to move That this Assembly notes the downturn in the construction industry, and the concerns raised by contractors about the powers and responsibilities of the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB); and calls on the Minister for Employment and Learning to conduct a wide-ranging review of the remit of the CITB, to include the issues of levies, apprenticeships and the disbursement of grants. Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The Construction Industry Training Board (CITB) was established under The Industrial Training (Construction Board) Order 1964. Since its inception, there has been growing discontent about its remit and its operation, the main reason being fundamental: the construction industry is the only industry that is expected to pay a levy on its annual wage bill. The stated purpose of the Construction Industry Training Board is to encourage contractors to provide training to those people employed, or intending to be employed, in the industry. Contractors consider that to be unnecessary since the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994 ensure that contractors provide the best training for their employees. Furthermore, the Buildsafe initiative demands a competent and well-trained workforce, and the possibility of Government funding. Stringent health-and-safety regulations, which are monitored regularly, are also in place; insurance premiums are high; and employers are increasingly concerned about the dangers that their workforces face, which can lead to possible injury or death. The avowed role of CITB is the monitoring of those training standards, which are paid for by the construction industry. That is hardly necessary, because no building contractor will pay for substandard training; a contractor will pay only for training that meets the required standards of health, safety and efficiency. Until 1989, there were nine training boards. Only the construction industry was kept apart —maintaining its own training board and the statutory right to charge a levy to employers in the industry — and the other eight training boards were incorporated into the Training and Employment Agency (TEA). For example, the engineering industry’s training board became the Engineering Training Council (ETC). That organisation does not collect a levy; it sells its training to the industry and is successful in doing so. The situation is similar in the catering industry. Electrical contractors paid a levy until the mid-1990s, but the Training and Employment Agency allowed them to withdraw from CITB. They set up what is now known as the Electrical Training Trust (ETT); it does not collect a levy and is surviving well, with no complaints. In the construction industry, the amount of levy collected from individual companies is based on their annual wage bill. In England, Scotland and Wales, that levy is obtained only from those companies that have a wage bill of more than £76,000, and they are charged at a rate of 0·2%. Incredibly, here, CITB collects a levy from any construction company with an annual wage bill of £15,000. That sum barely constitutes a decent single wage; it would not even be enough for an MLA to rent a constituency office. CITB across the water has been renamed and rebranded, but half of its 1,500-strong workforce performs the same function as CITB does here — and it still has the power to lift a levy at a rate of 0·2%. Our levy is lifted at a rate of 0·65% — over three times the rate imposed in England, Scotland and Wales. It was clearly intended that that revenue would be used to provide training to the industry. In England, Scotland and Wales, the payout for training is 80% of the levy collected; here, it is approximately 50%. Mr Elliott: I am pleased that the Member refers to the approach in England, Scotland and Wales — rather than in another part of these islands — as the guide that we should follow on this matter. Mr Brolly: Thank you, Tom. CITB here has a staff of 52; in England, Scotland and Wales, of an overall staff of 1,500, over 700 are employed specifically in the management of apprenticeships — something that our CITB simply does not do. Therefore, people who work for CITB here number 800. The generally accepted ratio of our population to that of England, Scotland and Wales is 1:40. As a result, CITB employees here should be one fortieth of 800, which comes to 20. CITB here is amazingly overstaffed. 12.15 pm The chairman of the board, who lives in Switzerland, is paid £18,000 a year to attend six meetings a year. Almost half of CITB staff here drive company cars. CITB used to provide considerable direct training. However, it has established a network of accredited trainers for that purpose, and they charge very high prices. Contractors must pay the commercial trainers and then apply to CITB for a grant towards the cost of that training. More than half of CITB’s employers do not apply for a grant, because the process is too complicated and the forms are complex. One office manager told me that the amount of time that his staff would have to spend applying for the grant would possibly end up costing his office more than the amount that they would receive in return. For example, between 2006 and 2007, a substantial company where I come from paid CITB a levy of £17,500. It paid commercial trainers £49,000 for training. Having paid that sum, it applied for a grant from CITB and received £5,000. Therefore, that company paid almost £70,000, including a levy of £17,500, for £5,000 in return. Commercial training does not offer the construction industry good value for money. Building contractors are particularly angry at the seemingly unlimited access that CITB officers have to their personal records and files. A CITB officer will come into an office to ask questions. He will record on his laptop the answers that he receives, and he will take that information back to CITB headquarters. That that is done causes contractors great resentment, not to mention the questions about data protection that arise. In January 2006, the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL), under the review of public administration (RPA), decided to wind up CITB. However, lobbying by CITB resulted in the non-implementation of that decision. Again under RPA, and before the restoration of devolution, Peter Hain announced that he would amalgamate CITB and the Sector Skills Council (SSC) for Construction, but that did not happen. For a long time, the Construction Employers’ Federation (CEF)was a great supporter of CITB — they were almost in the same bed — but it has recently forwarded a document to CITB that asks for a complete review of its operation and the manner in which it conducts its business. It has also asked CITB for a considerable reduction in the amount of levy that is exacted. The motion is fundamentally in tune with that recommendation. Mr Spratt: I support the motion, and I declare an interest. My son owns a small construction company, so I have been given an invaluable insight into the current climate and the challenges that are faced by the construction industry. As we all know, the construction industry is a vital component of our economy, so we must aid it however we can. The industry is largely made up of small firms with an annual turnover of less than £250,000 a year. The industry comprises 11% of the Northern Ireland workforce and provides a livelihood to many people in Northern Ireland. Only last week, a construction worker spoke on Radio Ulster’s ‘Evening Extra’ programme, and I listened intently to his comments with a view to today’s debate. I was struck by the gentleman’s desire to remain in the industry, even at this difficult time. However, he made it clear that if work were not available in Northern Ireland, he would have to consider seriously the prospect of moving to Scotland, or perhaps the Isle of Man, to gain employment and earn a living. This young man should not have to leave Northern Ireland in such circumstances. This is his home; yet he faces the real prospect, as some of his colleagues have also faced, of being forced to leave Northern Ireland to find work elsewhere. There is much talk about the brain drain — do we now have a skills drain? It is individuals such as that gentleman; bricklayers; plumbers; joiners and electricians, who need the support of the structures and mechanisms that are in place in their industry to help them to get through this tough period Mrs I Robinson: Does the Member agree that instances of paramilitary activity, whereby paramilitaries demand protection money from construction firms, comprise an additional drain on the construction industry? If such money is not paid, vehicles and other paraphernalia belonging to the firms are destroyed by those same people. Mr Spratt: I agree fully with the honourable Member, and we have seen many examples in the not too distant past of very expensive equipment being burnt, so that is also a problem in the industry. The mechanism is in place to help the construction industry to tough it out. Training is an important aspect of CITB’s function; however, over the past few years, it appears that some people in the industry have become unclear about the organisation’s training and development role. Indeed, the clouding over of CITB’s role has been the knock on effect of a decrease in direct training. CITB appears to play a key role in identifying skills required, and one could argue that a more strategic role has developed for the board. We must assess whether the change in direction is positive, or negative, and whether both roles can be fulfilled adequately. We should note that CITB is a statutory body with the appropriate — and I emphasise appropriate — statutory powers to collect a levy and develop training criteria, and it is legally accountable. We should keep that in mind during our deliberations today. It is vital that the board, as the representative body, is seen to represent the construction industry as a whole. That is particularly the case in the construction industry, where the vast majority of firms are small. We must ensure that the board is genuinely representative. Currently, CITB membership comprises employers, who take a lead role, academics, and trade unions. It is right that employers take a leading role on the board. We must aid our industry in any way that we can at this time, as must those support groups that are already in place. We must always be mindful of the small construction firms that constitute probably the vast majority of employers in the construction industry; those small firms must not be left out. I support the motion. Mr McClarty: I thank the Members for securing this very important debate. I, along with others, recognise that the construction industry is going through a difficult period, and it is likely to do so for the next couple of years. However, it should also be noted that the industry has recently undergone a period of record growth, although, unfortunately, it seems that this has, somewhat inevitably, ended. The sub-prime mortgage scandal, the credit squeeze, and, perhaps, some overly exuberant speculative development have taken their toll on Northern Ireland’s housing market. We need a period of stocktaking in which we can support first-time buyers back into the market and ensure the construction industry’s long-term sustainability and growth. Those larger issues are reflected in our falling house prices and reduced activity in the construction sector. Indeed, the Ulster Bank’s December 2007 construction purchasing managers’ index (PMI) figure is the lowest since records began in 2000. In Northern Ireland, annual planning applications have dropped by 10,000 since 2004-05. Many problems can be put down to events and economics only. However, in this time of difficulty in the industry, it is right that we should examine the workings of the Construction Industry Training Board. The levy employed CITB is unique among similar industries and the question of value for money is very valid. The levy often hits small construction companies harder, and they can often not get the same use from the services and facilities provided by CITB. I also draw attention to the limits on payroll costs in Northern Ireland, which are very low in comparison with those in the rest of the United Kingdom. That means that employers who can least afford to pay the levy are in the same position as very large companies. Although CITB may have been fit for purpose in past decades, there is a case for a more dynamic approach to training and apprenticeships that better suits the needs of the industry in an increasingly difficult marketplace. I support the motion and any subsequent review. Mr Attwood: I, too, welcome the debate, not least because it brings to the Chamber issues around training and apprenticeships in the North. Before dealing with some of the issues raised in Mr Brolly’s motion, it is important to say that the House again expresses general concern about the current situation regarding the training of apprentices. The Minister will be replying later in the debate; however, on 11 February 2008, he confirmed on the Floor of the House that his Department is conducting a review of the Training for Success programme. That review is not only timely, it may well be urgent. Preliminary figures given to the Committee for Employment and Learning a month ago showed that the number of people undertaking apprenticeships was down by approximately 2,000, year on year — from 7,500 to 5,000; there seemed to be some acute problems with the number of people entering apprenticeships at level 3; evidence given to the Committee, which the Chairperson can confirm, suggested that there are issues arising because part-time employees are not within the range of Training for Success contracts; and there are issues concerning people in the retail industry who may require training given that that industry is the single largest private-sector employer in the North. For all those reasons, the Minister should come to the House and state the nature of the Department’s review, its time frame and its overall purpose. I would like to think that the Minister and the Department will address, through the review, the particular issues regarding the construction industry that have been highlighted to the Committee. I will highlight three or four of those today. First, there is the payment to apprentices — the Department has not laid down how much they should be earning and, as a consequence, some employers in the North are paying the minimum amount of £40 per week to those in training. Secondly, there is inconsistency in training under the Training for Success programme. Some trainees may be in training for two days and on site for three; others may be in training for three days and on site for two; and some may be in training for three days only. That is not the way to develop a cohesive group of trainers in the North to serve the needs of construction industry trainees. Thirdly, the fundamental issue, given that the Training for Success programme was meant to offer employment from day one, I have evidence that indicates that only 40% of those who go into training are in employment from day one. I trust that these broader issues about the construction industry will be addressed by the Department and by the Minister in his review. 12.30 pm Finally, I want to turn to the other substance of the motion, namely the work of the Construction Industry Training Board. As Mr Brolly and other Members have said, I agree that it is time to conduct a review of the Construction Industry Training Board. If the Minister accepts the motion and a review is undertaken, I would urge him to consider four issues. The first is the strategic planning role of CITB, whereby three members of staff and consultants are paid more than £300,000 per year. Is that value for money and is CITB providing the strategic planning requirements that the industry seeks? Secondly, why is CITB involved in careers promotion, because although it may or may not be doing that job well, is there not a family of careers advisers in the Department for Employment and Learning and the broader structures in the North who are providing that service? Furthermore, does £156,000 per year need to be spent on staff and other costs for that function? Thirdly, will the Minister, through the review, examine regional advisory services — in which staffing and other costs amount to £500,000 per year — and determine whether that work is being done in a targeted way? Finally, will the Minister look at administration and the payment of grants — whereby six staff are being paid, with associated costs, £188,000 per year — and decide whether that is the right way for the payment of grants and the needs of the industry to be met satisfactorily? Mrs Long: I do not think that I need to declare an interest in this issue because I am no longer a practising civil engineer. However, from my time as a civil engineer, I have experience of CITB, through being trained by the organisation and working with other members of staff who were also trained by it. Although I do not have any particular problem with the wording of the motion, I am slightly disappointed at the jaded view that people have taken of the organisation in the debate so far. No organisation is perfect and all of us would admit that there are areas that could be changed and improved. However, some of the things that CITB do are important and should not always be placed in a negative context. One of the biggest gaps in the construction industry is being able to have training and skills provided, especially in an industry largely based on the self-employed or very small firms of contractors. Such firms, especially in periods of financial difficulty, can find it very hard to afford to invest in their staff. It can also be difficult for them to see the benefit of such investment when staff might be very mobile. They could be investing large sums to train staff who, in six months’ time, could be working for a different company, which would be reaping the benefits. Therefore, it can be a difficult industry in which to embed training. The idea behind the levy was that companies that had more money would pay more through a levy and that that would then be redistributed in more affordable training for those in smaller companies. Whether the levy balance is working well is an issue that needs to be considered. However, the notion that the construction industry as a whole should pay for the training of those employed in the construction industry is an entirely sensible and appropriate principle because, under current laws, many of the small, single-person or two-person firms in the construction sector could not afford to meet the requirements necessary to function in the industry. There are other aspects of CITB that have to be considered. The organisation has its grant for training and achievement, providing training advice and research from its own facility. It also has a role in careers promotion and monitoring trading standards. Other Members have suggested that that may not be necessary and that people will pay only for good-quality training. However, the standard of training is crucial. Historically, the construction industry has one of the highest fatality rates of any industry. That rate has come down significantly because of good quality health-and-safety training, good practice and good monitoring. Unfortunately, experience shows that we cannot simply rely on people in the industry to self-regulate the quality of that training or trainees’ performance on health-and-safety issues; it requires independent assessors. For those reasons, it is important that everyone has access to good quality training. CITB has been reviewed several times, most recently in 2005, and the board is considering restructuring and reorganising. The Department for Employment and Learning is due to re-evaluate the board in 2010, so a review in 2008 would neither be value for money nor productive. When people working in the industry were surveyed, more than half of them felt that health-and-safety concerns would be less of a priority if CITB were disbanded. Almost half of those surveyed thought that the quality and quantity of training would be reduced. If people are working in a dangerous and difficult environment in which investment in training, and the emphasis on health and safety, is reduced, that should concern the Assembly. Mr Brolly: Will the Member give way? Mrs Long: I cannot give way; I am very short of time. The promotion of careers in the construction industry is also an issue. The industry is diverse, and it is difficult for people to get hands-on work experience, because of site conditions and health-and-safety requirements, in order to decide which area of the industry appeals to them. CITB has brought people onto controlled sites so that they can get valuable hands-on experience. I would not completely dismiss CITB’s role in such activities, but whether it should be the lead partner is another question. However, it is important to allow school-age students onto construction sites so that they can get a flavour of the opportunities that are available. Mr Speaker: The Member’s time is up. Mrs Long: The Alliance Party has no problem with the motion, but I am slightly concerned about the tone of the debate. Mr McQuillan: All Members acknowledge the fact that there has been a downward trend in the construction industry over recent months. How do we address that downturn, and how do we invest in training our workforce for the future? The Programme for Government and the Budget have made it clear that the present situation of Northern Ireland’s being heavily dependent on the public sector is not sustainable. We must examine every area of business life in Northern Ireland in order to address that issue. Last week, we debated our tourism industry, which can be developed by private investment. In the course of that development, the construction industry would undoubtedly benefit by way of newbuild projects. We must also examine the development of Northern Ireland’s infrastructure needs to ensure that private-sector investors view Northern Ireland as being the right place in which to invest. The upgrade of the water and sewerage systems is under way, and the building of hotels and the upgrading of our road and rail networks are linked to the future economic well-being of our construction industry. In order to achieve the technical or managerial skills and the professionalism required to ensure the delivery of those standards, we must have the best system in place, for Northern Ireland and beyond, to develop those skills and professionalism. A root-and-branch review of the Construction Industry Training Board will help to identify those areas where improvements can, or should, be made and modernised. That should also ensure that CITB is a proactive body that can identify the need for new skills early on — for example, in energy-efficient home construction — and put in place the training programmes that are needed to ensure that the industry can not only keep up to date, but be ahead of its rivals in the UK and, indeed, worldwide. I am not saying that the existing CITB structure cannot deliver on those issues, and I do not want anyone who is involved with the board to think that I am criticising the current structures. However, there are always good reasons for taking a long, hard look at the structures and seeing ways in which they can be improved so that any skills deficit is reduced and a skills base is available in Northern Ireland when it is required. I fully recognise CITB’s good training work in several areas — health and safety, apprenticeships and scaffold operator training. My suggestion would ensure the best possible system for Northern Ireland. I ask the Minister for Employment and Learning to conduct a review, with the aim of providing the world-class skills that are required to ensure that Northern Ireland can build its future in-house from a highly skilled workforce that has been trained by local firms. In that way, the economic benefits of regeneration and development can remain part of Northern Ireland’s economy. That will benefit not only construction firms, but the people whom they employ. Our economy can, and will, be expanded; however, any skills deficit will put us at a disadvantage competitively, result in a further downturn in the construction industry and result in fewer people being employed in the industry. Let us take this opportunity to ensure that a vital component of our economic development is ready for the challenges that lie ahead. Ms S Ramsey: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Like other Members, I welcome the motion. I welcome the Minister for Employment and Learning and commend the other parties for not tabling amendments, because the motion covers the issues that Members have highlighted. Judging by Members’ contributions, I think that the motion will receive the unanimous support of the House. Although I take on board Naomi Long’s point about positive results emanating from the training board, I want to make it clear that Sinn Féin has not called for the disbandment of CITB, but a fundamental review. I agree wholeheartedly, with David McClarty’s view that the construction industry has grown over the past few years. The investment strategy states that public investment could total £14·3 billion over the next 10 years, with nearly £4 billion already confirmed for 2006-08. Therefore, we must ensure that the correct amount of money goes to the construction industry. The purpose of the motion is to raise genuine concerns that the construction industry has highlighted to Sinn Féin about CITB; I am sure that the board has done the same to other parties and individuals. In February 2005, Deloitte MCS submitted a final report to the Department for Employment and Learning on its review of CITB. The board was last reviewed in 1998. During the 2005 review, there were substantial terms of reference, but they did not include some issues of major concern to the construction industry. The purpose of Sinn Féin’s motion is to address those issues and for the review to start off on the right footing. The purpose of CITB is to encourage the adequate training of those employed, or intending to be employed, in the construction industry. Francie Brolly and other Members highlighted the fact that no statutory levy is imposed on any other industry. Therefore, why impose a levy on one group and not on another? I accept that CITB uses the moneys to help the industry with training costs. However, companies complain that it is too difficult to claim grants under the current system. Some companies do not even try to claim, because the complicated application form changes from year to year. Francie Brolly and Alex Attwood referred to the fact that CITB in England pays out over 80% of its levy in incoming grant aid, but here it is just over 43%. How do we account for the other 57%? It has been indicated that training accounts for that 57%, but we need to see that information so that people are made accountable for the money that they receive. CITB has an annual income of £42 million and a staff of 52; almost half the levies collected in 2002-03 were spent on salaries, travel and company cars. Is that value for money? We need to ask those questions and get answers. The 2005 review accepted that the need for training in the construction industry is not matched by the uptake of training by contractors. The perceived value for money provided by CITB is a concern for many in the industry. Those issues were highlighted during the Department’s own review. Members should bear in mind that, in the motion, Sinn Féin calls for the proposed review to include: “the issues of levies, apprenticeships and the disbursement of grants.” 12.45 pm Naomi Long said also that there seems to be a jaded view of CITB and that no organisation is perfect. That may be her point of view, but the Assembly should strive for perfection and must move in that direction. I agree with Jimmy Spratt that CITB, as the representative body, should be seen to represent the industry as a whole. That comment was spot on. I had intended to make some other points, but I am conscious that my time is up. I support the motion and commend it to the other parties. Go raibh maith agat. Mr Shannon: I support the motion. Indeed, it was not too long ago that the House debated the subject of apprenticeships in Northern Ireland, and it is important to discuss it again in relation to the construction industry. There is work, and we have the employers. There is a need for the Department to exercise its rights and to put in place the regulations required to meet the projected need in the Province. Ther er scaurs that tha industree canny keap gawn oan tha wae it shud be acaus o’ tha nummer o’ plannin eplikatshuns gaun thru’. But mi lukin wud be that whun we hae tha labur nummers whau hae tha knac, we wull be abel tae pit fort oorsels on tha mainland en fardar afiel, whuch meens ther wull aye be woark fer theim whau that er abel tae dae it. There are fears that the industry cannot continue in the way that it is due to the number of planning applications going through. However, my view is that when we have the skilled labour numbers, we will be able to promote ourselves on the mainland and further afield. That means that there will always be work for those who are able to do it. Northern Ireland’s growth rate is significantly higher than the rest of the United Kingdom’s as regards the construction industry. It has been estimated that both construction output and full-time employment are expected to rise by an annual average of 4·4% and 3·9% respectively, leading up to 2010. That prospective work will, of course, require an increase in skilled workers. DEL, therefore, must step into its role and work with CITB to make provision for that. The point is that we want partnership, not abolition, and for that partnership to be — excuse the pun — more constructive. It is not simply the projected growth in Northern Ireland that demands attention. Our young men, and to a lesser extent, our young women are being poached to work on the mainland, as a consequence of the superior training that is inherent in Northern Ireland. I know a 22-year-old man who, having finished his apprenticeship as a foreman, did some work experience on the mainland. The English firm offered him a starting wage of £32,000 plus bonuses, as well as free flights home every other weekend. It was difficult for that young man to stay at home, especially as he was considering buying his own apartment in Ards, which is the property hot spot of the UK. He did, however, choose to work at home for a lesser wage. I cannot pretend that that will always be the case. We train young men to higher standards than on the mainland only to have them poached by firms there. That is unacceptable. At present, the construction industry in Northern Ireland employs over 78,000 people, and that number is expected to increase by 10,000 in the next two years. At this point, I want to make a plea for Strangford. In that area, there are many people, young and old — especially the young ones coming through — looking for jobs, and the construction industry is a very important part of the employment structure. It is clear that there must be a considered and co-ordinated effort not only to supply the numbers needed to get the work done in the Province, but to enable more Northern Ireland firms to tender on the mainland, while displaying their superior skills. A Saintfield firm called Dawson Wam (GB) Ltd, which is based in my constituency, is working on a signature project in Canary Wharf in London and on some motorway projects, using its teams from the Province and doing an exemplary job. It is its vision, and that of many other firms in Northern Ireland, to be able to expand on the mainland. There are opportunities that far exceed the work to be done in the Province, and now is the time to put in place the structures that are needed to facilitate that growth, both in Northern Ireland and further afield. It is also clear that that must be done in partnership with CITB and that it is no longer enough for CITB and the Department to be exclusive from each other in the way that they work. CITB is known for its ability to liaise well with small firms, and we must ensure that it liaises with bigger businesses, too. The Department for Employment and Learning’s role is to promote, as well as to encourage and support, the smaller things. It is clear that, at some stage, there has been a breakdown in communication, and that a greater vision must be recognised and pursued. DEL must liaise with the Department for Social Development (DSD), and all other Departments, to ensure that the work that is scheduled is done by home-grown teams rather than by teams from the Republic and elsewhere, which has been the case in some hospital projects of which I am aware. If we build up our own industry, train the men and women, and let them work, in the long run, we will see more Northern Ireland firms being big hitters on the mainland, and further boosting our reputation and economy. We must address the issues, put in the groundwork and the good foundations, and the superior skills that our construction industry displays will ensure that we get the recognition and the jobs that we very much deserve. Mr O’Loan: I want to focus primarily on the phrase in the motion that refers to: “the downturn in the construction industry”. Although I am content with the latter part of the proposal, I have some concerns about that phrase, because it is neither accurate nor helpful. I say that in the context of the upcoming investment conference, which is a major opportunity for us. It puts huge demands on all sectors to deliver, and it is important that we send out the right message. I am not sure that the wording used does that. We have a construction industry that can compete in international markets, even though I cite only two examples — Mivan and the Patton Group, which I heard being referred to recently as having done a multimillion-pound shop-fit for Selfridges in London. We have an industry that can compete on the international stage. Today, I, and other members of my party, met the Construction Employers Federation. I want to make some broad comments about the industry as a whole, and I hope that I do justice to the remarks that were made to us. The mood of CEF is quite buoyant. I will make some specific points on housing, but we should not forget that construction is not just about housing — there are other sectors of the industry, such as retail and office building. There is also a much wider civil engineering sector. There is no doubt that there is a decline in house starts, following a welcome drop in house prices. Nonetheless, the omens for the future are strong. Housing growth indicators describe a housing need, showing requirements for a large growth in the housing stock — I believe as many as 200,000 houses over a forecast period, which is something in the order of 15 years. We know about the determined plans of the Executive to build 10,000 social houses within five years. We have an investment strategy, with plans for an overall investment of £18 billion by 2018, and much of that money will go into the construction industry. An important issue is the capacity of the sector to deliver, and the message that I heard today is that the sector is confident that it can deliver. A major concern of the sector is the reality of the public expenditure plans, both in the short term and the medium term. The Assembly and Executive are putting a great deal of faith in asset sales. The uncertainties in relation to that strategy need to be recognised. There is also a considerable lack of detail about the role of PPPs in the delivery of the investment strategy. Before industry will invest, it needs to have confidence in that level of public investment. We want to put as much certainty as we can into the system — although there can never be total certainly, as the strength of a private enterprise system is that it is not certain. There is a link to the employment and training issue in the area of confidence and certainty. Before the industry will commit to expanding its workforce and investing in training, it needs to have confidence that it is going to get its money back on its investment. Although I support the proposal concerning CITB, I am critical of a significant amount of what I heard from the proposer of the motion, and in one later speech. Mr Brolly: Surely the Member understands that he is talking about firms such as the Patton Group and Mivan, which would be able to absorb a few years of weak turnover. Jimmy Spratt and I are talking about the people from our communities, such as the small contractors, who together employ a huge number of people. However, I know of construction workers from my home community who are walking the streets today. Mr O’Loan: I am aware of the issues with which small employers have to deal, and I know that they are an important part of the construction industry. In fact, when I was talking to the representatives of CEF this morning, we discussed small firms. Therefore, I am not blind to those realities; I am merely attempting to give an overview of where the sector is going and of the part that the Assembly and the Executive play in it. As I have said, I am critical of a great deal that I have heard Members say today. I feel that they have dealt unnecessarily with issues that, in the context of the overall strategy, are relatively petty. We have a bigger job to do; the Executive and Assembly need to rise to the occasion and contribute to major strategic decision-making. The Minister for Employment and Learning (Sir Reg Empey): I am indebted to the Members who tabled the motion. There is a range of issues to be dealt with, and I will attempt to do that as I proceed. However, to give Members some context, the previous review of CITB commenced in 2004, and since then, progress has been made on its recommendations. The review, the report of which is available publicly on the Department’s website, concluded that CITB be retained and that a statutory levy is necessary for the sector. Construction industry employers indicated in that review that the functions of CITB and its continued existence were considered necessary in order to encourage training. The skills context in which CITB operates is changing rapidly and is very broad. It may be helpful if I outline briefly the current skills position, including the policy debate on collective measures, which is topical across the UK. Over the past decade, our economy has experienced steady growth. Our labour supply continues to increase due to high levels of inward migration and to the stream of well-educated young people who are entering the workforce. Those developments, coupled with high labour demand, have seen employment rise strongly and our productivity increase. However, in Northern Ireland, we have the highest number of employed and the lowest number of unemployed people that we have ever had. In the recent Programme for Government, the Executive identified the economy as a primary focus. They also identified skills as one of the six pillars that were specified in the investment strategy. Our vision for a successful future economy has been characterised by high productivity, a highly skilled and flexible workforce, and economic growth. However, this year, we will review our skills strategy to take account of the changing situation that has been described. That review will take account of the all-island and cross-UK context, and all that will be put in the context of Europe and of the global challenges that face us. Total employment in the construction sector in Northern Ireland is expected to rise from approximately 84,000 to 95,000 between 2008 and 2012. To meet that demand, almost 3,000 new workers will be required to join the industry each year. One of the factors boosting demand will be the investment strategy for Northern Ireland 2008-18, through which over £18 billion of new infrastructure will be delivered during those 10 years. The potential benefits will be maximised if we can build skill levels in the local construction workforce to strengthen the economy. CITB, as a partner in construction skills, will have to address the skills issues for the sector. The motion noted the recent downturn in the construction sector. It is true that construction in Northern Ireland has enjoyed strong growth in recent years, and we know that that downturn has tended to be concentrated in the housing market. However, the investment strategy has resulted in the infrastructure side of the sector still enjoying significant buoyancy. 1.00 pm Turning to Members’ points, Jimmy Spratt asked who takes the lead role in CITB. Certainly, the employers have the lead role in making the decision on the levy, but the board’s entire membership deals collectively with other matters. Mr McClarty discussed whether small firms get value for money. As I understand it, approximately 64% of the CITB levy comes from those firms, which receive approximately 68% of the grants that the board issues. When proposing the motion, Mr Brolly referred to the RPA proposal to amalgamate CITB and ConstructionSkills. Both organisations exist here and in Great Britain, and the Department for Employment and Learning has encouraged their alignment here. As Members are aware, CITB has statutory levy-raising powers, which are preserved under the new arrangements. I warmly welcome the fact that ConstructionSkills is establishing itself in Northern Ireland in order to undertake its sector skills role. Alex Attwood raised several issues, including careers and the review of Training for Success. Work on Training for Success has already commenced, and we envisage that we will be in a position to consult with the Committee for Employment and Learning in March or April, with a view to having any revisions in place for the next academic year, which commences in September. Although we have looked closely at several of the issues at an earlier stage than was anticipated, we believe that the necessary flexibility must exist. I hope to be able to talk shortly to Mr Attwood and other members of the Committee about that matter. Mr Attwood also mentioned wages, and it is ironic that apprentices are exempt from the national minimum wage regulations. That point is perhaps not understood fully outside the House. The Department’s guidelines basically state that people should be paid the going rate for the job. We know that that does not happen in all cases, but to put it into context, the national minimum wage regulations do not actually deal with that. Turning to the sector skills — Mr Attwood: I thank the Minister for giving way. I have listened very carefully to what he has said, but I have not picked up whether he is minded to conduct a review on the workings of CITB. Sir Reg Empey: Perhaps if the Member would let me finish, he would get a flavour of that later in the debate. Mr Attwood: I thank the Minister. My second point is that construction employers do not like the fact that people are getting paid £40 a week. They are telling their members and the industry that they should pay on an appropriate scale. The construction employers are saying that whatever the Department’s advice may be, it is so vague as to allow employers to pay their workers £40 a week. Is there not a need for less ambiguity and for more definition about what apprentices should, and must, be paid? Sir Reg Empey: The Member will realise that the national minimum wage regulations are not a devolved matter, and that, therefore, creates a particular difficulty for us. An additional issue is the question of what employers pay and whether they provide apprenticeships. I have made it clear to the House previously that I believe that employers have a responsibility — and indeed a much greater role to play — to provide apprenticeships. Many do not do so, which is a weakness in our system. Many employers have been able to hide behind the inward migration of substantial numbers of workers, who are effectively covering up for the skills gaps that clearly exist. If those workers decide to move elsewhere, we would have a significant problem ahead of us. As far as the more substantial issues are concerned, I have dealt with Training for Success, and, as I said, I hope that my Department will shortly be in a position to ask Members to give the matter further consideration in a future debate. Among the Members who highlighted other issues, Naomi Long talked about problems with the atmosphere and that a jaded approach was being taken. It is inevitable that any tax on employers will create difficulties, and that is the case with the one that CITB, in effect, imposes. However, I want to set that issue in the context of the Leitch Review that was published at the end of 2006. Over the past few months I have been under pressure from Whitehall Ministers who have been considering whether more bodies in GB should levy employers, which is what happened here several years ago. CITB is the only remaining training board in Northern Ireland to levy employers, but there used to be others. The Leitch Review recommended voluntary arrangments with employers for training. However, it did not anticipate the necessity to proceed with the imposition of bureaucracy. It is inevitable and unavoidable that when that happens, administration accounts for a significant percentage of the levy. However, some Members seem to be confused about that issue: approximately 80% of the levied amount is returned to employers in the form of grants and soft assistance, such as advice, and so forth. Therefore, contrary to what has been implied, the entire levy is not taken up by administration. Simply to calculate the amount of money that remains after grants are paid would indicate that larger amounts are being spent on administration than is the case. I have been resisting the suggestion that my Department creates a series of bodies that could levy employers to provide training. Not only have employers enough to contend with, but they must be convinced of the merit of training. One wonders at the long-term viability of employers who do not recognise that having well-trained staff is in the interest of their long-term bottom line. Mrs Long: Does the Minister accept that workforce mobility and the difficulty in making employers aware of the benefit to their businesses of investing large sums of money in training an individual who may quickly move on from the company, make the construction industry unique? Sir Reg Empey: I accept that the construction industry is unique because of the nature of the work and the fact that it is constantly changing: that is why CITB was not subsumed into a single training board with all the other bodies. I welcome today’s debate. As Members said, CITB was reviewed in 2004-05 and, under the quinquennial arrangement, the next review is not due until 2009. The proposed review of CITB is at the core of the debate. As CITB is a non-departmental public body, it is fully accountable, through the Department for Employment and Learning, to the Assembly, and its performance is monitored closely. It is subject to regular formal reviews, the next of which is due to commence in 2009. From Members’ comments today, the concerns that they raised, and the significant changes in construction skills, it is evident that it is now timely to pause and reflect on the operation and funding of CITB. Therefore, in view of the issues raised by Assembly colleagues in the debate, I am prepared to bring forward the planned review of CITB in 2009 to this year. Construction is an important sector in the local economy, and the review will clarify the appropriate future role of CITB. I shall bring forward the review to the current calendar year. I will keep the Committee advised and apprised of the Department’s proposals. That is my response to the concerns that have been raised during the debate. I hope that I have taken into account the significant concerns that have been expressed. However, we must be fair to everyone, and the review will have no predetermined outcome. In view of what Members have said, it is timely to expedite the review. Mr P Maskey: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for bringing forward the review. I hope — and I am sure that all Members agree — that the review takes place early this year because it is important that the industry moves in the right direction. Given that the Minister has said that he will bring the review forward, my speech will not last for 10 minutes. When proposing the motion, Francie Brolly mentioned levies, which must be considered as part of the review. The Minister said that he is not sure how the review will look, or what outcomes it will produce. Along with the Minister, I attended an event organised by the Northern Ireland Assembly and Business Trust in this Building, which was attended by businesspeople from all over the North. One businessman that I spoke to said that he could employ an additional 200 people the following day if they had the necessary level of skills. That is a very important issue, as is the matter of levies. One of the most important training initiatives in the construction industry is the apprenticeship system. CITB has no direct role in the delivery of that scheme or in the setting of standards, which are controlled by the natinal vocational qualifications system. CITB has a careers department, which duplicates the work of trained careers teachers in schools, recruitment officers for training organisations, colleges and universities, and staff in the local jobcentres. Government schemes such as Bridge to Employment have provided training for the construction industry, without a levy. The construction industry must invest in its workforce. Francie Brolly also mentioned value for money, and used the example of a local firm that paid CITB a levy of £17,500, and £49,000 to commercial trainers for training, but received a grant of only £5,000. I am not sure whether such practice is sustainable in the construction industry. The Member for South Belfast Jimmy Spratt mentioned the challenges that the construction industry faces, particularly small firms. He said that it is sometimes beneficial for small firms to move elsewhere, which some have done, and some might still do. We do not want that to happen because such firms are too important to the development and sustainability of the North. Mr Spratt went on to talk about skills training, which is something that Sinn Féin hopes is addressed by the review because the skills requirement is unclear. David McClarty said that the record growth of recent times has ended, and he was later criticised by Declan O’Loan, who said that we must be careful about the terminology that we use. Mr McClarty then spoke of fit-for-purpose training and apprenticeships, which ties in with the issue of value for money. Alex Attwood voiced his concern about training apprenticeships — a point that has been well made during the debate. The review should proceed as a matter of urgency. Naomi Long mentioned her civil engineering background. She may not have a conflict of interests any more — it is up to her whether she goes back to that occupation. Mrs Long: That depends on the electorate. Mr P Maskey: I was just about to say that politics is a strange game — some of us may not be here next year. It is always good to have an occupation to return to if needs be. 1.15 pm Naomi Long also talked about affordability for employers and staff, and she mentioned the review, which she said should create more understanding. The motion is very clear in calling for the Minister: “to conduct a wide-ranging review of the remit of the CITB”. I hope that we have managed to address some of her concerns about the wording of the motion. Adrian McQuillan said that the review will assist in creating better-quality training and safety for the workforce. We must strive for world-class skills for our workforce. Sue Ramsey commended other parties for not tabling amendments to the motion, and I echo her remarks. Members have shown leadership. Jim Shannon talked about people in his constituency of Strangford, and he referred to an individual who could have secured employment in England with a salary of £32,000 but who chose to stay here. That person has shown leadership by staying, and I hope that he can be a future employer. I ask Mr Shannon to send him our regards. Minister Empey referred to some of the issues that we want to see covered in the review. I thank him for coming to the Chamber and for saying that he will bring the review forward by a year. I hope that the review will occur as early as possible this year; it has been pointed out several times already today that we need it to happen as quickly as possible. Go raibh maith agat. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly notes the downturn in the construction industry, and the concerns raised by contractors about the powers and responsibilities of the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB); and calls on the Minister for Employment and Learning to conduct a wide-ranging review of the remit of the CITB, to include the issues of levies, apprenticeships and the disbursement of grants. Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes. One amendment has been selected and published on the Marshalled List. The proposer of the amendment will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. Mr Lunn: I beg to move That this Assembly notes with concern the lack of clarity in the Minister of Education’s proposals for post-primary transfer; and urges her to bring details of her proposals immediately before the Executive and the Assembly, to ease the concerns of parents, pupils and teachers. The motion has been tabled on behalf of the many parents who are facing uncertainty about their children’s educational future. I am pleased to have the support of two other parties and, I suspect, the tacit support of one more. Whatever the politics, we will have the support of every parent, pupil and teaching professional in Northern Ireland, as they are equally frustrated and alarmed at the delay in the lack of concrete proposals from the Department. In the Minister’s vision statement of 4 December, she offered: “the creation and delivery of a fundamentally exciting new vision for the education system in the North”. — [Official Report, Vol 26, No 1, p8, col 1]. Those are the Minister’s words, not mine. Her aim, in itself, is worthy. However, visions are all very well, but we need proposals and some meat on the bones. The Minister’s confirmation of her predecessor’s decision to end the 11-plus has been greeted by all sections of society as overdue and progressive, and her stated preference for transfer at the age of 14 by means other than purely academic selection certainly finds favour with my party. However, where are the details on that preference? This will be the final year for the 11-plus, but where is its replacement? In her vision statement, she hinted at preferences — community, geography and family considerations. Does “geography” mean a postcode lottery? Does “community” mean nationalists, loyalists, Protestant or Catholic? How will the receiving schools sort out the problems of oversubscription without the benefit of access to the pupil profiles? In that context, I refer to an answer that the Minister gave during her meeting on 31 January. From that answer, it appears to me that the receiving schools will be allowed to advise pupils. To my mind, that is another form of selection. If a school can advise pupils whether or not they should apply to it, surely that amounts to selection. Will the Association for Quality Education be permitted to set up its own entrance exams? If new arrangements are not put in place soon, there will be nothing to stop it from doing that. Whether that is good or bad depends on one’s point of view, but I am concerned about legalities. Such tests will become inevitable due to ministerial inaction, and there will be no legal way of stopping them. Beyond transfer problems, but closely linked to them, lie the issues of area-based planning, the future of the schools estate, and sustainable schools. There is also the problem of the 50,000 empty school desks — a number that is increasing. From my party’s perspective, the absence of any emphasis on integrated or broadly shared or mixed education, which we highlighted in our response to the Programme for Government, remains a concern. It is difficult to resist the unionist view that the Irish-medium sector is being given undue priority. However, I suppose that one could contrast the attitude of one DUP Minister towards Irish-language matters. I wish to mention the role of the Committee for Education. I note the Minister’s well-timed interview in today’s ‘Belfast Telegraph’. She seems to be adhering to the principle of getting her reaction in first. Just before the Assembly debate on 11 December 2007, the Minister came up with a vision statement, and now she has given a major interview to a local paper in advance of this debate. The Minister states that she is still waiting for the Committee to come to her with a consensus view on her transfer proposals. Mr S Wilson: Does the Member agree that, at least, the interview with the major paper might have been an opportunity for the Minister to offer some clarity? However, all that she could say, on three occasions, was that she would give parents notice in plenty of time, but she did not say when new arrangements would be in place. Will it be in 2008, 2009 or 2010? Mr Lunn: The Minister’s interview was well up to the standard of her recent statements, and did not add anything to the debate. In that interview, the Minister said that she wrote to the Committee in December, and is still waiting for a reply. The Minister received a reply from the Committee in the form of about 30 questions, and she took until 31 January to answer them. The answers came in written form and were handed to Committee members just before the start of our now infamous meeting on that date. The answers were as vague as the vision statement and her response to the debate of 11 December 2007. That meeting was short and confrontational, and it added nothing to the debate. It provided no further clarity to the Committee. Without excusing the behaviour of some Committee members — although I can understand their frustration — and speaking as someone who was prepared to give the Minister time and a measure of support, it must be said that her attitude to the Committee has been contemptuous and dismissive. It seems that she wants to acknowledge that a good relationship is important, but has decided not to contribute to it. Her refusals, most of the time, to come before the Committee, do not do her any credit. The Committee must cool off too. However, I hope that the Minister will accept the invitation that is now on her desk to come to talk to the Committee again to see whether we can move the discussion forward. Most of the SDLP amendment is fine. The references to equality of opportunity, protecting against a postcode lottery, local needs, area-based planning and sustainable schools echo and amplify the thrust of our motion. However, we prefer to leave in the reference to the Executive, and, therefore, we cannot accept the amendment. The schoolchildren of Northern Ireland deserve better from the Assembly. However, in the special circumstances that pertain in this place, it is up to the Minister to step up to the mark. I look forward to hearing her detailed proposals. There must be no more equivocation or vague statements. The Minister must recognise of the role of the Committee, which, for the record, is not simply another stakeholder. It has a scrutiny job to do, but it requires something to scrutinise. I await with interest the Minister’s contribution to this debate, when she will have another opportunity to explain herself and, perhaps, provide some timescales or a view of her emerging thoughts. At the least, she must provide something more illuminating than her previous statements. Perhaps she can dispel the rumour that her relationship with her senior officials is even worse than the one she has with the Education Committee, and that her interminable consultations with all kinds of stakeholders are only covering up the fact that she does not know how to proceed. Actions are needed: not more entreaties to “join with me”, followed by more confrontation and more squabbling through the media. I leave it at that. Mr Speaker: Before I call Mr Dominic Bradley to move the amendment, I remind Members that they should speak through the Chair, not to one another across the Floor. Mr D Bradley: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I beg to move the amendment: Leave out ‘the Executive and’; and at end insert “, by setting out the practical steps necessary to deliver reform, while (i) enhancing quality; (ii) ensuring equality of opportunity for all; (iii) protecting against a post-code lottery; (iv) addressing local needs and making best use of resources through area-based planning; and (v) delivering sustainable schools.” We live in a world in which change is rapid and necessary. In education, as in other aspects of life, we require change. The Minister has told us that; and not many would disagree with her. Change in education is needed because we need a system that meets the needs of today’s young people. The global economy changes rapidly, and high-level skills are needed across the workforce. We need an education system that values all pupils and the pathways that they choose to follow. Change is also inevitable due to the falling pupil numbers. At a time of scarce resources and empty seats, we must put what we have to the best possible use. However, change must be managed carefully, and not brought about in a chaotic way. Not only do we need to show people, in a transparent way, where change is leading, we need to lay down clearly the route that will take us there and the various steps we will take along that route. People are naturally wary of change. They need to be convinced that if they leave the comfort-zone of the present system, they will arrive at a better place in the future. One way of doing that is to provide people with the route, the steps involved and as much information as possible about the changes that lie ahead. When the necessary information is not available, the gap that is left is filled by anxiety, leading to resistance to change and making change much more difficult. Unfortunately, that has been the history of this process to date. Key information necessary to assess the planned change has not been made available when sought and has been forthcoming only at the last minute. One Member has already referred to the fact that it has proven extremely difficult for the Education Committee to get the information that it requires to perform its work. Important policies, pivotal to the Minister’s proposals, are even now being kept under wraps, although time is running out rapidly. It is not only the man and woman in the street who are complaining; some of the main education providers are openly expressing anxieties about the lack of information. In particular, we need to see the detail of the Minister’s sustainable schools policy, which will be the bedrock of area-based planning. Consultation ended last Easter, yet we still have not had sight of the policy, nor have we seen the policy on area-based planning, which is the linchpin of the Minister’s proposals. Time is of the essence: education providers need to start planning. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us when she responds to the motion; I hope that she does. She promised to return with a statement this month. Today may be the day; I hope that it is. We must not underestimate the level of confusion in the Committee over the future of education. People want to know what is happening: parents want to know what the future holds, how education in their area will be organised and how change will affect their children. 1.30 pm Mr S Wilson: Does the Member find it odd that, in today’s interview in the ‘Belfast Telegraph’, the Minister appears to believe that there is no concern among parents and that they are happy to wait because they are so excited about the changes that she is introducing? Mr D Bradley: I thank the Member for making that point. Only yesterday, at an event in Newry, I spoke to a principal of a post-primary school, who reflected precisely the point that the Member has just made. Not only do parents want to know what is happening, but teachers want to know how the changes will affect their schools. Education providers want the tools and the policies that are necessary to bring about change. People are asking whether the educational estate can accommodate the Minister’s proposals in the short term. Can schools be reorganised to fit the Minister’s proposals in the time that is available? The main cause of contention remains the transfer from primary to post-primary schools. That issue lacks clarity, and until selection at 14 is properly provided for, it looks as though the focus on transfer at age 11 will remain for the foreseeable future. Where will the resources, which will undoubtedly be needed to invest in the future, come from? The Minister’s proposals have not been costed or included in the Budget. The SDLP has drawn attention to that glaring omission, and that is one of the reasons for our voting against the Budget. To send this matter to the Executive would risk its being gridlocked in the mass of other business with which they are dealing. That would further increase delay, which none of us wants. This issue must be handled with openness and transparency, and bringing it before the Assembly is the best means of ensuring that all MLAs and the general public have that transparency. The Executive route may push the issue behind closed doors. The SDLP amendment deals with the detail, rather than the politics, of the policy. Although we support the case for reform, we have serious concerns about the Minister’s capacity to deliver change in a way that can restore lost public confidence. Parents are saying that they would almost prefer the continuation of an unfair, inadequate system, rather than face such a degree of uncertainty and anxiety. That is a travesty. Reform requires strong leadership from the Minister to clearly set out the step-by-step process that will be followed as children transfer from primary to post-primary education. The SDLP wants a high-quality education system that gives equal opportunities to all, promotes educational excellence, widens the horizons and choices of all our young people and does not lead to a postcode lottery. That is not an unattainable ambition, so we call on the Minister to develop and communicate her plans to the Assembly forthwith. Go raibh míle maith agat. Miss McIlveen: I support the motion. It has been almost three months since the Minister’s blurred vision was foisted on the Assembly. According to her, the final transfer test will be held in nine months. The clocking is ticking, Minister. This matter must be addressed urgently, and the delay on the part of the Minister helps no one. Some children are already in the preparatory years for the transition, but face the uncertainty that has been created by the Minister. It is no exaggeration to say that confusion will turn to panic. Ideally, there would be no need for the motion. From hearing the concerns of my constituents, it is quite apparent that deep consternation runs throughout the community as a result of the Minister’s creation of a vacuum. Even worse, it appears that she has adopted a dilatory strategy in some attempt to present the Assembly with a fait accompli for her proposals for education. Such matters may be handled in that way in a Marxist state, but we live in a democracy. The failure of the Minister to properly address the Education Committee, and her petulant behaviour before it in the Senate Chamber on 31 January 2008, is there for all to read in the Official Report. The Minister should, by now, have provided us all with a pair of special glasses so that we can see her vision, or she should, at least, have placed legislation before us to debate. However, all we have had is the Minister’s charade before the Committee, where, once again, she sought to filibuster her way through awkward questioning and to criticise, in some vain attempt to deflect attention from herself. The Committee would be failing in its role if it did not seek answers from the Minister, and the Chairperson of the Committee would be failing in his role if he did not express the Committee’s views on events that have been unfolding over the past few months. Thankfully, the Chairperson and the Committee have not been found wanting. However, the same cannot be said of the Minister. As the Minister should know, the DUP secured a veto at St Andrews over proposals that she may seek to introduce, such as excluding educational criteria as one of the options open to schools when deciding on entrance requirements. In the absence of alternative proposals, that leaves us with the default position that academic selection will remain. On a previous occasion, I quoted to the Minister from paragraph 20 of the explanatory notes to the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006. Section 21 of the Act amended The Education (Northern Ireland) Order 2006. I shall take this opportunity to remind her of what that section provided for: “In the event of the restoration of the devolved institutions on this date, the commencement of the provision abolishing academic selection would be subject to an affirmative resolution of the Assembly.” The date in question was 28 March 2007. If the Minister does nothing else today, she should at least advise the Assembly and the people of Northern Ireland that what the explanatory notes state is the case. That would ease the concerns of parents and pupils, and it would permit teachers to prepare those children in their foundation years. If she fails to do that, she will merely perpetuate the confusion and uncertainty that have been the hallmarks of her tenure to date. It says something when all the parties represented on the Committee — apart from members from her party — are unified in their criticism of the Minister. There comes a time when we must ask whether she is competent to hold the post. It will come as no surprise to the Minister that I share the concerns of the parents and teachers to whom I have spoken since her announcement. It is no exaggeration to state that she is gambling with our children’s future. We have all received her Department’s consultation document, titled ‘Every School A Good School’, yet her vision is to downgrade our excellent schools. The focus should be on those schools that are failing, not on destroying those schools that are succeeding and producing excellent results. Her vague proposals have thrown up huge concerns around postcode lotteries, budgets, sustainability of schools, timescales, transition periods and independent admission tests, among many other issues. I do not hold out a great deal of hope that we will be provided with greater clarity after today’s debate. When the Minister speaks in the Assembly, we hear the generalised platitudes, and criticisms of the DUP and the Committee for Education. We will again hear about the world-class education system that she wants to establish, but I doubt that we will receive clarification. Of course, as ever, I am willing to be surprised by the Minister. Mr Butler: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I am disappointed that the motion was tabled for today, and I am disappointed in the Alliance Party and by the SDLP amendment. Sometimes it is difficult to know whether the Committee for Education is a Committee or a branch of the DUP, given the way in which Sammy Wilson runs it. It seems that the other political parties on the Committee are being led by the nose by Sammy and the DUP on the issue. Mr D Bradley: Will the Member clarify whether he confuses his ability to represent his party’s point of view and to defend his Minister in Committee with his attitude to other Committee members? Mr Butler: I thank the Member for that intervention. The SDLP and the Alliance Party tell us that they are against academic selection and that they want change, yet they proceed to introduce motions such as this one. There is no confusion about the issue. Powerful forces are trying to prevent change, because they do not want the type of change that Caitríona Ruane is trying to bring about. People are using it to try to stop change. Some Committee members are not standing up and letting their voices be heard on the issue; they are letting the DUP dominate the Committee, and that is wrong. Two weeks ago, suggestions were made to the Committee on how to lessen the antagonism between it and the Minister. It was proposed that a closed meeting be held, at which there would be no time limit and to which people could bring their concerns and raise the issues that we are talking about here — the Minister’s proposals — but the Committee voted against it. One must ask why the Committee voted against such a meeting. Members want to score political points, and they have come to the Chamber today to do the same thing. Mr S Wilson: I thank the Member for giving way. The Member said that I was leading the Committee by the nose, but I was not even there that day. Is the Member suggesting that I led the Committee by remote control? Mr Butler: He might have, yes. We must get to the heart of the matter and consider what the issue is about. There is no confusion about it. People talk about the need for clarity: Caitríona Ruane is involved in a process of consultation with stakeholders. She has said that she will introduce proposals in relation to area planning within weeks. The debate is a distraction from that, and it does not disguise the fact that the Committee for Education is still at loggerheads with the Minister and still trying to undermine her proposals. The Committee should be responding to Caitríona Ruane’s request for proposals and positive contributions. The Education Committee also discussed what it could and could not agree on, but that was shouted down, because nobody wanted to have that discussion. That also makes us question why we are here. Members should know that a lot of change is going ahead. The entitlement framework, the revised curriculum and the demographics are moving in the direction of a need for an education system that is fit for the twenty-first century. No other country in western Europe uses academic selection. It is only here that we want to cling on to an outdated, discriminatory form of education. I urge the Assembly to await the proposals that Caitríona Ruane will bring to the Assembly. She says that she wants to get agreement; the Committee should also agree to having a private meeting with the Minister at which a lot of issues can be addressed, rather than having meeting after meeting under a spotlight. Go raibh maith agat. Mr B McCrea: I speak for the Ulster Unionist Party, and I do not have a chain through my nose. There may be agreement on various issues, but I am able to speak for myself and the party. The disappointing thing about this debate is that the Minister will not listen — she will not listen to me; she will not listen to the Committee Chairperson; she will not listen to the Committee; she will not listen to the Assembly; she will not listen to the Executive; and she will not listen to the people. That is why there is risk. If she will not listen to all those people, perhaps she will listen to the experts. As befits an education debate, I have a book, from which I shall quote: “Now, we have got education and there is a debate all over the country whether this education is adequate to the needs of society or the needs of our young people. I am one of those who always believe that education needs a thorough overhauling. But at the same time, I think that everything in our education is not bad, that even the present education has produced very fine men and women, specially scientists … One of the biggest responsibilities of the educated women today is how to synthesize what has been valuable … in our ancient traditions with what is good … in modern thought.”? It is irresponsible to throw out everything and to try to change in two years what should take 10 years to change. 1.45 pm I considered and talked to people about other matters. Equality is often mentioned and when reading ‘Education Policy in Britain’, which I recommend to the Minister, I came across a famous dictum by the great socialist historian and political thinker R H Tawney, from his classic work ‘Equality’: “What a wise parent would desire for his or her own children, so a nation, in so far as it is wise, would desire for all children.” That raises questions about the Minister’s choices in relation to this matter. In the past, I have quoted from ‘Scottish Education: Post-Devolution’ because it deals at length with the subject of failing to consult. On page 82, it states that, despite distributing 27,000 copies of a document: “In effect, very few changes were made as a result of the consultation stage.” We cannot allow that to happen again. Achieving consensus does not mean doing what I say, or else. Consensus is about talking to people and providing leadership. People often ask me the difference between leadership and management. If everything is clear and the way ahead is certain, good management is required. However, if not, consensus must be built. That is genuine leadership, and that is precisely what we are not getting. “Respect” is another key word. The Minister does not respect Members, the statutory roles of the Committee and the Assembly, parents, teachers, and the pupils who produce fantastic results. The BBC reported: “As usual, entries from Northern Ireland easily outperformed the rest of the UK, with a third (33.2%) getting A grades and a pass rate of 98%” What could be better than that? Why are we attempting to fix the entire system? If one considers GCSEs, the results in Northern Ireland — 8·2% at grade A*; 24·8% at grade A* to grade A; and 72·4% at grade A* to grade C — are better than those in England and Wales, or any other comparable system. It concerns me that the Minister believes that she has found a way of bringing about changes to the transfer system without referring to the rest of us. In her meeting with the Committee, when discussing area planning, article 101 of The Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 was mentioned, which, provided that the Minister agrees, gives the Department complete power to dictate what anybody and everybody should do. That is not democratic. Even if I agreed with the Minister’s proposals, she will not be able to implement them within her two-year timescale. I oppose what she is attempting to do not because she is a member of Sinn Féin but because she is absolutely wrong. Mr Storey: Yet again, 10 months after the restoration of devolution, we are in the Chamber discussing this matter, and the Education Minister still has not taken any decisions. Sinn Féin told us that it was keen to have the devolved Administration re-established. However, having been re-established, Sinn Féin’s Minister of Education has failed and failed again. Every time the Minister of Education is asked detailed or probing questions about her proposals — or, rather, non-proposals — for post-primary education, she begins by saying — and, no doubt, we will hear the same today — that this is a good day for education and we can achieve consensus, because, of course, she is the Minister of consensus and equality. She wants us all to share and to have an all-embracing policy for the children — we have heard it all before. The truth is different. This Minister prevents, rather than seeks, consensus, and, given our experience during the past 10 months, the evidence is indisputable, and it has become abundantly clear that she has failed to achieve consensus. First, as has been said, there is the Minister’s attitude to the Committee for Education. She refuses to answer the Committee’s questions, which are legitimate questions. On one occasion, she arrived late and then took up half of the Committee’s time in making a meandering, meaningless and irrelevant opening statement. She tells Committee members that we do not have the warrant, remit, power, authority or competence to hold her to account or to scrutinise her oversight of the Department of Education. She refuses to add the necessary detail to her proposals in order that the Committee can assess them. Then, of course, we have Mr Butler, whom I thought for a few weeks was going to be replaced by John O’Dowd. It seemed as though the Minister’s minder was not big enough, so they had to bring in someone with a bit more stature to try to intimidate us a wee bit more. Well, it will not work. Mr Butler tells us that the Committee should have a meeting with the Minister behind closed doors. I remind the Minister that when the Committee challenged her about confidentiality, she told us that she could not divulge what the stakeholders were saying because it was confidential. Why did she do that? She did it because her party still likes to have its politics the way it ran its terrorist organisation — behind the hedges and in the dark. I assure the Minister that there will be no behind-the-hedges agreements, nor any closed-door sessions. Committee business will be carried out in public so that everyone can see what is going on. Secondly, we know about the Minister’s attitude to the Assembly and to the existing legislation — my colleague Ms McIlveen already mentioned that. The DUP secured a veto on academic selection at the St Andrews negotiations. That position is clear, and it is enshrined in legislation. Whether the Minister wants to face up to that or not, it is obvious that her new minder faced up to it. John O’Dowd acknowledged as much on the BBC’s ‘Hearts and Minds’ programme, when he said that academic selection may be protected, but that there was no obligation on the Department to fund it. Whatever his views about funding on that occasion, John O’Dowd did at least admit that what has been sticking in the Minister’s teeth all these months is that she cannot end academic selection, because the law is against her. Instead of accepting political realities, the Minister continues to try to headbutt the brick wall of legal protection that has been given to academic selection. First, she attempted to deny that that protection exists, then she tried to bully the rest of us into abandoning it, and then she looked for ways to get around it. By doing this, she has shown that she has neither interest nor commitment to consensus or to the long-term well-being of pupils in Northern Ireland. Finally, there is the Executive. Why, at the most recent Executive meeting, did the Minister not agree to the creation of a subcommittee? We would appreciate answers from the Minister, rather than a prepared speech. Mr Speaker: The Member’s time is up. Mrs O’Neill: Go raibh maith agat. In her statement to the Assembly in December, the Minister of Education gave us her vision of a system that will transform our outdated and unequal education system. She laid before the Assembly a vision of an educational future that will ensure that the equal rights of all children are at the heart of the new system. Despite the fact that the Minister made that statement, followed by a further statement in January, we find ourselves coming back to this debate time after time. I wonder whether it is not that the statements lacked detail, but that people do not like what they are hearing. Mr B McCrea: There is a lack of detail, but there is also some fundamental agreement. Would the Member not agree that it would be better if we engaged properly to discuss these matters, but that we cannot do so in the absence of anything to talk about? Mrs O’Neill: I thank the Member for his intervention. My colleague Paul Butler made a proposal in the Committee for Education to address that point and get agreement, but it was not supported. Today is like ‘Groundhog Day’; time after time, we have the same debate. I know that parents have concerns — of course they do. What is most precious to parents is their children’s future. As I have said before, my child will transfer in 2010, and I am confident that the new system will ensure that he fulfils his potential. In saying that, I am not trying to dismiss the concerns of parents, pupils or teachers, because we must address those genuine concerns — they are more genuine than the sense of panic that some Members are trying to create. In her speech, Michelle McIlveen said that confusion is turning to panic. Perhaps she and her colleagues could stop feeding into that agenda — it is they who are trying to create the confusion and panic. The Minister is working through a democratic process, and she has said that when the consultation with the stakeholders is finished, she will report to the Committee and to the Assembly. Mr Storey: I thank the Member for giving way, and I appreciate her reference to a democratic process. Does that include the agreement and the arrangements that were made at St Andrews on the retention of academic selection? Mrs O’Neill: I thank the Member for his intervention. In her visionary statement, the Minister outlined how she intends to address the issue. She will appear before the Executive and the Committee as we move forward and she makes more statements on area-based planning and all the other issues that are involved in post-primary transfer. In her statement in January, the Minister said that she will provide more information on area-based planning in the next few weeks. I look forward to hearing that information, and I urge Members to respond to it constructively rather than engage in the constant whining that we hear from the same Members, time and again. Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way; I realise that she has done so a couple of times already. Is the issue under discussion today clearly not quite different? It is not simply a case of the same Members complaining again and again. Some of those who agree with the direction in which the Minister is headed — including those in my own party — are extremely concerned about how we can reach our destination within the time available. Mrs O’Neill: I thank the Member for her intervention. I accept that Members have genuine concerns and that they want to get to the bottom of some issues. That is what the Committee is trying to do, and the Minister is trying to address the issues that have been raised. Today’s debate has taken away from the focus of the issue. It has been about attacking and insulting the Minister. Basil McCrea talked about respect. However, respect must also be shown to the Minister; it cannot just be demanded from her. Today’s debate has not been helpful in our attempts to move forward and introduce those long overdue changes to our education system. I urge Members to take a more proactive approach to the issue and to engage with the Minister in trying to address it. Go raibh maith agat. Mr S Wilson: Despite the comments from Sinn Féin Members, I believe that this debate is very necessary. The Minister made her declaration to the Assembly in December 2007, which led to more questions than answers. Up to now, the Committee’s questions have not been frivolous; they have been serious questions. The Committee has put around 72 questions to the Minister on her comments and vision. The proposer of the motion Mr Lunn said earlier that what he wanted to see some meat on the bones. My difficulty is that I do not even see the bones at the moment. We still have some vague idea of what will happen, and getting the bones might just be a start. Of course, the Minister and her party are running away from her responsibilities. Like other Ministers in the Executive, it appears that when the Minister gets into difficulty, she blames everybody but herself. She blames the media, the Committee, the Chairman, scaremongers and Assembly Members. The difficulty is that the Minister is not facing up to her responsibility. The Committee wants to work with the Minister. Its role is to assist and advise, but it can only do so when it knows the background papers and the information on which the Minister is basing her policy. She refuses to give Committee members answers to those questions. How can we assist if we are not given the means by which to do so? Of course, it is easy to say that it is all my fault. I wish that I could lead the Committee by the nose. I sometimes wish that I could get rings through the noses of members of my party, let alone members of other parties. That is an easy jibe for the Minister to make. However, some strong, independently minded Members are on that Committee. The warning to the Minister should be that rather than pointing her finger at the media and everyone else, she would be better to ask herself why every party is opposing her. However, as Naomi Long — a member for East Belfast — said, those parties include those who actually support what she is doing. 2.00 pm The Minister’s other defence has been to say that there are no problems or concerns. It appears that not only is the Minister paranoid about everyone else, she is also deluded. The Minister should read the newspapers and the letters from parents in those newspapers, and she should listen to constituents. Of course there are concerns — people are uncertain about what is going to happen. What the Minister is doing will have implications. If she proceeds in the way that she has done, everyone will be kept in the dark until November 2009. That will cause immense problems for receiving schools, primary schools, parents and so on. Mr B McCrea: Much of the work that must be done after any solution is found will have to take place in primary 6, given that any new measures will have to be implemented early in primary 7. Bearing that in mind, does the Member agree that it is important that schools, teachers and parents are made aware of what is happening before June 2008, which is merely a few months away? We cannot wait for one year; something must be done now. Mr S Wilson: I agree. However, unfortunately, all that the Minister has told us is that parents will know “in time”. I notice that during her interview with the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ she repeated that phrase on five occasions. However, she will not define what “in time” means. Indeed, there have been suggestions that the issue will still not be resolved by November 2009. There will also be implications for secondary schools. If there is a free-for-all, the grammar-school brand will ensure that places in those schools are filled. It will be the secondary schools that lose out — the very schools that the Minister says that she wants to defend. Instead of having a mix of vocational, academic and general-education schools, there may be a drift towards pupils attending one kind of school. The last effect will be that the Minister will single-handedly bring the Assembly into disrepute. People believed that devolution would give local politicians the opportunity to address local problems quickly. Owing to her procrastination, dithering and unwillingness to face up to her failures, the problem will not be resolved in time. All Assembly Members will suffer as a result. Sinn Féin has appointed a Minister who is a one-woman demolition team. She wants to demolish education, and, in turn, she will then demolish the Assembly. Sinn Féin should ask her to go and appoint someone who can actually do the job. [Interruption.] Mr Speaker: Order. Mrs M Bradley: When Members talk about the proposed changes to the education system, I feel as though I am experiencing a distinct case of déjà vu. Although the issue has been discussed many times before, the Minister has not yet given us a workable and effective blueprint. Parents and teachers approach me every week about the future of their children who are currently in primary 5, primary 6 and primary 7. However, I still cannot answer their questions. I am disappointed that there seems to be no light at the end of the tunnel regarding the relationship between the Minister and the Committee for Education. The publicity that that is generating is not helping confidence or the work of the Committee. Mr Storey: I thank the Member for giving way. The Member may recall the altercation that I had with the Minister about her answering my questions in Irish. The Minister is now sending her responses to questions for written answer in Irish, which she had not done prior to the Committee meeting in which the altercation took place. I have no idea what the first paragraph of one particular answer means. Does the Member agree that that practice further alienates the Minister from the Committee and that it will not help to get the consensus that she continues to tell us that she is so interested in? Mrs M Bradley: I do not have a problem as long as there is a translation. However, it is important that the Minister clarifies her position on how she proposes to implement her blueprint. For example, what priority will the Department of Finance and Personnel give to the extended years of accommodation that every Northern Ireland primary school must provide for children aged 11 to 14? New premises were recently built at some schools, albeit to fit the needs of the existing education system in which primary 7 children leave and go to secondary or grammar schools. If the Committee for Education cannot get information, when can principals and teachers expect to be made aware of how this proposal will impact on their role and service delivery? For some time, my colleague Dominic Bradley has been asking pertinent questions about that situation, but no answers have been forthcoming. As politicians, parents and grandparents, we constantly seek to reassure children that everything will be OK and that we — as, supposedly, more mature adults — will take care of things; not so, in this case. The adults are just as confused and disillusioned as most of the children concerned, and their parents are totally frustrated. As politicians, we are charged with translating the decisions of Ministers on behalf of the general public and with answering questions on how those decisions will impact on their daily lives. Unfortunately, in this case, the blind have been leading the blind. It is not good enough that the Committee for Education cannot be given answers to questions that are far from new. We have been asking those questions since May 2007; parents, teachers and pupils have been asking them for longer than that. I support the amendment and ask the Minister to furnish the Assembly with the relevant details to enable us to reach a position in which we can offer some information to the concerned stakeholders. Some of those are 10- and 11-year-old children, who are becoming more and more stressed and uneasy as each day, week and month passes us by without furtherance. Mr O’Dowd: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I had hoped today to hear a debate on post-transfer systems; however, instead I have heard the views of individual members of the Committee for Education on the Minister of Education. I clarify for Mr Storey that I am not here as the Minister’s bodyguard. I assume that she does not need one and that verbal attacks will not turn into physical ones. I always rely on my brain instead of my brawn, and I find that my brain — as well as my brawn — soars above his. I have no difficulty in engaging in any debate on any subject. Had I signed up to the motion that the Minister lacks clarity and that details of her proposals must be brought forward, my speech would have included my proposals and my vision of the future, and the visions of the future of the DUP, the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP. However, I have heard none of that. The duty of an opposition — whether upper or lower case — is to present alternatives. The reason — [Interruption.] Mr Speaker: Order. The Member has the Floor. Mr O’Dowd: The reason my colleagues opposite have brought forward no proposals is that they have none. Their plan is to attack the Minister, because they know that they have failed miserably in academic selection. The vast majority of people are opposed to the retention of the 11-plus. Their mission failed, so their next tack is to go down the road of attacking the Minister and causing confusion. Some of the publications on our news-stands feed into that confusion, and one could almost believe in the “old school tie” with regard to the grammar school network. Some of the newspaper headlines are factually inaccurate. Mr Storey: When I reminded the Member on ‘Hearts and Minds’ about the statement by Cardinal Brady — not a card-carrying member of the DUP — criticising the Minister, Mr O’Dowd said that there would be clarification on that statement. Did that clarification ever materialise? I did not see it in any newspaper. Mr O’Dowd: Mr Storey must have cancelled his subscription to ‘The Irish News’, because it included a belated clarification from the cardinal — as with many publications, not on the front page, where the incorrect article had been printed, but in the back pages somewhere. I am sure that, if Mr Storey wishes to phone the cardinal for his views, the cardinal will take the call, considering Mr Storey’s interest in education. We have ended up with a debate on the relationship between the Committee and the Minister. The Minister has offered to meet the Committee again. She has met the Committee Chairperson on a regular basis. However, the Committee has refused to meet the Minister unless the meeting is in public. Is the purpose of such a meeting to gain publicity — a few column inches in the ‘Belfast Telegraph’, ‘The Irish News’, or other morning newspapers — or is it about bringing this matter to a resolution that meets the needs of the children who are going through the education system? Mrs M Bradley: Will the Member give way? Mr O’Dowd: No, Mary, I am nearly out of time. Some people are concerned with building egos, not education. If the Committee is serious about engaging with the Minister, it is best done behind closed doors, away from the glare of the television cameras and all the attention, so that Members and the Minister can speak freely and engage properly. That has been the case with all the issues that we have had to resolve in this society. Certain Members have one eye on the camera in the corner of the Senate Chamber, instead of on the issues at hand. [Interruption.] Mr Speaker: Order. Mr O’Dowd: That is what is really going on here: the seeking of media attention. Basil McCrea said that the Minister needs to listen. She is listening; that is the process that is going on now. As set out in her speech of 4 December 2007, the Minister is engaging with all the key stakeholders. The Education Committee is one of those stakeholders, but the others have not chosen to hold their discussions in the glare of the media spotlight. They have chosen to hold talks in a mature, reflective manner, and those talks are ongoing. Let us go through the process properly. On 4 December 2007, the Minister said that there would be engagement. There is engagement, and in no circumstances — despite the headlines in certain newspapers — will the current situation continue until November 2009. It will be resolved long before then, and I ask the Education Committee to play its role. Go raibh maith agat. Mr McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. This is a vital debate. Everyone is wondering when we are going to get started on the real debate. The Minister must bring her plans for post-primary transfer in 2009 before the Assembly. Any further delay in announcing how she is going to roll out the new system or how it is to be implemented will have a knock-on effect on the current P5 and P6 classes. Teachers will not be sufficiently prepared for the new system. There are always children who suffer when changes are made to the education system. However, a longer lead-up to change, with preparation on the part of the teachers who are to deliver that change, can minimise the negative effects on the children. The roll-out of the revised Northern Ireland curriculum is a case in point. P1 and P5 teachers were expected to deliver the new curriculum this year with minimal training — in some cases, just two days. Principals were not included in the training sessions, and had to rely on feedback from the teachers involved. It is unacceptable for school principals to be working without a proper overview of the system. The laptops and whiteboards needed for the implementation of the curriculum were delivered long after the start of the school year. In some primary schools in my area, they still have not been delivered. If such shambolic implementation is repeated with the new post-primary transfer system, all our children will suffer. The Minister must reveal her proposals for change as a matter of urgency. Principals and teachers must be made aware of the proposals and given adequate preparation and training as soon as possible. Parents must be included in the process in order to retain their confidence in the education system. Children should not suffer because the Minister refuses to make her proposals available to us all. Go raibh maith agat. 2.15 pm Mr Ross: I listened to Mr O’Dowd’s contribution, during which he asked for the alternatives to the current proposals. The entire basis for this debate is that there are no current proposals. The motion once again calls on the Minister to bring her proposals for post-primary transfer before the House to ease the concerns of parents, pupils and teachers throughout Northern Ireland, who simply do not know what is happening. However, in calling on the Minister to introduce such proposals, we are assuming that the Minister knows what she is going to do. Previously in the Chamber, we have heard the Minister of Education referred to as “the Minister for mess and confusion”. Perhaps she should be known as “the Minister for mess, confusion and evasion”, because she will not detail her grand plans, and she has an uncanny ability to refuse to answer questions. I am not a member of the Committee for Education, but there is no guarantee that being on that Committee allows Members an opportunity to question the Minister, because she tends to avoid such circumstances, as my colleagues have said. The only way in which I can submit questions to the Minister is by tabling questions for written or oral answer. We have heard about the gains that the DUP made at St Andrews. On a related matter, on 11 November 2007, I tabled a question for written answer to the Minister to ask whether the principle of academic selection was safeguarded in legislation. I am still waiting for the answer 100 days later, despite the fact that the Minister stated in another answer that she answers questions, on average, within 11 days. We shall see whether the Minister answers that question today. Mr Storey: I can confirm what the Member has said. I submitted a question to the Minister of Education for priority written answer, which should be answered within two days. I received the answer 14 days later. That demonstrates the priority that the Minister gives to answering questions. Mr Ross: That is absolutely right, and I am sure that other Members have similar experiences. Perhaps the Minister knows the answer to the question that I asked her on 11 November 2007 but does not want to tell me the answer because she does not like it. I heard Dominic Bradley talk about change, and a US presidential race is taking place in which Barack Obama’s campaign is centred on change. Perhaps the change that we really need in Northern Ireland is a change of Education Minister. Some Members: Hear, hear. Mr Ross: It is a disgrace that there are no plans in place for the ending of the current transfer arrangements in 2009, despite |