| Office of the Speaker | Official Report | Assembly Home |
NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY Tuesday 4 March 2008 Committee Business: Executive Committee Business: Ministerial Statement: Committee Business: Private Members’ Business: Adjournment: The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes’ silence. Standing Committee Membership Mr Speaker: Members, I have received correspondence from the nominating officer of the Democratic Unionist Party, the Rt Hon Dr Paisley, nominating Mr James Spratt as the Chairperson of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. Mr Spratt has accepted the appointment. I am satisfied that that correspondence meets the requirements of Standing Orders, and I therefore confirm that Mr James Spratt is Chairperson of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill Second Stage The Minister of Finance and Personnel (Mr P Robinson): Before I move the motion, I would like to say that given that my duties require my presence in the House today, I am prevented from attending the funeral of the brother of my friend and colleague Dr William McCrea. I would like to record my condolences to William and Ian and the family circle, and I am sure that I express the sympathy of the whole House. I beg to move That the Second Stage of the Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill (NIA 11/07) be agreed. The Bill proposes several significant amendments to the Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, which is the primary legislation that governs the health, safety, welfare and convenience of people in or around buildings in Northern Ireland. That legislation was last amended in 1990, so it is in need of some updating. The proposed amendments acknowledge modern building methods and developments in the construction industry, and they align us more closely with recent changes elsewhere in Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland. Over the past few years there has been a marked increase in awareness of environmental issues, placing greater emphasis on matters such as sustainability and the environment. Indeed, this Assembly has recognised the importance of sustainability and the environment in its Programme for Government, and the House has debated these matters. Indications are that further EU directives on these themes will emerge. I am therefore proposing to expand the general principles of building regulations to include protection and enhancement of the environment and the promotion of sustainable development. Furthermore, I wish to extend and clarify the list of matters on which building regulations may be made to include, for example, low- or zero-carbon systems, sustainable use of water, recycling and security of buildings. I am also keen that we move away from what are known as “deemed to satisfy” provisions towards a guidance-based system. As they stand, the building regulations in Northern Ireland identify a reasonable standard that must be attained. They refer to “deemed to satisfy” provisions in technical booklets that set the benchmark for compliance with those standards. Adherence to the “deemed to satisfy” provisions guarantees compliance with the requirements of the regulations. However, it is possible to satisfy the requirements using different methods. Legislative authorities elsewhere in the British Isles use a system of practical guidance which is taken into consideration when determining whether the requirements of the regulations have been met. However, as with our provisions, there is no obligation to follow the guidance. The merits of moving from “deemed to satisfy” to a guidance-based system are several. The latter will encourage designers towards a more creative and flexible approach. Designers can move away from the potentially restrictive, guaranteed “deemed to satisfy” solution and base their plans on the rationale behind the provision, which will be clarified in the guidance documents. This approach also recognises the growing practice of providing guidance where a “deemed to satisfy” solution is not available, and the need to do so. In addition, a guidance-based system will facilitate closer and more rapid technical harmonisation with other legislative authorities, thus improving consistency across the UK regions. It will also relax some of the more onerous legislative requirements associated with the current rules. I am also proposing to introduce provisions relating to the preparation and review of guidance documents, including public consultation. Under a further measure, district councils will formally be required to have regard to the special characteristics of protected buildings and buildings in conservation areas. They will have to ensure, when applying the requirements of the building regulations, that care is taken, as far as is practicable, to ensure that any special characteristics of the buildings are not compromised. This amendment will formalise current practice. It is also my intention to give district councils the power to type-approve buildings, in recognition of the growing practice of constructing the same type of building in several district council areas. For example, this will allow a developer to submit plans for a particular house design, obtain type approval from one district council, and use that certification to build the same house in another council area. The matters for which type approval may be sought will be set out in the regulations. The district council responsible for the area in which the building is to be erected will have to ensure that it is constructed in accordance with the type-approved drawings. That council will also approve those elements of the design that are specific to the site — for example, with respect to local soil and weather conditions. The levying of fees, and administrative provisions connected with these functions, will be prescribed in amendments to the subordinate legislation. Applicants will have the right to appeal to the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) if a district council refuses to grant a type approval. Article 12 of the 1979 Order will be commenced. This will give district councils the power to require reasonable tests in order to confirm that there is no contravention of the regulations. However, I am proposing an amendment to enable the types of test to be laid out by the Department in regulations. The prescription of such tests removes the need to amend the primary legislation, thereby allowing the introduction of additional tests that may be required in the future. I want to amend the period within which a district council may issue a final contravention notice. This will set a longstop of 12 months from the date when the council is notified of the completion of the works. That is in line with the defect liability period in normal building contracts. Further, I propose to make it mandatory, through supporting regulations, for an applicant to notify district councils when the work has been completed and for the district councils to issue completion certificates once they are satisfied that the work meets the requirements of the regulations. The Bill proposes to repeal a provision that had not been commenced and which would have allowed for a breach of the building regulations to be actionable where damage has been caused. The Department received no representations to activate the provision. However, in light of comments received at Executive stage that the provision could encourage compliance, I propose to introduce an amendment during the passage of the Bill to remove that repeal. I have asked officials to investigate how the provision may be modernised to better suit building regulations practice. I intend to make it an offence for someone to knowingly or recklessly submit false or misleading information for the purposes of obtaining building control approval. At present, district councils have to rely on common law principles to remedy such matters, which can be a lengthy and expensive process. The Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 requires the Department to consult with bodies rather than individuals when making appointments to the Northern Ireland Building Regulations Advisory Committee (NIBRAC). I am seeking an amendment to comply with the Nolan principles for public appointments, which require the Department to adhere to the code of practice of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments for Northern Ireland. The code of practice recommends that nominations to public bodies such as the NIBRAC must come from suitable persons who meet the applications criteria, including representative bodies or associations. Most district councils already maintain registers of information about applications for building regulations approval. However, the type of information held is not consistent across all councils. Therefore, I have included provisions that will require district councils to keep a register of particular information relating to each application for building control approval, including details of progress and outcomes. District councils will be required to make the registers available for public inspection. The actual format of the registers, including details of the information to be recorded, will be prescribed in the supporting regulations. Finally, I propose to bind the Crown to the substantive requirements of the building regulations: by that I mean the technical requirements relating to design and construction and the provision of services and fittings as distinct from the procedural or administrative requirements. I also propose to redefine a Crown building as a building, or part thereof, that is “occupied by the Crown” rather than one in which there is a “Crown interest”, and to clearly define exempted buildings or bodies in regulation. Exemptions would be based on the need to preserve the safety and security of the building or people in or around the building. The Bill therefore presents a number of improvements relating to amendment of the existing legislative framework and additional powers. It expands the general principles of building regulations to allow them to address a wider range of environmental issues. Adopting the guidance-based system will provide the mechanism for setting technical requirements that are more consistent and responsive, and that should be to the benefit of the construction industry. The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel (Mr Storey): I thank the Minister for explaining the general principles of the Bill to the House this morning. I welcome the opportunity to debate the matter. The Committee for Finance and Personnel received an oral and written briefing from departmental officials on the background to the Bill on 7 November 2007. The Committee is aware that the Bill has two main objectives: to define the powers, duties and rights of the Department, and the district councils that enforce the regulations and applications; and to extend the general principles in the existing primary legislation to include protection of the environment and the promotion of sustainable development. Committee members were briefed on a range of issues including the outcome of the consultations undertaken by the Department from January to May 2004 and from July to November 2005. In addition, a number of stakeholder workshops were held with representatives of the building control function in the district councils and representatives of the construction industry. 10.45 am Members were also briefed on the key provisions of the Bill, which include: provision to extend the general provision of building regulations to include the protection and enhancement of the environment and the promotion of sustainable development in line with similar amendments to the corresponding legislation in England, Wales, Scotland and the Republic of Ireland; provision to enable building regulations to cover areas such as the security of buildings, sustainable use and management of water, the use, reuse and recycling of materials, and the inclusion of low- or zero-carbon systems for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions; provision for a new criminal offence of making false or misleading statements to building control; provisions that require local councils to keep a register that records applications for building control approval and to consider the special requirements of listed buildings and buildings in conservation areas when building control applications are being considered; technical changes that involve a shift from a “deemed-to-satisfy” system to a guidance-based system; and provisions for granting additional powers to district councils in approving superstructures and insuring conformity with building regulations. Committee members raised a number of issues with departmental officials at the briefing session, which included: potential problems relating to contravention notices in trying to establish the date of completion of work; the potential burden on ratepayers resulting from additional duties for district councils; and the potential implications from differences in the approaches taken by district councils in exercising their powers relating to types of approvals. The Department of Finance and Personnel also updated the Committee on some of the ongoing issues that were subject to further discussions relating to dangerous buildings, demolitions and extending the time limit of the appeals process. The Committee was satisfied with the briefing and clarification provided by the Department, and members will engage with departmental officials and other stakeholders on the details of the provisions of the Bill during the forthcoming Committee Stage. Finally, I wish to highlight the related issue of the use of renewable energy sources in buildings, which is relevant because of the increased focus that the Bill places on the protection of the environment and the promotion of sustainable development. The Committee is mindful of the ongoing debate over mandatory microgeneration and is due to received evidence on that issue shortly. The Committee will, therefore, wish to consider the various approaches involved and carefully weigh up all the arguments before taking a position on how the matter should be progressed. In the meantime, I support the principle of the Bill and the motion. Ms J McCann: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the Second Stage of the Bill. Its new powers and amended provisions illustrate the increasing significance of sustainability and environmental issues, as outlined in the sustainable development strategy. Several public consultations were held on the amendments and provisions, during which all stakeholders had an opportunity to give their views. A number of amendments are particularly welcome, including the provision for the Department of Finance and Personnel to regulate the energy performance of buildings and the power to decide what proportion of energy comes from a particular energy source. The Bill gives district councils some powers, including the right to ensure that builders adhere to preserving the character of protected buildings when they carry out their functions under building regulations. There is a welcome new requirement that district councils keep registers of information for public inspection. Given the new procurement practices in public buildings, with projects such as Workplace 2010, what constitutes public buildings has been redefined, and they also come under building regulations when work is being carried out. The scope of building regulations is extended to include the protection and enhancement of the environment and the promotion of sustainable development. Although there is another debate to be had on the issues of sustainable development and renewable energy, measures to deliver sustainable energy homes have not thus far provided the sea change required to move towards carbon targets and homes that can cope with current oil and gas price increases. A short-sighted building policy will cost the economy more in the longer term as it will miss the targets for the reduction of carbon emissions and incur EU fines. Once again the fuel poor will suffer most. Sinn Féin broadly welcomes the measures outlined and in particular the fact that any future amendments to the legislation will be subjected to an equality impact assessment screening. Go raibh maith agat. Mr Beggs: First, I declare an interest as Carrickfergus Borough Council’s representative on the north eastern building control committee, which has some influence in the exercise of building control regulations. I too give a general welcome to the proposals contained in the Bill with regard to increasing the sustainability of buildings. Those proposals bring the Northern Ireland legislation largely into line with that in Scotland, England, Wales and the Republic of Ireland. There are some relatively new proposals that will widen the scope of building regulations in the future. Those include the security of buildings, the detailed sustainability, the management of waste and the reuse and recycling of building materials. The proposed legislation will make it an offence to provide deliberately either misleading or false information, as to do so could put people’s lives at risk. There are other shortcuts that can be used to reduce building costs, and it is important that designers and builders appreciate the seriousness of inappropriate action. There is also a requirement for councils to keep records, which I found somewhat surprising — I would have thought that most councils already keep records — but if it improves the methods that are used to maintain records, it is to be welcomed. It is essential that we all take action to reduce our carbon footprint. Given that a significant amount of energy is utilised in homes and other buildings, there needs to be greater scrutiny and regulation of building design. Potentially, microgeneration is an area of contention. In July 2006, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Peter Hain, announced that he would change the legislation to make microgeneration mandatory for all new builds from April 2008. The question is whether that is the best way of reducing energy consumption. There are serious doubts about that. In November 2007, I attended a Northern Ireland building control conference in Fermanagh. It was clear from talking to many of those present that there was a degree of scepticism about some of the ideas being floated, such as bolting a small windmill to the gable of a house. I understand that very few have been sold in Northern Ireland because they are just not practical. The Construction Employers Federation (CEF) has indicated that in order to achieve lower carbon emissions in new homes: “it is more cost effective to invest in the energy efficiency of the building including high insulation and airtightness rather than through micro-generation.” We must get the basics right, and it would be wrong to give a message to the industry not to concentrate on the basics but to focus on microgeneration. Microgeneration may become the sustainable way forward once the quality of buildings has improved substantially. At present, that is not the case. In its press release, the federation noted that: “initial indications are that the efficiency of a range of micro-generation technologies under trial was generally low. There were also practical issues such as potential for structural damage to brickwork and noise problems from wall mounted turbines.” While those ideas may produce some wonderful visual images of houses with small windmills bolted to the gable walls, in reality they also create some practical problems that would have to be overcome. There are, however, other methods of microgeneration that are feasible and much more practical and that are being driven by the private sector. I noted in particular that, in many instances, the private sector installs solar heating, which is one of the more efficient and proven technologies. Mr F McCann: With regard to the points raised by the Member, I heard an interesting news item concerning Antrim Area Hospital, where a wind turbine saved over £150,000 over a year, and electricity could be sold on to the grid. Should not most Government buildings follow that pattern in the provision of energy? Mr Beggs: That turbine is large — 600-800 kilowatts. It is important that there is a balance between production and use of energy. Hospitals have a 24-hour energy requirement. Regrettably, however, many homes have a low daytime energy requirement, and are not in an efficient position to generate electricity. I agree with the Member that Government must, in general, look to being more self-sustainable in their use of energy, and I expect that, over the next few years, the Northern Ireland Civil Service must examine the issue in respect of its entire estate. A sustainable and lower-carbon method must be found to heat buildings and sustain the work carried out in them. Returning to microgeneration, a couple of issues are in danger of being linked. Last week I attended a meeting of the Northern Ireland Sustainable Energy Association in the Long Gallery. Its members were critical of the decision to remove the statutory requirement; however, they were even more sore over the decision not to renew the Reconnect programme at the moment. That grant-based system was there to encourage the private sector to move into microregeneration, and that issue should not be linked to the issue we now debate. The matter of providing grants to encourage the private sector to move into microregeneration is a separate, live, issue, which should be discussed and considered by another Department. Given the rapid increase in fuel prices, it is important for our future that we sustain the industry, because this kind of technology reduces our energy use and contributes to a reduction in fuel poverty. On that issue, I welcome the announcement by the Minister for Social Development that she intends to introduce sustainable technology into newbuild housing. Mr S Wilson: Does the Member accept that, although it is important that we make homes as energy efficient as possible, it is important to balance that with the need to ensure that the cost of building new homes is not so extravagant that it prevents many people from being able to buy them? Is he concerned that some major builders say that, were the full range of suggested measures to be implemented, a new home could cost an additional £45,000? Mr Beggs: There must be a balance in this, as in everything else, particularly in regulations. Too often we look at the short term, at immediate prices. We must examine the long-term costs of running homes and buildings, because it might well be more efficient to increase insulation beyond mandatory levels. We must not be driven by basics or by what attracts first-time buyers. Good practice must be promoted and encouraged. If it were left to builders, the cheapest possible houses would be built, and we would be unable to meet our carbon-reduction targets. 11.00 am Nor would that provide for the future, given that energy is already very expensive and may become even more so. Therefore, it is important that we encourage gradually the continual upgrading of the standard of homes in Northern Ireland, and that should properly be done through building regulations and good practice. However, a great deal of education is needed for people in the building sector so that those such as architects and builders become better informed and include energy efficiency measures at an early design stage in order that costs may be kept down. There is a balance to be struck, but it would be wrong to allow the building sector to be the sole driver of the issue. In making his announcement about curtailing micro-generation, the Minister said that he will consider over the next couple of years whether there is a need to further increase the building regulations, thus adding to the recent significant increases. The new type approval was discussed earlier, and certainly, if someone has made detailed calculations and gained approval from a building control officer or department in one council area, I can see some logic in their questioning why they would have to go through a similar process in a neighbouring area. However, it must be ensured that there is good communication between all building control officers so that similarly high standards are applied throughout Northern Ireland. We want to avoid the situation whereby the lesser standards to which one particular council area agrees become the new standard for approvals in Northern Ireland. Hence, it is important that there is an overarching standard for planning approvals. That can be achieved through close communication between the building control sections in the different council areas of Northern Ireland. The Committee for Finance and Personnel is just starting its scrutiny of the Bill. That will provide an opportunity for representatives of the industry, as well as environmentalists, to give evidence in writing or by other means. It is important that the issue is discussed thoroughly, and I hope that those who are passionate about it will make representations to the Committee. It is also important that the Committee is well informed, that the issues are aired and, if necessary, amendments are considered and agreed to. That is our role as a legislative Assembly, and I hope that the public and the industry will take up that opportunity. I am generally content with the provisions of the Bill; however, I hope to hear the views of others to determine whether improvements to it can be made. Mr O’Loan: In general, I support the principles of the Bill. It includes several clauses that deal with different matters, and I broadly support them all. I want to discuss sustainability in particular; it is a key issue and the one with which the public will most engage. Climate change is a vital issue for us all. The fact that the climate is changing is no longer questioned, and there is very little debate about whether that change has been induced by humans. That creates a big responsibility for us all, given that the issue in question is nothing less than the sustainability of the planet. Looking globally, when one considers poverty and development issues, a moral dimension is brought into any discussion of climate change and the policy response to it. That added dimension means that the issue must be taken very seriously. The SDLP takes climate change very seriously, and our manifesto contains several commitments on the matter. We referred to introducing stronger targets and policies to meet international obligations on climate change and to promoting renewable energy sources, including wind power, tidal power and biomass. We also referred to the need to create a renewable energy plan for Northern Ireland. The entire issue needs to be seen in the round, of which this Bill is one part. We mentioned the need to encourage microgeneration from renewable sources by providing financial incentives and talked about encouraging higher energy efficiency and the integration of micro-renewables in new and existing buildings — the very theme being discussed today. I have long felt that there is scope for the building regulations to contribute more in this area. We have not met the best international standards, which relate to energy savings through insulation and more efficient heating systems. That is not the focus of this Bill, but they are extremely important in themselves, and measures have been taken in relation to those. Another aspect of building regulations is the move to renewables as low or zero-carbon sources of energy. Mr Beggs referred to the Construction Employers Federation’s view that choice should not be at the expense of homeowners. It feels that the decision to use microgeneration should be made by the developer; it should not be made mandatory. The Construction Employers Federation believes that much of the renewable technology at micro level is not yet proven. Existing research done by the industry, in conjunction with the universities, needs to work its way through. The federation feels that it is better to let building regulations set the energy efficiency targets and to let the industry work out how to meet those. That is one view, and it certainly should be listened to, but it is not the only view. There is a strong argument that, without microgeneration, we simply cannot achieve the carbon targets that have been set. Payback time is certainly one issue, but achieving the targets is another, and it may become the dominant issue. Measures may be required that will be at the expense of developers and, ultimately, homeowners, but the reality of this issue needs to be recognised. We are talking about payback times, and those technologies will pay back. There is an argument that the more those technologies are put in place, the more they will be the subject of research and development in order to make them more efficient and more cost effective. The Bill creates the right to make regulations, but it does not make the regulations. There is further scope for consultation on what particular regulations should be put in place, and further discretion around the timing of when those regulations should be brought in. As the Bill goes through Committee Stage, there will be the opportunity to listen to further views, and for the Committee to give consideration to those. In principle, however, the measures — particularly this sustainability measure — are sound. Mr Lunn: The Alliance Party broadly supports the Bill. I note that neighbouring jurisdictions have already updated their legislation, so it is only right that Northern Ireland should do so too. We recognise that this legislation is based on several rounds of consultation with key stakeholders, which, I am sure, will continue throughout the Committee Stage. There is plenty to welcome in the Bill, and we have only a few concerns. The Alliance Party welcomes the greater potential for the consideration of environmental and sustainability issues, and we note the enabling powers to make regulations regarding reused and recycled materials and energy efficiency. There may be a challenge as how to use those powers, but that is a challenge for the future. We are concerned about the Finance Minister’s recent backtracking on renewable energy grants, which is not very encouraging. The argument is that there is a need to protect the flexibility of designers and developers. It is hard to reconcile that statement with this legislation. Like others, the Alliance Party is concerned at the absence of a reference to microgeneration in the long list of energy technologies in the Bill. However, there is plenty to welcome, such as the commitment to protected buildings. There is great concern in the community at the regular loss of valuable buildings to developers, and we are certain that greater use should be made of existing structures through renovations. The Alliance Party has some concerns about the proposal for type-approvals. We are worried that approval for a type of development in one area will bind the building approval process in other areas in relation to such developments. There is a need for safeguards in that respect, but we look forward to further details as the Bill progresses. We note the change of emphasis from the “deemed-to-satisfy” provision to a guidance-based system, and the new offence of knowingly or recklessly supplying information to circumvent regulations. I wonder why that offence was not always included, but it is good to see it now. I also note and welcome the Minister’s reference to buildings being occupied by the Crown as opposed to being owned by the Crown. I apologise on behalf of Dr Farry who should have been in the Chamber to speak in the debate. The Alliance Party supports the Second Stage of the Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill, and I look forward to hearing more from the Minister in due course. Mr S Wilson: Just on that point — Mr Lunn: Which point? Mr S Wilson: Does the Member find it odd that the Green Party Member is absent from the Chamber for the debate? Does he agree that one would have expected the Green Party representative to have rushed through the door to show his support for the measures being debated? Mr McNarry: Sammy Wilson is the Green Party’s man of the year. Mr S Wilson: I have to speak up for the Green Party now. Mr Lunn: Sammy Wilson may well have to speak up for the Green Party; I do not. I understand that Brian Wilson and Dr Farry have important business to attend to in North Down this morning. I am sure that the Member will sympathise with that; one cannot be everywhere. I am a poor substitute for Dr Farry, not for the Green Party. Mr P Robinson: The Member for East Antrim should hand back the award that he recently received to the Green Party in protest at its Member’s absence from this morning’s useful debate. It is a dry subject, and I know that the people in the Gallery were not sitting on the edge of their seats waiting for the next word to be uttered. However, in practical terms, the Bill is important. Members — particularly those of us who have been through district councils — will be aware of the importance of the building control functions. I will do my best to respond to as many of the issues that I picked out during Members’ speeches. I hope that Members will appreciate that if I do not address all concerns now, I will scan the Hansard report and respond to any that I missed. I thank the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel. I note that the Chairperson is not with us; he must have had a good time in Dublin, and the Dublin hangover must have lasted a bit longer than was expected. I thank the Committee for its support in looking at the issues relating to the Bill, and we will be happy to work with them during the further stages of the Bill. Mr Storey mentioned microgeneration — an issue that was touched on by a number of Members during the progression of the Bill. The value of microgeneration to the construction industry is still in its early stages. Let me be clear: there is no question of my having done an about-turn on microgeneration, and I have noted that in papers on several occasions. I did not introduce the mandatory requirement for microgeneration in the first instance; I suspect that it was a hobby horse that was being ridden by a former Minister. It is not the right time to make microgeneration compulsory, because the technology is not sufficiently advanced or the costs sufficiently low for us to make it mandatory. Some people say that it would put a heavy burden on the construction industry and that builders can afford it, but I assure the House that the builders would not carry the burden; they would pass it on. Mandatory microgeneration, therefore, would lead to higher house prices. The power to regulate performance standards in making microgeneration systems mandatory may well be exercised in the future. That will depend very much on the industry and on the costs attached to it. However, I am content that setting challenging emission targets for new buildings is the best approach to adopt at the moment. 11.15 am I welcome Mr Beggs’ remarks. By and large, he was right about the issue. There is scope for architects and builders to adopt a flexible approach that enables them to incorporate cost-effective energy efficiency measures, such as higher standards of thermal installation or renewable technologies — or a combination of both — should they wish to achieve the emission targets. Mr Fra McCann must be an early riser, because he referred to an item about Antrim Area Hospital on this morning’s ‘Good Morning Ulster’. I also heard that item and thought that it was interesting. The hospital installed a wind turbine and reduced its costs by around £150,000. It also contributed towards its income by a further £50,000 by selling power back to the grid. I cannot remember the exact size of the wind turbine, but I think that it was between 130 ft and 140 ft high. Such a wind turbine could not be installed on every house in Northern Ireland nor on every Government building, as was suggested. There is value in wind turbines, and Government buildings could consider using that kind of energy in specific circumstances, but I am not sure whether a wind turbine should be installed on top of Parliament Buildings. However, it has been suggested that a wind turbine could be installed in the Chamber as we could generate enough power to light up the whole of Belfast. Mr F McCann: Especially if Sammy is in the Chamber. Mr P Robinson: I do not think that he would be the lone contributor to such power. Declan O’Loan raised matters about zero-carbon systems. There is nothing to prevent builders from incorporating low- or zero-carbon systems into new or existing buildings. In fact, the amendment to the building regulations made in November 2006 sets targets that should reduce emissions to 40% below previous levels. Therefore, there is some flexibility in the system. I have asked officials to progress another amendment to reduce emissions from new buildings by a further 25%. The Member for North Antrim Mr Storey, who was acting in his role as the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, dealt with issues relating to the serving of contravention notices. Building control officers will remain empowered to serve contravention notices when work is ongoing; they have up to 18 months after completion of the work in which to do so. We propose to retain the right to serve contravention notices at any stage during the construction process and to amend the period within which building control officers may issue such a notice — setting a longstop of 12 months from the date that the district council receives notification of the completion of the building. That period is in line with the defects liability period in normal building contracts. Mr Beggs and my colleague Mr Storey raised the issue about some councils not holding registers, but I think that they all hold them. The requirement in the Bill will ensure that there is some conformity about the information that councils hold on their registers. At least that will provide a default position so that councils can fulfil a basic requirement on the registers. Mr Storey also raised an issue about type approvals. District councils will have to consult with other affected district councils on type approvals. That touches on a matter that was also raised by Mr Beggs, who was concerned that we might end up with a lower standard of approval in some areas. When a type approval is being sought, the applicant will be required to indicate which council area from which they wish to seek approval. Therefore, there would then be contact between those two areas. There are also matters, such as fees and fee sharing, that it will be necessary to deal with using subordinate legislation, and, at the appropriate time, I will be happy to work with the Committee to address those matters. The Member for West Belfast Jennifer McCann spoke about new zero-carbon buildings, which I touched on; however, I wish to stress that building regulations apply to new buildings, which comprise only about 2% of the total stock, and, therefore, we should not get carried away too much. I have dealt with the issues raised by Mr Beggs. Mr Lunn gave the impression that he was suggesting that the Minster was backtracking on renewable-energy grants. I assume that he was referring to the Reconnect grant scheme, which was a direct rule proposal and is due to end in March. That is a matter for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI), and it is not the responsibility of the Department of Finance and Personnel. Coincidentally, last Friday, in my constituency advice centre, a constituent expressed concern about that matter and the hope that consideration might be given to extending that scheme for a further period. Therefore, in my capacity as a constituency MP, I wrote to the appropriate Minister to ascertain whether that matter has been assessed. Mr Speaker, I trust that that was a deft piece of buck passing. That matter is not my responsibility, and I would not wish to step onto anyone else’s territory. I thank Members for contributing to the debate, and, because of the subject matter, I was surprised that so many people took part. The debate was good, and several important matters were addressed. I am satisfied that when the amendments are enacted, the building regulations regulatory framework will be stronger and more effective. Such regulations are in everybody’s interests because they help to ensure our health, safety, welfare and convenience in and around buildings, as well as contributing to the important goal of saving fuel and power. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That the Second Stage of Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill (NIA 11/07) be agreed. Mr Speaker: That concludes the Second Stage of the Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill [NIA 11/07]. The Bill stands referred to the Committee for Finance and Personnel. Public Health (Amendment) Bill Consideration Stage Mr Speaker: I remind Members that the Consideration Stage is intended to enable the Assembly to debate any amendments to the Bill. As no amendments have been tabled, there will be no opportunity to discuss the Public Health (Amendment) Bill [NIA 8/07] today. Of course, Members will have the opportunity to fully debate the Bill at the Final Stage. Therefore, by leave of the Assembly, I propose to group the Bill’s two clauses for the Question on stand part, followed by the Question on the long title. Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Long title agreed to. Mr Speaker: That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Public Health (Amendment) Bill [NIA 8/07]. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker. Post-Primary Transfer Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Education that she wishes to make a statement about the structure to set in train an area-based look at provision in the post-primary phase. The Minister of Education (Ms Ruane): Go raibh maith agat. On 4 December 2007, I set out my vision for the future structure for education in the North. Ó shin, bhuail mé le hoideachasóirí, múinteoirí, ceardchumainn agus, go háirithe, le tuismitheoirí agus daoine óga a thuigeann go bhfuil níos mó i gceist sa phacáiste leasuithe atá beartaithe ná aistriú go hiarbhunscoileanna. Since then, I have met educationalists, teachers, trade unions and, most importantly, parents and young people, who have not simply reduced the proposed reform package to the issue of transfer to post-primary schools. There is much more to what we propose than the important question of transfer. I have set out the need for new transfer arrangements within a much wider, progressive reform agenda, embracing demographic decline and the delivery of a new, expanded curriculum. Effective area-based plans are central to that and need to be drawn up. Area-based planning has found broad support across the education spectrum. We need to quickly press ahead with this agenda in order to plan and deliver the curriculum to all young people, be they rural- or urban-based, Irish- or English-speaking. Such planning will ensure that schools collaborate and guide future investment. This is the way to deliver effective, modern education — and that is what this is about. The entitlement framework is designed to ensure that, when it comes to making decisions at 14 and again at 16, all young people will have a much broader choice. Currently, that choice is too restricted in many schools. Some young people have as few as eight subjects to choose from at A level. We propose that young people have a choice of at least 24 courses at Key Stage 4, and 27 at 16, with a balance that ensures that at least one third are academic, at least a third vocational or technical, and the rest made up of an appropriate combination. Ach deirim seo: ní thig linn a leithéid de churaclam leathnaithe a sholáthar muna mbíonn scoileanna agus coláistí ag comhobair agus ag roinnt áiseanna agus eolais. Ní bheadh an t-airgead ann lena dhéanamh. Ach cuirfidh pleanáil éifeachtach atá bunaithe sa cheantar ar ár gcumas córas roghanna agus áiméar den chineál a sholáthar. Let me be clear: we cannot deliver such an expanded curriculum without schools and colleges co-operating and sharing facilities and expertise. It would be financially impossible. However, through effective area-based planning, we can deliver such a system of choices and opportunities. Local expertise, knowledge and energy, including contributions from local educationalists and parents during the consultation process, will be crucial in all of that. In December 2007, I promised to update the Assembly on how we would advance area-based planning in the post-primary sector. Having already briefed the Chairperson of the Education Committee, this morning I met members of the Committee, and I thank them all for that. I have shared my thoughts on the issue with the Minister for Employment and Learning. I now set out how we will organise the process. As the role of the education and skills authority is central, the timing is related to its establishment in April 2009. Full area-based plans covering pre-school, primary and post-primary sectors on the model outlined are not expected to be in place until 2010 at the earliest. However, it is my intention, given the need to address issues of transfer and offer young people the choice that they need at 14, to make the delivery of the entitlement framework mandatory from 2013, and consequently to introduce the first election at 14 at that time. To meet that timescale, I am announcing a post-primary area-based planning process which will proceed from next year, in advance of full area-based planning. This will be used to identify the structural change required for the delivery to every young person of election at 14 and the entitlement framework from 2013. The full area-based planning criteria will be decided through a short consultation process. The main elements in the proposed approach to area-based planning are: a central role for the education and skills authority in the production of draft area plans, within a policy framework set by the Department of Education; the importance of sustainable schools, a new policy on which will be published shortly; a process including asset management, development of area plans, strategic investment plans and project appraisal; consultation on an area and sub-area basis, involving the sectors and the schools; and plans that cover all forms of schools and the contribution of DEL and the FE sector in the process. 11.30 am The area-based planning process for the post-primary sector will be initiated and driven by a representative central group that will be independently chaired. The group will involve one senior figure from each of the education and library boards, the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools trustees, Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta, the Governing Bodies Association and the Council for Integrated Education. It will include a representative from the trade unions; a representative from the Education and Training Inspectorate; representatives from DEL and the Association of Colleges in the North; an educational expert from the South; and a representative from the team that is working to set up the education and skills authority. That central group will be complemented by five specific area groups, which will be chaired by an independent person and involve a representative from each of the sectors and the further education sector. It will be the responsibility of those groups to consult with the sectors and the schools and to submit preliminary area-based plans for approval by the central group. In addition, schools in local areas may act collectively to bring forward their own proposals to the area-based groups for consideration. Chun críocha riaracháin, tá na grúpaí bunaithe sa cheantar seo eagraithe ar theorainneacha na mbord oideachais agus leabharlainne atá ann cheana féin, ach, más gá, rachaidh fo-cheantair trasna na dteorainneacha seo. Although the area-based groups are organised using existing education and library board boundaries for the purposes of administration, sub-areas will cross those boundaries where necessary. The approach to boundaries will have to be flexible, given that the maintained sector uses diocesan and parish boundaries, and that planning must take account of the flows of children, rather than fixed boundaries. The terms of reference for the central group and the five area groups will be published this week. They will require those groups to develop plans capable of delivering the most dynamic, vibrant and effective schools to be accessed by transfer at age 11, and of offering the post-14 curriculum pathway that is appropriate to the young person. The task is to ensure that young people can access the education pathway that is most suited to their needs through the flexible organisation of an area’s schools and including collaboration with local further education colleges. The work at central and local levels will take full account of the existing school structures; existing approvals for school capital projects; existing sectoral plans for development; existing further education provision; data on existing and projected enrolments; data on performance and other aspects of quality; progress towards the provision of the entitlement framework; the impact of and on transport policy; opportunities to promote sustainable schools and sharing between schools; and opportunities for mergers or federations in the development of learning communities. I will shortly announce the membership of the central and area groups; the chairpersons will be announced before the end of this week. The area groups will be asked to report their progress to the central group at regular intervals and to submit final reports to it by the end of October. I expect the central group to submit complete area-based plans to the Department so that those can go out to consultation immediately after that. I want the consultation process on the completed area plans to be finished by January 2009. Tá mé muiníneach gur céim mhór chun tosaigh na pleananna seo i bpróiseas na pleanála bunaithe sa cheantar; ar ndóigh, rachaidh an próiseas sin thar an earnáil iarbhunscolaíochta go gach earnáil ón bhliain dhá mhíle a naoi. I am confident that the plans will be a major advance in the overall area-based planning process, which will of course extend beyond the post-primary sector from 2009. I have stated many times that it is not a question of advocating a one-size-fits-all system. Indeed, the delivery of essential curriculum reform and a structured response to demographic decline make area-based planning essential. Individual schools cannot be expected to deliver such expanded choices alone. The delivery of the entitlement framework requires area-level planning of provision in order to succeed and deliver for young people. Dealing with the effects of demographic decline also requires an area-based planning response. At the same time as the entitlement framework calls for an expansion of post-14 provision, falling pupil numbers are restricting the range of provision that many schools can offer. That restriction is already being felt. Secondary schools have borne the brunt of falling rolls, while the grammar-school sector has lowered entrance requirements to lessen the effects of demographic decline. Even without the need to expand post-14 provision, school viability will require the education sectors in all areas to plan the future of an area’s provision together. Those proposals are about providing greater choice, opportunities and flexibility for young students — and I am glad to see some of those young students here today. I also expect those plans to be a major step in delivering a modern education service for all young people, now and in the decades to come, thereby reversing the tail of educational underachievement that has been the reality for many passing through our current system. I encourage everyone in the Assembly to play a constructive role in the process as together we shape an education system for the future. Go raibh maith agat. The Chairperson of the Committee for Education (Mr S Wilson): I start by thanking the Minister for giving the Committee the opportunity to have a preview of her statement this morning. The Committee appreciated the fact that it had an early warning and an opportunity to speak to the Minister about the proposals. That is the end of the compliments, by the way. Committee members recognise that, at a time when there is demographic decline and a need for a widening of the curriculum, there will be a requirement to change the school estate. The Committee and I have a number of concerns about the Minister’s statement. I will outline three of those concerns, and I know that Members will want to raise other issues. First, the Minister said that this post-primary area-based planning: “will be used to identify the structural change required for the delivery to every young person of election at 14 and the entitlement framework from 2013”. The Minister’s preferred option is for provision for ages 11 to 14, and then for ages 14 to 19 in the post-primary sector. However, that is not the preferred option of many of the parties in the Assembly, nor has the proposal been agreed by the Assembly. Will the Minister assure us that the terms of reference of the area-based planning groups will not be such that they will pre-empt the Assembly’s view on her plans for schools for 11-14 schools and for 14-19 schools and that local areas will have the ability to choose the structure they want? Secondly, the Minister said that the central planning group will comprise representatives from all the various sectors — there will even be a representative from the Republic of Ireland. However, the one group that is not mentioned is the Protestant Churches, which has a big role to play in education provision in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister assure us that that oversight will be remedied before the composition of the group is finally decided? Thirdly, the central group will be obliged to consult all the various providers, but, as we know, some providers have run ahead of other providers in various parts of Northern Ireland. What does consultation mean, and at what point will the central group or the area-based planning group be able to intervene in the plans of another body, if those plans are seen to be detrimental to the provision of schools in other sectors? The Committee will wish to ask the Minister many other question as the process continues, but, for now, I would like the Minister to provide assurance on those three points. Ms Ruane: Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Chairperson of the Committee for Education for his questions. My meeting with the Committee this morning was useful, and I will take on board many of the Committee’s comments. You asked about structural change and the terms of reference. I do not know where you got the idea that 11-14 schools are my option. I have always said that a one-size-fits-all system is not what is needed. I have also always said that different solutions will be required for different areas. Furthermore, I have always said that I want to ensure that all the different options are kept open. The terms of reference will be published this week. I assure the Chairperson that some of the areas that we will be considering include access to 11-19 schools; transfers to alternative schools at age 14; and access across the learning community, which involves collaborative arrangements between groups of schools and the FE sector. There have already been good practice and collaborative arrangements between those learning communities. We will also consider provisions for 11-14 schools and 14-19 schools within an area. Sin an chéad cheist, agus anois an dara ceist. The second question was about the central planning group and the Protestant Churches. The education and library boards will be represented on that group, and we should not pre-empt who they will nominate. I assure the Member that the chairpersons who are appointed will be broadly reflective of society, and Protestant Churches will be included in that. You talked about different sectors running ahead. Although, in the past, different sectors have done good work, there were instances in which different plans were made for children across those sectors. For the first time, we will now have a process in which the different sectors are sitting down together. Proposals have been produced, for example, in Fermanagh, where the education and library board has been conducting pre-consultation exercises. The Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS) has also produced proposals for consultation. Both have said that they will take into account, and be part of, the area-based planning process. Therefore, there is consensus in the House and among educationalists on the need for area-based planning, especially given the demographic decline in the system. Mr Speaker: I remind Members that this is an opportunity to ask questions, not to make further statements. Mrs O’Neill: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her statement and for meeting the Committee this morning. I also thank Committee members for the constructive way in which they engaged with the Minister. In recent months, I have learned of a number of proposals, including plans for an educational village at the Lisanelly site in Omagh and a cross-sectoral proposal in Moy, both of which are progressive. Will the Minister confirm whether those types of naturally grown proposals will be welcomed by the subgroups that will be set up, and also by her Department? Ms Ruane: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I have met the representatives of the Omagh group of educationalists, who were from different sectors, different schools and different Christian Churches. It was good to see the work that they have done. I know that there is an adjournment debate in the House this evening on Lisanelly, and I look forward to contributing to it. That is precisely the type of collaboration that we are considering. We need to try to build support, with the different sectors having their schools, but also maximum collaboration between and among schools. Omagh is not the only area in which there are models of good practice; there have been models of good practice in Ballymena, there have been learning communities in Ballyclare and there has been collaboration between the post-primary and further education sectors in Newry. The terms of reference and the new groups will aim to build on good practice in areas where there is an organic coming together. Local groups will be encouraged to produce their ideas, and there will be maximum consultation. At the end of the day, educationalists are the people who understand the issues, as they have been delivering at the coalface for many years. They understand the needs of the system and the importance of working together. I would expect any group working in the Western Education and Library Board area to consider the proposals for Omagh. However, I do not want to pre-empt any decisions. It is for the working group to make proposals, all of which I will consider. The point is that there will be consensus and a dynamic period throughout the North, in which, for the first time ever, many — though not all — sectors will come together to plan the schools estate. 11.45 am Mr K Robinson: I thank the Minister for bringing her statement home to the Assembly at long last. Members expected a proposal on 29 February, as this is a leap year. However, we did not get it; we were sorely disappointed. The roses did not arrive either, by the way. Mr S Wilson: Would we have accepted them had they arrived? Mr K Robinson: Of course. Recently, the Education Committee travelled to the city of Londonderry, where it saw collaboration among all sectors; it also heard of examples in the Limavady area. Can the Minister assure the House that she will build on that good practice and will not force a template upon areas that already tackle their own particular needs? Did the Minister present the document to the Executive at their last meeting? Has she also spoken to and shown a copy of the document to the Minister for Employment and Learning? It is my understanding that the Minister for Employment and Learning has not agreed to anything at present and will not do so until he has carefully studied all the details. He reserves his position until then. My colleague Sammy Wilson raised two points about transferors’ representatives and another point about the situation in Fermanagh, to which I want to refer. Can the Minister assure the House that rather than boards making representations on behalf of transferors, transferors will have representation in their own right on the area boards? That is most important in overcoming mistrust. Ms Ruane: It would have been dangerous for me to make the proposals on 29 February; I might have been tempted to propose to certain Members. I wanted to resist that temptation. [Laughter.] Mr Storey: The Minister knows what the answer would be. [Laughter.] Ms Ruane: Thanks, Mervyn. I have, however, brought the proposals to the House today, and I apologise if they are three days or two and a half days or two and a quarter days late. They are here now. I absolutely agree with the Member: interesting work on collaboration is being done in Limavady. Visiting one of the town’s schools, I was struck that children were wearing four different uniforms — those of schools from different sectors, including a special school. The children all worked together. During a discussion with the teachers, I asked them how they found the situation. They replied that although it had been a long process, it worked well. I asked the young people how they found it. They said that it was great, because they no longer had to pass by one another’s school gates feeling like “others”. It was encouraging to hear the young people say that it was great to know children from other schools and to have been to every other school and that they wanted the arrangement to continue. They had no worries whatsoever. It was lovely to see how the education of children from the local special school was part and parcel of the arrangement. That is how the system should progress. Before the debate, I sent a copy of the document to every one of my MLA colleagues. Yesterday, I discussed the proposals with Reg Empey, although I accept that he has not agreed to every aspect of them. However, as I said, I have shared the proposals with him. He agrees that further education must be an important part of any discussion, and we will examine existing further education plans. I will also bring those proposals before the Executive. Formulation of policies is at an early stage. Mr K Robinson: With all due respect to the Minister, she did not answer my question on transferors. Ms Ruane: I have already answered the question on transferors. Mr D Bradley: Go raibh míle maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Tá ceist agam faoin amscála agus faoi pholasaí na scoileanna incothaithe. As the sustainable schools policy is the foundation stone of area-based planning, can the Minister give the Assembly a date when it will become available? Given that the consultation on area-based planning will not end until January 2009, after which further time will be taken to make a final decision, is the Minister concerned — as many others are — that there is not enough time for post-primary area-based planning to be implemented in time for the transfer of pupils in 2010? Go raibh maith agat. Ms Ruane: Go raibh maith agat. A new policy on sustainable schools will be published soon; that issue was dealt with in the Education Committee today. The process is evolving, dynamic and will feed into the wider area-based planning process. However, this is a good start. Members from all sides of the House have called on me to bring forward these proposals; I have now done so, and I am confident that we can make progressive changes in our education system in the required timescale. However, that change is evolving and 2010 and 2013 are key dates. I ask that all Members work with me on this and, from the good discussion in the Education Committee meeting this morning, I can see that there is broad agreement on how to advance area-based planning, despite slight differences in emphasis. Mr Lunn: I apologise for my absence from the Committee meeting this morning — I might have heard something that I have not heard today. The Alliance Party broadly welcomes the Minister’s statement. The buzzwords seem to be “collaboration” and “good practice”. The Minister has acknowledged that the delivery of the expanding curriculum is impossible without extensive co-operation between schools and colleges, particularly across the sectors. Although I welcome the statement, I share the concerns that have been expressed — I did not hear the Minister answer the question about transferors, so I ask it again. We understand that people want a balanced curriculum, but how does the Minister think that subjects can be categorised as exclusively academic, vocational or technical? For example, in which category is physics? The first selection at 14 years of age will be in 2013, and the last 11-plus examination will be in November 2008, so there will be a five-year gap. Will the Minister clarify what will happen in that period? Ms Ruane: Mr Lunn’s words on collaboration and good practice were more of a comment than a question. I view collaboration as good practice; some of the most dynamic collaboration that I have seen has resulted in vibrant schools. I refer to collaboration in the post-primary sector as well as between the post-primary and the further-education sectors. I saw tremendous collaboration between schools and educationalists through use of the internet — one young person in Ashfield Girls’ High School, who was probably one of many, did one of her courses through technology, which is one of the ways to expand the curriculum. I categorise curriculum subjects as technical and professional for ease of reference and understanding, but the Member is correct — a tiler must have good vocational skills as well as good mathematical skills, and an engineer requires good vocational skills as well as good scientific and mathematical skills. I take the Member’s point. We try to ensure that vocational qualifications are given the esteem that they deserve and have not been given in the past. That is something that we are changing. I was at the BT Young Scientist and Technology Exhibition in Dublin and saw Abbey Christian Brothers’ Grammar School in Newry do very well in the technology section. That was good to see. The more that that type of thing happens, the more all our young people benefit. I assure Members that there will be broad-based representation in the central planning group. People will see that when I announce the chairpersons and how we intend to move forward. The age of 14 is already an important stage in the system at which major decisions on education pathways are made and young people decide which subjects to pursue. It is an informed and uncontentious elective process. They decide whether to study triple award science, extra maths, art, engineering, technology, home economics or whatever. I am confident that the system allows sufficient time for such decisions. During my discussions with educationalists, I was struck by their huge knowledge of the system. As they work in the system daily, they understand its needs and deficits, and there is a very mature discussion with educationalists ongoing. I want admissions criteria regulations to have the support of stakeholders and the approval of the Assembly, but such consensus takes time to develop. It can be frustrating but, as Trevor Lunn will agree, building consensus with the educationalists is the fastest route to the safest and surest system. Mr Storey: I am glad that the Minister knows the difference between collusion and collaboration. I do not accept that the manner in which the Minister brought the matter to the House today in any way fulfils what she said when she appeared before the Committee for Education on 31 January. She told the Committee that her statement would cover “area-based planning” and its “terms of reference”. She further stated: “I will engage with the Committee on this matter before I make that statement.” People cannot believe a word that the Minister says. Given that the Minister missed an opportunity to outline her proposal on 29 February 2008, I assume that she thinks that this is a shotgun wedding. I assure her — Mr Speaker: Please ask a question. Mr Storey: I assure the Minister that the mood music is no different in relation to the outstanding issues. In the past three years, 20 controlled schools and five maintained schools have closed. Will the Minister today place a moratorium on the closure, or the proposed closure, of any more schools? For example, there are proposals to close Maghera High School and schools in Fermanagh and other areas. Will she draw a line under school closures because, as the Chairperson of the Committee said, other sectors have moved ahead on selection? Are Members to believe that the policy on sustainable schools that was published in April 2007 has been binned? The Committee has not been consulted; the Minister has not given a response, and her statement today states: “the importance of sustainable schools, a new policy on which will be published shortly”. What is going on? Is the document of April 2007 being binned? In contrast to her vision, which remains misty, will the Minister give Members a clear answer? Ms Ruane: Go raibh maith agat. Members could have a long debate on collusion, but this is neither the place nor the time. I found this morning’s meeting with the Committee for Education useful, and I am sorry that Mr Storey did not. The tone of the debate demonstrates that there is broad consensus on how to progress area-based planning. I am not into shotguns in any context — and certainly not shotgun weddings. I like to take my time to plan, which is what I did, and I brought the resulting carefully considered statements to the House today. I am sorry that the Member does not agree. People can see that my Department is introducing a robust series of policies, such as every school should be a good school and the vision of area-based planning that I outlined on 4 December 2007, of which sustainable schools will be part. As the Member is on the Committee for Education, he knows that it is not me who brings forward proposals for school closure: that is done by the various sectoral groups, such as the CCMS. Then there is a period of consultation, and I make a decision. However, the process is initiated by the different sectors, such as Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta, NICIE, the boards or the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools. 12.00 noon If the Member had stayed at the meeting this morning, he might have heard more of the proposals that I was presenting. However, I appreciate that people — Mr Storey: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker: I will not take a point of order during a ministerial statement. I will be happy to take it afterwards. Ms Ruane: I appreciate that Members are busy. Having said that, I have engaged with the Committee for Education at every turn. I have attended more than seven times — probably more often than most Ministers attend their respective Committees — and I plan to continue engaging with it. My officials have attended the Committee nearly every week to discuss key issues, and I am delighted that they have done so, because it is important that all these policies be developed. Of course there will be before-and-after consultation with the Committee on any of the policies. I thank the Member for his comments, and I ask him to join the rest of us in developing proposals with area-based planning. Mr W Clarke: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her statement, and I pay tribute to her for her diligence in relation to this matter. First, will she confirm that rural communities will not be disadvantaged by the area-based planning process? Secondly, parents have expressed concern about postcode selection to me and to many other Members. Minister, can you confirm that area-based planning will ensure that that does not happen? Go raibh maith agat. Ms Ruane: Go raibh maith agat. First, I can confirm that rural areas will play a major role in any area-based planning. I will take account of urban and rural areas when nominating group chairpersons, because, for too long in the North, rural areas have been treated as poor cousins. I aim to ensure that that will no longer be the case. One reason why I chose this particular model was to ensure that, as well as a central group, there would be five local groups to take account of all the different areas, many of which are rural. As for your question about postcode selection, there are a couple of key points that I want to make. If schools work together, our system has the capacity for areas to respond to, and manage, the ranges of educational choices that pupils will make at 14 and 11. Any method of academic selection will perpetuate social selection. Only access by choice, within a system that is flexible enough to deliver that choice, can truly ensure that access is equal. Finally, the development of organisational flexibility is crucial. I accept that it will take time, but area-based planning will be central to developing that flexibility. Local solutions will be part of that flexibility. To return to your first point, rural — as well as urban — areas will be part of the area-based planning process. Go raibh maith agat. Miss McIlveen: The Minister said that the area-based planning process will be initiated and driven by a representative central group. First, I note that a single representative from each sector will be present, irrespective of the size of the different sectors’ schools estates. To put that in the context of the Assembly, the Green Party would have a seat on the Executive. Will the Minister ensure that each sector is fairly represented? Secondly, Members are being asked to agree to groups being set up, although no one, bar the Minister, knows what the remit of those groups will be. In the spirit of transparency, will she detail the terms of reference today — not some time later this week? Ms Ruane: It is important that all sectors be represented in the central group. A good, mature discussion is going on at the moment involving part of the central group and the local groups; it will involve education and library boards, the CCMS, Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta, the integrated sector and the trade unions. We need maximum collaboration based on respect and equality rather than talk about who is bigger, smaller, weaker or stronger; that is how we will progress. I am delighted that the different sectors will participate, as that is very important. Anyone working in education must take part. It must be cohesive and small enough to get the work done, but it must also be representative, and I assure the Member that it will be representative. I will announce the terms of reference shortly. I will, however, ensure that the Chairperson of the Committee for Education sees the terms of reference before the announcement, and he can circulate them. I will also announce the chairpersons shortly. Mr McCallister: The Minister and I represent the same large rural constituency. How does she hope to address the new transport demands, especially in rural areas where closures and amalgamations brought about by the proposals will mean that children will have to be transported over greater distances and, in some cases, considerable distances? Ms Ruane: Go raibh maith agat. Sin ceist an-tábhachtach. That is a very important question. Transport is one of the key areas that must be looked at. Depending on the arrangements — and I do not want to pre-empt those in any area — some children may have to travel further, but in most cases there will be less transport. The beauty of area-based planning is that that is exactly what it is. Although children will have a choice of what type or sector of school they attend, there will be far fewer buses and children passing one another on their way to their respective schools, many travelling to Belfast. Far too many children spend far too much time on buses. From the constituency that we share, John will know that many children spend an hour or an hour and twenty minutes on buses travelling to school — and that is only one way. I have said before that I could probably do more to clear the roads than Conor Murphy. Everyone recognises that it is important that our — Mr McNarry: Will the Minister give way? Ms Ruane: May I finish my point without interruption, David? You will have an opportunity to make a point or to ask a question. Transport will be considered by the local and central groups as it is a key area in education. Mr Speaker: I remind Members that they may not intervene during a ministerial statement. Mrs M Bradley: I share some of John McCallister’s concerns. At first glance, it is clear that area-based planning will require investment. Has the Minister sought an assurance from the Minister of Finance and Personnel — or been given such an assurance — on the additional transport and investment costs needed? Ms Ruane: An estimate of costs can be produced only when the area-based planning process has developed plans for all areas. However, the notions of massive restructuring and huge costs that we have seen in some of the media are wildly inaccurate. The proposed reforms assume affordable costs for sound reasons. We all know that we face restructuring investment because of the need for sustainability, and that investment can help to deliver my reforms. We should not forget, first, that school collaboration offers flexibility without major restructuring; and secondly, that due to surplus capacity, we have great potential for flexibility already. Issues of cost are at the heart of my progressive reforms. Our system wastes money; unreformed, it will waste more. Broadly, two thirds of our post-primary schools are undersubscribed and a quarter is less than three quarters full — and that is before the full demographic decline reaches in our post-primary schools. Members are presuming that there will be more transport costs: equally, there may be fewer. We will consider the proposals when they are produced. At the appropriate moment, I will engage in the appropriate way with my colleagues on the Executive, including my colleague, the Minister of Finance and Personnel. Ms J McCann: I warmly welcome this being the first time that all the sectors will be sitting down together to plan the educational future of children in any area. Does the Minister feel that this is a welcome development that can only enhance educational provision in any area? Ms Ruane: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. It is exciting that all sectors are going to be sitting down together and, for the first time, planning our schools estate. There have been models of good practice and they were a vanguard, and fair play to them. We can learn from where there has been good practice. This will mean that we can provide a broader, flexible and more stimulating education for all our children. It will mean that we can celebrate academic success in our system but begin to deal with the tail of underachievement. I know that everyone in this House agrees with me that we need to deal with that tail of underachievement. We need to give every one of our young people the opportunities that they deserve. We need to stem the flow of 12,000 people leaving school without a GCSE in English and maths because that state of affairs is just not fair. We are on the cusp of something very exciting and I am looking forward to working with all of you in that. I do sense a different tone in this House today and I welcome that tone because I sense that there is also a realism about the need for us to bring about changes — although there are a few notable exceptions to the tone. [Laughter.] Mr Ross: I too have concerns about the focus in the Minister’s statement on transfer at 14. The Minister said that she might not bring forward the proposals to close schools yet that she favours area-based planning. Therefore, can the Minister not instruct those bodies that there are to be no further closures until the area plans are developed? I noted that the Minister did not answer the question from Mr Ken Robinson about the representative central committee. There is no specific mention of Protestant clergy even though the Protestant clergy have had a massive role in education in Northern Ireland over many years. Although the Minister did refer to the education and library boards being able to appoint clergy, there is no guarantee of that being the case. Is that not, therefore, a gap in her proposals, especially since she said that she will appoint someone from the South — by which I presume she means Irish Republic rather than Newry or Fermanagh? Is it not the fact that she has simply overlooked the Protestant clergy in her proposals, and should she not now amend them to include Protestant clergy so that she does not start another unnecessary fight with the Unionist community and the Protestant Churches? Ms Ruane: Some people think I favour transfer at 14, some people within the Member’s party think that I favour transfer at 11. What I have said is that I have kept all options open: 11 to 14; 14 to 19; 11 to 19; 16 to 19. People should be clear about that. It will be different depending on where you live: what school a child goes to; what further education college is available in your area, and what collaboration is happening. Area-based planning does not necessarily mean school closures. However, we do have to recognise, as George Bain has made clear, that we quite simply have too many schools given the demographic decline at the moment. Demographic decline, particularly in the post-primary sector, will increase over the next few years. At the same time, we have to expand post-14 provision and ensure that all children have access to the education they need in a flourishing educational environment. Area-based planning is a key to achieving this. I reiterate: it is not I who brings forward proposals. Obviously, we are now moving into a period of area-based planning and all the sectors working on their proposals will be a part of that. I have said that all Churches will be represented, and that will be seen when I present my choice of chairpersons. Please do not try to create an issue that does not exist. When I refer to the South, I mean the South of Ireland. In future I will be more explicit and I will use the terms North of Ireland and South of Ireland to provide clarity; but yes, there will be a representative from the South of Ireland on the representative central committee. 12.15 pm Mr Butler: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis an Aire as a ráiteas. I thank the Minister for making her statement on area-based planning. I am sorry that I missed the Committee meeting this morning — [Interruption.] I was at Lagan Valley Hospital trying with my fellow MLAs trying to fight the proposed cuts — [Interruption.] Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Butler: There seems to have been a mixed response at this morning’s Committee meeting. When the Committee met on 29 February, some members were hoping that the Minister would bring forward proposals; the Member for North Antrim in particular was a bit miffed when the Minister did not turn up to propose to him, which is possibly why he is so angry today — [Interruption.] Mr Storey: She is only here because we forced her. Mr Butler: On more serious matters, today’s statement represents a major part of the jigsaw that was outlined in Caitríona Ruane’s statement last December. It is a welcome step forward in the debate on transfer from primary to post-primary education; it follows on from the Bain Report — Mr Speaker: I must insist that the Member comes to his question. Mr Butler: My question concerns area-based groups and subgroups. I believe the Minister is going to announce the chairs of those groups this week, but when will she be in a position to announce their memberships? Her statement also refers to the basing of those subgroups on the education and library board areas, but as the Minister knows, given changing and declining demographics, there needs to be some degree of flexibility. She referred to that need, but will it be taken into account when the area-based plans are drawn up, so that they will not adhere rigidly to the education and library board areas? Go raibh maith agat. Ms Ruane: Go raibh maith agat. Even though you could not attend the meeting of the Education Committee, you were very well represented by your colleague Michelle O’Neill. In relation to a comment made by Mervyn Storey; no one has forced me to do anything. On 4 December 2007 I said that I would make a further statement detailing the progress made on the issue. I am happy to be here today to make that statement, because it is a very important issue. As for the area-based groups, I will be announcing the chairs of those groups this week, and they will be up and running in March. We need to move quickly, and have set ourselves a time frame, which I have outlined. In reply to the Member’s point, I agree that there must be flexibility across board areas, because parish boundaries and board boundaries are different. Mr Butler’s constituency stretches across the Belfast Education and Library Board and South Eastern Education and Library Board areas, and of course those two must work together if we are to have an interconnected system. The five local area-based groups need to be interconnected in the way that all of my educational policies are interconnected; the curriculum; the transfer; the area based planning; the sustainable schools and the aim to make every school a good school. All of those policies are interconnected, and they are all going to be working together. Educationalists know that: they are not going to create artificial borders around Tyrone, Fermanagh or Belfast, because we have seen that borders have not served us well in the past, and I do not think they will do so in the future. Go raibh maith agat. That is the answer to the question. Mrs Foster: The Minister will be aware, having attended an Adjournment debate in the House in relation to the matter, that the pre-consultation document issued by the Western Education and Library Board was roundly rejected by the community in County Fermanagh. That document envisaged all post-primary education in the western board area being located in Enniskillen. I listened very carefully to what the Minister said to John McCallister about transport, and I say to the Minister that transport will be a huge issue in Fermanagh if those proposals are approved. I ask her to learn the lessons of the pre-consultation process in the western board area and to engage with everybody, including the Transferor Representatives’ Council, which, it has to be said, has played a crucial role in education in this country since its inception. It is very disappointing that the Transferor Representatives’ Council does not have a position, as of right, on the new area-based planning boards. Ms Ruane: It is great that there are so many young people in the Gallery today. I welcome all of them, because it is their — Mr McNarry: That is very kind of you. [Laughter.] Ms Ruane: You and all the young people in the Gallery, David. We are as young as we feel. It is good to have the children here because, at the end of the day, we are building for their future, and trying to ensure that they have an opportunity to access the broadest possible curriculum and to meet their counterparts in different sectors. It is fitting that they are here today, and I should like to give them a big céad míle fáilte — a hundred thousand welcomes. I turn to Arlene Foster’s comment about Fermanagh. Obviously, the local group set up for the Western Education and Library Board area will consider both the pre-consultation proposals and the CCMS consultation — that is what area-based planning is all about. Transport is obviously a key issue. As I said earlier, it will be one of the issues that the local groups will look at. It is a key issue in relation to any proposals that we bring forward. It can be very costly. Depending on what proposals are put forward, sometimes more transport will be required, while less will be needed in other cases. Members should not pre-empt the work of the Committee, the working groups, the central group or the area groups; rather, let us see what they come forward with. Mr Kennedy: I thank the Minister for her statement. I am reminded, however, of the quotation: “The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.” [Laughter.] Once again in this House, I question the Minister about the logic of excluding the Transferor Representatives’ Council from the area-based planning boards. Places are guaranteed to people from the education and library boards, who could deputise for the transferors, but that is not guaranteed. There are representatives from CCMS, the Irish-language sector, the governing bodies, NICIE, the trade unions, the Education and Training Inspectorate, DEL and the Association of Northern Ireland Colleges. There is even an educational expert from the Free State, and a representative from the team that is working to set up the ESA. All of those groups may be important, but equally important to many people — Mr Speaker: I ask the Member to come to his question. Mr Kennedy: Equally important is the role and expertise of the Transferor Representatives’ Council. It is impossible to create area-based planning boards without guaranteeing a place, or places, to the Transferor Representatives’ Council. I ask the Minister to tell the House that she will change the proposed plans and ensure that a representative of the Transferor Representatives’ Council is included on each of the area-based planning boards. Ms Ruane: Go raibh maith agat as sin. Thank you for that. I have said it before, and I will say it again — I will make sure that everyone is represented in my proposals. Mr Gallagher: I have two questions to put to the Minister. The first one is about small schools — two simple words that have not cropped up in anything that has been written or said here today. Will the Minister tell us whether she thinks that it will be a good thing if the area plans lead to there being no post-primary school in west Fermanagh, or in Tyrone west of Omagh? Indeed, there are very few controlled primary schools in either of those areas. Does the Minister recognise that it would be a disaster if there were no such schools in those places? The Minister — even when prompted and pushed by her colleague, Mr Willie Clarke — danced around the subject of rural schools. A rural school in Bessbrook might have 1,500 to 1,800 pupils; a rural school in west Fermanagh might have 250 pupils. Those schools represent the character of their area and, therefore, should not be overlooked. I welcome, and, indeed, agree with the Minister’s point that secondary schools have borne the brunt of falling enrolments as a result of grammar schools lowering entrance requirements. Essentially, the law of the jungle is in operation: if a school is big enough, it can get away with doing that, and the small schools suffer. Enrolments to grammar schools must be limited. Will the Minister consider that as part of the plan, given that the parcel will stop with her? Ms Ruane: I have spoken about rural schools and stated that I am implementing a policy on sustainable schools. I made points, which I can repeat, about school closures. Area-based planning does not mean school closures, but the Assembly must recognise, as George Bain has made clear, that there are currently too many schools. Demographic decline, particularly in the post-primary sector, will increase in the next few years. Regional imbalance and regional disparity also exists, and the Executive must deal with that. Fermanagh has fewer people because much of its population must travel outside the county to find work. I know that the Member will agree that it is important to build sustainable communities. The Bain proposals do not tackle the issue of numbers alone. They also tackle educational quality, and six different criteria are used for small schools to measure that. The House must be careful not to scaremonger. We must have a responsible debate, but we must recognise that demographic decline exists and that it will continue. Lord Morrow: The Minister continually speaks to the House about equality, which seems to be her central theme. However, there is a lack of equality in the detail of her statement. When Mr Sammy Wilson challenged her about whether the Protestant clergy would be included on groups, she suggested that she could not pre-empt whom the education and library boards would assign to them. The Minister has produced a list of those groups that will be included as of right, so why has she not included the Protestant clergy? Why has she not prioritised considering that? This side of the House is angry that she has deliberately ignored that issue. The Minister must take cognisance of that fact and return to the House and tell Members directly that she has corrected it, because the situation is blatantly unacceptable. Some Members: Hear, hear. Ms Ruane: I do not know what the question is, but equality is at the heart of my proposals. The sectors represented take account of the education system, are from all areas of the community and satisfy the equality duty. I want to ensure broad representation — rural, urban, Churches — Mr Kennedy: Does that include Protestant Churches? Ms Ruane: Yes. I have said that. Lord Morrow: Make sure you do not just talk about it. Mr Kennedy: It is a disgrace. Ms Ruane: Excuse me, I ask Members to stop interrupting me and let me make the points that I am trying to make. Mr Kennedy: Act like a Minister. Mr McNarry: Do you want sympathy? Ms Ruane: No, I do not want sympathy — Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister has the Floor. Ms Ruane: I never expect sympathy. I want fair play, and I want Members not to interrupt me. Equality is at the heart of my proposals. Those sectors represented cover the current education system. The Catholic trustees and the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools comprise one sector — not two, as some Members have implied. I have also considered gender issues, which the House sometimes overlooks. When I announce my chairpersons, Members will see that men and women, from rural and urban areas, and from all sectors of society, are represented. Go raibh maith agat as sin. 12.30 pm Mr Boylan: Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for her statement. Mr Gallagher discussed rural schools. Given that the Minister of the Environment is in the Chamber, perhaps she will consider how PPS 14 can be applied to those schools. I commend Mr Wilson, the Chairperson of the Committee for Education. It must be very exciting in that Committee, with everyone discussing proposals, roses and shotguns. Is the Minister aware of the transfer process from primary to post-primary education that the Catholic sector implemented in Keady some 20-odd years ago? If so, will she outline her views on it? Go raibh maith agat. Ms Ruane: Go raibh maith agat. I am aware of what happened in Keady 25 years ago — it was a very dynamic, interesting process. All the primary schools in the Catholic sector got together and worked out how the transfer from primary to post-primary education would operate. There is now an amazing post-primary school there that provides different pathways for all different children, based on — Mr Kennedy: That does not reflect the rest of the country. Ms Ruane: I am sorry; I ask that Mr Kennedy refrain from interrupting me. That school provides academic and vocational pathways, and I bear in mind Trevor’s comments, with which I agree. The process that brought about that system was very good, and we can learn certain things from it. Obviously, rather than examining just one sector, we need to consider collaboration between all different sectors. Given that, however, the way in which the proposals for Keady were made is certainly a shining example. School inspectors confirm that it is an amazing school that performs very well. There is a great deal of good practice in many areas, which I have already mentioned — Ballyclare, Ballymena, Limavady, Derry, Newry, Omagh, and Cookstown. The educationalists in those areas are ahead of the posse, and they are saying that we need change and that we need to work together. Let us do that. I know that those educationalists will value the vision that has been announced today because they know that changes need to happen. Mrs Long: I have a couple of questions for the Minister. However, I will first stress the importance of the Transferor Representatives’ Council. It is important that the transferors are not under-represented as a result of the fact that a range of interests are represented on the education and library boards. That means that there is no guarantee that those who will be selected will reflect the views of the transferors. The transferors play a particular role in the education system. That role must be recognised, and I hope that the Minister will reassure us that that will happen. I want to look specifically at the issue of area planning, which the Alliance Party welcomes. According to the Minister’s proposal, six new structures will be created with a view to dealing with the issue of area planning on a time-limited basis. However, area planning is an ongoing issue; it is not a one-off, because there will be continuing demographic change. How, therefore, will the Department handle the replication of bureaucracy? I concur with Mr Butler’s point that traditionally there have been problems at the boundaries. For example, the geography of greater east Belfast means that natural boundaries could be planned, but those do not match the boards’ boundaries. Indeed, the Minister will be aware of specific incidents in which schools on the boundaries of east Belfast were closed without regard to the needs of the people in that area. I want to know what specific obligations will be placed on the groups to ensure that they consult specifically on those boundary issues. Lastly, given all the other interests that are being taken into account, how will the views of the local community be acknowledged? Would the Minister consider conducting a community audit to allow forward planning in the education system, so that change therein can be managed according to the wishes of the parents whose children will go through that system? We have heard a lot about organic change and where that has worked, but I would like to see a system whereby, if there is an impetus for change in an area, a mechanism exists that allows people to make that change. Mr Speaker: Unfortunately, the Minister has approximately two minutes to answer. Ms Ruane: I thank the Member for her thoughtful questions. I am certainly not in the business of setting up bureaucracy; I am trying to get rid of unnecessary bureaucracy. The Member will be aware of how the RPA is dealing with that. Some people have said that I did not set up enough groups. That was one of the points that were made at the Education Committee meeting this morning. Establishing five groups across the North — using the existing boundaries of the education and library boards — is the way to go. I agree that there must be flexibility in those groups. They must be interconnected and must work together. If not, they will miss out on the borderline areas. I have made the point about borders before; they do not always serve in the way that was intended. The groups that I have set up are time bound — they will not be bureaucracies, and they will not last for ever. The process will continue to evolve, but the groups are time bound. Local communities are important in those plans. I know that I sound like a broken record, but I do not want to pre-empt local groups — Mr McNarry: You certainly have broken down. Ms Ruane: Thanks, Danny — or was it David? Go raibh maith agat. I am glad to take compliments — but we will not go there. Local communities are very important. Their voices must be heard, and that is why the plans are flexible. Local groups can feed into the five area groups, and we will actively encourage that. Mr Storey: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier, an assertion was made to the effect that I was failing in my duties as a member of the Education Committee. I remind the Minister that I informed the Chairperson of the Education Committee that, owing to business in the House, which commenced at 10.30 am, I had to be in the House to deputise for the Minister’s colleague Mr McLaughlin, the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, who has a bug. I hope it is not an MI5 bug. That is why I was not at the Education Committee meeting. Mr Speaker: That is not a point of order. The business of a Committee is not the business of this House. Mrs Long: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On a previous occasion in the Chamber, one of my colleagues was corrected for making reference to the Public Gallery. On a number of occasions during numerous interventions this morning — not just in this debate, but in previous debates — references were made to the Public Gallery. Is it not correct that we should not be referring to the Public Gallery, or playing to it, but dealing with the issues that are raised in the Chamber? Some Members: Hear, hear. Mr Speaker: The Member’s point of order is well made. Members ought to know that they should not refer to the Public Gallery on any occasion. That is an important point of order, and has been the subject of rulings made in the House on several occasions. Nevertheless, Ministers and Members are still referring to the Public Gallery. Standing Committee Membership Mr Speaker: The next item on the Order Paper is a motion on the membership of a Standing Committee. As with other similar motions, it will be treated as a business motion. Therefore, there will be no debate. Resolved: That Mr Thomas Burns replace Mr Patsy McGlone as a member of the Public Accounts Committee. — [Mr P J Bradley.] Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has arranged to meet immediately upon the lunchtime suspension. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The sitting was suspended at 12.39 pm. On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Dallat] in the Chair) — 2.00 pm Mr Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to two hours 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 each. 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. The Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mrs I Robinson): I beg to move That this Assembly, following the number of deaths associated with hospital acquired infections from 2001 to date, calls on the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to initiate, as a matter of urgency, a full, independent and time-bound public inquiry. As Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, I am very pleased to introduce this motion, which calls for a public inquiry into the current outbreak of clostridium difficile. The outbreak and spread of the infection has been a cause of great public concern over recent weeks and months, and it continues to be so. The Committee unanimously believes that the only way to get to the bottom of how the outbreak came about, how it is being handled, and, most importantly, how we can begin to restore public confidence is to hold a full, independent public inquiry. A few months ago the term “clostridium difficile” would have meant little or nothing to the general public or to many Members. However, given the recent outbreak in Antrim Area Hospital and the associated increase in deaths linked to the infection, we are, sadly, all too aware of the infection and the devastation that it can cause and continues to cause. As well as the suffering of those who are directly affected by the infection, the many untimely deaths, and the anxiety and — in many cases — grief suffered by families and relatives, the Committee unanimously believes that public confidence in the Health Service has been dealt a major blow. The infection was clearly not on the radar of trusts until very recently. For example, it is worrying to note that, only last September, the Northern Health and Social Care Trust’s submission to the Committee’s inquiry into healthcare-associated infection made no mention of clostridium difficile. We have all heard stories about people who waited, perhaps for some time, for hospital admission, but who turned down the opportunity for treatment when it was offered because they were concerned about catching an infection in one of the hospitals. We have no way of knowing how many people may have turned down a vital hospital appointment for that reason, but Members have spoken about constituents who have turned down appointments for hospital visits. The Health Committee visited the Northern Health and Social Care Trust in Antrim on 24 January. Incidentally, the visit was planned some weeks earlier, before the issue of clostridium difficile arose. Committee members were briefed by the medical director on the outbreak at that stage and the action that was being taken to control and contain it. That included the setting up of a cohort ward at Antrim Area Hospital and the establishment of a control team in the trust. The trust also provided the Committee with figures on the number of patients suffering from clostridium difficile at that stage and the number of deaths associated with the infection since July 2007. In the light of subsequent confusion over the number of deaths throughout Northern Ireland in which clostridium difficile was recorded on death certificates, and in an effort to gain an overall picture of the extent of the infection across all trusts, the Committee called in the chief executives of all five trusts. They were questioned at length about the |