Northern Ireland Assembly, 22 October 2001

93 contributions from 36 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We meet today under most unusual circumstances. In the rest of the world there is conflict with terrorism, but in our country the Government seem more interested in making arrangements with terrorism than in preserving the basis on which the Assembly meets.

The Assembly is supposed to have cross-community representation, and cross-community votes were cast for the various ministerial posts and other jobs. All the Unionist ministerial positions are vacant at present, so the Government of Northern Ireland consists of a Nationalist and a Republican coalition. As I said to the Secretary of State, if the SDLP or Sinn Féin Ministers had left their posts, we would all have been out immediately. However, because the situation arose —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. Will the Member come to his point of order? I am not clear on what it is.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

According to today’s news, the Secretary of State has congratulated Mr Adams and said that he will be very generous if Mr Adams does what the Secretary of State wants him to do. No self-respecting Unionist can remain in the Chamber and pretend that business can be done with a Government that is both Republican and Nationalist.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The issue that the Member raises is political — it is not a point of order. The Assembly is entirely in order to sit, to hear statements from and ask questions of Ministers, and to conduct debates on matters that are properly on the Order Paper. I need to bring some substantial issues to the attention of the House. I intend to do so, but the Member’s point is not a point of order in respect of the House sitting. What he and his Colleagues choose to do from a political point of view is another matter — [Interruption].

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Well, I will not be taking any part in this charade.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. If I inform the House, and particularly those Members who have put down questions that will now fall, of the status of some of those matters, that may be helpful to those who wish to participate. I shall then take a point of order from Mr Trimble.

I confirm that on Thursday 18 October 2001 I received letters from the nominating officers of the Ulster Unionist Party and the Democratic Unionist Party notifying me that the Ministers from those parties had been dismissed with effect from midnight on that date. I advise Members of the implications that those dismissals will have for today’s Assembly sitting. The dismissals affect only those Northern Ireland Ministers who belong to the Ulster Unionist Party and the Democratic Unionist Party. Ministers from the other parties remain in their positions.

Question Time will be affected. Sir Reg Empey, having been dismissed as Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, can no longer carry out the functions of the First Minister. The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will, therefore, be unable to respond to questions for oral answer at 2.30 pm, nor will there be questions at 3.00 pm to the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, who is no longer in post. Questions to the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development will proceed. Ongoing business will be interrupted at 3.30 pm for that purpose, because that is the time when the Minister would normally have answered those questions.

Those questions for oral answer listed on today’s Notice Paper by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure will fall. Members can of course table those questions again, and they can also table questions due for oral answer on 12 November by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister of the Environment.

In relation to the six vacant ministerial posts, no questions for written answer will be accepted until Ministers are nominated to those positions. Questions that were tabled for written answer before the Ministers’ resignation will be answered immediately following the ministerial vacancies’ being filled.

It is important that I draw those matters to Members’ attention. I shall also ensure that the detail of that is put in the all-party notice for this week so that it is clear for Members and is in writing.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

My point of order, Mr Speaker, is also a comment on the matters that you have just mentioned, because it has been necessary to reorganise the business of the Assembly following the vacancies that have arisen — and I am not altogether comfortable with the method that was used to bring about those vacancies.

We were not anxious to see that happen. It has happened with a fair degree of regret on our part. I hope that this situation will be resolved quickly. It can be resolved by those parties that have so far been in breach of the agreement by failing to take effective steps to achieve the total disarmament of paramilitary organisations. That there are five vacant Ministerial posts puts us in a difficult situation. There are immediate implications for what can and cannot be done. The situation is not stable, and the Secretary of State should consider what to do in that regard.

I raised my point of order to endorse what Dr Paisley said about the need for a cross-community Administration. I was glad to hear Dr Paisley restate that principle, which is contained in the legislation and in our Standing Orders. What he said about the need for a balanced Administration was true, and I acknowledge the embarrassment that it causes to Members opposite who find themselves in an unbalanced Administration with no desire to be there. Dr Paisley’s party followed the Ulster Unionists into the Executive and onto the Policing Board. It followed the Ulster Unionists in withdrawing, and I am sure that it will also follow the Ulster Unionists when we go back.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Ministers had two options: to resign or to be dismissed. The Ministers were dismissed, except for the Junior Minister in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, who could not be dismissed, except by the First and Deputy First Ministers acting together or by Ministers fulfilling the functions of the First and Deputy First Ministers acting together. The Minister could have resigned, but that option was not taken. The position is clear.

Regarding the second point, Members may recall that, under Initial Standing Orders, an Executive could continue to function only on a cross-community basis. However, that Standing Order was not incorporated into the substantive Standing Orders, and therefore — whatever the political questions to which the Member refers — there is no reason why the Ministers currently making up the Executive cannot continue to fulfil their functions.

It is true that a substantial number of Departments have no political head. That has implications for the Assembly, and I have referred to the most immediate of those implications. It will affect Question Time today, the tabling of questions for oral answer and the tabling and answering of questions for written answer.

Agriculture: North/South Ministerial Council: Sectoral Meeting

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

I regret that the DUP Members have absented themselves from the Chamber for this important statement, which has implications for an industry that is important across Ireland, North and South.

The fourth meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in its agriculture sectoral format was held at the Carrickdale Hotel in Dromad, County Louth, on Thursday 4 October 2001. MrNesbitt, Junior Minister in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, accompanied me to that meeting and agreed this statement. The Government of the Republic of Ireland were represented by Mr Joe Walsh TD, Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, who chaired the meeting.

The Council considered and agreed a paper on animal health policy, with particular reference to foot-and-mouth disease. The paper gave details of the progress made on animal health policy decisions taken at earlier meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council. The Council noted the progress made in controlling foot-and-mouth disease and the co-operation on animal movement and epizootic disease control, animal health policy and scrapie control. In its consideration of those issues, the Council recognised the potential impact of foot-and-mouth disease on animal health in both jurisdictions on the island of Ireland. It was noted that the all-island approach to controlling the outbreak had minimised the spread and impact of the disease in both parts of Ireland.

The Council agreed that the experience gained during the outbreak clearly demonstrated the benefits of an all-island approach to animal health and called on Agriculture Departments, North and South, to proceed urgently with the work aimed at increasing such co-operation.

The Council considered and endorsed a paper on the World Trade Organisation, EU enlargement, and common agricultural policy reform. The paper set out the common North/South interests and objectives in those areas.

The Council noted the concerns of Ministers, North and South, with the issues highlighted; their agreement on the objectives that should be pursued in negotiations; and their agreement to continue to review developments in those matters.

The Council considered and noted a paper on the work of the steering committee on cross-border rural development, which outlined its progress on the work programme that the Council formally endorsed at its meeting on 17 November 2000. The Council also considered a paper on the joint study of the pig industry that outlined the main conclusions of a consultancy study on pig-meat processing on the island of Ireland. That paper was commissioned by both Agriculture Ministers in December 1999. In noting the paper, the Council agreed that officials should continue discussions with the relevant development agencies and the industry to develop appropriate action to improve the competitive position of the pig sector on the island.

The secretariat tabled an additional paper seeking the Council’s approval of proposed salary, and salary range, increases for chief executive officers based in Northern Ireland with effect from 1 April 2001. The Council approved the increases subject to final approval by the Finance Ministers, North and South.

The Council agreed that its next meeting in the sectoral format will take place in Northern Ireland in February 2002. The text of a communiqué for issue following the meeting was agreed; a copy has been placed in the Assembly Library.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

I welcome the Minister’s statement, particularly her comments on an all-Ireland approach to animal disease control, cross-border co-operation on rural development, and the improvements to the competitive position of the pig industry, North and South. What cross-border provisions has the Minister made for the eradication of BSE, brucellosis and tuberculosis? Given that she set such a premium on cross-border co-operation with another EU state, will she indicate whether she has discussed the retirement scheme for farmers, North and South?

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

Mr Savage will be aware that we have agreed an all-island strategy for the eradication of scrapie in sheep, which may mask the symptoms of BSE. However, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and not the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, is responsible for investigating BSE in sheep. My Department has a contingency plan that is out for consultation with the industry and other interested parties in Northern Ireland and the UK.

My officials were recently in Dublin to discuss TB and brucellosis controls in order to inform our decisions on the way ahead. We have agreed to establish an all- island animal health strategy, and that work continues.

The early retirement of farmers was not discussed. I initiated a desk-based study on early retirement last year. It was inconclusive because of the absence of data. Therefore, I have initiated a study to be carried out by Queen’s University and University College Cork. I hope that their findings will be reported to me in the new year, and that they will look at the implications of early retirement, its cost-effectiveness and its impact on the restructuring that is essential for the industry.

The report will be based on research that the industry does in other countries. When I receive the report, I will be able to judge whether early retirement will contribute to restructuring, and whether it would be a good idea. In the meantime, I shall keep that option open.

Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I welcome the Minister’s statement and the progress that has been made under the various headings. What progress has been made in developing a strategy for animal and plant disease control? I refer in particular to brucellosis, which is endemic in my constituency and which causes difficulties for the farming industry. There has been a substantial increase in cases of brucellosis since 1996, at a cost of £22 million to the industry. The matter requires urgent attention. It must be eradicated and the carriers of such diseases must be controlled.

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

Brucellosis and tuberculosis are matters for concern. There has indeed been an increase in brucellosis, and we have been reviewing the strategy in Northern Ireland. When the working group set up under the North/South Ministerial Council arrangements carries out its work, we will be in a position to consider the elements of a cross-border strategy. Unfortunately, we have been unable to take that as far as we might have done because of the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak. Nevertheless, my officials were in Dublin last week to discuss the subject — and brucellosis — with their counterparts there. Progress has been made and will continue to be made to deal with the scourge.

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement and the fact that the North/South Ministerial Council, which is so important to agriculture, is still meeting and making progress. The statement mentions an all-Ireland approach to disease, and, in particular, to outbreaks of foot-and- mouth disease. Work by Departments on both sides of the border minimised its spread and impact. Is the North/South Ministerial Council in agreement with Departments, North and South, that the way to a disease-free future is through an all-Ireland policy?

Why were impact studies for foot-and-mouth disease carried out in some areas, but not in the Meigh border area, which was badly affected by the disease?

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

At a North/South Ministerial meeting in October 2000, before there was any suspicion that we would be affected by foot-and-mouth disease, Mr Joe Walsh and I agreed to work out a joint strategy on animal disease on the island of Ireland. During the foot-and-mouth crisis, that strategy was shelved because there was no time for people to work on it. Work has now resumed on its development.

I am not sure what Mr McHugh was talking about with regard to the studies in Omeath. The Member will be aware that I am conducting an independent review on the foot-and-mouth epidemic. The remit is wide and will involve examining all aspects. Perhaps Mr McHugh could let me know in writing precisely what he has in mind, because I am not sure what he means.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Questions can be put to Ministers only on matters for which they have responsibility. Problems usually arise when issues fall between the Departments’ areas of responsibility. That is also the case in respect of jurisdiction responsibilities. Despite the Minister’s success in many areas to date, she is not responsible for studies that take place outside her jurisdiction. The Member’s question can be answered only by the Minister responsible for that jurisdiction — in this case the Minister in Dublin. I hope that that clarifies the matter.

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I mentioned Meigh, which is in County Armagh.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I thought that you said Meath and the Minister thought that you said Omeath. I would of course have recognised Meigh. I thank the Member for clarifying the matter.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

I read the Minister’s statement with interest. However, what was missing from the report was more notable than what it contained. I was particularly interested in the references to the World Trade Organisation (WTO), EU enlargement and reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP), an area that may change considerably in the future. Can the Minister say which interests were identified as common to Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and those which were not?

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

We have many interests in common with the South with regard to the reform of the CAP, the WTO and EU enlargement. That is referred to in the communiqué, which has been placed in the Library. The main areas of common concern include: the impact on exports to third countries and further reduction in export refunds; the consequences of any further changes to CAP for producers; and the effects on farm incomes of any proposals affecting direct payments.

P J Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I welcome the Minister’s statement and the progress that has been made since an all-Ireland animal health programme was first discussed in the Assembly. There has been much talk of future strategies. Will they include the continuation of an all-island fortress policy, regardless of future situations?

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

At present, a fortress Ireland policy is part of our strategy to maintain freedom from foot-and- mouth disease on the whole island. The policy will remain in place as long as it is necessary and as I long as I am Minister. I cannot speak for what will happen if a change in Administration occurs.

Mick Murphy (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat. I welcome the Minister’s statement. What impact will an increased instance of tuberculosis have on the Southern side’s disease- free status?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I understand that the Member is asking what would be the effect of an increase in tuberculosis in the North on the disease-free status of the Republic of Ireland.

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

I would not want to comment on the impact on the South, or on whether there would be any impact. That is a matter for the Minister there.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I tried to raise that exact point in respect of the earlier question by Mr Murphy’s Colleague. It is neither possible nor proper for the Minister here to respond to questions that relate to matters for which the Minister in Dublin has jurisdictional responsibility — [Interruption].

I am not sure whether that was a "hear, hear" in response to the point of order.

Billy Armstrong (UUP, Mid Ulster)

The Minister is aware of the importance of farm quality assurance in Northern Ireland. Has she discussed with her counterparts in the Irish Republic the system that they use? We all know that foreign produce finds its way to consumers in Northern Ireland who believe that those products will be of the same standard as that sought here in Northern Ireland.

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

I did not discuss farm quality assurance at the agriculture sectoral meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council. That matter was not on the agenda, and it was not discussed. Therefore it is not in my statement.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

I am pleased that the North/South Ministerial Council discussed the pig meat report. Can the Minister explain the recommendations of that report?

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

The main recommendations are set out in the consultants’ report. They relate to: rationalisation of existing slaughter capacity and scaling of plant size; supply chain agreements between producers and primary processors; the need for secondary processors to improve reliability and consistency of supply; and the development of a stronger value-added sector. The report also indicates that without a significant improvement in the competitiveness of the industry in all of Ireland, it will face a further reduction of the production and processing sectors.

Annie Courtney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

What steps are being taken to deal with the illegal cross-border movement of livestock?

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

Discussions continue between my officials and their counterparts in the South on the illegal cross-border movement of livestock. Among the issues being examined is individual sheep tagging, a practice that would have had an impact on our recent situation. The Government in the South have already made progress on that matter, and we are co-operating with them in that regard. We are also examining possible measures to reduce "incentives" for illegal cross-border sheep trading, such as reduced value-added tax and other forms of tax relief.

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

Can the Minister provide more detail on the role of the steering committee on cross-border rural development?

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

The role of the steering committee on cross-border rural development is to promote maximum co-operation in the implementation of EU and rural development programmes; to exchange information on experience and best practice in regard to rural development in each jurisdiction; and to examine the scope for a common approach to the feasibility of developing cross-border area-based strategies and rural development research.

Local Government (Best Value) Bill: Committee Stage (Period Extension)

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

On behalf of the Environment Committee, I beg to move

That, in accordance with Standing Order 31(5), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(3) be extended to 14 December 2001, for the Committee Stage of the Local Government (Best Value) Bill (NIA Bill 19/00).

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I speak, if I may, as an MLA who has an awareness of the situation. I have no objection to the extension of the Committee Stage, provided that it does not prejudice the urgency of repealing compulsory competitive tendering before 1 April 2002. I am, however, obliged to respond to recent points that have been made on the matter. There is concern that the Committee’s preference for a two-clause Bill — as communicated to me — would give precedence to the interests of district councils over the rights of residents and ratepayers, who are entitled to the assurance that council services are subjected to the independent best value audit. That applies to all parts of the public sector. I assure the House that best value means providing quality services at a price that local people are willing to pay. Councils should therefore operate in a framework that is transparent and accountable to the citizens that they serve.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The question relates solely to the extension of the Committee Stage. The Member may raise a matter relating to that question, but I cannot entertain a debate on the substance of the Bill.

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I reiterate the important point that although I have no objection to the extension of the Committee Stage, it must not prejudice the urgency of repealing compulsory competitive tendering before 1 April 2002.

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

Work on the Bill has taken longer than was anticipated, and the Committee believes that more time is required at the Committee Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That, in accordance with Standing Order 31(5), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(3) be extended to 14 December 2001, for the Committee Stage of the Local Government (Best Value) Bill (NIA Bill 19/00).

Review of Post-Primary Education in Northern Ireland

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have this morning received a letter from the Minister of Education, Mr Martin McGuinness. It is relevant to the debate, and therefore I propose to read it to the House. It says

"Dear Lord Alderdice, I regret that due to urgent party business, which requires me to be in the USA, I cannot be present in the Assembly today for the take-note debate on the motion on the report prepared by the Committee for Education on the review of post-primary education in Northern Ireland. I would ask you to convey my apologies to the Members and hope that both you and they will understand. I have written separately to the Chairman of the Education Committee, Mr Danny Kennedy, explaining the position and indicating that my officials will be monitoring the debate, and if appropriate I will provide a written response to Members’ questions."

Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The report before the Assembly deals with primary education and the 11-plus, an issue that is fundamental to every family in the North of Ireland. Is it not therefore an insult to the Assembly that the Minister of Education will not be in attendance to answer the finer points of the debate and to have exchanges on the matter?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

It has been the custom in the Assembly and in other places that Ministers, if at all possible, attend debates on matters of their departmental responsibility to listen and to respond to points raised. If a Minister is unable to be present at a debate, be that on account of alternative arrangements, health matters or other reasons, a Colleague may act on his or her behalf. As a member of the Business Committee, the Member may wish to raise this question there. It would be inappropriate for me to comment other than on the simple procedural matter, which is that it is the custom, and the Minister has recognised that it is the custom and has written to apologise because he recognises that he is breaching the custom. The Member has said what he has said.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

On a further point of order, Mr Speaker. Surely the Minister’s absence is not for any frivolous reason. If the Minister were not absent on that business, these Members would be criticising him for not doing all that he could to ensure the survival of the Assembly.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

It is difficult for me, from the Chair, to decide whether the visit by the Minister is frivolous or otherwise. Perhaps only history will demonstrate that; it remains to be seen. It is clear that the Minister — in fairness to him — has recognised that he is not following the normal custom. He has written and tendered his apologies to the House and to me. It is proper to put that on the record, lest there be any sense that the Minister had not recognised that his non-attendance was an unusual matter.

It would not be proper for us to extend this into a debate. Of course, if there are points of order I will take them, but only if they are legitimate points of order.

Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. You read out a letter from the Minister of Education stating specifically that he is abroad on party business, not ministerial business. Surely the primary responsibility of a Minister who is being paid for the job is to be responsive to this Assembly when he has already agreed to be so by the arrangement of the business today?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

From a procedural point of view, as Speaker of this House I of course regard the responsibility of a Minister to his ministerial job as being a primary one. However, I suspect that as everyone searches themselves and looks at whether their responsibilities are primarily to the House, their families, their parties or whatever else they have responsibilities to, they might come up with different answers to that question. The Standing Order position is clear — there is a primary responsibility to the House. The Minister has recognised that and has sent a letter of apology, which I have read into the record.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not want to labour the matter, but surely Mr McGrady can recall when Ministers from his party were absent from the House when issues were raised that were relevant to their Departments.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. After the earlier departure, I assumed that points of order which verged on the political would be less likely in the Chamber, but it does not necessarily appear to be so. As one can see, one just never knows what the future brings.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I beg to move

That this Assembly takes note of the report prepared by the Committee for Education on the ‘Review of Post-Primary Education in Northern Ireland’.

It was once alleged that I could make a moving speech. I did not realise that I could ever move an entire political party or grouping from the Assembly, but I understand that I may not be to blame for that.

At the outset of this important debate on education, I — on behalf of myself, the Ulster Unionist Party, the Education Committee and the entire Assembly — unreservedly condemn the outrageous attack that resulted in injuries to a couple of children in an explosion last night in north Belfast. I hope that the House will join with me in saying that attacks of that nature have no place in north Belfast or, indeed, anywhere in Northern Ireland.

Mick Murphy (Sinn Féin, South Down)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I cannot hear what the Member is saying.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

It is clear that some Members are unable to hear. Perhaps the Member would speak with a little more robustness. That being the case, I ask him to start again.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

It may be considered an advantage that I cannot be heard.

On behalf of my party, the Committee for Education, and the Assembly, I unreservedly condemn the outrageous attack in north Belfast last night, which resulted in injuries to two children in an explosion. I hope that the House will join with me in saying that attacks of this nature have no place in north Belfast or anywhere in Northern Ireland.

I am pleased and honoured to bring forward the report, which outlines the Committee for Education’s views and findings on the review of post-primary education. I am grateful to the Committee members for their assistance, good humour and hard work on the report. I also want to place on record my appreciation and gratitude to the Committee Clerk, Committee staff, the specialist adviser, Prof John Gray and the Assembly researchers for their hard work.

It is regrettable that the Minister of Education is not here on this important occasion. Whilst he has more pressing matters to deal with, his absence from the Chamber is most unfortunate. However, he has written to the Committee and myself apologising for his absence.

On 28 September 2000 the Minister of Education published the results of the research carried by Prof Tony Gallagher and Prof Alan Smith into the effects of the selective system of secondary education in Northern Ireland. At the same time the Minister launched a public consultation on the arrangements for post-primary education in Northern Ireland and formed an independent review body to consider and make recommendations on the matter. These actions sparked one of the largest debates on education here in a very long time — [Interruption].

I note that senior Colleagues are now deserting me.

The Committee for Education believed that the issues under consideration were crucially important and that any decisions taken would affect generations to come. Whilst we did not want to replicate the review body’s work we felt that we needed to give the matter due and timely consideration. The purpose of the Committee’s report is to crystallise the views of the Committee and to enable us to carry out an informed assessment of the recommendations of the review body when they are published on 24 October.

The Committee also decided that any evidence it gathered, its findings, views, and conclusions reached should be published to further inform consideration of the issues and contribute to the public debate that will ensue. We felt that that was important, as there appeared to be a lack of information to enable people to reach informed opinions on the various alternative systems available.

The Committee agreed to consult with interested groups and organisations. Recognising that we could only hear evidence from a relatively small sample of the many groups, organisations, and individuals with an interest in the issue, we identified a number of key witnesses. We received written submissions and took evidence from, among others, the education and library boards; teacher and head teacher organisations; higher and further education organisations; employer organisations; and academics who have carried out relevant research. We also had access to the views and comments expressed to the review body through its web site.

To ensure that we received the views of parents, teachers and pupils, a number of focus groups were held on our behalf in Belfast, County Fermanagh and County Tyrone by the Assembly’s library and research staff. The results proved extremely interesting, and various views were expressed, particularly by pupils. The Education Committee also considered research papers on various alternative post- primary education systems and undertook visits to Kiel and Munich in Germany, as well as to Edinburgh and Glasgow, to see at first hand how other education systems operate.

While the Committee recognised that it would be helpful to observe other systems, we acknowledged that a model could not simply be lifted from somewhere else and applied without account being taken of the unique circumstances and the historical context of Northern Ireland.

As I have illustrated, the Committee gathered a great deal of detailed information and a wide range of views. We are grateful to all those who showed such willingness to contribute. It was particularly important to establish a link with our counterparts in the Scottish Parliament. I hope that other Committees of the Assembly will pursue such links, where relevant to their responsibilities.

I will now outline the Committee’s key findings and conclusions. I am sure that my Committee Colleagues will also highlight these areas in their contributions to the debate. The primary legislation shaping the current system of education in Northern Ireland dates back to the Education Acts of 1944 and 1947, which resulted in the bipartite system. It has, relatively speaking, remained unchanged since then, although the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 introduced greater parental choice, open enrolment and the introduction of a national curriculum.

Demands on the current system have changed dramatically. Whereas in times past, only a small minority of pupils was expected to achieve examination qualifications, a great majority now does so. Many would argue that the current system has served us well over the years. A number of the strengths of the current system were drawn to our attention. However, many others who gave evidence have suggested that, given changing expectations of education, substantial reforms are now required.

It is clear from the evidence received by the Committee that three key issues need to be addressed. The first is the nature of the school curriculum and the opportunities and experiences available for all pupils. The second is whether the current arrangements for organising schools are appropriate for future demands or whether structural changes are required. The third is whether changes to the procedures by which pupils are allocated to post-primary schools are required.

Taking account of increased educational participation rates and the potential spare capacity in the system, the Committee believes that, irrespective of the arguments about the strengths or weaknesses of the current system, reorganisation and change seem inevitable.

I come now to the 11-plus. It is clear that there is widespread dissatisfaction with the present transfer tests. I must stress that these are criticisms of the present tests, and it should not be assumed that the Committee is opposed to testing using alternative methods. Criticisms of the tests include the effect that they have of narrowing the primary curriculum, particularly in the final two years; the power of the tests to predict potential — many young people who are judged to have only modest potential often go on to perform well; and the extent to which stress and related factors affect the test performance and the longer-term consequences of pupils’ self-esteem. Many witnesses also wished to see more effort being made to acknowledge parental preferences.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)

The Committee believes that the two one-hour tests are no longer appropriate and recommends that the current tests should cease to be administered from a feasible future date. It recognises that this cannot happen immediately and, therefore, recommends that as an interim measure the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) should be instructed to undertake such improvements as can be made within a limited timescale.

The Committee also recommends that a transfer profile seeking to combine the four elements — current pupil performance, other aspects of pupil development, parental wishes and teacher guidance — should be implemented as soon as possible in order to provide a fuller and broader picture of pupils’ achievements during their primary years.

It is apparent that the post-primary curriculum needs to be changed and updated to meet future requirements. There is great concern regarding the status of vocational education and the need to improve this. The need to provide choice and flexibility was also highlighted. In particular, local business organisations drew attention to the shortage of employees with the necessary skills and qualities for today’s workplace.

The Committee is of the view that changes to the current curriculum are necessary and should be implemented as an integral part of any changes to the post- primary system. Specifically, the Committee recommends that a core curriculum should be offered for all pupils to follow until around the age of 13 or 14, with flexibility to reflect the needs and circumstances of individual pupils. Choices available to pupils should include academic, vocational and technical subjects.

Schools should explore collaborative arrangements with other institutions to ensure a range of opportunities for all pupils. A broad skill-based curriculum should be implemented, along the lines already recommended by the CCEA. A formal mechanism in which business and industry can highlight changing skill requirements at a relatively early age should be established. Stronger links between schools and higher and further education providers should be explored in order to increase flexibility of provision.

To inform the education system of the future, the Committee reviewed the strengths and weaknesses of alternative structures, including the current bipartite system, all-ability comprehensive schools, delayed selection systems and consortia of schools. However, in considering the way forward, the Committee wished to focus on the required outcomes of the education system rather than on the structure by which they would be delivered.

Some Members will be greatly disappointed that the Committee has not made a recommendation in favour of one particular structure. We are all aware of the particular views of the political parties on this matter, and it was not the Committee’s intention or wish either to pre-empt the report of the Burns review or to do its job. The Committee therefore has recommended a number of key principles that it believes should underpin any future developments — for example, the social, economic and educational objectives of any future system must be clearly identified and stated. The Committee has outlined its views on what these should be, and I will come back to that shortly.

Any reforms of the current system should be phased in over a period of time and should involve key groups throughout the change process.

That will be essential if change is to be managed. Any changes must recognise and build upon the current system’s strengths. The Committee for Education was consistently advised to retain the best and improve the rest.

Choices on post-primary schooling should be offered to pupils and their parents. The high educational standards achieved in Northern Ireland over the years must be maintained. However, strong action must be taken to tackle the perceived tail of underachievement. Any changes that are introduced must recognise that the commitment and contribution of all teaching staff will be central to the implementation programme. Whatever the nature of educational provision at post-primary level, parity of esteem must be achieved.

The social, economic and education objectives of any future system must enable pupils to develop their potential; enable them to exercise ownership and choice; provide appropriate and varied opportunities to ensure the development of a well educated, skilled and employable workforce for the Northern Ireland economy; place greater emphasis on innovation, creativity and entrepreneurial skills; enable every individual to identify his or her aptitudes, interests and vocation in life; and improve the processes for identifying and addressing elements of deprivation that may impact on a pupil’s performance. At present, we are not meeting those objectives well.

I have presented the report as Chairperson of the Committee for Education, and my party Colleagues will outline the Ulster Unionist Party’s position on the matter. However, my view is that the system should open up opportunities for pupils rather than close down their choices. Any new system must be fair to all, and it must build on and encompass the best of the current system.

In considering the matter, the Committee was reminded on a few occasions of the opportunities and the responsibilities that it faces. For the system to change, it is essential that a high level of consensus be achieved. A consensus already exists in some areas, but in others it has yet to emerge. The report outlines the views of the Committee for Education, and it will enable the Committee to carry out an informed assessment of the Burns review body’s recommendations when it publishes its report on Wednesday.

I took pleasure in presenting the report. The Committee spent a long time considering this important issue, and I trust that it will make a significant contribution to the future. The Committee for Education looks forward to playing a full part in that process with the shared objective of improving the quality of education for everyone in Northern Ireland. I urge Members to support the motion.

Patricia Lewsley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Lagan Valley)

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion as a member of the Committee for Education and as education spokesperson for the SDLP. The SDLP views the education system as the cornerstone of society. Education is a fundamental human right, as well as being a key driver of the economy and central to personal development. Genuine equality of opportunity cannot be created without first securing an effective and well- resourced education system that is open and inclusive, flexible enough to cater to all needs, and responsive to the society that it serves.

The selective education system has done untold damage to generations of children. It has inaccurately tested them, artificially segregated them and precipitately closed doors to future careers. However, the damage to fragile self-confidence is unforgivable.

Since its inception, the SDLP has called for a new all-ability system to offer inclusive education that guarantees equality of opportunity for all. We have maintained our opposition to selection on the grounds that the system is unfair, divisive, ineffective, and damaging to children and society. The arguments have been made time and time again, and I will not rehearse them here.

We have acknowledged the initial benefits brought about by the introduction of the 11-plus in a post-war society in which standard education finished at 14. It opened the door to second-level education for a generation of children. However, modern society requires all children to be educated well beyond the age of 14. The second-level system must move to meet the needs of the twenty-first century.

The SDLP acknowledges the concerns expressed that the significant achievements of the current system might be lost if selection were abandoned. The high academic results attained in grammar schools represent enormous dedication and skill on the part of staff and students. However, it does not detract from that to point out that selection brings children together from the most educationally advantaged backgrounds, socially and economically. The necessary corollary means that it comes as no surprise that schools face difficulties where the student body reflects disproportionately high levels of social and economic disadvantage. High numbers of young people leave school with few or no qualifications, and there are grounds to believe that the selective system has played a role in that.

The Gallagher report says that the differentiated pattern in Northern Ireland, with a consequent over-representation of low-achieving schools, may be the inevitable consequence of a selective system. There is a compelling case to be made for the fundamental reform of procedures for transfer from primary to post-primary schooling. That would entail fundamental reform to structures and curricula at post-primary level. It is vital that, in making the transition to a new system, the highest possible standards and quality of education are maintained and developed. In moving to implement such reform, the SDLP believes that, by teaching 11-to 18-year-olds together, the highest academic standards of the present can be maintained and offered to a greater number of children alongside improved vocational and social development.

The key principles that we wish to see maximised in the new system include: excellence in the standard of education available to all; equality of opportunity; parity of esteem for academic and vocational training; structures to encourage the development of all students’ full potential; parental and student choice; and the involvement of individuals in decisions that will affect them. Students should not have their life choices restricted before it is necessary to do so. Therefore, flexibility is required to cater for different rates of development. We want to see social inclusion in the new system. Access to all levels of education should be open to everyone, irrespective of their social background. Equitable funding for all schools should take account of the imperative of targeting social need.

The review body’s work must be seen in context, and the ongoing curriculum review has obvious significance. Recent years have seen the introduction of more vocational subjects in schools. It is hoped that an end to selection can contribute positively towards the creation of a more balanced primary curriculum, ending the unhealthy practice of "teaching to the test". It should make room for a more flexible system in which children might explore a range of interests, combining the so-called academic subjects with the vocational, leaving career options open for as long as possible and encouraging better motivation through wider choices.

Change must be managed effectively in order to minimise disruption to students during the process. Teachers should have maximum input and protection during such upheaval. The implementation of reform should be undertaken in a manageable fashion in consultation with the teaching profession, taking full account of the additional workload involved in implementing any new arrangements.

Any transition should be properly funded. It is vital that parents have an opportunity to discuss the impact of options for change and that they should be kept fully informed as reforms are implemented.

I add my thanks to all those involved in the production of the report, as the Chairperson of the Committee has already done.

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I endorse and broadly welcome the extensive report. It should receive a wider audience and not only be read by the members of the Committee for Education. Although it precedes the findings of the Burns review, it will make a significant impact nonetheless. The Committee underwent many rigours to get the report to this point. I add my thanks to everyone involved in its delivery.

I support the Chairperson’s comments about north Belfast and the protests outside the school. Those protests should not be going on and children should be allowed to attend their school. Children have a tremendous affinity with their school and their teachers.

Billy Hutchinson (PUP, Belfast North)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is clear that we discussing post-primary education, not primary education. I ask you to make people stick to the subject.

Donovan McClelland (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Antrim)

Mr Hutchinson, you are correct. However, as Mr Kennedy referred to the matter, I thought it improper to interfere.

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

A LeasCheann Comhairle, post-primary and primary education cannot be separated nor dispensed with. The subject must be discussed in the round. The Chairperson referred to those issues, and it is right and proper that I also refer to them.

The Committee’s report contains much detail. The current selection system has been in place since the 1940s. It catered for the situation pertaining at the time but which has now become outdated. The selection system was meant to separate people for leadership roles or professions; the rest would be employed in manual work. We have moved on since then, and the selection process is now seen as divisive. People are being typecast, and there is a stigma and an exclusive nature attached to the selection procedure and the schools involved. The percentage of children who are deemed to be failures at age 11 is something that few people now support. Much of the evidence that we heard points to widespread dissatisfaction among parents, teachers and the public with the present system. Changes are needed. Much of the Committee’s response agrees with that.

Various attitudes for and against vocational and academic pathways were expressed. We have three options: we can reform, or tinker, with the present selection system; we can abolish it; or we can retain the status quo. However, the final one is not really an option.

The Burns review, the review of the curriculum and the local management of schools (LMS) review will be parts of an essential process. Many people would say that the past was well served by the selection procedure. I disagree, as would many others. The expectation then was that pupils would leave school at 16 and gain employment in agriculture, textiles or other industries.

The percentage of people that the system was meant to cater for has changed since its inception, and that must be taken into account.

We have a high-tech, global economy, and more opportunities exist in the changing world of business. Jobs are higher paid, especially vocational ones, and pay is closely connected with knowledge. Education continues through lifelong learning of skills. People no longer leave school and stop learning.

The Committee’s approach to the evidence and the inquiry was one of consultation. All those who were involved — teachers, employers’ organisations, academics and schools — have already been mentioned. The Committee carried out some benchmarking by travelling to Scotland and to Hamburg and Munich in Germany. The Scottish system seems to be closer to what we need than the systems that exist in England and Wales.

The strengths of the inquiry have been mentioned, but one of its failings is that it did not extend its benchmarking process by examining the system in the Twenty-Six Counties. We require a vocational education system that is close to its system, and it could have provided a more valuable knowledge base than the systems in Scotland and Germany. The Committee failed to look at that system this time, but there is no reason for not doing so in future.

The report mentions the strengths of the current system — the number of pupils who attain five GCSEs at grades A to C and the standard of excellence achieved by grammar schools. However, those are achieved at great cost and at the expense of secondary schools.

Supporters of the current system often point to the academic results that are achieved by grammar schools. School performance data, which are gathered by the Department each year, provide comfort for those who wish to retain the current system. Almost 95% of year 12 grammar school students achieve five or more GCSE passes at grades at A to C, which is the standard performance indicator. During the academic year 1997-98, those commendable results were achieved at a cost. The downside of the two-track educational system is illustrated when one compares grammar schools’ achievements with those of secondary schools in which only around 31% of year 12 students achieve five or more GCSE passes at grades A to C.

Another problem, which illustrates the negative effects of selection on those who are deemed failures at the age of 11 is the relatively high proportion of pupils who leave school with no GCSE passes or equivalent qualifications. The Gallagher report pointed out that almost 22% of the North’s school leavers in 1986-87 had no qualifications compared with 9·6% in England and 16% in Wales. The Northern Ireland Economic Council states that selection can be criticised for

"the apparent polarisation in attainment between grammar and secondary school leavers. This may occur as a result of the demotivation of students who are assessed as academically less able, and because more able students, whose presence may help to raise the attainment of less able groups, are educated separately"

Recent research on the North’s education system raises doubts about whether it is possible to substantially raise the standards of secondary school students under the present system.

Grammar schools have many powerful supporters who are often products of a grammar school education. A high proportion of parents opt for their children to undergo the selection process. It could be argued that the overwhelming majority of parents recognise, at least in academic terms, the benefits of grammar school education. However, the selection test is, in fact, a deselection test, as 60% of children fail to obtain grammar school places. A parental decision to put a child through the transfer test may be as much a choice for the grammar schools as a choice against the perceived shortcomings of secondary schools. Selection by socio-economic background, often referred to as selection by mortgage, is as bad as selection by tests at 11 years old.

The current selection system was built on several assumptions that no longer apply. The labour market needs a highly differentiated workforce. At present, most manual labour is performed by machines, which people must learn to monitor and programme. Today’s workforce needs a better overall education, and it must learn to adapt, understand and effect change by social and technological means.

Society can only afford to pay the high educational costs of an elite group. That should be intolerable in a democracy. It is possible to identify, accurately and early, those with superior intellectual skills. The old 11-plus test was based on a measure of IQ, which itself was supported by flawed research. Prof John Gardiner of Queen’s University showed how inaccurate the 11-plus test is, with as little as 18 marks out of a possible 150 separating grades A to D. New theories of intelligence ascribe many different components to intelligence — not only the ability to perform well in a written exam. It is now accepted that children develop in spurts and not in a linear or even fashion, and that development is subject to influence.

It was difficult to ascertain which Committee members were in favour of keeping selection and those who wished to move away from it. I am glad that the SDLP is in favour of 11-to-18, all-ability education, which my party supports. That is the way forward, with pupils from all levels supporting and helping each other to gain an overall higher level of achievement for the school. That would make more of a difference than to take away the cream of some schools and leave those less able or less well off together in a particular school. That lowers the levels of achievement and makes it more difficult for those schools to aspire to high levels of achievement.

I am happy that the report’s recommendations are fairly even-handed, although I cannot agree with some of them. The Committee Chairperson said that changes should be phased in. Changes could be phased in over 10 years, depending on the approach. We do not want to do that. The essential change should be introduced immediately. Industry and others must have something of which they are sure. Schools and pupils must know what will be in place in three to five years’ time. Pupils, teachers and parents want it sorted out in two to four years, rather let it drag on indefinitely with different levels of support.

I agree with other recommendations. There is no problem with parity of esteem. There is said to be perceived underachievement, but there is underachievement — it is not perceived — in some schools. Many pupils leave school without achieving anything, which leads to tremendous problems in later life. I recommend Members to read the five volumes attached to the report. What the Committee is trying to do is commendable, and I hope that one day there will be 11-to-18, all- ability schools. Vocational education has not had the recognition that it deserves. Society must deal with that.

The main purpose of the review is to maximise potential in education for everyone.

Eileen Bell (Alliance, North Down)

I add my thanks in acknowledging the work of my Committee colleagues, the Chairperson, the Clerk, the assistants, the Assembly researchers and the specialist adviser.

The considerable volume of oral evidence and written submissions in the Committee’s work on the report clearly demonstrates the interest and concern of all in education. Our general conclusion was that it is essential that future structures be efficient and effective.

The Committee visited Scotland and Germany, and the overall message from all our considerations was that any future system of post-primary education must be flexible and cater as far as possible for the needs of every child. The age range must be less restrictive yet challenging. I hope that the outline of key components and the key values of equality, inclusivity and flexibility proposed in the report will be seriously considered in the Burns report.

We wish parents to have a better and more informed input in their children’s choices. Teachers must also be involved, so that a realistic curriculum and choice of subjects will be offered to pupils at this important time.

The report states that

"The high educational standards which have been achieved in Northern Ireland over the years must be maintained whilst vigorous action must be taken to tackle the perceived ‘tail of underachievement’; any changes introduced must recognise and build upon the strengths of the current system."

We should not throw the baby out with the bath water. The Committee did look into that issue.

Such a system would negate the stress and tension felt by all in the present system who must make a choice at 11-plus age. I will not go into that system’s disadvantages. We need to be constructive and progressive.

The bottom line was to ensure that children had the opportunity to develop their potential to the full — intellectually, physically, spiritually, socially and creatively. The Alliance Party would certainly concur. We do not, as people may say, advocate the complete abolition of grammar schools. However, there should be viable alternatives, so that all children with differing abilities can enter a secure and confident future.

From personal and party experience, and from our Committee work on the report, I know that the present system does not work. Rather, it disadvantages the majority of our young people. As a direct result, many have faced adulthood with little or no incentive or ambition. We hope that the report’s recommendations go some way to improving that situation. A good working relationship between schools, higher education institutes, industry and commerce will provide ample opportunity for each pupil to fulfil his or her own ideas of development.

The Alliance Party promotes the point that the review body will look at the lessons learnt in the all-ability integrated education sector. The positive elements of the current system have been coupled with a realistic structure that will serve all our people well. In doing so, the system will not only benefit pupils, but the whole of Northern Ireland in the long run.

I hope that the Assembly accepts this cross-party, consensual report, and that the Burns review body will adopt it as an integral part of its own report.

Billy Hutchinson (PUP, Belfast North)

I am the first person to speak who is not a member of the Committee for Education.

Debates are becoming reruns of Committee meetings. That is dangerous. We should hear from other people who have views on education, not just from Committee members.

I could do what Sinn Féin has just done and score a few political points. Sinn Féin has answered at least one serious question this morning. The Ulster Unionists understood Sinn Féin to say that decommissioning would be immediate, but we have found out that that means between two and four years — in education terms.

My party does not support the concept of grammar schools. It believes that they are an elitist form of education. Every child should have the same right to education, irrespective of his or her class or economic status. We must get that right. We will not get it right by saying that some people are an elite and that therefore they should be allowed to do certain things because that might be to the benefit of Northern Ireland. Every child should have the same opportunity.

Eileen Bell (Alliance, North Down)

When I said that my party did not support the complete abolition of grammar schools, I was saying that there must be choice.

Billy Hutchinson (PUP, Belfast North)

I was not referring to a particular party; I was referring to my party’s position.

I welcome the report, but some of its recommendations must be examined. The report is vague; it is a non- prescriptive picture of an ideal education system. We need more than that. There was no recognition of the value of the Youth Service, and there was no suggestion that the Youth Service and the formal education system could be linked. We talk continually about the problem of low achievement, but we will not recognise that the Youth Service can do something about it. There is a need to harmonise the Youth Service with the formal education sector.

Everyone knows that "choice" is a weasel word. Nobody really has choice in the education system. Our key objective must be to consider how we can provide it. I am concerned at the idea that guidance by teachers will enhance pupils’ choices. There are several things wrong with that. First, teachers may not want to move into that field. Secondly, trade unions would be concerned about it. Thirdly, what do we do if a teacher makes the wrong choice or gives the wrong information?

Underachievement begins at pre-school age. We talk continually about the problems in post-primary education, but they exist because nothing is done earlier. There are examples of how schools have tried to alleviate those problems. Several schools in the Greater Shankill area decided to do away with the curriculum for primary 1 and use the Scandinavian model. However, it will take a while for the results of that to be seen. We cannot tackle underachievement only in so-called sink schools. We must tackle the problem before children go to primary school.

It is too late to tackle underachievement at the post- primary stage. It must be done earlier. Secondary school teachers believe that they do not get the finished product. They get a child who, at the age of 11, has the reading ability of a nine-year-old. Primary school principals tell us that children from nursery school are not ready to go to school and are not ready to learn. Unless we listen to those views and develop a system that will get children ready for school, we will not get to the nub of the problem.

With regard to teaching staff, the report states that the value of teachers should be recognised. We should, however, also recognise the failures of teachers. We should look at how we can develop a fast track to get failing teachers out of the system. That will cost money, but it must be done. Most MLAs, and anyone who has ever been on a board of governors, will recognise that there are failing teachers and that something must be done about that. Is the money there to do that?

I decided not to move my recent motion on the threshold assessment because the Minister was not available. That was unfortunate, but I recognised the reasons why he was not here. The threshold assessment in Northern Ireland does not set a positive tone. It discriminates against young teachers, as well as against principals. We must correct that situation.

Recommendation 6.2.3 implies that a transfer profile will measure only what the child can do. If that is the case, how will we measure, for example, a child with a swimming commendation against a child who is an Irish dancing champion? How can we ensure equality? We cannot say that one is less valuable than the other. Who will decide which is most valuable? We must address such issues.

I agree that the vocational curriculum should be regarded as having the same worth as the academic curriculum. However, it is difficult to convince parents of that. How do we persuade parents of the value of a vocational course for their child? People have suggested the establishment of centres of excellence. That is probably the way in which we will go forward. Students will move around a campus. They will go to it because it is good for sport or information technology, for example.

There is a lovely word in all of this — "creativity". It is lovely no matter what it is applied to. It can be applied to anything — even to sport, whether football or any other sport. However, I have always found the word hard to define. I would like the Education Committee to define that word. Perhaps the Committee will be able to do that as matters unfold.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

We await the outcome of the Burns review body on Wednesday, and that needs to be borne in mind during today’s debate. It might have been better to discuss both reports together. Nonetheless, it is good to see the cross-community work of the Committee. I am not a member of the Education Committee, but I realise that it must have taken a lot of work to reach agreement on some of the recommendations. However, having gone through the review process, it would have been surprising if we had not heard some of the recommendations that have come forward, such as the abolition of the transfer test.

It is good to see recommendation 6.1.9, which emphasises that any changes should not encourage the development of a sizeable independent sector. That was a major concern during the discussions about the review. We must be careful that the conclusions in the Burns review body report do not lead to an increase in the independent sector, with people opting out.

For the first time, Northern Ireland has an opportunity to tackle the education system, particularly as we now know what is needed with regard to the curriculum. We are talking about devising a system that is moving towards the year 2020. An overhaul of the education system is needed — we are not tinkering with the margins any more. Prof Gallagher, in his report, referred constantly to the long tail of underachievement. The only way to tackle that is to overhaul the system. It is good that we now have the opportunity to do that. Unless we examine the structure of the current system and attempt to make some major structural changes, we will miss this opportunity.

The huge need for an inclusive, comprehensive and integrated system was put on the record in an earlier debate in the Chamber. I am delighted by the Northern Eastern Education and Library Board’s thoughtful submission to the Committee, detailed in volume 3 of the report. The board wanted matters put on record, and today is a good opportunity to do so. Paragraph 7.7 on page 102 states:

"The Board would also place on record the opportunity afforded by the present Review to undertake a strategic and radical examination of educational provision throughout the province. The opportunity exists in consultation with other providers to create a system which meets the needs of a pluralist society through the establishment of a genuinely comprehensive and inclusive education system, an opportunity which may not arise again for many decades."

The report goes on:

"The Board would ask decision-makers to give this matter serious consideration if it is proposed to undertake a radical review of existing provision. Such a model would have much to commend it in terms of contributing to an inclusive society and it is the model that would make most effective use of resources."

The board then makes a very interesting point:

"A starting point could be to have a fully integrated, non segregated schooling system for 16-18 year olds."

Clearly that type of system exists at age 18. Students progress to a fully integrated, non-segregated system of further and higher education. The board sees such a system as a starting point.

I take the point that there are different interpretations of the timescale of phases. However, it seems realistic to suggest that changes should be implemented within two or three years of the Burns review body’s report being published. If changes are made, we must have a huge campaign of education and raising awareness among parents about what those changes will entail. Scotland made changes and did not look back. I understand that more Scottish children, right across society, are going to universities as a consequence of the creation of a pluralist and comprehensive system of education.

The system here is not working at the moment. As was stated by Prof Gallagher and others the assessment tail is wagging the curriculum dog. It should not be that way.

Mr McHugh mentioned John Gardiner’s research into multiple intelligences, which are not taken account of in the transfer test. It will be interesting to see what replaces the transfer test. I was a teacher for many years. Higher education moved away from tests at the end of final year towards a system of accreditation over three years. The system of course assessments and inbuilt work with the students to improve their performance was a system that the students much preferred, rather than a test at a particular time that was based more on memory than on knowledge. That is the test that will be set now as we move forward.

I was concerned about the recommendations on the curriculum in the report. The Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment is undertaking a curriculum review, and it will be interesting to see the outcome of that. Recommendation 6.3.2 mentions the type of curriculum that could be followed up to the age of 13 or 14. It specifies that it would probably include, but not be confined to:

"English, Mathematics, Sciences, at least one additional Language, Humanities, Personal Development, Physical Education and ICT."

One of the criticisms that came from schools, and from many principals, was that education should be an enjoyable experience. I have children, and I know that one of the subjects that they most enjoy is drama. It is sad to see that it is not highlighted. Billy Hutchinson referred to creativity. Children often find themselves confined in classrooms at a very early age, particularly in this country where, at the age of four, they start in huge classes of 30 pupils. They rarely have the opportunity to be creative themselves. Since most of the post-primary principals pointed out that learning should be enjoyable, it seems rather disappointing that we have not included subjects such as music and drama — indeed, the arts as we know it. Over and over again the criticism is made that these are the first subjects to be cut when we curtail the curriculum. I am a little concerned that they have been narrowed — indeed, those subjects seem to have disappeared from the recommendations.

It is good to see that the report flags up exploration of collaborative arrangements between schools. I certainly hope that we do not follow the line that Billy Hutchinson took earlier as regards the creation of specialist schools. As a parent myself, I do not look forward to a future where I may be travelling huge distances between one school and another depending on my children’s specialities. I am sure that others in the Chamber will agree with me. It is possible for us to have inclusive schools, providing a broad curriculum up to 13 or 14 years of age. After that there may be specialities according to subject, but I certainly would not want to see sports cut out of a curriculum for those children doing academic or vocational subjects. That is why this recommendation is important. It suggests collaborative arrangements between schools and other institutions to create the mixes that students favour.

The report also moots collaboration between further and higher education and schools, which is often missing at present. Last week we discussed the report from the Committee for Employment and Learning, which pointed out the need for universities and colleges in Northern Ireland to do more outreach work, particularly where they have an underrepresentation of students in higher and further education. That work needs to start if we are going to make changes. It is clear that, in the past, fewer students moved from secondary education into further and higher education, and this is an obvious opportunity to change that.

One of the advantages of the Committee’s report was that it called on those giving evidence to carry out some work with young people. Again, Billy Hutchinson made the point that perhaps not enough evidence was taken from the Youth Service. I noted that the Belfast Education and Library Board did gather the views of the Youth Service. In a range of youth clubs, 1,131 young people in total were asked a range of questions about the current system. Eighty per cent answered that they would abolish the transfer test now; 8% said they would retain it; and 10% said they would retain it, but for older children. It was interesting to hear what a sample of over 1,000young people had to say about the system. Indeed, the young citizens’ jury was an interesting way of gathering evidence. We have clearly engaged young people in Northern Ireland and gathered their views. It was interesting to find some of this evidence in the generous appendices to the report.

In conclusion, it is wonderful for all of us to say that we were part of this debate. Clearly, major changes will now be made, but the most important thing is to include teachers in these changes. At present they seem to be exceptionally demoralised by the wait for change, particularly in the light of current community relations’ difficulties. I am concerned that we are not in a position to provide the kind of safety and security that children have a right to, both outside and inside the school. That point is missing from this report.

We talk about education for the new economic society. We talk about it as regards ethos and values, but education in a peaceful and stable society is one of the most important parts of a values system. However, the report does not concentrate on that point to any great extent. It makes no recommendations on the future of pupils with emotional or behavioural difficulties, something that teachers see as one of the major issues they have to deal with.

I am glad that many of the schools set aside for children who were rejected by mainstream schools have been evaluated. If we are to continue to nurture children, particularly those with emotional or behavioural difficulties, we have to address that matter in any new education structure.

The issue of teacher training must be addressed if the school system and the curriculum are to be restructured. What will happen to that, given the segregated nature of teacher training in Northern Ireland?

More research must be done in Northern Ireland in order to achieve the correct social mix. More collaborative arrangements must be put in place so that children can be educated together. Whilst we desperately need to start that now, we need to manage, plan and resource the change well.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

I welcome the fact that the report has been brought to the Assembly for consideration. It is a weighty report, and it is the result of many hours of intensive Committee meetings, written submissions, focus group briefings, field visits and commissioned research.

I thank the key witnesses, including the main education bodies, teacher and employer organisations, and interested bodies, who added a new dimension of analysis to our deliberations and discussions and aided the Committee in its quest for clarity. Furthermore, I acknowledge the hard work of the Committee Clerks, the members and the Chairperson, Mr Danny Kennedy, who treated the review with the sensitivity and professionalism it deserves.

It has been said that it is more than 50 years since the education acts of 1944 and 1947 came into force. The fact that so many facets remain central to our present system is a testimony to the vision of the architects of that legislation. However, it is obvious that the ever- increasing demands of a fast-moving modern society are not being fully met by the bolt-on and ill-considered solutions that epitomised the era of direct rule.

The report’s findings and recommendations are based on an honest attempt by parties holding different views to find a common focus through which they can address the challenges of the new century. The Committee did not want to replicate the review body on post-primary education’s consultation exercise, but it believed that it had a responsibility to give the fundamental issues the due time and consideration they deserve.

Many of the report’s conclusions and recommendations are worthy of further and detailed consideration. The recommendations are not intended to be a blueprint for the future structure of our education system. However, they include several key principles that must underpin any educational developments in Northern Ireland.

These key principles and recommendations sit very comfortably with the Ulster Unionist Party’s response to the review on post-primary education entitled ‘Excellence, Diversity and Choice’, which was published early in the year. The document contained the main educational concerns and aspirations of the community.

I draw Members’ attention to the Committee report’s findings in three major areas. First, whether one likes it or not, the much maligned transfer procedure has been central to the current dissatisfaction. The Committee’s recommendation to the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) that it should undertake improvements in a limited timescale is to be welcomed as an interim response. We have heard about the difficulties with timetables and the definition between current grades. Those areas need to be dealt with immediately.

In the longer term, which the Committee has defined as in the next three years — it has wisely designed a timescale — there should be a transfer profile incorporating current pupil performance, pupil development over a period of time, parental wishes and, despite Billy Hutchinson’s recommendations, professional teacher guidance. All these must be fully discussed and tried. This approach appears to offer a more equitable and acceptable way forward than anything that we have had heretofore.

Secondly, the curriculum needs to change as part of any review of the post-primary education system. The recommendation of a core curriculum offered to all pupils up to the age of 14 has much to commend it as it would allow flexibility and enable pupils to sample a range of subjects before making choices which would reflect academic, technical and vocational strands. The rigid current "in school" approach should be replaced by a collaborative arrangement with other institutions to better advise potential choices by pupils. The Ulster Unionist Party looks forward to further debates centred upon that.

Thirdly, the principles that form the basis for the future education system must focus on the requirements of that system. Those referred to in paragraphs 6.1.1 to 6.1.9 of the report deserve careful consideration and should form the basis for discussion. My party regards several factors as critical to achieving educational excellence, and perhaps more than anything else the quality and commitment of our teaching staff are critical to that. We are fortunate to have a wealth of first-class teachers, and we are proud, as the entire House should be, of what has been achieved in the majority of schools. Yet we are not complacent; there is a clear need for improvement. Change must enable young people to maximise their potential and to ensure that we must retain what is best in the current system and allow no dilution of our renowned academic results.

Apart from the Army, education is the only organisation that conscripts its participants. This report signals a move away from conscription and curricular prescription toward choice — individual choice, parental choice, a choice of routes, the choice to switch between routes, to mix and match to reflect an individual’s interests, skills and personal objectives. That alone would release much untapped educational energy.

Disaffected post-primary pupils play a large part in the tribulations of many secondary schools and feed the perceptions that make that type of education unattractive to certain echelons in society. They will be challenged as never before to become active participants in a meaningful educational experience. That segment of the school population largely contributes to our having only half the level of qualification levels of our major European competitors. It represents a sizeable slice of that 25% of the underperforming tail that we hear so much about.

My party feels that paragraphs 6.3.1 to 6.3.11 offer society an opportunity to address these problems in a structured way that will replace the "Band-Aid" approach that currently seeks to address underachievement and disaffection. I want to touch briefly on this. The nature and content of the curriculum are key. The core curriculum on offer up to 14 years of age should include English, maths, sciences, language, personal development, physical education, information and communications technology and the flexibility to meet individual needs and circumstances. Perhaps this is how to meet the creativity concerns of Billy Hutchinson and the other areas that were referred to by Monica McWilliams. There is no intention to exclude any of those aspects of education. It would not be a full education if they were excluded.

An opportunity to sample a range of subjects before deciding on choices is crucial to this change.

How many of us know of glaring examples of people locked into courses and systems that allow no flexibility and that cause them to drop out and fail to maximise their potential?

A relevant and broad skills-based curriculum should be encouraged as part of the Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment’s (CCEA) ongoing review. That must stretch and challenge pupils to maximise their potential. We do not want the lowest common denominator of a curriculum: it must stretch pupils right across the board.

A formal mechanism by which business and industry can inform curriculum developers and managers about changing skill requirements is long overdue. However, the fact that the Committee has referred to it is a welcome innovation that must be pursued quickly. Many Members have mentioned collaboration with other institutions. An opportunity now exists to develop natural integration among nearby institutions that might previously have interacted only with other establishments in their specific sector of education. That would have the potential to offer even wider curricular choices at certain localities and might be especially attractive in some rural settings. That would present a further opportunity to develop the cross-community contact that occurs naturally in further and higher education institutions.

We are acutely aware of the considerable implications for teacher training and in-service training provision, which include staffing, funding and course content. Those must be addressed as early as possible if the new programmes of study are to be in place ahead of any proposed changes. Many of the disasters of previous educational changes can be put down to the fact that they were ill-considered and ill-planned; we were always playing catch-up with teacher training, resources and persuading people that a project was worthy.

Education, as has been said, is a partnership of pupils, parents and teachers, and any change must enlist the active support of all three groups. The period after the Committee’s report and the findings of the Burns review, which is imminent, should be used to explain and explore the recommendations contained in both. I hope that, on the basis of those recommendations, we can move away from the emotional responses of recent times and enter an era informed by reasoned debate that will lead to rational solutions.

Finally, in supporting the report, my party is conscious that it will not embark on an exercise in social engineering. Rather, it will enter wholeheartedly into a genuine attempt to ensure equality of access, provision and opportunity to maximise the skills and talents of individuals, not as members of any class or tribe, but for the benefit of individuals and society at large.

Tommy Gallagher (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

My party has consistently opposed the present arrangements on the grounds that there have been far too many injustices and inequalities in the system. I welcome the report because it will help to promote debate, not so much on the injustices of the system, of which everyone is aware, but about how we change that system. It is clear that we need to replace the present system with a better one. We have very high standards in many schools, which nobody can overlook. Rather than dismantle the present system, a sound education system for the future should be based on an evolving version of it. That would be in the best interests of all children and all sectors.

One of the report’s recommendation is that the current tests should cease as soon as possible. Members may be aware that questions are being asked about when the tests will come to an end. Many people want to know what circumstances will prevail at the time of transfer for children who are now eight, nine and ten years old.

There have been suggestions that the CCEA should introduce some improvements while we are in a period of change. Nobody would disagree with that. However, I want to sound a note of caution. In the past, so-called improvements were introduced which many educationalists would argue, served only to make the operation of the system worse than it had been.

One suggestion that enjoys some currency at the moment is that the tests should be moved back into the second term of the school year; they currently take place around eight weeks into the first term. To move the tests further into the school year would prolong the agony for children, teachers and parents. I welcome suggestions to improve the tests, but we should hear about them before they are introduced. They should be debated, and the teaching profession should be consulted in detail.

The report contains several recommendations on changing the system. Those recommendations will help to promote a challenging debate on why changes are needed, and on what kind of system is needed to prepare young people for the future and for earning a living in the twenty-first century. It is important that education prepares young people to contribute to the local economy and enables them to compete in the global economy.

The report refers to the fact that, under the present arrangements, too many children’s curriculum experiences are limited. That is especially true for those from socially-deprived backgrounds. As I said at the outset, high standards across the education spectrum are important. However, we must look at what we are preparing children for. In a modern society, everyone must have ample opportunity to acquire a range of skills, be they basic skills, key skills, communication skills, literacy and numeracy skills, or information and communication technology skills. In future, employees will need to be adaptable.

Many challenges lie ahead, but few are greater than devising a system in which academic education, although remaining important, is accorded equal status with vocational education. The report states that they should be accorded parity of esteem.

The report will assist the debate and discussion of the issues. I have mentioned some of the challenges, but a stark fact should be kept in mind as we look at the background against which we will be working. There are 133,000 students in post-primary education today. In 25 years, that number will be reduced to 110,000. The scenario that we face will also test our imagination. To reiterate, if we adopt a method based on retaining all that is best and adapting what currently exists, rather than dismantling it, we shall be able to create a more useful and successful system that will include, where demand for it exists, local solutions.

Local solutions operate in some parts of Northern Ireland; for example, in all-ability schools. I do not make claims about the merits of any of those — some seem to work well, and others need improvement. However, in our vision of the way forward, issues on which there is strong agreement between the governors, teachers and parents of every school in an area should not be ignored.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I am the third non-member of the Committee for Education to speak. I speak on behalf of Mr McElduff — that is not an easy task, but I will do my best. He sent a letter of apology to the Chairperson to explain why he could not be present. Mr McElduff believes in local politics, therefore he is working in his locality this morning. I notice, however, that other Members with other functions are not here either.

Billy Hutchinson asked Mr Kennedy to explain "creativity". Some years ago, when I asked a similar question, I was told that creativity was a bit like sex appeal — if you had it you did not have to ask about it. After that, I stopped asking about it.

Billy Hutchinson (PUP, Belfast North)

People think that I have both.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Perhaps he does.

Many years ago, when Don Revie managed Leeds United, football was like geometry. It was very unattractive, because it was played within the tight parameters of parallelograms and triangles. The 11-plus and the education system have confined children and teachers to such narrow parameters as part of a thought-out process. That has denied them the opportunity to be creative, in the same way as footballers were restricted.

Billy Hutchinson (PUP, Belfast North)

Was it not successful?

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It was not successful. Under the present education system, children are not allowed to develop their talents.

I meet many primary and secondary school teachers. At the moment, I have never met so many who are seeking early retirement. They want out because it is horrendous; it is difficult for them to express themselves in the system. Young, talented and able teachers, at primary and secondary level, are attempting to leave that system.

Fairness, social inclusivity, pluralism, equality and justice should underline our education system. Education is at the very foundation of our society. Cognisance should be taken from the fact that an education system is an integral part of our society and of the way that society develops.

I do not wish to make a political point, but in his book, ‘The Murder Machine’, Padraig Pearse described the education system as it existed throughout the island of Ireland before partition. It seems that children were put on a conveyor belt at one end and came out at the other stereotyped, stamped and left with no real creativity or personality, apart from the ability to get a job in the Civil Service or as a teacher. That was because the education system was geared to particular jobs and to the tailoring of children and people for those jobs. There was no notion that the purpose of education was not only to prepare children and adults for work, but to prepare them for life and for their role in society. That getting away from the personal notion of an educational system has contributed to the breakdown of the fabric of society.

The 11-plus has created a two-tier education system. Mr McHugh and other Members have said that the creation of all-ability schools would provide the best avenue for equal access and equal opportunity. The Assembly has not looked at the fundamentals of education. However, it must examine education, root and branch, to see where it has gone wrong. It has gone wrong by failing to prepare children to become citizens of society.

Under the heading "Making a Difference" in the draft Programme for Government,

"high quality education to all, with equal access for all"

is stated as an aim of the Executive. The draft Programme for Government asserts that the Executive are committed to policies that actively promote equality of opportunity and adhere to international standards of human rights. Those who advocate the retention of selection see its survival and its singularity as a positive feature of education in the North of Ireland. The implication is that there is some form of excellence or wisdom peculiar and particular to our system that is worth preserving. However, its demise or its non-existence elsewhere indicates the enlightenment of those jurisdictions in which non- selective systems have worked.

I was surprised at Mr Gallagher’s remarks. He seemed to be singing from a different hymn sheet to that of Ms Lewsley and the rest of his party. He appeared to be formulating the adaptation, rather than the total elimination, of the 11-plus system. Mr Gallagher appears to be at odds with the SDLP on that issue.

All the appropriate points have already been made. An education system should provide all children with equal opportunities to develop at their own pace and to avail themselves of the greatest possible breadth of curriculum choices. It should promote equality of teaching and learning in all schools. In particular, pupils of different ages, academic abilities and social backgrounds would benefit from sharing the same learning environment, as would their teachers.

The education system should recognise the full diversity of children’s needs and talents. Every child has a special need, which the present system ignores. Every school must endeavour to provide that space in which a child’s differing and changing needs can be met. As parents will tell you, the education system has failed to do that. It must be inclusive of all partners: parents, teachers, students, local communities, and the whole of society.

Sometimes politicians do not look much beyond the next election. That is particularly true when tackling the 11-plus and other issues that affect the lives of constituents. Politicians try to be all things to all men — or women — without looking beyond that election and having some vision about the society that they are trying to create. Politicians must give the lead, particularly in such fundamental areas as health and, particularly, education. Politicians should give the lead to ensure that we provide a system of education that is fair and that provides social inclusivity, pluralism, equality and justice.

Tom Hamilton (UUP, Strangford)

I support the motion.

Mr Kennedy referred to the debate as being one of the most important that the Assembly has so far undertaken. He is correct. With that in mind, I wish to register a great deal of disappointment that once again the DUP Members have absented themselves. They are doing the children of Northern Ireland no favours by engaging in the type of political stunt that we witnessed this morning.

One of the main reasons that I so readily endorse the report is that it so closely mirrors my party’s submission to the Burns review of post-primary education. The key elements of my party’s submission — excellence, diversity and choice — underpin the report. Both papers reflect the need to preserve all that is good in our current system, including those elements that have, across the years, resulted in Northern Ireland producing a consistently higher success rate than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That fact is borne out on page 10 of the report, in which reference is made to the increased levels of participation in higher education by young people from traditional working-class backgrounds in comparison to their counterparts in England, Scotland and Wales.

There is an equal need to address those areas in which improvement may be made. To strive for an educational system that provides excellence for all is remarkable, as is the inclusion of sections that deal with parity of esteem, parental choice coupled with professional guidance from teachers, flexibility in the curriculum, and the requirement for children to be able to transfer more easily between different sectors in the post-primary system. All those essentials of my party’s submission are addressed and reflected throughout the Committee for Education’s recommendations, and I welcome that.

Coming in advance of the Burns report, it is right and fitting that the Assembly’s Committee for Education should not be taking a hard or fast stand on the issues that surround the transfer procedure. Instead, it recommends the adoption of a series of principles and required outcomes against which the Burns report can be judged and appraised. In particular, I am pleased to note that the Committee, although suggesting its possible combination with other assessment methods, is not ruling out the idea of continuing to use some method of final standardised central testing. That is important.

Many in the House advocate continuous assessment. As a teacher, I can tell you that those results are by no means foolproof, any more than is the result of a transfer test. The results of continuous assessment can be backed up by the results of a final standardised test. Similarly, continuous assessment can be used as a method to validate the result of the standardised test. One can therefore act as a back up to the other. If that system were adopted, it would be a more reliable indicator than reliance on just the one method.

There are other reasons why I hold those views. However, to be honest, it would take about an hour and a half to explain them. Not even your patience, Mr Deputy Speaker, never mind that of the other Members, would stretch that far. Whatever outcome is adopted to decide the issue of transfer into post-primary education, I welcome the recommendation that it be phased in over time, and that it be properly trialled and tested. I taught for 25 years, and in that time I experienced attempts at educational reform under direct rule.

The method used was to create the reforms before starting to train the teachers to carry them out. That often resulted in little more than a shambles; after training, teachers would often attempt to implement new methods, only to have their instructions altered because they had proved ineffective. As a result of that, teachers often had to make massive alterations, at an advanced stage of a course, which caused considerable disruption not only to themselves, but, more importantly, to the education of their pupils.

There is a widespread acceptance that the present transfer arrangements are unsatisfactory and in need of alteration. The Assembly must get it right, so the changes, which will come, will work in practice when they are implemented. Trials, along with a phased and considered plan of implementation, will help to achieve that.

My party and I wish to see a transfer procedure in Northern Ireland that opens up opportunities, rather than closes them down. Such systems exist in other countries, and there is no reason why they cannot exist in Northern Ireland. The Committee for Education’s report brings that possibility closer, and I urge Members to support it.

John Fee (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I commend the report to the Assembly. I missed some of the debate, because, I must confess, I am one of the Members who metaphorically "jukes behind the bicycle sheds" from time to time. However, I understood the drift of the debate and will try not to repeat points already made.

We were in fraught and emotional circumstances 18 months ago. Many Members will have attended public meetings at which one section of parents and teachers was demanding that the 11-plus go. There were raw, emotional debates about the effect of the transfer test system on young children. That forthright campaign led to another and equally forthright crusade that was spurred on by a fear on the part of many educators and boards of governors that we would rush to destroy the best of education in Northern Ireland or that we would act rashly.

The report demonstrates that, in that emotion- charged debate, we have been able to marshall rational arguments by and on behalf of parents, teachers, pupils, boards of governors, those transferring and others to produce a coherent and rational set of recommendations.

The three reviews that are currently under way — the formula-funding review, the curriculum review and the review of post-primary education — constitute the most fundamental analysis of the education system in Northern Ireland. For the first time in over 50 years the selection procedure has been examined. It is the first time that anyone in Northern Ireland has been properly consulted about the impact of the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989. When Brian Mawhinney introduced the Education Reform Act 1988, followed by the 1989 Order, every educational union, major church, political party and parents’ group in Northern Ireland opposed it. We are now giving those people their first say on how education should be run and administered here.

At one point, many believed that the debate would deteriorate into a situation of grammar schools versus secondary schools, church versus state, one sector versus another, and, in many cases, one parent against another.

If we have learnt no other lesson, we have learnt that we can take on the most contentious issues, that we can provide a consultation exercise that is broadly engaged by the entire community and that the Assembly is a forum that can generate that type of political development.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair)

I would like to highlight one or two of the report’s recommendations. First, the education system must:

"offer pupils the opportunity to develop to their fullest potential — intellectually, physically, spiritually, socially and creatively".

The system must be:

"conscious of the particular needs, experiences and aspirations of all young people of varying socio-economic, religious and cultural backgrounds".

That says clearly that any new system must be based entirely on the needs of the individual child, and, as far as is possible, it must be customised for the child. That important statement must be highlighted.

Secondly, recommendation 6.1.2 says that:

"Any reforms to the current education system should be phased in over a period of time and should involve key groups — teachers, Governors, parents, pupils and other interested bodies and groups."

One of the biggest grievances of the last 20 or 30 years is that the educators — those delivering the service to our children — have been the last people to be consulted, trained, given resources and tooled up for the job. With this report, we are committing ourselves to a process that is inclusive and that goes at a pace that allows everyone to keep up.

The third great fear that was generated at the beginning of this debate was that there was some sort of tacit conspiracy to do away with grammar schools or to diminish the high standards of education that have been achieved in Northern Ireland. The report clearly states that those standards must be maintained, while vigorous action must be taken to tackle the perceived tail of underachievement. It could not be more explicit. We want to improve what exists, not destroy it. We want to expand accessibility to the best education to all children and not, in any sense, inhibit the high achievers in our society.

In case there is any misunderstanding — Mr John Kelly seems to have left the room, but I am sure his Colleague will pass this on — Members should read my lips: the 11-plus must go. That is, has been and will remain the SDLP’s policy, and it is the policy of most of the parties in the Assembly. However, that is the easy bit. The hard bit is contained in the report — and, presumably, it will be in the report of the Burns review, which will be published this week — which is how to create a better system.

The report is very clear. Paragraph 6.2.2 says that:

"The current tests should cease to be administered from such future date as is feasible to implement."

The 11-plus must go; it is as simple as that.

I commend to the Assembly one other item from the report that has not been discussed in any detail. A transfer profile should be created for each child so that every aspect of the child’s potential can be measured over a sustained period, with input coming not only from tests but also from continuous assessment. Assessment should not be carried out through a two-hour snapshot of how the child performs. It should take into account how a child develops and performs over a long time. Input should be given by teachers, school administrators and parents. That would be an enormous, radical stride forward for our education system.

Unfortunately the Minister is not present, but we recognise that, some time ago, he committed himself to doing away with the current selection procedure, and we welcome that. By presenting this report, we are providing him with the political climate in which he can say that there is widespread support for fundamental reform. I ask him to get on with it as quickly as possible.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I want to make a brief contribution to this important debate. As a former teacher, I have a great deal of interest in the subject. The Education (Northern Ireland) Act 1947 was an important Act of its time and provided the opportunity for many people, particularly from working-class backgrounds, to avail of the benefits of a grammar-school education and then, more importantly, to move on to tertiary education, particularly university. That was important. There is no doubt that the 1947 Act created a new society in Northern Ireland. Change began in this society in the 1960s and the 1970s. That change, and particularly the political change, would not have come about had it not been for the 1947 Act.

The Act was legislation of its time, but things have moved forward. Working for a number of years in a secondary school, I saw the divisiveness of a bipartite education system. Many of my pupils became very successful in their careers, whether they attended university or teacher training college or whether they moved into industry or business.

Things have changed. It is a great shame that the DUP had to pull off its stunt today. Education is one of the most important issues and responsibilities that the Assembly deals with. It shows that devolution can bring about change. That can be seen across the board in many of the Assembly’s areas of responsibility — we can bring about change.

Most of us agree that selection at age 11 is wrong. I welcome the fact that the report does not deal with educational structures but with principles. That is important. I congratulate the Committee for focusing on the principles. Like most Members, I am looking forward to the publication of Gerry Burns’s report on Wednesday. This debate is a worthwhile preamble to that.

Changes in post-primary education can provide more opportunities to develop integrated education in Northern Ireland. There are various ways to do that. I have made no secret that I strongly believe in the development of a Dickson-type plan for education where the first three years are all-ability. I hope that pupils from across the communities in Northern Ireland will be educated together. That is an important opportunity that is provided by the changes.

The report refers to parental choice. Parental choice is an absolute fallacy — it does not exist. Over the years many of my constituents have wanted to send their children to schools that were perceived as integrated in nature, if not in name.

They were deprived of that opportunity because the Department insisted that their children went either to a Catholic grammar school or to one of the state, or private, grammar schools closest to where they lived.

Change will come whether we like it or not. However, it is important that we get it right, and that is why the principle of phasing-in, put forward by the Committee, is important. Equally important is the need to make available the resources required to bring about the necessary change. My favoured option will cost money. As someone who believes strongly in the development of educational facilities in Northern Ireland I strongly believe that the Assembly should have tax-varying and tax-raising powers in line with those of the Scottish Parliament. Unless we provide such a facility I see major problems in accruing the funding necessary to bring about the change.

I welcome the report and congratulate the Chairperson, the Committee and the Clerk in producing it at a very important time. I look forward to its implementation and the change that all of us want to see.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I rise as the mother of a child who will do the 11-plus exam in three weeks time. I am in the thick of this subject, and I understand what it is all about as I have spent several months doing practice tests for the 11-plus. I will give Members some examples of the questions being asked. First, how many thousands are there in two million? Secondly, does a snake have a backbone?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

Does the Women’s Coalition have a backbone?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I avoided referring to anyone in the House when I asked that question.

It is very important that people appreciate what children have to go through in the 11-plus. One wonderful example was the question "This watch has no batteries: what do you do to make it go?" My son said "Put in some batteries". That was the wrong answer. Simple logic was not correct. The answer was "Wind it up".

Many Members will appreciate the question in which my son had to write the opposite of a word by using a prefix such as "im-", "ir-", "dis-" or "anti-". One of the words given was "agreement". My son wrote "anti- agreement", and he was marked wrong. His teacher said "You mustn’t bring politics into this class. It is disagreement, not anti-agreement". Such an argument is illogical? It is unfair to put kids — who try their best — through a system that confines them to a narrow "Yes", "No", or "I don’t know" and does not allow for creativity.

Therefore I commend paragraph 6.2.2 of the report, which states that:

"the current test should cease to be administered".

It is a pity that it did not happen today, thus preventing my son from having to go through that trauma in three weeks’ time. It is to be hoped that it will happen as soon as possible to prevent other children having to go through that sort of test and trauma.

I am sorry that the Committee did not go further. The constraints of trying to achieve cross-community support meant that there was a certain inability to take a stance on the options, in one direction or another, but I am glad that we got this far. I am pleased that foreign languages are listed as playing an important part in the early years of the curriculum. It is essential that children learn a second or third language at an early stage.

Integrated education is not mentioned enough in the report. The Women’s Coalition believes wholeheartedly that education must play a part in healing the divisions in our community. It believes that a more just, appropriate and inclusive education system must be devised. I am sorry that the report does not go into that in more detail. The only way to promote a peaceful community is for children to experience the other side as human beings capable of friendships and understanding. It can be achieved only by the integration of children of all abilities and religions and, indeed, those who have other values or no religion. The education system must incorporate and express respect for all children and nourish them equally. The need for teacher training in integrated education, which is sadly lacking in this society, should also be included. Integration must become a matter of public policy.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

When the Member talks about integrated education, does she mean the bringing together of all children from all communities in one school system, or is she talking about a specific, contrived system that sets itself apart from existing systems and further dilutes the opportunity to bring all children together? Earlier I spoke about bringing post-16 children together. There are opportunities to do that, but I did not mean in a separate system; I meant within the existing framework.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

There seems to be an implied criticism of the integrated education sector there. I hope not. [Interruption] I hear the Member saying "No."

I am promoting the integrated education system that now educates 6% of children in Northern Ireland. It is a pure integrated education system that brings Catholics, Protestants and others together in integrated schools that Members know well — Lagan College, Hazelwood College, Strangford College. Those schools provide a model that is important in Northern Ireland. We do not need to build schools on greenfield sites; existing schools can transform themselves to gain integrated status. Integration is about respecting each other and learning about each other’s communities, religions and cultures. It is about teachers and boards of governors being integrated.

If resources were spent wisely, they would create further community cohesion, rather than pandering to the self-interest of any particular sector. While the Women’s Coalition respects and accepts the rights of parents and children to choose, it believes that there is enough evidence to show that many people in Northern Ireland, if they had real choices, would choose integrated education — that is vital.

The Women’s Coalition thinks — and the Education Committee’s report endorses this — that the creation of a unified, cohesive model is entirely feasible and that there is enough expertise and creative thinking in educational circles to do it.

That model will not only embrace the principles endorsed by the Committee and contained in many of the submissions, including our own, to this report and the Burns review, but — given the declining number of children in Northern Ireland — will also create a system that will begin to unify and heal and allow all children to fulfil their potential. Our argument does not compromise the standards of excellence on which we all agree. Our model — an integrated, comprehensive school system — recognises cultural diversity and religious or philosophical value systems; allows for the nurturing of those things without detriment to other priorities; encourages inclusion and parity of esteem for different cultures and languages; and widens opportunity for all, regardless of background.

Eamonn ONeill (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I applaud the Committee for the report and for the hard work that was put into it. It was an excellent exercise, which has opened up a series of important educational issues and amassed an impressive body of opinion. When I think about education, I return to my student days and the concept of equality of opportunity. That is still a pertinent concept; the important thing is not only equality of access, but equality of opportunity. The system must ensure that all children have the same opportunities.

The report, rightly, refers to underachievement and the consequent skills shortage. In the minutes of evidence there is reference to the growth in grammar school numbers from 27% to 35% of the pupil cohort. The report suggests that there are literacy and numeracy problems in that sector for the first time.

Open enrolment had a major impact on the post- primary sector. Members will recall that the former chief inspector of schools, Mr Ivan Wallace, described it as a process of bringing market forces into education. Children and parents were to be treated as customers, and the concept of service was lost. Such a policy is inappropriate in education. Many Members will also have experience of market forces through their membership of local councils. Recently an academic asked whether the same concept would be applied to the police. I could imagine Chris Patten trying to do that. Should we call the boys that the police arrest "customers"? Should the police say "I hope that you have a nice stay in your three-star cell tonight, sir"? There is a limit to how far business notions can be applied to certain areas, particularly public services. The Committee must ensure that that is better balanced with the other work that is being done, such as the report from the Burns review body, in order to take the pressure off schools.

The most valuable recommendation is the abolition of the 11-plus examination. The SDLP has been calling for that since its inception in 1969 — the issue was raised at the first conference. The report recommends that the 11-plus be replaced by a transfer profile. The Committee says that more work must be done on that, and it is important for us to figure out how that system will work.

It is also important to have a complete view of a pupil’s ability and performance. However, the transfer test should not be substituted. A non-selective system should be just that, but by replacing the 11-plus would we not be replicating the initial problem? In that respect I am a little critical of the report’s position. The Committee’s idea could be open to abuse, and it needs to be monitored carefully.

Primary school principals used to have a slight degree of latitude in grading pupils. I heard many stories of headmasters returning home to find televisions and other nice presents, which had been left by expectant parents. Can you imagine the parental pressure on the principal and the staff during the preparation of the profile? I strongly argue that while the idea has perhaps not yet been fully thought out, it needs to be monitored carefully by the Committee.

In addition, will the transfer profile help to eradicate the distortion of the primary 6 and primary 7 curriculum? Is there not a danger that that will become profile time, rather than curriculum time? That is a second reason to be careful.

The concept of the "neighbourhood school" did not receive the justice that the Committee might have given it. We do much damage to the local community by taking many of the best 11-year-old youngsters 20 or 30 miles away from their community to educate them with children who have travelled similar distances. Thus, they begin the early process of emigration from their local town or area. That process continues when they go on to higher education.

We must not lose sight of the strong argument for having a school at the heart of a community. I hope that we can return to those values, if not for any other reason than an economic one — although there are many social and community reasons. A school in the heart of the community would help to keep those with leadership potential in the community in which they were born and reared, and to which they could continue to contribute.

I am a long-time supporter of vocational education, and I remember the days when one felt like a missionary when trying to encourage people to look at that form of education. I strongly welcome the recognition that it is given and the fact that it is no longer marginalised. Even so, it would have been nice if vocational education had been clearly referred to in the recommendations. However, I have enough conviction in the bulk of the report to believe that that key component will not be missed.

Point 6.1.8 has already been referred to my Colleagues on both sides. It states that:

"the commitment and contribution of all teaching staff would be central to the implementation programme."

That is a real truism. In the last 15 to 20 years no other profession has had to undergo and suffer as many changes to its professional work as much as teachers have done.

It really is remarkable how so many people have endured and emerged still sane.

I hope that when these worthwhile recommendations begin to be implemented, teachers will be given time for training and time to absorb them at a pace that does not affect the welfare of the children and the health of the teaching profession. It is no secret. The teaching profession’s early retirement rate over the last number of years and the waiting lists for replacements show that it is difficult. People are not taking teaching on as enthusiastically as before, and there is a serious problem. We need to be careful how we go about implementing these recommendations. That is a concern I have, and I hope the Committee will take it on board.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

I will start by speaking as Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning. That Committee will welcome this report, and I congratulate all involved in its production. Obviously, it will have to be considered alongside the Burns inquiry report that will come out later this week, but the significant thing is that it emerges from a process that is democratically accountable.

From the perspective of the Committee for Employment and Learning, there is one significant aspect. Once the 11-to-16-year-old age group is better dealt with, it will be possible to make certain changes that are necessary for education in the older 16 to 19 age group. There will be implications for the future of further education colleges, and, indeed, curriculum reform was referred to in the report from my Committee published a week ago. With certain subjects at A level, notably mathematics, physics and chemistry, there has been a relative decline — in some cases an absolute decline — in the numbers of young people taking those subjects. I am pleased to see that some of the recommendations here hint at approaches to dealing with this.

The report seems to be recommending the retention of what is good while raising standards in what statisticians call "the long tail of lower performance". Undoubtedly that is quite sound, and there is resonance with some issues that have emerged in the Department for Employment and Learning — for example, about 25% of adults here have the lowest measured level of literacy and numeracy. We note that compared to the German and other continental European economies there is a shortfall in the level of qualification of our workforce. Significantly, that does not occur so much at degree level as at apprenticeship, sub-degree, diploma and HND and HNC level, which hints at what may be happening in secondary schools relative to grammar schools.

I will now speak briefly as an MLA. As the report suggests, it is probably right that the current transfer procedure is not sustainable. It is pleasing that the Committee has proposed both short-term and longer-term reform of it. The report is valuable in helping us to think about selection and selectivity. Perhaps the problem is not so much selectivity per se, but the grounds on which selection is made. The Committee rightly looked at practice in Great Britain and other parts of western Europe. However, if time and resources had allowed, it should have considered some of the interesting developments in American schools over the last decade or so.

It is possible to talk about an Anglo-American approach, as exemplified by the city technology colleges in English inner cities and by the so-called charter schools and magnet schools in American inner cities. These have introduced school reform amid massive social problems and massive social division, so they are not dissimilar to some schools in Belfast.

The Anglo-American approach allows schools to specialise, and diversity is encouraged rather than curbed. Such schools select their pupils on a range of criteria, not just on academic ability and aptitude.

Mr Billy Hutchinson spoke of schools that specialise in sport, IT, music and other subjects. Northern Ireland can learn from the experiences of English and American cities. As Prime Minister Tony Blair said on 8 September 2000:

"We now have the end of a one size fits all mentality in schools."

I am pleased that the Committee has looked at the German example, because the former West Germany in particular is an interesting social laboratory in that respect. Some German Länder have comprehensives, some have selectivity based on parental choice and some have selectivity based on examinations.

Many parts of Germany seem to have succeeded in maintaining a diversity of school types after the age of 11 by keeping a model that approaches parity of esteem: they have the academic Gymnasien and the vocational Realschulen.

It is a very instructive example for Northern Ireland, and one that my own party noted in its policy position, which we offered to the Burns review. As policies develop, we must avoid a "Rip van Winkle" approach; we must not pretend that we fell asleep in 1969 or 1972 and that we can simply apply the policies of that time and forget that the world has moved on.

There was an unholy alliance in the late 1960s and early 1970s between the Labour Education Secretary, Tony Crosland, who went to a public school, and, later, the Conservative Education Secretary, Margaret Thatcher, who attended Grantham Grammar School, I believe. Together they closed down most of England’s grammar schools.

Significantly, Northern Ireland’s examination results have improved relative to England’s since 1971, and the gap is widening. That is no accident; it corresponds to the introduction of that great, or perhaps infamous, experiment of comprehensive education in England. It is an experiment, the Prime Minister has hinted, that is over and that has failed.

The teaching integrated mathematics and science (TIMS) studies show that the teaching of these subjects has deteriorated in Scottish comprehensives. On the whole, I warmly welcome the report. It dovetails with the report by the Department for Employment and Learning. I urge the House to support the motion.

Joan Carson (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I support the motion. Many Members have spoken about the importance of the debate. However, it is disappointing to see that many parties have absented themselves. We can see the importance that they put on the debate.

I compliment the Chairperson and members of the Committee for Education on their stamina in collecting such a volume of information and views on post-primary education. One Committee member rightly said that you would almost need an education to follow the report. It was an impressive undertaking. Committee members come from different school backgrounds and allegiances, and it is to their credit that they got the report together. I commend them for that. I also compliment the Committee Chairperson’s initiative on having the Stationery Office capture almost 600 pages of minutes and papers on a CD- ROM. How does one take in such a volume of information?

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

Do your homework.

Joan Carson (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

In two days?

Reference to the contributions that would be necessary from teachers has not been given the priority that I think essential. Any major changes in the curriculum involving mixed-ability classes will impose demands on teachers, who will be required to cover a broad range of abilities. That is a tremendous demand on the teaching profession.

The report is wide ranging, but there appear to be several contradictions. For example, paragraph 4.4.3 states

"the need for fewer management teams",

while paragraph 4.5.3 states

"the possibility that more management teams may be required".

It is a small point.

Furthermore, paragraph 6.3.2 states:

"A core curriculum should be offered",

and a list of subject areas is given. However, paragraph 6.3.6 states:

"A broad ‘skills-based’ curriculum should be implemented".

Perhaps there is no contradiction, but it is a bit confusing.

Paragraph 6.3.2 states that the core curriculum should include

"at least one additional Language" .

Perhaps we could take on board the Scottish secondary school curriculum and stipulate that one modern European language be included.

The term "parity of esteem" figures prominently in the report. The expression is meaningless unless it clearly indicates the area being referred to. Is it parity of esteem between schools, pupils, subjects or awards?

Yesterday and last week I noted the excellent results recorded in a report in the ‘The Sunday Times’ on the top 25 voluntary, grammar, and independent schools in Northern Ireland. All of the schools must be congratulated. In my constituency, Enniskillen Collegiate Grammar School obtained equal fourth rank in the whole of the UK. That is my old school.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

It has obviously improved.

Joan Carson (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

It is well improved.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

They have done well.

Joan Carson (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

It may not be possible to draw exact parallels with the results in GB, but the GCSE figures in Northern Ireland are only bettered by six GB schools. The top 13 independent schools in Northern Ireland — with over 60% success rate in A levels — compare favourably with the upper 200 schools in GB.

Recommendation 6.1.9 states:

"Any changes introduced should not encourage the development of a sizeable independent sector."

In the light of the superb results that I have just mentioned, the independent sector will flourish if parents are dissatisfied with the proposed new system. That is their prerogative in this age of parental choice.

We have much to be proud of in our present system in Northern Ireland. The Ulster Unionist Party’s response to the review states clearly that a diversified post-primary school system is the right way to meet the varied needs of our children, and that the existence of a differentiated system has proved its value in producing good academic results.

In the words of the old cliché, we must ensure that in looking for change we do not throw the baby out with the bath water. I support the motion.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

At 3.30 pm we will break for Question Time.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I declare an interest in this debate as a parent governor of a primary school and as a parent of three young children who will leave primary school in the next five years.

This debate is important to myself, my constituents, and everyone in Northern Ireland. Obviously I want the best for my children and for all the children in Northern Ireland, irrespective of their particular ability. The transition between schools should be as smooth as possible.

I welcome the recommendation that the current selection procedure should be ended as soon as possible. I am aware of the variation in the degree of coaching that can occur between schools and out of schools, through tutors, et cetera. I do not want the education of my children to be unduly affected by the time taken up by artificial test papers. I want them to be educated for life, not for a transition exam.

As an engineer, I was always taught to examine the evidence and ensure that when I tackled a problem, I tackled the root cause. Some Members have been advocating a new comprehensive system for Northern Ireland, but I have not heard evidence that our current education structure is the root cause. We have high education standards in Northern Ireland, and those high standards must be maintained. However, we all must accept that there is a tail of underachievement, and that is where the focus of change must be. We must ensure that the young people who are being failed by our current system are given an opportunity and that they are switched on to education, not only in school, but also for life.

Those who have advocated change have not addressed the core problem of underachievement. They are advocating change, but there is no guarantee that their particular change will improve the current situation of underachievement. It could result in the high standards that have been achieved being lowered.

Twenty-four percent of adults — who have been through the education system — are failing to meet basic international standards on numeracy and literacy. That is a big problem. Forty-four percent of those currently unemployed have no formal education, and we must tackle that. Those who urge an all-in-one system have still to advise how that system will best suit our young people. There has been a lack of clarity in what has been advocated.

As a member of the Education and Learning Committee I welcome recommendation 6.3.4, which would widen subject choice beyond the academic to include vocational and technical subjects. I am pleased that the Committee has made that recommendation. It was contained in the Ulster Unionist document, ‘Excellence, Diversity and Choice’.

I also welcome recommendation 6.3.10, on improving linkages between schools and further education colleagues. During our recent inquiry, the Education and Learning Committee learnt that if we can make education more relevant to our young people, and particularly to those who are underachieving, they can become switched on to education and fully engaged in the learning process. In consultation with the Belfast Institute of Further and Higher Education and Bombardier Shorts, we learnt that by altering coursework to make it more interesting and appropriate, 100% success rates could be achieved in some engineering courses.

Secondly, pilot schemes in the north-west were, encouragingly, improved by the increased use of a vocational model in the final year for students whose attendance had been unacceptably poor. If underachievers attend school for only 75% of the time, they will not succeed, no matter what type of education they receive. The pilots showed that work experience, and a greater involvement with further education colleges, could assist in reducing absentee levels by showing the students the relevance of what they were doing and could help them to go further.

Ms Lewsley spoke of the divisiveness of the present system and wished that all children be educated together. Had she nothing to say about the maintained education sector? Her comments could be applied equally to both systems in Northern Ireland. Why can our children not attend our state schools together for the benefit of all? That would allow us to offer greater diversity to our children in rural towns or in the middle of Belfast; it would also reduce the busing budget. Children would be integrated, but not in a selective manner; and more parents would send their children to such schools than send them to the present integrated sector. All children, not just those of the middle classes, would have an integrated education, and that would improve our society.

I welcome the report’s emphasis on local solutions, because we do not have a clean canvas. There has been major investment in our school structures. Admittedly, many of them are in a poor state, but the cost of rebuilding and moving our children into a communal comprehensive system would be prohibitive. That system, as advocated in England and in Scotland, has created problems of social engineering through selection by proximity to schools. House prices, housing location and wages begin to determine the schools for which children will be selected.

Our vision for Northern Ireland should be an all- encompassing one. We do not want that sort of selectivity; we want to ensure that there is a mixed community in all our schools. We also want to ensure that we provide the highest possible standards.

There are problems that have not been addressed by those advocating a particular model. It is important to move forward cautiously and to take some of the other recommendations of this report on local solutions into consideration. It is also important to consult widely locally as well as through the educational structures.

It is easy to say that one will improve matters; it is much more difficult to ensure that one does not destroy the good in the existing system. I urge cautious movement forward, but I support the motion and look forward to its implementation.

The sitting was suspended at 3.24 pm.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Ian Adamson (UUP, Belfast East)

I support this excellent report. I did, however, find one spelling mistake in paragraph 6.1.2 — the word "Governors" is spelt wrongly, so one mark must be taken off.

I speak as a member of the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee rather than of the Education Committee. I address my comments to paragraph 6.1.1, which states that the education system of the future should be

"conscious of the particular needs, experiences and aspirations of all young people of varying socio-economic, religious and cultural backgrounds within society."

One major sphere of interest and concern that has always attracted serious attention in the Nationalist/ Republican sector is that of cultural heritage.

That is a sphere in which the minority community in Northern Ireland has been proactive for many years, but one in which the majority community has shown only a reactive or passive interest. The result has been a significant series of perceived gains by Nationalists and losses by Unionists, including the promotion of the Irish language, the problematisation of long-standing majority marching rights and the retrospective challenging of appointment and selection procedures in the workplace. All those things have enhanced — and will continue to enhance — Nationalist solidarity, while discouraging and marginalising the majority population, which, in the context of Ireland as a whole, is really a large minority. Significantly, there has been a call in the Republic for the revision of school history books to give greater impetus to the movement for national unity.

If the majority community in Northern Ireland is to maximise its potential in the important years ahead, close attention must be paid to enabling Unionists to feel increasing pride in and commitment to their cultural past, as the basis of a constructive future. They must be helped to explore their roots, past struggles and achievements and to develop a sense of pride in the contributions made by their ancestors and their contemporaries to the development of Ulster. For that to happen, a clear and detailed cultural education policy is required in our schools. It should be a policy of truthful analysis and celebration that will inform and buttress the majority population in a period of change that many may find, at best, unsettling and, at worst, highly threatening.

A cultural educational policy for the Unionist and British majority in Northern Ireland must in no sense be construed as an attack on the minority population. Rather, it should be viewed as clarification and confirmation of the Unionist identity, in the context of 10,000 years in the life of the people of Ireland. It should be centred on the ancient tradition of the Brytenwalda and should, on the basis of the past and present, look to a future in which the several traditions in Ulster have a significant role to play, but in which the majority’s perspectives are clearly perceived to be worthy of respect and good stewardship.

Both main traditions — one ignoring the fullness of its history and culture in Ireland, the other unaware of any real history and culture, other than its own — have imperilled the possibility of co-existence based on mutual understanding and respect. The Assembly has offered us the opportunity to rectify that situation in our schools. It is of great importance that steps be taken to do so as soon possible. We would be mad to lose the opportunity.

Peter Weir (UUP, North Down)

I congratulate the Committee on a fine piece of work. It is clear that a great deal of effort went into the report. It has enabled us to have an informed and informative debate. I am disappointed at the number of Members — from across the board — present for such a useful debate. I am especially disappointed that the Minister of Education, rather than attend, is engaged in extra-curricular activities. At least, his case shows that academic achievement is not always needed to rise to the highest posts.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

What about the DUP?

Peter Weir (UUP, North Down)

DUP Members will have to speak for themselves; I referred to poor attendance by Members from across the board.

The issue of post-primary education is rooted in the reforms of the 1940s. It is important to realise the extent to which those reforms opened doors for people. Neil Kinnock said that he was

"the first Kinnock in a thousand generations to be able to get to university".

My family, like many others, saw the opportunity for third-level education as stemming from the reforms of the 1940s. Therefore, we should be loath to throw the baby out with the bath water and completely rid ourselves of a system that has served Northern Ireland fairly well.

In looking at the changes that are required and at the current system, we must avoid falling into the trap of getting too involved with dogma, or of looking only at good intentions that may not work. For example, I agree with some of Joan Carson’s criticisms. She said that we must be careful in the way that we use parity of esteem. If we take that concept to its limit in the education system, we will have a system where every pupil scores the same mark in every exam because we will not want to feel that anyone has been discriminated against or disadvantaged. We must be practical.

It was not helpful that one of the Members on the opposite Benches quoted statistics that were 15 years old and out of date. I do not share the view of the Women’s Coalition, which offered us the nightmare vision of pupils in years to come threatening passers-by with the horrors of street theatre. We must develop a system that is grounded in realism. We need what I call the "JESO test". The system must be just, it must maintain and improve educational standards, and it must be open and transparent. We must judge the key issues against that background.

There are two fundamental issues at stake. The first is whether we have selection in schools. The second is, if we have selection, what form it will take. On the first issue, I remain unconvinced by the advocates of comprehensive education. If we say that there should be no selection procedure between the primary and secondary levels of education, we are advocating comprehensive education. However, we must look at the way that comprehensive education has worked.

Another Member said that the gap between Northern Ireland’s success rate and that of the rest of United Kingdom has increased. Yet another said that many years ago Northern Ireland had a higher percentage of people leaving school without any qualifications. However, in recent years we have reached the point where fewer people in Northern Ireland leave school with no qualifications than is the case in the rest of the United Kingdom. From a purely academic point of view, comprehensive education has not provided the solution to the problem of how to raise standards.

In addition, with regard to social inclusiveness and helping disadvantaged people, there are still problems that must be addressed, and we must focus on those. However, in Northern Ireland there are a higher percentage of school-leavers from working-class backgrounds attaining third-level education than in the rest of the United Kingdom, so comprehensive education has not produced a greater level of success.

I recently had a conversation with a couple of my party colleagues. I cannot remember whether it was Philip Weir or Clive McFarland who asked me what the point was in replacing a flawed system based on ability with a system that is largely based on the ability to pay. One point that the report highlighted very well was that we do not want to see a large independent sector grow up in Northern Ireland in response to whatever proposals we make for changing the education system. If that were to happen, we would have a system like that in England, where most pupils are served by a large comprehensive system, while the elite get into public schools on the basis of their parents’ ability to pay, rather than the ability of the pupils themselves. The current system is clearly flawed, but if we move to a system that is based on elitism by money rather than ability, we will be moving backwards. The case for selection is strong.

If there is to be selection, the question is what form that should take. I agree with some of the cautions that have been given in relation to the report. If applied properly, continuous assessment can provide a truer picture of pupils’ abilities, but, as Tom Hamilton said, it is not a perfect system. It is important to remove the subjective elements. Billy Hutchinson also expressed concern about that.

Because of my age, I had a unique experience of the 11-plus, by comparison with other Members. When I was in primary 7 a system that did not operate in any other year was introduced, with the effect that each school ranked its own pupils. The pupils then sat an exam on an anonymous basis, and each school was told how many of its pupils had achieved top, middle or bottom grades. The schools then allocated the grades according to their previous list. That system, I believe, was dropped after just one year. That was partly because of concerns that the system — despite the many fine people who were involved in its creation — was open to abuse, and could be affected by subjective opinion. If we are to adopt a system of continuous assessment, standardised tests will be necessary to enable everybody to compete on a level playing field.

However, continuous assessment is not necessarily the perfect solution. Members have expressed concerns about the level of stress and strain that the 11-plus system places upon 10- and 11-year-old pupils. However, if placed under continuous assessment a pupil might feel under constant stress for one or two years, rather than the few months before the exam. Therefore, while I support the report’s broad recommendations for the re-examination of the transfer procedure, I caution that some of the proposed solutions have associated problems.

If such changes are to be made, we must ensure that teachers are given support, because a system of continuous assessment will place an additional burden on teacher numbers.

As many Members have said, we must focus on ways to "retain the best but improve the rest" — a useful phrase that was used by several Members. In particular, we must identify problem areas where help and additional support can be given, and we should examine ways to improve the system. Until a better alternative emerges, we must not be tempted to throw out everything for the sake of what appears to be a perfect model or a system that will create some sort of social experiment. The key test is to examine the practical educational implications, and to try to implement a system that protects the best in Northern Ireland’s education and improves conditions for those at the bottom end. I urge Members to support the report.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful for the opportunity to make a winding-up speech. I am pleased at the level and quality of this important and useful debate. I am sorry that the Minister was not present and that Members did not attend in large numbers. I am grateful to the Members who did participate and who made extremely valuable contributions to the debate. I place on record my thanks to my colleagues on the Education Committee, the Clerk and other officials involved.

Several themes recurred in the debate. There was widespread agreement that the highest level of academic standards must be maintained in any change to the system. We must at least acknowledge the concerns about the current system and the need for change, and yet be cautious with that change. Any changes will need to result in a flexible system, with opportunities for all.

Members also emphasised that collaborative arrangements will be crucial, particularly in higher and further education, and in links with industry and business organisations. There is also a clear requirement that we create a more equitable system. Underscoring that is the need for adequate resources to fund those changes and the need to consider the requirements of continuous training for the teachers involved. We should bear that important point in mind.

I will respond to points made by Members. Patricia Lewsley said that education is the cornerstone of any society, and I strongly agree with that. That point highlights the importance of the issues that we are now considering. However, for the large part, Ms Lewsley concentrated on informing the House of SDLP party policy in respect of the 11-plus, rather than outlining in detail her view on the report. However, I record my gratitude for her contribution in the Education Committee, and her abiding commitment to education. Likewise, Eileen Bell made a real contribution to the Education Committee.

Mr Billy Hutchinson raised the issue of early years learning. The Education Committee appreciates the importance of that matter, and that is why we have already launched an inquiry into it. We are at the early stages, but we have already received written submissions from a wide range of interested organisations and individuals. We also took evidence from the Youth Service on its views on post-primary education.

Prof McWilliams expressed concerns about the Education Committee’s proposals on the new school curriculum. I assure her — unfortunately, she is not here at present — that we are not attempting to be restrictive. Our recommendations are not exhaustive, and drama could, I suppose, be included. I welcome her assertion that it would be unwise for Northern Ireland to entertain an independent sector. However, that argument is at odds with the evidence relating to the Scottish comprehensive system, which is strongly advocated by Prof McWilliams. A substantial independent sector has been created by that comprehensive system. Prof McWilliams is rather at odds with herself on that issue.

Mr McHugh expressed concern about the possible timescale for the implementation, and I remind him that it was Mr Gerry Burns who mentioned the period of 10 years in an interview in the ‘Belfast Telegraph’. The Education Committee has recommended that the current 11-plus tests should cease as soon as possible. Mr McHugh reconfirmed all his views and prejudices about the current system.

I welcome my Colleague Mr Robinson’s comments on the curriculum framework. He said that it should stretch and challenge all pupils so that they have the opportunity to maximise their own potential. That is crucial.

I agree that there should be no social engineering and that the report requires further consideration, as will the Burns review when it is published. Mr Ken Robinson’s comments on natural integration are worth bearing in mind. Mr Gallagher reminded us of the importance of preparing young people for the world of work and of providing them with the necessary skills for a modern economy. We should adapt the present system rather than abolish it.

Mr Hamilton outlined the key principles underlining the Committee’s report when he used the words "excellence", "diversity" and "choice"; coincidentally, these form the title of the UUP’s submission to the Burns review. I agree with him that standardised testing is important so that all children and all schools can be treated fairly in future.

Mr Fee spoke of the emotionally charged atmosphere in which the topic was raised, and the fact that the Education Committee had approached these matters carefully. Mr Fee played a major part in the Committee, and he strongly advocated abolishing the 11-plus. I say "Amen" to that, but I add "in its current form". That may be the significant difference between us.

Mr Neeson welcomed the Education Committee’s focus on principles rather than on structures. "Those are our principles, and if you do not like them, we have some more". That was a humorous digression. Those are our principles and we hope to measure them sufficiently against the Burns review. Mr Neeson, rather predictably, used the opportunity to discuss the matter of raising taxes on the people of Northern Ireland. I do not agree with him that parental choice is not important — it is increasingly important.

Mr ONeill spoke of the need to tackle underachievement and to improve low numeracy and literacy skills; this is a need of which the Education Committee is acutely conscious. He also referred to what might be called inducements to teachers with regard to pupil profiles. I assure him that such a profile would start with the pupil in early years and would continue throughout and that it would be subject to contributions from all the pupil’s teachers and would not be open to abuse.

Jane Morrice’s contribution reminded me of one of those dreadful, mostly American, daytime quiz programmes, although we have our own version in Anne Robinson. Ms Morrice strongly supported the integrated education sector, and although I am happy to acknowledge the contribution that it makes I am concerned that there is criticism implicit in her remarks for those who teach in the controlled and maintained systems.

Dr Birnie welcomed the recommendations and was pleased that they agreed with his Committee’s report on education and training for industry. I strongly agree with Dr Birnie that we must avoid introducing "bog- standard comprehensive schools" into Northern Ireland.

Mrs Joan Carson, my party Colleague, expressed concern that the local demands on schoolteachers were not being given priority. I assure the Member that the Education Committee was most concerned with the crucial role played by teachers, the contribution that they make and the need for their concerns to be taken into account; hence the inclusion of the relevant recommendation.

I agree with Mr Beggs, who highlighted the core problem of underachievement. He is wise to say that we ought to be cautious in our approach. Dr Adamson spotted what I hope is the only typing error. He had to go to the last section of the report to find it, but at least that proves that he read it. I agree with him about the importance of historical and cultural education in the future. I thank Mr Peter Weir for his endorsement of the report and the place that it will have in the debate that starts today and continues with the introduction of the Burns review. He was right to pay tribute to the current system. It has served us well, and we must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

In considering these issues, we are dealing with the future of all young people in Northern Ireland. The Education Committee is particularly conscious that the worst legacy would be to reduce in any way the high standards achieved by our education system. However, we have an opportunity to improve the system and to enable every individual to achieve their full potential. We must get it right. I thank all those who contributed to the debate, and I commend the motion to the Assembly.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly takes note of the report prepared by the Committee for Education on the ‘Review of Post-Primary Education in Northern Ireland’.

Adjourned at 4.25 pm.