Northern Ireland Assembly, 2 February 2009

361 contributions from 82 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I refer to an item on today’s Order Paper and to Standing Orders 10(2) and 10(3). When the Business Committee discussed the motion on the Consultative Group on the Past, no one could have known just how controversial the issue was to become.

Two amendments have been considered and accepted for discussion, and many Members wish to have the opportunity to speak on this very important issue. However, because of the amendments, unfortunately, only three Members from my party will have an opportunity to speak. I understand that many other Members are in a similar position. Is there any provision under Standing Order 10(2) or Standing Order 10(3), which will allow a suspension of Standing Orders to enable an extension of one hour to be added to the time allocated to the debate?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Thank you for your point of order. There is no such provision under those Standing Orders. In fact, a motion to suspend Standing Orders must be tabled on the Order Paper. I refer the Member to page 55 of the ‘Northern Ireland Assembly Companion’. There are no provisions available today to allow for the suspension of Standing Orders.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. There is clearly a glaring omission in Standing Orders when an issue of such great importance comes before the House at short notice, yet it is not possible to suspend Standing Orders to allocate extra time for the debate. Can the matter be referred to the Committee on Procedures to consider whether we can find a way round the problem?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I am happy to do that for the Member. The House does not have the authority to extend the time for a particular debate. That is very much set with the Business Committee. It alone decides the time that is allocated to a debate in the Chamber.

Ministerial Statement

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I have received notice from the Minister of Education that she wishes to make a statement on Transfer 2010.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Nuair a bunaíodh an Coiste Feidhmiúcháin i mí Bealtaine 2007, bhí ceist an oideachais ar cheann de na príomhcheisteanna a bhí againn. Tá an méid seo amhlaidh go fóill féin. Ba é an 11 plus a rinneadh anuraidh an ceann deiridh.

When the Executive came into being in May 2007, education was one of the most pressing issues facing us; the same is still true today. Last year’s 11-plus will be the last. I have reflected long and hard on what has been said to me over the past 16 months. In addition, I have taken detailed and considered account of the changing environment in which our education system is expected to function.

The education debate has become narrowly focused on the contentious issue of academic selection. In an ideal world, the debate of the past year would have been much broader. I cannot defend a system that is built around and geared towards the needs of 40% of our children. As Minister of Education, I am responsible for the education of all our children. Every year, thousands of children are failed by our education system. For the most part, they are already disadvantaged. They attend the schools that are suffering most from the impact of falling school numbers.

From the outset, therefore, it is important to state that the process that we are now involved in is one of necessary change. It is not simply change for change’s sake. It is a process of change with the sole aim of building on the successes of the current system, while addressing the serious inequalities and weaknesses that also undoubtedly exist.

I have always been clear that I do not believe in a one-size-fits-all approach. I believe strongly in equality and social justice. I wish to have a system that is child-centred, and which delivers the educational outcomes that society needs for the challenges that we will face in the years ahead. That means building a system that will sustain a range of different types of schools and provision and which values them all equally. We cannot ignore the challenges that are presented to our system by underachievement and demographic decline. We must ensure that finite resources are used efficiently and are not wasted. It is much better to see the decline in the numbers of schoolchildren as an opportunity to bring about well-managed change that can deliver better outcomes for all.

As I have said, my responsibility as Minister of Education extends to all children and all schools. I cannot stand by and watch good-quality secondary schools and their teachers bear the brunt of demographic decline. As more and more grammar schools take in a greater percentage of children with B2, C and D grades at 11, in pursuit of numbers and funding, the pointlessness of an academic test at 11 is underlined. The flip side of that is a corresponding reduction in the number of pupils and teachers in the secondary sector.

Tá an fócas atá agam dírithe ar an bpáiste agus ar an oideachas a sholáthraímid dóibh; níl sé dírithe ar institiúidí a chaomhnú san fhoirm ina bhfuil siad faoi láthair díreach mar mhaithe leo féin. Lena rá i mbeagán focal, ní mór tús áite a thabhairt do riachtanais an pháiste seachas do riachtanais nó do cheanglais institiúid ar bith. Caithfidh an institiúid freastal a dhéanamh ar an bpáiste – agus ní an bealach eile thart.

My focus is on the children, and on the education that we deliver for them. It is not on preserving institutions in their current form simply for the sake of it. In short, the needs of the child must come before the needs or requirements of any institution. The institution must serve the child, not the other way round.

I appreciate those people in the grammar sector who continue to deliver a quality education for many children. My proposals will not affect that level of quality in the slightest; indeed, they will enhance it. However, a small number of schools cannot hold the vast majority to ransom. It is simply not tenable for around 30 schools to dictate education policy in their own narrow interests.

Those who have sought to prevent change must reflect on the reality of the new political landscape that we now live in.

This is not the old Stormont regime, nor is it government by remote control from Westminster. Local Ministers from across the community, who have been elected by local people and are accountable to them, are taking decisions. Republicans, nationalists and unionists are here on an equal basis. I was elected on the basis of a programme of change, and I intend to act on that. For decades, British Ministers ignored the weak­nesses in our education system and avoided the contentious issues. A British, or indeed a unionist, education Minister would never have scrapped the 11-plus.

Sinn Féin’s approach is different; we are not afraid to tackle the difficult issues. We are committed to a programme of change that delivers equality and social justice, addresses disadvantage and tackles institutional discrimination in education and every other facet of society. That programme will deliver for disadvantaged communities, nationalist and unionist alike. The children of the Shankill Road, for example, have been consistently failed and disadvantaged by academic selection and rejection. I am not prepared to ignore that reality.

Those who put forward the notion that the only way in which quality education can be delivered is through academic selection ignore the reality across the world. In almost every other country, children attain quality education without there being recourse to academic selection. The best education systems in the world are non-selective.

Is cuid de chreatlach oideachasúil leathan í réiteach na ceiste faoi aistriú iarbhunscoile, réiteach atá bunaithe ar an gcuraclam athbhreithnithe nua a bhfuil soláthar roghanna níos fearr, deiseanna níos fearr agus torthaí níos fearr mar aidhm aige. Tá níos mó i gceist leis seo ná an díospóireacht faoin aistriú iarbhunscoile féin a bhí mar phríomhábhar sna ceannlínte le cúpla mí anuas.

The resolution of the issue of post-primary transfer is part of a much wider educational jigsaw, based on the new revised curriculum, which is about delivering improved choice, opportunity and outcomes. The debate is about much more than post-primary transfer, the issue that has dominated the headlines in recent months.

At present, some young people have as few as eight subjects from which to choose at A level. The entitlement framework will ensure that young people have a choice of at least 24 courses at Key Stage 4, and 27 at post-16, with a balance that ensures that at least one third of those courses are academic; one third vocational or technical; and the remaining third made up of an appropriate combination of the two. Those substantial changes will deliver positive outcomes.

Schools and colleges will have to co-operate, and share facilities and expertise, in order to deliver that expanded curriculum. In March 2008, I announced plans for area-based planning to facilitate the construction of a new system. That work is progressing. In December 2007, I announced in the Assembly the framework around which children would transfer to post-primary level; that the following year’s 11-plus would be the final examination of that type; and that, in future, children would transfer on the basis of a menu of criteria — community, geographical and family. I also committed myself to further consultation with education stakeholders and political colleagues in the Assembly and Executive.

As a result of that consultation, I proposed a compromise, which, if accepted, would have allowed for a phasing-out of academic selection over three years. In May 2008, I brought those proposals to a meeting of the Executive, but DUP and UUP Ministers refused to discuss them. I offered to hold a single-issue Executive meeting on the matter. Again, the DUP rejected that proposal. I also wrote to every Executive Minister, offering to discuss my proposals with each on a one-to-one basis. No DUP Minister availed himself or herself of that opportunity.

An tseachtain seo caite, chuir mé páipéar faoi bhráid an Choiste Feidhmiúcháin arís; agus arís eile ní dhearnadh aon phlé air.

Tríd an bpróiseas ar fad, rinne mé iarracht teacht ar chomhaontú le comhghleacaithe ar an gCoiste Feidhmiúcháín agus mé ar lorg reachtaíochta don bhealach nua chun tosaigh.

Last week, I again submitted a paper for the Executive’s consideration, and, again, it was not discussed.

I have attempted throughout to reach a consensus with colleagues in the Executive, and have sought to legislate for the new way forward. However, the DUP and UUP made their position clear. They support a system that was designed in the previous century to meet the needs of a previous century.

On many occasions, particularly in the Assembly, I have been disappointed by the nature of the debate. Instead of focusing on children, parents and teachers, some Members have sought to reduce the debate to personal abuse, insults and base politicking. I have refused to engage in that sort of nonsense. I am not prepared to allow an issue of such importance to be reduced to a contest of who can shout loudest. The issue is too important for that, and I believe genuinely that we could, and should, have had a much more constructive engagement over the past year.

Despite the consensus among educational stakeholders on the need for change, that has not been mirrored at a political level. Indeed, it is clear from the public contributions made by the DUP and UUP that they will continue to block agreement, and will prevent legislation passing through the Assembly. However, we are where we are. The time for decision has been reached. The 11-plus is gone forever, and I welcome and celebrate that achievement. Regulations governing transfer procedures end this year. I have exhausted all the options for achieving agreed new regulations. We now need to make decisions about transfer 2010. I will not allow the DUP and UUP to block the process of necessary and well-managed change. I now intend to move forward. Parents, teachers and pupils need clarity and certainty.

Sa pháipéar a chuir mé faoi bhráid an Choiste Feidhmiúcháin mhol mé moltaí comhréiteacha trína mbeadh trí bliana iontrálacha déthaobhacha. Dhiúltaigh an Coiste Feidhmiúcháin iad a phlé, agus mar sin de níl mé sásta creatlach reachtach a iarraidh do na moltaí seo agus tá mé anois ag tarraingt siar an choimisiúin a thug mo Roinn do CCEA teist a ullmhú do phróiseas aistrithe 2010. Ní féidir le mo Roinn teist a chur ar fáil a mbainfear úsáid aisti i gcomhthéacs iontrálacha gan chreatlach reachtach a shainmhíníonn úsáid na teiste sin. Mar sin de, i dtaca leis an bpróiseas um iontrálacha iarbhunscoile sa bhliain 2010 ní bheidh teist á cur ar fáil ag an Roinn Oideachais.

In my paper to the Executive, I proposed compromise proposals for three years of bilateral admissions. The Executive refused to discuss them, so I am no longer pursuing a legislative framework for those proposals. I am, therefore, withdrawing my Department’s commission to the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) to produce a test for use in the 2010 transfer process. My Department cannot provide a test for use in an admissions context without a legal framework defining that use. Therefore, for the post-primary admissions process in 2010, there will be no Department of Education-provided test.

In the absence of regulations, my Department is issuing guidance. Schools will be obliged in law to “have regard” for that guidance. On equality grounds, but also because of the risks of dysfunction, the guidance recommends that schools do not use academic admissions criteria. If a school chooses to use such criteria, it will have to provide for itself the robust assessment mechanism and procedures that such criteria require.

The guidance consists, first, of a clear, factual description of the legal context in which post-primary admissions will operate, and in which there is much continuity. Secondly, it contains recommendations to schools on admissions criteria. The guidance recommendations have been issued for consultation.

Moltar sa treoir go mbaineann gach scoil úsáid as modh mar chéad chritéar a chinnteoidh go mbaineann iarrthóirí atá i dteideal béilí saora scoile iontrálacha amach ag an leibhéal céanna agus a fhaigheann gach iarrthóir eile.

The guidance recommends that all schools use as their first criterion a measure that will ensure that applicants who are entitled to free school meals gain admissions at the same rate as all other applicants. For example, if 20% of applications to a school are from applicants who are entitled to free school meals, at least 20% of the school’s places should be allocated to free-school-meal applicants. That is in order to address the current situation, whereby such children have been disadvantaged in access to grammar school places. One in 17 children in academically selective schools is entitled to free school meals, while one in four children in other schools has the same entitlement.

Thereafter, the guidance recommends, in no order, the following criteria: sibling; eldest child; feeder or named primary school; nearest suitable school; parish with nearest suitable school; catchment area with nearest suitable school; and random selection, which is a tiebreaker. The guidance recommends that the geographical criteria — the parish and catchment area — are used in conjunction with the nearest suitable school criterion as a means of ensuring that rural and outlying applicants are not disadvantaged by their address. The school categories that define school suitability for the purposes of this measure, and for transport, will be as they are now. The guidance will assure parents, children and schools that although there will be no admissions criteria regulation for transfer 2010, much of the process will be as before.

The role of the Department of Education will be largely unchanged, and it will continue to set the admission and enrolment numbers for each school. Post-primary-school boards of governors will continue to be the statutory admissions authorities for their schools, and will continue to draw up and publish admissions criteria. Transfer booklets will continue to be issued to parents from November 2009 or December 2009, and those will contain each post-primary school’s admission criteria for admissions in 2010. Primary schools will continue to assist parents in advising them on the best options for their children and will assist in completing the transfer form in which parents will show, in rank order, their preferred post-primary schools.

Primary schools are already teaching the revised curriculum. My Department and I will ensure that that continues and that the curriculum is no longer distorted by the process of selection. From February 2010, parents and children will apply using the transfer form and by listing their preferences. The system of preference application will be administered in precisely the same manner as is currently used; where schools are oversubscribed, post-primary-school boards of governors must select children for admission by application of the criteria. Admission decisions will be issued in May 2010.

In accordance with a 2006 legislative obligation, one new element is that the Department of Education will establish a body, which, in respect of children with exceptional circumstances, will arrange admissions to suitable post-primary schools outside the standard competitive process. That body is intended to be for those children with compelling medical reasons to attend a particular school and for looked-after children. Details on that will be given as part of the transfer 2010 communication process.

Beidh mé ag scríobh chuig príomhoidí agus chuig boird gobharnóirí bunscoileanna agus iarbhunscoileanna agus chuig boird oideachais agus leabharlainne; beidh mé ag scríobh go díreach chuig tuismitheoirí freisin. Tabharfaidh mise soiléireacht don phróiseas atá anois againn agus tabharfaidh mé muinín do thuismitheoirí go mbeidh próiseas bainistithe iontrála ann, cé nach ndéanfar rialáil ar chritéir iontrála sa dlí.

I will write to the principals and boards of governors of primary and post-primary schools, and to the education and library boards. I will communicate directly with parents. I will bring clarity to the situation that we are now in and reassure parents that although the admissions criteria will not be regulated in law, there will be a well-managed admissions process. There is still much to be gained from discussions around the key decisions made at 14 years of age, and I will continue to work on that with schools. The area-based planning exercise, which focused on the entitlement framework, will help to inform those discussions.

The guidance recommendations will be equality proofed and are being issued for a 12-week consultation: comments are welcome within that period. What are not subject to consultation are the facts, as set out in the guidance, about the legal position in which the process of post-primary admissions in 2010 will operate. From today, schools should have what they need in order to be able to respond to the anxiety of the parents of those primary 6 children due to transfer in 2010. In particular, grammar schools now know that they must decide whether to attempt to use academic admissions criteria, through the operation of their own tests, or, to cease to use academic admissions criteria. I hope that grammar schools chose to stop academic selection, not just because of the serious difficulties that are likely to accompany any independently operated procedures but because of the interests and needs of the children involved. Transfer 2010 represents, for the first time, an opportunity for all grammar schools to make their excellent provision available in a fair manner.

Transfer 2010 represents an opportunity to spare all children the ordeal of assessment for admissions purposes. It represents an opportunity to end the inequality of ability-based transfer in which grammar schools are disproportionately the preserve of better-off pupils.

I understand why a school with long-established traditions of academic excellence will wish to continue those, and I want such schools to continue those traditions. The Department’s admissions guidance asks a grammar school to sustain those traditions, not by exclusion but by the quality of its teaching and learning. All grammar schools should ask whether, in order to succeed, they require an admissions process that fails most children. I believe that the breakaway grammar schools will, in time, accept that their pupils are better served if they are part of, rather than outside, the mainstream education system.

I am also convinced that when political colleagues see the educationalists working within the guidance and delivering a quality education for all children, much of the rancour of recent months will be replaced by a realisation that the old system could not continue. Perhaps, at that time, we will return to the issue of legislation.

Idir an dá linn, tá an treoir againn anois a dhéanfaidh rialáil ar iontrálacha chuig iarbhunscoileanna sa bhliain 2010. Iarraim ar na hiarbhunscoileanna uile breithniú cúramach a dhéanamh air seo agus a bheith ar chomhsheasamh linn agus córas á chruthú a dhíríonn ar riachtanais na bpáistí uile sa mhílaois seo. Bogaimis ó chóras atá bunaithe ar phribhléid agus ar stádas, ó chóras diúltaithe agus teipe agus leagaimis bunsraitheanna córais atá bunaithe ar cheartas sóisialta, ar chothroime agus ar shármhaitheas; córas a thugann deis do na páistí ar fad a gcumas féin a bhaint amach; agus córas a chaitheann go cothrom leis na páistí ar fad.

In the meantime, we now have guidance to govern admissions to post-primary schools in 2010. I ask that all post-primary schools consider that guidance carefully and join with the rest of us in creating a system that is tailored to the needs of all children in this millennium. Let us move away from a system that is built on privilege and status — a system of rejection and failure. Let us lay the foundations of a system that is based on social justice, equality and excellence — a system that gives all children a chance to realise their full potential and which treats all children equally. Go raibh maith agat.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

Today marks the public admission of the failure of the Minister of Education to gain consensus. Regrettably, the Minister of Education of the Northern Ireland Executive has pulled down the shutters on consensus and on any way of reaching an agreement. Unfortunately, unlike her ministerial colleagues in Sinn Féin, she has taken an approach of do as I say, not as I do.

I want the Minister to be clear on a number of issues and, perhaps for the first time in this House, give us an answer. Much of the substance of the statement is the old rhetoric of the past. Has the Minister considered whether, without Executive agreement, she has the power to bring forward the guidance that she is publishing? Has the Minister taken specific legal advice on that issue in light of the provisions of the ministerial code and section 28A of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which states that a Minister has no ministerial authority to take decisions that are, strictly speaking, Executive decisions? Those include significant or controversial matters. I am sure that the Minister will agree that transfer 2010 is a significant and controversial matter.

Will the Minister publicly publish today the correspondence that she has received in the past few weeks from the Northern Ireland Commission for Catholic Education (NICCE), the Catholic Heads Association (CHA) and the Governing Bodies Association (GBA) with regard to the use of a CCEA paper?

Will the Minister make all that information available today to the Education Committee and to Members, in order that they can see the nature of that correspondence and of the silo that she occupies alone, behind closed shutters?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Member for his question. First, no credible alternative has been provided to me. The only alternatives that have been provided by Members of the party opposite were alternatives with the status quo. I am not prepared to continue with the status quo, for reasons that I have outlined often. I am not alone in that. The vast majority of people want an end to the 11-plus and the creation of an education system that is fit for purpose in the twenty-first century. That is what we are doing.

The only proposals that I have had are to keep the status quo, which is an attempt to block change. Change will happen, because it must. Change must happen for our children. We cannot continue to fail children in the numbers that we are at present.

In relation to the question about powers, I have the legal power to issue guidance, which is what I am doing. I also have the power to ensure that last year’s was the final 11-plus. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Thankfully, the 11-plus has gone. I am acting within the legal advice that I have received.

On the matter of consultation, I made it clear in my statement that we now have a 12-week consultation period. I look forward to receiving people’s detailed proposals on the Department’s guidance. I will ensure that all such proposals are studied.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I once again remind the House of the convention that applies to ministerial statements. The Chairpersons of Committees get quite a bit of latitude when introducing their questions. That has not changed. However, from here on in, I expect short introductions to questions.

More than 29 Members want to question the Minister on her statement. If Members make lengthy introductions or ask multiple questions, we will not get everybody in. If a single question is asked, with a short introduction, the vast majority of Members will be able to ask their questions. It is important that Members use a short introduction and an actual question.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her statement. As she said, parents, teachers and pupils need clarity. I believe that the measures that the Minister has set out provide that clarity. I welcome particularly the Minister’s commitment to write to boards of governors and to teachers to provide more information.

What advantages will there be for schools that follow the Minister’s guidance?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat. The advantage for schools that follow departmental guidance is that they will be part and parcel of the education system. They will not be operating outside that system. They will help to build and to show leadership in forging an education system that is fit for the twenty-first century — one that creates pathways for all our young people, whether academically inclined, vocationally inclined, or both.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I was tempted to congratulate the Minister on her ability to build a consensus. Sadly, I cannot do so. I have difficulty with any statement from the Minister that uses “consensus” when the policies are so divisive, uses “equality” when the Minister discriminates against hard-working parents and pupils, and talks about “democracy” when what is meant is dictatorship.

The question that the Minister must answer has been put by other Members: will she publish the legal advice that she has received, in order that we may determine, once and for all, whether we are disappearing into an ‘Alice in Wonderland’ regime or getting down to the proper governance of the Province?

Will she admit that as far as the people of Northern Ireland are concerned, she has done more than any other politician to bring the Assembly into disrepute?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Rather than focusing on legal advice and guidance, it would be much better to focus on children’s needs. I would much prefer to hear the Members opposite talk about the children of different working-class communities who are failed by the current system. Efforts must be concentrated towards those children. Clarity and certainty must be provided for parents, pupils and teachers. I have provided those in my statement. I ask Members — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I ask Members to put children, not legal debate or ideology, at the centre of the issue.

Dominic Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

Is it not the case that the Minister, rather than telling the Assembly anything new, reiterates existing non-academic transfer arrangements, which will do little or nothing to alleviate the anxiety of parents, pupils and teachers? It does nothing to avoid the unregulated system that will fill the vacuum that has been left by the Minister.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I note that the Member’s party is opposed to academic selection. I very much look forward to working with it and, indeed, all other parties to advance transfer 2010. I have explained clearly how transfer will work. I hope that all schools will choose to work with the Department; the vast majority of them will do so. There are 1,238 schools in the North of Ireland. A small percentage of them want to operate a breakaway system. Let us put the needs of 100% of children first. I look forward to the SDLP working with me and fulfilling its manifesto commitments.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

The statement refers to the guidance that will govern admissions in 2010. It states that schools will be obliged, in law, to have regard for that guidance. Will the Minister explain what the terms “in law” and “have regard” mean, because they seem contradictory? If something is in law, it must be observed; if it needs only to have regard paid to it — for which, clearly, there is no legal basis at present — that is a contradiction.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

For schools to “have regard” for the Department’s guidance means that they cannot disregard it. It means that the guidance is an important document for them to consider when they develop their admissions criteria and in performing their roles within the admissions process. If a board of governors does not comply with its duty to have regard to guidance that is issued by the Department under article 16(b) of the Education (NI) Order 1997, the Department can issue a directive under article 101 of the Education and Libraries (NI) Order 1986 to instruct it to do so. The Department can also consider issuing a directive under article 101 if the admissions criteria that are set up by a board of governors contravene any statutory provisions, such as equality legislation, for example.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

At last, the Minister has conceded that she cannot abolish academic selection. She has failed to answer the question that was asked by my colleague Mervyn Storey and by Mr Basil McCrea. For the record, therefore, what authority has the Minister received from the Executive to launch consultation on that guidance? Furthermore, what legal authority does she have to do that in the first instance?

She has been particularly evasive about the legal advice that she has received. Where did that legal advice come from? Did it come from the Departmental Solicitor’s Office? Did she take advice from outside the system?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I approached the Executive on two occasions to discuss compromise proposals. The party opposite refused to even discuss those proposals. In the interests of parents, pupils and teachers, I have taken legal advice from the Departmental Solicitor’s Office. I have the power to issue guidance, which I have duly announced today. I take my equality duties seriously. I have ensured that there will be a full consultation period.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I commend the Minister on her statement. I agree with her that the institutions must serve the child rather than the other way round; it is important to remember that. Will she outline the differences between the transfer systems in 2009 and 2010? Perhaps that will provide clarity for those in the Assembly who do not seem to be listening.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

The difference between transfer 2009 and transfer 2010 is that, in 2010, children will not be selected on the basis of two one-hour tests provided by the Department of Education. In little more than four or five days, many children will receive the results of the test through their doors. They have already suffered the trauma of doing the test, and to add insult to injury, many of them will suffer the further trauma of receiving a piece of paper telling them that they have failed the 11-plus and cannot get into the school that they want to get into; that is the reality of the situation, no matter how we dress it up.

The difference between transfer 2009 and transfer 2010 is that the departmental guidance will ensure that, in 2010, children transfer on the basis of equality, social justice and excellence. The guidance will ensure that children have access to a wide range of schools that can meet their needs.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

As a representative of the greater Shankill area, I must say that it is totally inconsistent, if not hypocritical, for the Minister to refer to the children of the Shankill to support her arguments, given that she withdrew funding programmes that were intended to support schools in that area. That shows how much she cares about those children.

This morning, Gerry Adams said that the Minister of Education:

“is charged with implementing Sinn Féin policy”.

Will the Minister acknowledge that the St Andrews Agreement secured the retention of the right of schools to select on the basis of academic criteria? Therefore, given that Sinn Féin is only one of four parties in a mandatory coalition, will she also acknowledge that she cannot implement Sinn Féin policy by prohibiting selection on the basis of academic criteria?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I refute the allegations that schools on the Shankill have not received the funding that they need.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

[Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Schools on the Shankill have received funding, and I am glad that they do. I ask the Member to look at the statistics of what is happening to young people and schools on the Shankill. Just like young people from the Falls, New Lodge, Creggan and other areas, children from the Shankill are not getting access to the education that they deserve. The reason for that is not due to any failure on the part of secondary schools — it is because of the failure of the system.

We have systemic failure; the system needs to be changed, and that is what I am doing. The changes that we are implementing will benefit children from the Shankill; the changes will benefit all children rather than just a small number of children. Once again, I ask everyone to work with me so that we can bring about those changes. Members know that I have prioritised the problem of underachievement; I have raised the issue at every single North/South Ministerial Council meeting. It is top of the agenda of every North/South Ministerial Council meeting, such as the one in Derry last week, and that will continue to be the case.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Minister has continued her confusion in respect of the Province’s education system. In light of the non-answer that she gave to Mr McCausland’s question, I once again press the Minister to clarify that she will accept an academic selection process that may be used by post-primary schools in the Province.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I urge all post-primary schools throughout the North to administer the guidance that the Department is sending out today. I urge post-primary schools to work with us in changing the system. I have also made it clear that I do not think that any school should use academic selection, and the departmental guidance does not recommend academic selection. We do not need academic selection because it is irrelevant. We are in a new century, and we need to move forward on the basis of social justice, equality and academic excellence.

Gerry Adams (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

On a point of order. Is it in order for the Chairperson — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I am happy to take a point of order after the ministerial statement.

Mary Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Does the Minister agree that this debate will not comfort parents or teachers? If the Executive had discussed the paper at last Thursday’s meeting, how different would the content of today’s statement have been?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I am thankful that the paper brings clarity and certainty, and, as I said, I will communicate the information to parents, pupils and all schools. I would have preferred — had we achieved compromise — to have discussed the issue at the Executive in May. However, its inclusion on the agenda was blocked.

Furthermore, I would have preferred to have discussed it at the Executive last Thursday, but the DUP blocked its inclusion on the agenda. That party must ask itself questions: why is it afraid to create a world-class education system for all our children? How does blocking a discussion at the Executive help children in areas that DUP Members represent, such as Kilcooley, Shankill and Rathcoole? I suggest that it does not.

Paul Butler (Sinn Féin, Lagan Valley)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Cuirim fáilte roimh ráiteas an Aire inniu. I welcome the Minister’s statement on the transfer test.

Ba mhaith liom ceist a chur ar an Aire maidir leis an teist CCEA.

The Minister mentioned the CCEA test that will form part of her compromise proposals. Given her statement today, what is the future and status of that test?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat. The test was a contingency for an agreement. A test cannot function without a legislative framework that defines and regulates how it will be used. In the interests of compromise, my proposals featured a test in order to give grammar schools three years to adjust to a long-term future without selection and tests. That proposal will now not progress because others were not capable of equivalent concession and refused even to allow the proposals to be included on the agenda of the Executive meeting.

We need to put children and their needs — not institutions or tests — at the core. Over the years, the system has failed too many children, and from now on, the child will be placed at the centre in order to ensure equality and social justice for all children.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I note that three languages have been spoken today, and that the Speaker received a translation of only one. The third language, gibberish, was not translated. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Does the Minister acknowledge that she has moved from saying “I will” to “I wish” and that she can now do nothing — legally or with the consensus of the House or the Executive — to prevent grammar schools from applying academic selection as a criterion?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Bueno, gracias por lo que ha dicho. A mí me gustan las lenguas y creo que es muy importante que hay un debate muy bueno en esta casa. Como Edwin Poots, creo que es importante que las lenguas estan en las aulas.

I am glad that the Member supports languages. It is important to support languages, and the revised curriculum will ensure that we have the opportunity to teach different languages. While our children in P7 and P6 are practising tests, children in other European countries are learning languages. If Members travel abroad, they will see children from different countries speaking English, Spanish, French and German fluently. I share the Member’s huge interest in languages.

The second part of the Member’s question relates to powers. The real stories are that the 11-plus is gone and that, under transfer 2010, children will transfer from primary schools to post-primary schools on the basis of fair admissions criteria.

If schools choose to become breakaway schools, or to depart from the system, that is up to them. However, I would ask them to put children at the centre; that is what I am going to do. For too long, everyone was making policies without thinking about the children. Think about those children as they get the results of that test next Saturday morning. Think about them. It is not fair.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement, and the fact that she is giving all children a chance to realise their full potential, and that she is creating a system that will treat all children equally. How will the guidance on admissions for children who are entitled to free school meals work? In addition, how would the Minister respond to those on the opposite Benches who claim that she is involved in social engineering? Go raibh maith agat.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

What we have at the moment is social engineering, whereby working class children are disproportionately affected and disadvantaged. In relation to the admissions quota for children entitled free school meals, currently children who are entitled to free school meals are not transferred fairly. One in four non-grammar children is entitled to free school meals; one in 17 grammar children is entitled to free school meals. On top of that, children who have special needs are much more likely to attend secondary schools, so secondary schools have a lot of challenges in respect of the education that they provide. I want to put on record that many of them do an excellent job in very difficult circumstances.

The admissions quota that my guidance recommends will ensure precisely that applicants who are entitled to free school meals have exactly the same chance of admission as all other children. I am levelling an old inequality, not creating a new one. That criterion would not mean, as some have suggested, bussing around large numbers of children —and certainly not to the degree that it is done at present. I was looking at statistics in the Department on Friday, and it is shocking to see the number of young people who are bussed in to Belfast from other board areas. For those who are concerned about school closures and rural schools being affected, that is one of the key issues that must be examined.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I note the Minister’s vision for 2010. It is certainly clear that the vision is not 20/20 if those are the proposals that she brings forward. I was interested to hear the Minister say that she was attempting to find consensus with colleagues. If that is the case, why did the Minister refuse to set up a subgroup of the Executive, as has been the case for other controversial issues?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I wanted the Executive, as the highest authority, to discuss the proposals, because the education of our children is very important, and I know that all Ministers are interested in being part of those discussions. On two occasions I brought my compromise proposals to the Executive. On two occasions, the UUP and DUP refused to discuss them. I have, therefore, brought forward guidance. It is more important that the entire Executive discuss the proposals than a subcommittee. I also said that I would have meetings with all my Executive colleagues, and I wrote to them to that effect. No DUP Executive Minister responded to say that he or she wanted a meeting. I look forward to meeting to discuss the guidance, and to hearing people’s comments during the 12-week consultation period.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

I listened carefully to the Minister’s concern for the children of the Shankill Road. Perhaps she will do something for them by addressing composite classes, the underfunding of schools on the Shankill Road, and pupil:teacher ratios in Shankill Road schools, along with other primary schools. The Minister’s statement refers to establishing a body to deal with exceptional circumstances. How will that body define exceptional circumstances, and how will it be assembled?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

With regard to the Member’s first point, of course all the policies that we are bringing forward — a jigsaw of policies that are interconnected, as I said in my statement — are to ensure that we deal with educational underachievement, and the Shankill Road is one of the areas in which that must be dealt with.

I am considering and reviewing the common-funding formula so that we can target on the basis of need and get money to the schools that have many disadvantaged pupils. That is very important, and I know that the Member shares my view. I have also put a serious focus on underachievement by establishing a literacy and numeracy task force and ‘Every School a Good School’. We will not deal with underachievement overnight, but we will improve it.

Members will be aware that the chief inspector of the Education and Training Inspectorate issued a report last week. The chief inspector is in his first year in post, and his report was very interesting. He said that almost two thirds of year 12 pupils achieve at least five GCSE subjects, but that figure drops to just over one half when English and maths are included. He also said that almost 1,000 pupils leave school each year without any GCSE qualifications. That concerns me greatly. Nobody in this House would like their children — after 12 years of school — to leave without any qualifications at all. That is simply not acceptable.

The Member asked a very discerning question about the exceptional-circumstances procedure. That is a very important procedure, so we will issue regulations and consult on those.

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

I return to the Minister’s point about welcoming and celebrating the end of the 11-plus. The real story is that the Minister still does not have a system to replace the 11-plus. The guidance that is before us today is a poor substitute for regulations.

Why is the Minister not giving more attention to the age of 14, which is a key age in the lifetime of schoolchildren? If she made proposals and listened to some of the partners in education, the Minister would find a great deal of support for a way forward based on a 14-plus arrangement.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

The end of the 11-plus may not be the real story for the Member and for other people, but it is certainly the real story for the children who will not have to sit the 11-plus. For too long, too many of our children have sat a high-stakes test that classified a huge percentage of them as failures and gave them unequal pathways in their lives ahead. Thankfully, the good news story is that there is no 11-plus. We now have very clear guidance with very clear admissions criteria. I look forward to working with all the schools on the matter.

I have placed huge emphasis on the age of 14, as have the area-based planning groups that I set up. That is a much better age for children to make choices that determine pathways. At the age of 14, young people at least have power in making those choices. At the age of 10 or 11, it is not the children who make the choices. We need to empower our young people so that they are active participants.

Last week, Reg Empey and I launched a career strategy. Then — and again during my statement today — I said that 14 is one of the key ages. The SDLP is opposed to academic selection, so rather than carping at the proposals, I ask that party to join with me in bringing about the badly needed change in our education system. I very much look forward to working with the SDLP.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Today, we have heard so much wishful thinking from the Minister that she would be better off sending her proposals to the ‘Jim’ll Fix It’ programme rather than to the Executive, so much are they grounded in fantasy.

The Minister made a concession to my colleague Miss McIlveen in relation to the Departmental Solicitor’s Office. In the interests of clarity and transparency, will she outline the issues on which she sought legal advice from the Departmental Solicitor’s Office, and will she confirm whether she will publish the legal advice that she received from that office?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I have brought forward guidance under article 30 of the 2006 Order, which gives the Department of Education the power to issue admissions guidance. Once again, rather than putting the interests of children first, a party is reverting to legal argument. Anyone who is interested in the future of children would not have blocked the discussion of transfer 2010 at the Executive table. Even at this stage, I ask the DUP to reconsider its approach to this matter. Let us put children at the centre, because that is what we are here to do.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The Member who spoke previously should note that ‘Jim’ll Fix It’ and unionist domination can only be found in history — they are over.

I welcome the Minister’s proposals, which are a step forward. I too regret the failure by the parties opposite to reach a political accommodation on this matter. However, we must make progress and deliver definitive approaches to educating children. The Minister will be aware that several grammar schools — regardless of the sector that they are from — will put pressure on primary schools to teach towards a test. What support will the Minister give to primary schools to guard against such pressure?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Sin ceist an-mhaith. That is an important question. I have been meeting with primary-school principals, and, last week, in Hilltown, County Down, I met some principals to discuss proposals for transfer 2010 and how to create a more equal system. Thankfully, the vast majority of primary schools are delighted that the curriculum will no longer be distorted by the 11-plus.

I have discussed the revised curriculum with principals, and there is a statutory duty on them to teach it. In addition, the Education and Training Inspectorate has a role to play in monitoring and evaluating the revised curriculum. I will write to every primary school, and I will be working with principals to ensure that they do not come under pressure from the breakaway grammar schools that are attempting to dictate what they should, or should not, teach. The Department is the authority that is responsible for producing the curriculum, and the revised curriculum is in place. If parents or principals feel that they are coming under undue pressure, the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment has a procedure by which they can complain and, if after evaluation a claim is substantiated, the Department can act.

After the next set of results come out, for the first time ever, the primary-school curriculum will not be distorted and children will not have to sit tests in a primary school to determine their progress to post-primary education. That is a major step forward that will liberate primary schools, and all the teachers’ unions — the Irish National Teachers’ Organisation, the Ulster Teachers’ Union and the National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers — are delighted that there is no longer an 11-plus examination, because they are opposed to it.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I suspect that there will be anarchy, rather than clarity, in the transfer procedure. Given that boards of governors will draw up admissions criteria, which will probably include a selection test, is the fact that children will have to undergo a series of tests not worse than the old 11-plus?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

As the Member knows, the 11-plus is sat in primary schools. Thankfully, that will no longer be happening, so there will be no distortion of the primary-school curriculum, and that is a good start. Moreover, I hope that all schools work with me to implement the guidance, so that we can create a world-class education system without the need for academic selection — it is not necessary. We must put children at the centre. The status quo is the absolute worst option, and thankfully, we will not have that.

We have change in the system, and it is hoped that everyone will work with us. However, as I said earlier, there are 1,238 schools, and we cannot allow 3% of those to dictate education policy for all the schools. We have to move forward, and now is the time for leadership.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

In order to put some pieces of the jigsaw puzzle in place, will the Minister state whether she took advice from the Departmental Solicitor’s Office? What was the nature and scope of the advice sought and the advice received? Did she seek or receive legal advice outwith that of the Departmental Solicitor’s Office? Will the Minister confirm clearly that all boards and schools are free to read and consider her guidance note but not to implement it? Furthermore, will she confirm that grammar schools are free to read and consider her guidance note but, subsequently, entitled to use academic admissions as a criterion for entrance to their schools?

Will the Minister confirm that she will engage with grammar schools, rather than refer to them as “breakaway grammar schools” that are outside the “mainstream education system”, as she does in her statement. Does she accept that categorising the grammar schools in such a derogatory fashion does nothing to achieve the consensus that she claims to want to reach?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I have informed all sides of the House continually that if Members insist on asking multiple questions, the Minister can decide whether she wants to answer one, two, three, four or five of them.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Suffice it to say, I have answered the question already. However, in the interests of courtesy, I will answer it again. First, comprehensive legal advice was sought on the issue of guidance. Secondly, I have always said that I want to work with all the schools, and I hope that the breakaway grammar schools will work with us in relation to the guidance, because that is how our education system can progress.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Minister has created uncertainty, rather than certainty. Will she admit that her main proposals for determining admission to oversubscribed schools will be through random selection? How will putting children into a lottery create certainty for them? Is that a means of putting children first?

Does the Minister recognise that investment in early-years provision and extended schools is an effective way of tackling underachievement and more appropriate than trying to destroy something that is excelling?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I agree with the Member’s comments in relation to early-years provision and extended schools, and I look forward to the support of his party —and that of the party opposite — when I introduce proposals for funding for the extended schools in the Budget. Members will know that this is a successful programme. We are carrying out an early-years review, and I share with all the Members the view that there is a need for substantial resources to be put into early-years provision. I look forward to their support in relation to that.

With regard to the earlier part of Mr Beggs’s question, the guidance recommends that all schools use, as their first criterion, a measure that will ensure that applicants who are entitled to free school meals gain admission at the same rate as the other applicants. The guidance also recommends criteria relating to feeder schools; the parish in which the individual lives; the individual’s siblings; whether the individual is the eldest child in his or her family; the catchment area; and the nearest suitable school. Therefore admission to schools will not be based on random selection, as the Member suggested; it is much broader than that. If the Member reads the proposals and takes an honest view of them, he will see that.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for her statement, which, she says, provides clarity to children, parents and teachers. It provides clarity in respect of the scope and status of the guidance that has been issued, but it does not remove the contention and confusion that will exist where we have an unregulated system, with schools running their own admissions criteria and setting their own tests.

If the Minister is telling us that she has had to park the idea of legislation, what would allow her return to a basis for legislating? It will be a collective failure on the part of the devolved project if we have an unregulated system of school transfers.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I submitted compromise proposals, which the DUP blocked by refusing to discuss them in the Executive. I have to move forward in order to bring clarity and certainty — that is what I am doing, through the guidance. We can create a new, well-managed system, and schools can work with us to put that system in place. We must put the children at the centre of the process. I look forward to working with Mark Durkan’s party in doing that.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. How will the Minister’s guidance deal with the issue of rurality? How will rural children be treated as a result of the guidance? I want an assurance that rural children will not suffer any inequality.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Sin ceist an-mhaith. On 15 May 2008, I made a commitment to ensure that the proposals would not disadvantage rural applicants. That is done by controlling the degree to which schools can prioritise local applicants. For example, if a popular Catholic grammar school, or a voluntary grammar school, which would attract children predominately from the Protestant community, were to follow the recommendation in the guidance, children who live 10 miles away, but for whom that is the nearest Catholic or voluntary grammar school, would enjoy admissions priority equal to that enjoyed by children qualifying for any geographical criteria that the school used.

The school categories that would define school suitability for the purpose of that measure are: denominational grammar; non-denominational grammar; maintained secondary; controlled secondary; Irish medium; and integrated. Under that recommendation, all children would be considered equally local when applying to schools nearest to them in each of those categories. Therefore, if the recommendation is followed, no child will be disadvantaged by virtue of having an outlying or rural address.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Will the Minister outline how her announcement will avoid there being a postcode lottery?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

What we have at present is a postcode lottery — the proposals will create a much more equal system. The biggest indicator that the current system is a postcode lottery is the fact that, of children who receive free school meals, one in four attends a secondary school and one in 17 attends a grammar school. We must ensure that we have a fairer system, in which children from disadvantaged backgrounds are entitled to equality.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Minister for her statement. I understand her frustration, but does she not recognise that she is creating a system in which there will be more anarchy? If it is inevitable that schools will have their own academic tests, is it not fairer and more responsible for the Department to impose its own tests, rather than have a free-for-all? Furthermore, if there is a situation in which pupils are not prepared at primary school, and their parents therefore feel the need to pay for tuition, is there not a danger that that will create more inequality in the system rather than remove it?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I thank the Member for his positive comments. I do not view it as inevitable that schools will conduct their own independent or breakaway tests. I ask that all schools work with the Department and adhere to the guidance. That is how we can create the best system. We will manage the system very carefully and in the interests of all children. We will retain our academic excellence, but we will ensure that that is available to more children than it is currently. We will continue with our revised curriculum and entitlement framework so that all children can access a very broad curriculum.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Will you resign if —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I do not accept that there will be a free-for-all — the vast majority of our children transfers on the basis of the guidance that I have introduced. Some schools — a small number — have said that they will depart from the guidance. Let us see whether they do. I hope that they will reconsider, but I cannot continue to let the education of 3% of the school population distort the new policies for the remaining 97%. We must deal with underachievement and bring equality to the system.

Thankfully, we no longer have 10-year-olds sitting two one-hour tests. The Department will not provide a test; the Department does not consider it good practice for 10-year-olds to take tests with such high stakes.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome today’s statement. The undoubted impact of this comprehensive statement is that there is now the opportunity to have a rational debate in which all sections of the community can participate and make their own judgments. I am grateful to the Minister for her contribution.

Given the blocking tactics and the increasing hysteria of the parties opposite, will the Minister confirm that there is no scope under the regulations to distort the revised curriculum?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat. I agree with the Member that there should be a rational debate, because that is in the interests of all young people. I look forward to developing that debate as the Department formulates its guidance.

As for the blocking tactics that the Member mentioned, I am on record as saying that I would have preferred all parties to have worked together in the past. However, let us put the past behind us and move the debate forward in the interests of all children.

The revised curriculum is working; teachers at every school that I visit say that they are beginning to enjoy teaching the revised curriculum and are seeing the benefits of it. It is starting to dawn on primary schools that never again will teachers in primary school have to teach to a test. Never again will children sit in a primary-school classroom and take two one-hour tests.

I was at Croke Park on Saturday night to watch Dublin play Tyrone, and I would like to congratulate Tyrone before Barry McElduff gets in. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

It was a wonderful celebration of the 125th anniversary of the GAA, at which I met many teachers. One teacher from Tyrone simply told me that she had been teaching P7 for 20 years and would never have to teach the 11-plus again. Her eyes were dancing, and it was wonderful. I told her that she would never have to teach the 11-plus again; that is the good-news story.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I call Mr Francie Brolly. [Interruption.]

Order.

Francie Brolly (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I apologise for not being ready with my question.

What weight should grammar-school boards of governors who intend to continue testing give to the guidance that the Minister issued today?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I hope that all schools will work to the guidance for transfer 2010 that I presented today. Everyone needs to take a step back, and I ask everyone, including the grammar schools that have said that they will operate breakaway tests, to read the guidance carefully, and consider their position. Many will see the benefits of the guidance, and I look forward to working with them.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

That is the end of the questions to the ministerial statement. There are three points of order: Mr Poots, first of all, then Mr Adams and Carál Ní Chuilín.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask the Office of the Speaker to study the Minister’s statement, particularly her assertion that:

“The 11+ would never have been scrapped by a British or indeed a Unionist education minister.”

My understanding is that, although Martin McGuinness started the process, Angela Smith, who was a British direct rule Minister, concluded it. Will you clarify whether that is correct, and, whether, therefore, the Minister has been misleading the House on that issue?

Secondly, will you pay particular attention to the section of the statement that was used as a means to attack other political parties in the House? Will you rule on the appropriateness of such a statement being used to single out other political parties for attack?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order, order. It is not the job of the Speaker, or the Office of the Speaker, to check the accuracy of ministerial statements.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, is it in order for anyone to mislead the House? If someone has misled the House, should he or she not be brought to order, particularly when it is drawn to the attention —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order, order. I ask the Member to reflect carefully on what he is saying.

Gerry Adams (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. On a point of order, a Cheann Comhairle. I appreciate that you and the previous Ceann Comhairle have tried to ensure that the debates here are robust, open but civic, and civil. During the debate, I noted, first, that the Chairperson of the Committee for Education — when he was present — consistently and persistently interrupted and heckled the Minister. Secondly, in the course of his remarks he used the term “Mein Kampf”. Will you rule on whether that is an appropriate use of language? Go raibh maith agat.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order, order. I hear what the Member has said. I am happy to look at the matter in the Hansard report. Ministerial statements are part of the business of the House, and I understand that some Members may get excited about some of the debates. However, I have said to Members on all sides of the House, irrespective of the topic of the debate, that it is important that they temper their language as far as possible. In some of the debates, that may not always be easy. I understand that: I have been there and, on many occasions, I have worn the T-shirt. Nevertheless, I have said, over and over again, that it is important, irrespective of the debate, for Members to temper their language.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Further to that point of order, a Cheann Comhairle, I assume that you check the Hansard reports. Will you check today’s debate and note that Basil McCrea said that Caitríona Ruane brought the House into disrepute? I believe those comments to be unparliamentary. Will you make a ruling on that, Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

My office goes through the Hansard report after all business in the House to read what Members have said, irrespective of the debate. We will do that today.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have said that you read the Hansard report in detail. When doing so, will you look at the number of questions that were put to the Minister that were not answered? She went off on her normal rant —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order, order. I have said that it is not up to the Speaker to decide whether a Minister has answered a question. The Minister decides how he or she will answer a question. I raised that issue last Monday. Once again, Members are on their feet asking the Speaker to decide whether a Minister has answered a question appropriately. That is not the Speaker’s job, nor is it the job of the Speaker to sit in judgement on how a Minister might answer a question.

Executive Committee Business

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I beg to move

That the Rates (Social Sector Value) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2009 be affirmed.

Members will note that the statutory rule is brief and technical. It merely serves to update the list of registered housing associations that fall within the remit of the social sector standardisation process. It will be useful to the House if I provide some background information on standardisation before highlighting the changes that the regulations will bring about.

As the House will know, the new capital value system was introduced in April 2007. Direct rule Ministers decided that it would not be appropriate to apply it to the social rented sector — the sector where housing allocation is based on social need not market choice.

Furthermore, it was considered undesirable for tenants occupying the same sort of house in different locations to be paying significantly different amounts in rates. Under the old net annual value system, there was little or no variation in rates liability for similar houses in different locations within the social rented sector. Also, rents in that sector were, and continue to be, standardised according to property type. In addition, it is practice for the Housing Executive and the housing associations to collect rates with the rent, so standardisation of rate payments made a lot of sense.

Provision was made in the Rates (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 to allow a system of standardised rates in the social rented sector. That was achieved through regulations made under article 23A of the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977. The Rates (Social Sector Value) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2007 prescribed the housing associations to which social sector values apply. At present, that lists 37 housing associations. However, since 2007, a number of those have amalgamated, ceased to exist or changed their name. The updating of the list of housing associations contained within the schedule to the existing subordinate legislation is the sole purpose of this new statutory rule. It is essentially only a care-and-maintenance provision.

In order to prevent an affirmative resolution process having to be continually used simply to update the list of prescribed housing associations — possibly on an annual basis — I propose that any future amendment to the list could be made under the negative resolution procedure. I intend to bring that change forward through the rates (amendment) Bill, which I hope to present to both the Executive and the Assembly shortly.

Although I consider the current level of scrutiny to be somewhat excessive for such a minor technical change, the affirmative resolution procedure will continue for any other changes requiring substantive use of the enabling power in article 23A of the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977. Members of the Executive and of the Committee for Finance and Personnel were advised of my intention to make the statutory rule. No comments were received on the proposed introduction, and the Committee was content with the regulations. I therefore recommend that the Rates (Social Sector Value) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2009 be affirmed.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The Committee for Finance and Personnel considered the proposals for this subordinate legislation at its meeting on 3 December 2008 and was content with the Department’s proposals. As the Minister outlined this morning, that legislation primarily facilitates a housekeeping exercise to update the list of housing associations contained in the previous Rates (Social Sector Value) Regulations 2007, to which a social sector value will apply. In other words, rates bills for properties in the social rented sector will be calculated as a proportion of the rent paid on the property as opposed to capital value.

The Committee subsequently considered the statutory rule at its meeting on 21 January, together with the accompanying report from the Assembly’s Examiner of Statutory Rules. At that meeting, the Committee for Finance and Personnel agreed unanimously to recommend to the Assembly that the Rates (Social Sector Value) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2009 be affirmed. Therefore, on behalf of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, I support the motion that seeks the Assembly’s endorsement of the provisions of that Order.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I am very grateful for the comments from the Committee Chairperson, and I thank the Committee members and the Chairperson for the positive way in which they dealt with that particular issue. As I said, it is not a matter of great controversy, but I thank the Committee for its handling of the issue. I commend the Order to the House.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Rates (Social Sector Value) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2009 be affirmed.

Committee Business

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I beg to move

That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 30 September 2009, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Education Bill (NIA Bill 3/08).

I want to explain to the House the Committee’s reasons for requesting an extension to the Committee Stage of the Education Bill to 30 September 2009. I remind Members that the Committee encouraged the Minister of Education to bring forward a single Bill on the establishment of the education and skills authority (ESA).

We were informed that that would not be possible, because it would cause major delay. Therefore, we have a unique situation where two Bills are part of one legislative programme — two intimately linked Acts that will establish the ESA.

I remind Members the target date for the enactment and commencement of the Bill before the House is 1 January 2010. The second Bill will be introduced before the summer recess, and the target date for the commencement of its provisions is 1 January or 1 April 2010. Those target dates rightly reflect the immense amount of work that will have to be done to establish a fully functional ESA.

As I said during the Bill’s Second Stage on 8 December 2008, several Committee members — myself included — had significant concerns about several important aspects of the first Education Bill, some of which impact directly on the second Bill. At that time, I detailed nine areas of concern. Since the Bill was referred to the Committee in December, the Committee has scrutinised several of those areas, and for some Committee members and me, significant concerns remain.

As I said, that reflects the immense amount of development work that the Department of Education and the ESA implementation team have to do with education stakeholders. The Committee needs to see those gaps filled and clarified for it to have the necessary confidence that the ESA can deliver better local and regional services to schools.

This Bill is extensive, with 55 clauses and eight schedules. The Committee questioned senior departmental officials about the need to have the Bill on the statute books by the summer recess. Given that the Act will not come into effect until January 2010, in addition to the magnitude of the development work to be addressed that the Committee has identified and the fact that the Bill is significant and complex, the Committee has agreed an extension of the Committee Stage until 30 September 2009.

The Committee understands that extending its scrutiny until the end of September will not preclude the establishment of the ESA on 1 January 2010. There was another proposal for an extension until 1 June 2009, which was supported by two Committee members, compared with the seven-to-two support for the date in the motion.

The Committee does not want to delay the Bill unduly. If the Committee gains confidence in the first Bill, and in what the second Bill will bring, it can report to the House earlier than 30 September. Committee members emphasised the importance of prompt delivery of papers from the Department addressing the Committee’s concerns in that respect.

The Committee has a statutory duty to scrutinise the Bill in a full and proper manner and to report to the House accordingly. I assure Members that that is the Committee’s intention and ask that they support the motion.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

My party does not support the extension of the Bill’s Committee Stage, certainly not until September. We have deep concerns that any further delay to the implementation of the ESA will have a detrimental effect on education services.

Education boards are being wound down — senior staff are leaving, taking early retirement or moving on. Therefore, the services being delivered by our education boards are not what they were even six months ago. I respect the right of every Statutory Committee to scrutinise legislation, because that is their job — at the Bill’s Second Stage, I said that the Committee had an important role to play. However, my party believes that that work can be done before the summer recess and that all the concerns raised can be ironed out. The Minister has allayed many of the concerns that Committee members raised, publicly and privately, with her on the Bill before Christmas.

The Minister said that the second Bill will be linked to the first Bill by a commencement Order. Therefore, all the concerns of Committee members have been answered. A certain member and a certain political party in the Committee have political objections to the Bill, and they have stated publicly that they will oppose it. Regardless of what happens between now and the Committee Stage, they will oppose the ESA Bill. For political reasons, they should not be allowed to delay the most important changes to education in a generation.

We will oppose the commencement Order. If the amendment is passed, I hope that the Committee for Education will move this important piece of work before the summer.

It is worth noting that countless Committees meet for many hours to consider Bills, but the Committee for Education meets for only two-and-a-half hours a week to consider this important Bill. There is nothing to stop us from meeting all day or even a couple of days a week to consider the Bill and to ensure that it goes through. If the Bill is delayed unduly, it will have a detrimental effect on the education services in this society.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I suspect that the previous Member who spoke was referring to me and to the Ulster Unionist Party when he mentioned the opposition to the Bill. I wish to place on record that our opposition is not because we are worried about efficiency; it is because of the evidence that has been presented to the Committee. The Hansard report from the Committee’s evidence session states:

“The Minister’s recent statements outlined that the Bill is designed to deliver a proposition that differs from the original ESA”.

We support the original intention. We do not support the current position, because evidence presented on 14 January states:

“ESA is a public body to deliver public policies, as signed off by the Assembly and the Minister. The political level and political process have to determine the policy. ESA can only take them and deliver.”

We will not accept some political diktat on the issue. We are prepared to support the Chairperson and his Committee in asking for an extension to consider the issue, but, as yet, we remain unconvinced. I want to make it clear that we support the extension, but we have not changed our position. I believe that Members beside me also share those reservations.

If at some time we share the confidence of the Chairperson, we will review the situation. However, we remain very disconcerted by what we see as a Trojan Horse.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 30 September 2009, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Education Bill (NIA Bill 3/08).

private members’ business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Business Committee has agreed to allocate additional time where two or more amendments have been selected. It has agreed to allow up to one hour and 45 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. Two amendments have been selected and published on the Marshalled List. The proposer of each amendment will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes.

David Simpson (DUP, Upper Bann)

I beg to move

That this Assembly recognises the importance of meeting the needs of victims; and condemns proposals from the Consultative Group on the Past which equate perpetrators of violence with innocent victims.

This debate touches on Northern Ireland’s legacy of hurt, tears, anguish and broken hearts, and it deals with the very real loss that thousands of people live with every day. Metaphorically speaking, we are treading near the graves of thousands who lost their lives in our community. Those who perished in the Troubles were our neighbours, our family and our kith and kin. I hope that everyone will remember that fact during our deliberations on the matter. As someone who lost close family members to the Troubles, I know the stab and the sting of that. For that reason, there is much that I wish to say here today, so I must ask for patience from Members, as I will not have time to take interventions.

According to the Consultative Group on the Past, the nearest relative of a victim should be paid £12,000 blood money. Under that proposal, the families of the innocent people who lost their lives at Omagh, Greysteel, Claudy and La Mon, or on the Shankill Road and elsewhere, would be treated the same as the terrorists who were responsible — if those terrorists consequentially died as a result of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. The family of sectarian killer Thomas Begley would be treated in exactly the same way as his victims. That is something that we cannot, and never shall, accept.

The members of the Consultative Group on the Past seem to have persuaded one another that elevating murderers, bombers, gunmen and other criminals to the status of innocent victim is a noble course of action. They are very, very wrong and have made a gross miscalculation — one that has tainted the totality of their work. I understand why the Consultative Group on the Past has taken such pains to insist that what it has proposed should not be called “compensation”. I agree — a better term would be “a bribe”, “a pat on the head” or “hush money”.

Can we ever imagine that a child murderer or serial killer, who acted because he or she suffered a psychotic breakdown, would be put on the same level as their victims, or that a child murderer or a serial killer, who acted because he or she had fallen under the spell of a doomsday cult, would ever be put on that footing? The answer, very simply, is a resounding no. However, we are asked to accept that child murderers and serial killers who acted out of sectarian hatred for their neighbours should be given that equal status. That is a monstrous suggestion.

In the same way, the people who planted, or abandoned, the 300lb bomb in Castlewellan at the weekend would be seen in the same light as the innocent men, women and children whom their device could have killed. Why are we asked to accept that offence against decency? There is only one answer: we have been asked to buy into the lie — for a lie it is — that, in some way, everyone is guilty and everyone is a victim. That was a lie when it was first coined, it is a lie today, and it will stand a lie for ever. Those who used their membership of the Consultative Group on the Past to pursue and promote that lie should hang their heads in shame.

I accept that the families of some dead terrorists may have known nothing about their relative’s activities, but we should keep in mind one fact: in many cases in which terrorists died as a result of their terrorism, they were buried with full paramilitary trappings, and with the approval of their families. In those cases, those families gave their public approval and support to their relative’s terrorist activities. Such cases should not be treated in the same way as the cases of innocent men, women and children who were slaughtered. I am forced to ask where the members of the Consultative Group on the Past have been living. In what cave, or down what hole, did they conduct their deliberations? On what planet did they draw up their report?

The report says much about remembering. For many people, the issue is not about remembering but about not being able to forget. They are not able to forget the sight of their loved ones, or, rather, what was left after the terrorists had finished with them. Now that group wants those people to be lumped together with remembrances of the one who visited that path of sorrow on them.

The Consultative Group on the Past was given its task by the Secretary of State, and its recommendations will ultimately have to be either accepted or rejected by the Prime Minister. During a recent intervention at Prime Minister’s Questions, my colleague Nigel Dodds accurately judged the mood of Parliament on the issue. I wish that I could describe in detail to this House the sense of revulsion that honourable and Rt Hon Members of the House of Commons feel about the matter. The loud cheers of agreement for my honourable friend’s comments from Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrat Members alike demonstrated that any proposal that is designed to create parity between murderous criminals and those whom they murdered will face significant and sustained opposition.

The Eames/Bradley group was given a task of gaining consensus on how we might deal with the past in Northern Ireland. By any impartial measure, it has failed. There are so many things that I wish to say, and that need to be said. I know from personal and sore experience just how much so many families have suffered across Northern Ireland down through the years of the Troubles. They have so many needs, and we owe them so much.

However, that shoddy recommendation is not one of those things. It should never have been spoken. It will stand as a mark of shame, and I trust that it will never see the light of day. I commend the motion to the House.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I beg to move amendment No 1: Leave out all after “Assembly” and insert

“takes note of the proposals of the Consultative Group on the Past, shares the grave reservations across the community at the suggestion for £12,000 ‘recognition payments’, but recognises the potential for the other recommendations to provide an effective way to assist victims and to address the past and its legacy, consistent with the objectives of reconciliation and the creation of a shared future.”

The Alliance Party tabled the amendment because, although, in broad, general terms, it welcomes the report of the Eames/Bradley Consultative Group on the Past, my colleagues and I feel that we have been seriously let down by the members of the group in the way in which they have conducted their business, particularly over recent months.

The Alliance Party was not the only one to hold meetings with the consultative group over an extended period while it was going about its business. I gather that other parties held meetings with it very recently.

The Alliance Party told the group that many difficult issues needed to be dealt with if reconciliation and a shared future for society were to be promoted. However, we gave broad, general support to the thrust of what it sought to do. At no time up until the group met journalists to give a briefing four or five days before its report was fully launched was mention made of the £12,000 payments — the so-called recognition payments. I cannot understand why a group that had engaged in such a wide way with people from right across society and with different political parties was completely incapable of realising the effect that those recognition payments would have on the public response to its recommendations.

Mr Simpson has already illustrated that response. I offer two short quotations from the early part of his speech. He referred to “blood money”, which is not necessarily an assessment with which I agree, but it is one that is widespread across our society. He said that the report had elevated terrorists:

“to the status of innocent victim”.

It has certainly clouded the distinctions between different groups of people. That is a major problem. The report is serious and detailed, and with the exception of the recommendation for recognition payments, MLAs and others must work hard to assess the report and its recommendations, and consider what response to make.

It would be an absolute tragedy if the positive work contained in the report were to be lost because of one utterly unacceptable recommendation — that for these financial payments. There are other ways in which people from different backgrounds can learn to understand one another’s suffering. If a policeman’s widow were told that her story was to appear in the same book as that of an IRA member’s mother, in order to serve to recognise their suffering and what they had been through, that would not have prompted as negative a response as that which the idea of these payments has prompted. The recommendation has been hugely damaging, so it is not surprising that Mr Simpson has dwelt on that aspect of the report. Most of us accept the bulk of what he said and will agree that the motion is a response to the report.

It is, however, a response to only one part of the report. We must accept that there is no hierarchy of suffering, but there is definitely a hierarchy of circumstance. The suggestion of a blanket payment has clouded that distinction, and that is the major problem for people in dealing with the report.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Does the Member feel, as many others do, that this payment was announced in line with what happened in the South of Ireland? The group took it for granted that what was done in the South could be done in the North.

Surely that shows that they were far out of the facts concerning the attitude of people from all sides of the divide?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank the Member for his intervention. I think we can take it that Dr Paisley is not holding up the South as an example of good practice. I agree with him that it was an example of bad practice. It is not the case that two wrongs make a right. What was done in the South may or may not have been appropriate there — I am not an expert — but it is certainly inappropriate here. However, society needs to move on, and difficult decisions will have to be taken, but we must not cloud the moral distinction by that fairly arbitrary sum of money that is being suggested.

What concerns me about the motion is not what it says, but what it does not say. The motion ignores the details of the report — and it is a very detailed report — and its many positive proposals. Although it is an understandable — I might almost say knee-jerk, if that is not considered offensive — response a few days after the publication of the report, Mr Simpson and his colleagues, as much as everyone else in this place, will have to take serious note of other aspects of the report. There is a strong emphasis on the need to look at societal relationships, to promote reconciliation and to tackle sectarianism. Can anyone suggest that we do not need to do that in this society if we are to change? That is why there is considerable merit in the concept of a legacy commission, with three strands looking at reconciliation, justice and information recovery in order to promote peace and stability in this society.

Those who hold office in this place, and those who talk much about what they have done to provide for society by their leadership of the political process, also need to speak to their supporters on the ground, and those with whom they associate, to ensure that that mutual recognition and working together is engendered across society. The process is far too important to be left to the Executive, or to even the Assembly.

The timing of the report is, possibly, a bit late. Although I do not accept the idea of a South African-style truth and reconciliation commission, there is no doubt that the incentives in that process for people to tell the truth in a short timescale, were major, positive incentives. Those have been lost to us. However, I do not agree with those who suggested in various recent comments in the press that we can leave this process for another generation. To leave things for another generation — bringing up a generation in a divided society — is to run the risk of repeating the cycle of the past 40 years. That is something that we cannot allow.

We must ensure that there is a short and focused process — a five-year time limit seems about reasonable — in order to get movement in a timescale that would cement what has been done in this place into wider society. I welcome other aspects of the report. Matters that many found offensive, such as suggesting an amnesty for the on-the-runs, are clearly ruled out. Surely Mr Simpson and his colleagues are not going to run away with ideas such as that?

A balance must be found between justice and information recovery. The blunt reality is that, 30 and 40 years on, many victims will never see justice in the conventional sense, as much as we wish they could. If all that we can achieve for them is information recovery by way of incentives for people to tell the truth about what happened, that may offer some measure of consolation. It may, sadly, be the only measure of consolation available. However, it does not seem wise for unionists to continue to insist on the process of justice when evidence is not available or accessible. They must recognise that in the report by the Consultative Group on the Past, there are ways forward that would represent a benefit to them, if not all that they would hope.

The full disclosure of information may satisfy the concerns of many who were bereaved or injured. We need to find encouragement to get that process moved forward. We need, too, seriously to examine building on the healing-through-remembering idea of a day of reflection and reconciliation, because we need to tell all our people that they have a part to play.

Although some of that activity may initially be done on an individual or small-group basis, let us see what can be done, through the recognition of mutual suffering — without in any way implying equal responsibility — to build things up and move people forward. I wish that there were an opportunity for the First Minister and deputy First Minister to engage in that process from 21 June 2009; however, that may be too much to hope for.

I am concerned about the suggestion in the report that parties should, at some future stage, sign up to the principle of non-violence. For some parties, that was never necessary, and for others, that has already been done; however, it is an example of what needs to be done on a broader basis. I agree with many of the sentiments expressed by Mr Simpson, and with the wording of the motion. I agree with much of what is contained within Sinn Féin’s proposed amendment. There is a huge gulf of ideas around this issue, and, I believe, the amendment that I am proposing meets all those needs.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Molaim leasú a dó.

I beg to move amendment No 2: Leave out all after “and” and insert

“recognises the grief felt by the families of all victims who lost their lives as a result of the conflict; and following publication of the report from the Consultative Group on the Past, urges everyone to enter a constructive debate on the way forward.”

First, I want to commend the effort of the Eames/Bradley group for finding ways in which the legacy of the past can be dealt with. Over the past 18 months, panel members have devoted a lot of time and effort to compiling the report, and are to be thanked. Sinn Féin will now reflect on the proposals within the report, and I think that everyone should do the same — this is not the time for knee-jerk reactions. Individuals, and political parties, are entitled to their view; however, we should all approach the report with the degree of consideration and concern that it requires.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Although political parties have the advantage of being able to give consideration to the report, many victims have been re-traumatised by what they are hearing in the media. On Friday, in my constituency office, I listened for two hours to a lady explaining how she had been re-traumatised. It may be grand for some people to reflect on the report; however, we must have cognisance of those for whom it is not.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I agree absolutely. Indeed, perhaps comments made by some people, particularly those in political life, have added to that trauma. It is disappointing to hear some of the language that has been used in dealing with the report. Last Thursday, I listened to Elaine Moore, a panel member, speaking on Radio Foyle. She said clearly that she understood and accepted that many people will not accept the report, and that they are entitled not to. However, she cautioned people, particularly those in political life, not to use language such as “repugnant” or “repulsive” in describing the report. I think that she was correct to say that, as that displays an arrogance that this difficult subject does not warrant or deserve. Those taking part in the debate should show leadership, and should, by all means, state their position. However, we must be mindful of other people’s right to be heard, and — I agree with the Member — we should be very cognisant of the people who are being re-traumatised by the report and who may not have a political voice, or indeed, any voice at all.

Sinn Féin will now take time to go through the report in detail. We will continue our dialogue with various victims’ and survivors’ groups, and we will meet with the two Governments as part of the dialogue process. Sinn Féin is mindful of all the difficulties involved in truth recovery, particularly for victims and their families. However, we believe that as society seeks to leave conflict behind, so, too, there is a requirement on all of us to address the tragic human consequences of the past. Throughout, we will be guided by a number of principles, which formed the basis of our call for a truth recovery process — we were the first political party to call for such a process.

All those processes should be victim-centred and should deal with victims on an all-Ireland basis, not within the strict confines of the Six Counties. Full co-operation by all the relevant parties is essential to the success of any commission. There can be no hierarchy of victims, and all processes should be politically neutral. Any future panel must be international and independent. With that in mind, any panel set up by the British Government cannot fulfil the necessary criterion of being politically neutral and independent.

Indeed, it creates the notion and the fallacy that the British Government were not participants in the conflict. That is not only wrong, but it leaves the people who were killed or injured as a direct result of state violence wondering whether, yet again, they are being pushed to the margins of the process.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I respect the Member’s comments at the beginning of his speech that everyone needs to consider the report with an open mind. However, his latter statement that the group is tainted because it was set up by the British Government contradicts his earlier comments.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

It does not. Sinn Féin met the panel on several occasions before and during the process, and we cautioned it. The recent inquiries that have been set up under British legislation have met with obstruction and destruction of evidence. The Bloody Sunday Inquiry is a good example of that. We cautioned the panel that if it were not politically neutral, the outcome would not be what the victims needed.

It is wrong that the British Government set up the panel, because it creates the fallacy that the British Government were not participants in the conflict. In addition, the report talks about “alleged” collusion, which leaves people wondering whether they have to make the case that collusion took place, rather than stating clearly that the British Government were involved in the killing of Irish citizens. The report should have said that.

In our ongoing discussions, we will continue to argue that one of the purposes of any future panel or commission should be to examine the causes, nature and extent of the conflict. An objective of any process should be healing, both of the victims and of society in general. We also have a common aim to enable society to build the peace and, therefore, reconciliation should be the core aim of any truth process. Respect and generosity should inform the parties that are seeking to reach agreement.

We also must be mindful that, if we are serious about building a united society, that demands that all those difficult issues are dealt with in an inclusive way as a necessary part of putting the past behind us. Looking after victims, victims’ families and survivors is significant and important to all of us. The Sinn Féin amendment states clearly that a constructive debate should take place on the way forward that puts victims at the centre and recognises the grief of all families and their pursuit of the truth. I urge all to support our amendment. Go raibh maith agat

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

I pay tribute to the efforts of the Eames/Bradley Consultative Group on the Past. I know some of its members well, and they are people of honour and integrity. They have also had access to sensitive material and have had discussions with victims that the rest of us have not had. I have no doubt that they believe that they have done their best with the issue. The report’s flaws have been identified already, and my colleague Tom Elliott will mention those later. However, I have concerns about other aspects of the report.

Before commenting on that, I wish to stress the importance of the innocent victims of the conflict. We must look after their medical and psychological needs and ensure support for their families, who must not be forgotten. They must be allowed to tell their stories about what they have gone through, because that is a key aspect of the healing process. Perhaps that area could be left to the Victims’ Commissioners; that is what that office was set up to do. It is sad that some aspects of the report were leaked to the press before it was announced, because it has resurrected painful memories that many of the victims had put behind them.

I wish to speak about the issue of dealing with the past, particularly the establishment of the legacy commission. Back in 1998, the deal was that, however difficult, we would draw a line under the past and move on. That was the understanding of all who took part in the process.

However, in the meantime, the SDLP managed to persuade the Government to involve the Police Ombudsman in dealing with the past, and we ended up with a one-sided truth commission. After that, Sinn Féin dealt with the Government and there then arrived an attempt to ignore criminal records — the on-the-runs issue, which was eventually stopped in Parliament — amnesties, and the equating of terrorists with members of the security forces. I recall that in 1999, the NIO planned to have an IRA volunteer and a British Army soldier symbolically lay down their weapons on the lawn at Hillsborough Castle — just amazing stuff.

I want to examine the report from the Consultative Group on the Past in a bit more detail. In particular, on page 18, for example, lo and behold we have the return of the issue of setting aside of criminal records by way of statute. What about ordinary decent crime? Somebody who has served six months for tax evasion will not have his or her record expunged, yet someone who committed mass murder has that record wiped clean. That is amazing.

There are other examples of confusion in the report. Page 17 contains a strange recommendation that would allow the legacy commission to interfere with how we hand out money. The report states that the legacy commission should oversee the “even spread of economic benefits”. That is a bit strange, because that is what the Assembly does; that is why we have TSN and the Equality Commission. Therefore, the Consultative Group on the Past’s report interferes in the Assembly’s political areas.

Other confusing proposals that relate to historic cases and thematic proposals may cause most concern. More detail is provided on pages 128-29 of the report. There, it is stated that the legacy commission should have the power to call for people and papers. However, who has those documents? The answer is that the Government have them. I cannot for a minute imagine that the Provisional IRA has a great swathe of documents, and I cannot see the loyalists having documents. Therefore, we are back to the one-sided truth commission. The IRA’s green book forbids its volunteers from giving evidence. Hence, we end up, again, with a very strange, one-sided truth commission. Society may pick over those issues if it wishes. However, the Ulster Unionist view is that we should draw a line under the past and move on.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member must bring his remarks to a close.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I join my colleague Raymond McCartney in opposing the motion and supporting the amendment.

I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate on this extensive report, which, I suspect, none of us has had time to read in any great detail. I am a little disappointed by a number of points.

The report does not go far enough. The legacy commission that it proposes would be established by the British Government and, therefore, cannot be truly independent. The British state was a protagonist in the conflict here, not a mere observer.

Another issue, and the essence of the debate, is that our priority and focus must be on treating with respect, and supporting as much as possible, all relatives of those who died. There must never be a hierarchy of victims. Previous debates have shown the hurt and pain that is caused by the demonisation of some families, and there have already been references today to families being re-traumatised.

I was at the launch of the report last week, and I witnessed at first hand the trauma experienced by relatives who attended the event. I spoke afterwards at a meeting with families of people from Ballymurphy who were killed by the British Army, and relatives of Damien Walsh — a 17-year-old gunned down by loyalists while the SAS watched.

All relatives are traumatised. People must not single out particular families; that is wrong.

If we are to move towards a society that is based on equality and justice, in which human rights are respected, no one should fear the truth. I do not believe that truth will be achieved under the current arrangements; any process must be international, independent and victim-centred. The lead should be taken from some of the victims’ families and the generosity that they have shown throughout deliberations.

Much can be said about the report; however, it must be examined in detail. The families of all victims of the conflict, who are the essence of the debate, deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. None should be demonised, and there must not be a hierarchy of victims. When any initiative is taken in respect of victims, survivors and families, they must be spoken of in a measured way, and their points of view must be heard. Society must be built on the foundations of equality and human rights, and victims and survivors are central to that aim. That will help in the long-term development of good relations and reconciliation, which are in the interests of all people.

I reiterate that there must be no hierarchy of victims. All victims’ families feel the same pain and anguish, and they have the right to be treated with dignity and respect. Go raibh maith agat.

Alex Attwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

As Alan McFarland suggested, the members of the Eames/Bradley Consultative Group on the Past are good people. I know some of them well and value them greatly. During the past 18 months, they have represented the last and best hope for our generation to deal with the past and to make progress on an ethical basis. For that reason, as Mr Ford suggested, the report should not be casually dismissed.

The Eames/Bradley report makes some good proposals. It is correct that it puts victims and survivors front and centre of what must be done; it is correct that all of its proposals are human-rights compliant; it is correct that it supports the telling of personal stories, and its proposals for remembering are timely; it is correct to establish units to integrate the work of the Historical Enquiries Team and that of the Police Ombudsman on historic cases, as long as powers and resources meet necessary requirements; it is correct to affirm that no one will be deprived of the right to prosecution where evidence and opportunity exist.

However, the Eames/Bradley report has also got some matters wrong. It is wrong to not have stated that the British Government have reneged on their commitment to a Finucane inquiry; it is wrong to hint that there may be an amnesty for past crimes in five years’ time.

In its statement last week, the Eames/Bradley group challenged the many people who, like it, had not used violence, saying:

“Our attitude, our prejudice, our defence and justification of our own community to the detriment of the other community has played its part.”

If they are suggesting that the harsh words, dangerous attitudes and reckless leadership of some people may have contributed to bringing others into violence, they are right to say so.

However, last week in the Europa Hotel, the Eames/Bradley group was wrong not to be more specific and upfront in telling the people who know most about the violence of the past 40 years, and who committed the worst deeds during those years, that they have primary responsibility in the pursuit of justice. Such an explicit requirement would have created the ethical context and fundamental bedrock on which the Eames/Bradley group’s truth and justice mechanisms might settle. The failure to make that explicit statement must be rectified.

Some people said that that approach was an effort to encourage the commanders of illegal terror groups — not least the leaderships of the IRA and the UVF who have been in control for decades — and also the elements of the police, army, security services and the state, who know the most information and did the worst deeds, along the path to admit the truth. Members are aware how such groups and individuals behave. Look at the continued suppression of truth by the British Army and the Force Research Unit on Pat Finucane’s murder. Look at the suppression of truth by the IRA on the murders of Jean McConville and the rest of the disappeared. Look at the UVF and its certain knowledge of a north Belfast serial killer in its ranks.

Ultimately, truth, justice and healing will be prejudiced and stalled if the people who know the most and did the worst fail to step forward at leadership level. As we all know, they have failed to step forward in a complete or credible fashion thus far; that is their respect for truth and justice. Those individuals and elements should have heard fully and explicitly about their primary responsibility for truth and justice from the Eames/Bradley group. However, some of those same people will now attempt to unpick the Eames/Bradley report or to reconfigure it in their own interest.

The Eames/Bradley information recovery and thematic proposals — on loyalist collusion, republican cleansing of Protestant farms in border areas, MI5’s setting malign strategic intelligence objectives in Northern Ireland, and the general infiltration of the IRA, UDA and UVF that was influenced by the security services — is such a fundamental threat to those most concerned by disclosure that they will resist the Eames/Bradley proposals, which they present as an alternative to prosecution and inquiries.

In recent days, there has been heightened concern about payments being made to victims. The SDLP believes that victims and survivors have requirements, including financial requirements, that should be measured and addressed against need and individual circumstances; that will be the real challenge for decades to come. A one-off payment creates a fog at the very least; as we have heard, it creates new trauma at the very worst.

Such is the concern about the recognition payment that the matter should be revisited at the very least. There should be no question that addressing the needs of victims and survivors is shorthand for suggesting that there should be equality between those who caused that grief and those who suffered it; that must not and cannot be the case.

Allan Bresland (DUP, West Tyrone)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion as a victim; it is only by God’s grace that I am here today at all. It is important that the needs of victims are met, but that must be done in a sensible and productive way. The idea of innocent victims, whether they were members of the security forces or simply civilians who happened to be caught up in one of the many bomb attacks in Northern Ireland, being treated the same as the terrorists who carried out those attacks is nothing short of ludicrous.

The terrorists set out to kill; bombs were planted and guns were fired with the sole intention of killing as many as people as possible. How can men with a complete disregard for human life be classed the same as men, women and children who were brutally slain in acts of terrorism? If a man plants a bomb intending to kill and is accidentally caught up in the blast and kills himself, why should his family be classed the same as those families who lost innocent people? It is due to that terrorist’s actions and desires that anyone was killed at all. It is irrelevant that the son of a terrorist may feel the same grief as the son of a civilian. The terrorist made his choice, knew the risks and probably took many lives before his own was taken.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

Does the Member agree that the suggested £12,000 payment is abhorrent? Lord Mountbatten’s family said in the newspaper yesterday that it would not accept that payment, and Airey Neave’s family said that it will not accept it. For the record, we, as a family, would not accept the £12,000 either.

My colleague Allan Bresland served along with my cousin who was murdered by the IRA. The families of people who served Queen and country will be offered £12,000, but does Mr Bresland agree that it is wrong that people who carried out terrorist acts will also qualify for that £12,000? Indeed, the people who killed my cousin were shot by the Army, and their families would, therefore, qualify for the payment. Is there not something totally wrong when there are such extremes?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

A minute will be added to Mr Bresland’s speaking time.

Allan Bresland (DUP, West Tyrone)

I thank the Member for his intervention, and I agree with him 100%. Men who had no intention other than to kill should not and cannot be treated the same as the families of innocent victims.

It is a key point of law that no man should profit from crime, and we all know that murder is a crime. By rewarding the families of murderers, Eames and Bradley are spitting in the face of the law of a civilised society. It is ridiculous that Eames and Bradley believe that £12,000 is the value of a life, which is supposed to be sacred and protected.

Moreover, the suggestion of offering money to the families of those who killed is offensive. What happened to the need for truth and justice? That concept appears to have been eradicated except for inquiries into collusion by the security forces. Many deaths caused by terrorists are still unresolved or have secured no prosecution. That is what the families want — not a pay-off that aims to make them forget the past.

The money that has been offered will never replace the need for truth and justice. The Consultative Group on the Past should focus on that matter rather than on finding a quick and easy solution that attempts to please everyone. Members know that, historically, attempting to please everyone pleases no one, and that will be the case again. Few people — if any — have expressed a positive viewpoint on the proposed payment, which will solve nothing.

Although the use of weapons to achieve political goals is no longer commonplace, we must use willpower and courage. The victims and politicians of Northern Ireland must stand up and speak out against the report. The proposal to attribute each victim an equal status is wrong, and the people of Northern Ireland must make a clear statement. The Eames/Bradley report cannot be accepted as a realistic way of dealing with the past and looking to the future. Furthermore, Eames/Bradley seems to have forgotten those who were injured over the past 40 years. Why are terrorists and civilians treated equally while those who have suffered mentally and physically are forgotten?

Lord Eames has repeatedly stated that the proposal is about recognition rather than compensation. Where is the recognition for those victims who survived? Moreover, he has stated that he intends to abolish the hierarchy of victims; however, he has simply created another one. He proposes to create a hierarchy between those were killed and those who survived. Victims’ needs must be addressed. An equal classing for murderers and innocent victims in the hope that they will sell the desire for truth and justice is not the way to progress. Rewarding murderers will not cease the suffering caused by years of terrorism in this country. I support the motion.

Dolores Kelly (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

As we all know, the Eames/Bradley report contains 31 recommendations, each of which merits detailed consideration and reflection. Today’s debate is, therefore, somewhat premature. We owe it to those who lost their lives, to those who continue to suffer and to our children to make the effort to consider the findings of the distinguished panel, which has outlined a way to deal with our troubled past.

Although the report seeks to challenge all of us about our personal contribution to the conflict and asks how we will build a better and reconciled future, it fails to challenge robustly those who committed the worst acts and knew the most information. By the end of 1998, 3,703 people had been murdered: 562 paramilitaries, 1,036 members of the security forces and 2,105 civilians. Statistics show that republicans were responsible for 58·3% of deaths, loyalists for 29·7% and security forces for 9·9%. The greatest single taker of life was the Provisional IRA. However, we have yet to discover how many deaths were a direct result of security force collusion and the running of agents.

The Glenanne gang is believed to have been responsible for up to 77 murders. The truth behind many murders could be quickly established by opening the British security services’ filing cabinets. The Stevens Report is still under lock and key. The IRA, the UDA and other groups needed to step up to the mark, but neither co-operated with the Eames/Bradley panel. The report should have stated more clearly where responsibility lies for the recovery of truth and the gathering of information. Justice demands that, where possible, prosecutions must be pursued. The recommendations on that topic merit more detailed scrutiny. Truth and justice are not either/or options, and it is wrong to ask families to choose. The needs of victims and survivors must be central to how we deal with the legacy of our past.

Although many organised victims groups do great work, the vast majority of victims do not belong to one. I had the privilege of meeting one such family last week. Their great-uncle, Bernard Devlin, was murdered in the Belfast pogroms in 1920. Their cousin, Damien, was murdered by the UVF in 1988; their brother Raymond in 1982 by the IRA; and their brother Gerard by the LVF in December 1997. The Devlin family are therefore more qualified than most to speak on dealing with the past and on the future. In their submission to the Eames/Bradley group, they said:

“We hear a lot about ‘getting over it’, ‘moving on’ and ‘stop harping about the past’. This is hurtful to the families. Learning from the past will not cause past mistakes to be repeated. Forgetting to look at the past and why mistakes were made ensures they will be repeated.

The Troubles are not just of this era. They are beached in base sectarianism and rabid nationalism and loyalism which has spawned killers who hate because they have been taught to hate.”

That family, who have suffered so much but never took up guns, say that the true commemoration of the Troubles will be an end to sectarianism. That is the real challenge for all of us, but especially those two parties who currently hold the positions of First Minister and deputy First Minister.

Having examined the report, listened to the voiceless victims, and recognised that there were many in our community who fought injustice by solely peaceful means, while also accepting that all mother’s tears are the same to all, the SDLP shares reservations across the community about the suggestion of a £12,000 recognition payment, but we are prepared to listen to the debate today and to hear what people across the community are saying. However, there is simply no moral equivalence between those who had no choice and those who took up arms. We all know that there are those who want to rewrite history. That recommendation will be abused by those who seek to block out their murderous past.

At the funeral of Gerard Devlin, Bishop Patrick Walsh said:

“Those who engage in acts of violence, those who encourage acts of violence by bitter, hateful words, those who disparage the builders of peace — they carry enormous responsibility before God and their fellow men at the present time.”

Those words are clear and unambiguous, even 12 years on. They have a simple truth about them, which it would be best not to ignore, if we really are to learn the lessons of the past so as not to repeat them.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

As Question Time commences at 2.30 pm, I suggest that the House take its ease until that time. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member to speak will be William Irwin.

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

Health, Social Services and Public Safety

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

1. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety for an assessment of respite provision for carers. (AQO 1926/09)

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

My Department is currently undertaking work to provide a clearer and fuller picture of current and future respite provision and need. Under the comprehensive spending review, the learning disability programme of care has been allocated £33 million over the three-year period, while physical and sensory disability has been allocated £10 million. Part of the investment in each of those programmes of care is to provide new or enhanced respite services.

Over the same period, targets and priorities for action will ensure the provision of an additional 200 packages of respite care for children and adults with a learning disability, which will benefit over 800 people. By 2011, a further 200 packages will be provided to carers of people with physical and/or sensory disabilities. Over the next three years, an additional £1 million has also been earmarked for investment in mental-health dementia-respite services, which, from 2010-11, will provide an extra 2,000 weeks of respite for people affected by dementia.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Like many Members, I work very closely with carers groups, so I recognise the importance of respite care. Does the Minister agree that if the Northern Health and Social Care Trust goes ahead with its proposals to close residential homes, even greater pressure will be put on carers, particularly in my own constituency of East Antrim?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

The Member will be aware that a consultation process about those proposals is underway. As Minister, I cannot comment on that issue for fear of prejudicing that consultation process. However, I recognise the strong need for support for carers. Thanks to Mr Basil McCrea, one of the first things that I did as Minister was to meet the Down Lisburn Carers Forum. From talking to that forum and to other groups subsequently, it was clear that our support for carers was falling short. That is why I announced the additional investments.

We are also following the Caring for Carers strategy, studying the carers’ strategy and implementation group, and reviewing the respite position. In addition, we carried out an assessment of the care provision and concluded that more respite care is needed. As far as residential care is concerned, care in the community and independent living is a key departmental strategy that was endorsed by this House. How that strategy works on the ground is a matter for consultation.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his response. He mentioned that some help would be provided for carers. I recently received correspondence from people who suffer from what is known as Angelman syndrome. Will the Minister confirm whether those who care for people who suffer from that syndrome will receive some of the carers’ assistance that he outlined in his reply?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Respite is available for anyone who is assessed as needing it. Particular conditions are primarily a matter for the carers’ strategy and implementation group, although I see no reason why respite cannot be provided to support the folk on whose behalf the Member spoke.

Respite takes many forms. A range of support must be provided because there are an estimated 185,000 informal carers in Northern Ireland at any one time, many of whom require support.

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

Will the Minister clarify whether there are any additional, specific measures for people who care for others on their own, such as lone parents?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I am sure that the Member is aware that respite care takes the form of flexible short-term provision, day activities, residential respite care and domiciliary support, so a good range of respite services are available. There is also a range of other types of domiciliary care support.

We are reviewing the entire situation. However, although a substantial amount of respite care is available, it is not enough. I have announced a series of measures, including: 200 learning-disability packages, which will benefit 800 people; 200 sensory- and physical-disability packages, which will benefit a further 800 people; and 2,000 support weeks for people affected by dementia.

Although those measures are being implemented, I need to know definitively how much support is required, which is why I have commissioned the review. That will be important when deciding the future direction that we should take, because, fortunately, our elderly population is living much longer. As Members will be aware, the over-65 population will double in the next 50 years, so we must plan not just for today but for the medium and long term.

Claire McGill (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

2. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety if his Department is in discussions with Chicago-based experts on specialist treatment for epilepsy. (AQO 1927/09)

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Officials from my Department have held discussions with clinicians at the Children’s Memorial Hospital in Chicago about the treatment of a particular child who suffers from epilepsy. In addition, officials have had discussions with a recognised expert in the management of intractable epilepsy at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, as well as regular discussions with clinicians in paediatric neurology at the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children.

Claire McGill (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answer and for the extra funding that was announced last week and today for all children with complex needs. Members are aware of several high-profile cases, and I am particularly conscious of one in my constituency of West Tyrone. Will the additional funding from the Minister’s Department help those high-profile cases, particularly, for example, the Caldwell case? I mention that case because I met that child’s mother here at the launch. Go raibh maith agat.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

As the Member will understand, I am not at liberty to discuss individual patients. As far as I am concerned, all children with that condition have needs, and they all have the right to be treated equally.

The measures that I have put in place will strengthen existing services. The improvements to services are significant not only for intractable epilepsy but for several complex conditions; we are devoting some of the extra money that I secured from the Budget to help children with complex needs. Northern Ireland has skilled, highly trained practitioners covering a range of disciplines, and I am confident that we can continue to improve services so that all children get the support that they need.

I am aware of high-profile people who felt the need to go to Chicago. In my opinion — which I am sure that Members will understand — the Health Service is for all people, and we have a special arrangement with Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children in London — one of the world’s leading children’s hospitals — to provide whatever treatment the regional service in Belfast cannot provide.

Iris Robinson (DUP, Strangford)

I must disagree with the Minister on one point. He said that Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children indicated that it could cope with children with intractable epilepsy; however, we have a letter from a consultant, Helen Cross, which states that she can in no way give the service that Chicago has provided for the high-profile children to whom my colleague referred.

Now that the Minister has found sufficient funding to improve services, will he reimburse the families who — through no fault of their own, because the provision did not exist in Northern Ireland — had to go to Chicago in order to save their children’s lives? Will the Minister compensate those families for the money that they have spent?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I welcome the return to the House of Iris Robinson; I am glad to see her in good health.

One of the world’s leading experts on the condition is Professor Helen Cross from Great Ormond Street Hospital. I have not seen her letter, but I understand that she stated that she accepts referrals but does not take long-term personal management of the patient. That would be carried out by the paediatric neurologist in the Royal Victoria Hospital.

I remind Members that I made an important announcement about improving services for children with complex needs. That does not relate solely to children with intractable epilepsy, but to children with cerebral palsy and brain injuries, for instance.

The Children’s Memorial Hospital in Chicago does not provide any service that is not available at Great Ormond Street. The service is comparable; in fact, one of the world’s pioneers in the ketogenic diet — a tool for treating the condition — is Professor Helen Cross.

Members should be careful about running down our service. [Interruption.]

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Order.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

It is important to remember that we provide physiotherapy, occupational health therapy and speech therapy. Furthermore, we have highly trained and highly skilled dietitians to monitor the ketogenic diet and specialised medical care. In fact, the Belfast Trust is taking steps to appoint an additional consultant paediatric neurologist as soon as possible.

The Royal Victoria Hospital staff have assured us that they will do whatever they can to facilitate a smooth transition for children returning home. I regret that children or parents felt that they had to go to Chicago. The services that they are receiving in Chicago are no better than those that they would receive in Great Ormond Street Hospital. However, there is one major difference: on admission to the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children or Great Ormond Street Hospital staff will ask the patient what they can do to help him or her; staff at the Children’s Memorial Hospital in Chicago ask for the patient’s credit card. That is the difference.

I cannot devote taxpayers’ money to private healthcare in America, unless all avenues and channels — first, in Northern Ireland, secondly, in the UK, and thirdly, in Europe under the E112 referral — are exhausted. Those protocols have to be followed.

In at least two of the cases that we have talked about, referrals to Great Ormond Street Hospital were refused. In one case, it was refused twice. [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker, do I have to respond to remarks that are being made from a sedentary position? Welcome back, Mrs Robinson.

Last week, I met Anne Monaghan, who is employed by the Caldwell family. She told me that it cost £100,000 to keep Billy Caldwell in Chicago and that that amount was easy to raise. She said that there was no problem raising that amount of money. That is their approach.

We are reinforcing that. We have a good service, and we have a link with Great Ormond Street Hospital. That is about as good as it gets.

I do not make the decisions; clinicians make the decisions and I take advice from them, starting with the paediatric neurologist at the Royal Victoria Hospital, which is a good hospital.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

I welcome the announcement that the Minister made last week in relation to investment into special cases of epilepsy. Does the Minister agree that there is no better place in Northern Ireland than the Royal Victoria Hospital — right on our doorstep — to carry out further investigations and in which investment should be made?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

The announcement that I made in respect of children with complex needs will ensure that every child will have an individual care plan and will avail of speech and language therapy, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, and so on. Those provisions will be overseen by the first point of care — the GP. The services will be provided locally with reference to the regional hospital at Belfast, and beyond to Great Ormond Street as necessary. Therefore those children will receive that support. Furthermore, a number of youngsters require, and will receive, visits from community children’s nurses.

I have also announced recurrent spending of £200,000 to reinforce paediatric epileptic services, which include additional dietetic support, paediatric nurses, scan sessions and links with Great Ormond Street Hospital. In addition, I plan to develop satellite services in the west of the Province. I have assessed the service that we provide and, very good as it is, it is clear that there is a need to reinforce it, because of the demand and the need. We are working closely with Great Ormond Street Hospital to provide that service.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Question 3 has been withdrawn.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

4. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety how many elderly people receive community care services in Larne. (AQO 1929/09)

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

The Northern Health and Social Care Trust has advised that 933 elderly people receive community care services in the Larne area. Those services include social work support, domiciliary care, residential care and day care. In addition, the trust provides community nursing, acute care at home, case management, dementia services and allied health profession services to older people.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

The Minister will be aware that, in recent years, many elderly people have found it difficult to get community care packages and, when they do, it amounts to, perhaps, 15 or 20 minutes’ care a day. Therefore, does the Minister agree that it would be a backward step to close any residential care homes in east Antrim unless they are being replaced by new facilities?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I do not recognise the Member’s claim of 15 to 20 minutes’ care a day. Care is delivered in a number of ways — for example, through home help, domiciliary care and residential care. There are extensive budgets and provision with regard to care for the elderly. In fact, after acute services, care for the elderly accounts for the largest part of the health budget, amounting to more than £600 million per annum.

The Northern Health and Social Care Trust provides many thousands of care packages, including a number in the Larne area. The proposals are simply that: proposals that are out for consultation. Mr Ross must remember that efficiency savings of £700 million over three years are being forced on me, voted for by Mr Ross and his party. The entire DUP voted for it —

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

In fact, the entire DUP fought for that. I see that I am hitting a soft spot. It is important to remember that, when I refused to accept the draft Budget, some people on those Benches stood up and said that it would be a scandal if health got another penny piece and argued that health should have got no more money. I was not prepared to accept that advice, and, with the support of a number of people in society, we substantially increased the budget.

Therefore, the proposals are nothing like as bad as they could have been. The Minister of Finance and Personnel at that time said that those were efficiencies, not cuts, although I know that Mr Easton has personally disagreed with that.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

A LeasCheann Comhairle. Does the Minister agree that the elected representatives for the areas affected and the families of those involved by the recent announcement with regard to residential care homes should have been informed prior to its public announcement? We had a meeting with the Northern Health and Social Care Trust just before Christmas and there was no mention whatsoever of possible closures.

Furthermore, does the Minister agree that public consultation meetings on that issue should be held in local areas? I am going to a public meeting in Coleraine tonight about the possible closure of a centre in Ballycastle. Does the Minister agree that a further meeting on that issue should be held in Ballycastle?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

The Member asked a number of questions, and I will try to respond to them. The trust manages the consultation process. If the Member has a complaint, then no doubt that will be part of the responses at which I will get a chance to look. The situation is quite simple: I have to find savings of £700 million over the next three years. That was not my idea and I do not want to have to do that, but I have to do that as that has been enforced on me.

If I do not find that money, I am going to have to start to cancel a number of services. They will include, for example, those to which I just referred, services for children with complex needs, cancer services, stroke services and screening services for bowel cancer. All of the new service developments that I have been able to announce have to be funded, and they are funded by efficiency savings because I did not get enough money to run health — everyone is aware of that. A funding gap of £600 million exists in my Department, and, if the DUP had got its way at the time, the situation would have been much worse.

I will study the proposals extremely carefully — they will all come to me eventually. I have no decision to make on non-contentious proposals; however, I must make a decision on those that are contentious. I am a long way from reaching that point. Before making a final decision, I must wait for the consultation process to finish, read the recommendations and scrutinise the proposals. If the Member considers that a consultation process is required in Ballycastle, he should take that up with the Northern Trust.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The three residential care homes in my constituency affected are Lisgarel, Greenisland Residential Home and Clonmore House. Is the Minister aware that the Northern Health and Social Care Trust’s proposals to close those care homes have created a huge level of concern? Will he assure the House that, when the trust reaches its conclusions, he will fully acquaint himself with the entire consultation process? That will highlight the vagueness and weakness of the proposals, and, if those elements are addressed, the most vulnerable people in society will not be abandoned.

Will he ensure that the joined-up working, particularly supported housing and respite care, as well as the residential care provided at Lisgarel, will be fully recognised? That is not the case according to the criteria used by the Northern Health and Social Care Trust.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Supplementary questions should be brief.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I give Mr Beggs the assurances that he seeks. I am aware of the grave concern in the area, and I have taken some steps to address it; for example, to try to provide some reassurance and comfort, I spoke to local newspapers, and they published some of my statements. However, no decision has been made; the closures are not a done deal.

The proposals do not contain a single done deal, and any contentious proposals must come back to me for ratification. I will scrutinise each of those, and I will base my decision, as always, on the simple criterion that patients come first. No cuts will be made to front-line services. I will consider the views of patients carefully, and I will listen closely to the views of Lisgarel residents too.

The trust put forward the proposals. Efficiency savings of £700 million must be achieved, of which the trusts’ share is £467 million, and the Northern Trust must find £82 million of that. That money must be found; otherwise I am cutting other services. That is the situation in which I find myself, and it is not one in which I want to be.

Some DUP Members have been particularly vocal on the issue, but they could sort out the shortfall in funding. That party holds the purse strings and, in light of the proposals, if it wants to give me more money, that would be hugely helpful.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

5. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety what strategy his Department is pursuing to improve and develop primary care provision in rural parts of county Tyrone that are a significant distance away from an acute hospital. (AQO 1930/09)

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

In order to reduce dependency on hospitals for treatment and care, I am committed to enhancing primary and community care services across Northern Ireland. Over the period of the comprehensive spending review (CSR), £44 million has been made available to boards and trusts to provide additional primary care services, including: developing patient education and case management programmes for people with chronic diseases; improving community-based palliative care services; employing specialist community nurses to deliver services to people in their homes, and promoting the use of technology to help to reduce the number of unnecessary hospital referrals and admissions.

The primary and community care infrastructure programme aims to put in place a physical infrastructure that is fit for purpose and provides integrated, modern health and care services to local communities. The new, enhanced local hospital complex planned for Omagh will include a health and care centre and allow access to a wide range of secondary and primary services.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Minister will be aware of the serious concerns in Carrickmore and Fintona. The health and care centres there were recently in line for development through capital investment, but the money, I understand, was withdrawn. Will the Minister agree to meet me and representative GPs from both centres?

Carrickmore is furthest away from all the acute hospitals. The Minister said that primary care has a key role to play in the health solution for west Tyrone. In the absence of an acute hospital, we need our primary care provision built up. Will the Minister agree to meet with me and relevant GPs to discuss those matters?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Primary care is a central plank in the strategy, as, through primary care, we can keep people out of hospitals. Therefore Mr McElduff’s points are well made.

He referred to rural areas. About half of the GP practices in west Tyrone are in rural areas, and those practices provide a wide and important range of services, which will be able to be centralised when the new buildings are built. That does not necessarily mean that there will be a massive increase in the number of services. However, the proposal is for a one-stop shop, as opposed to many stops. Mr McElduff tackled me about the matter last week during a meeting about the hospital in Omagh. I said that I would be happy to look at primary care provision, and I still have to do that.

Health and care centres are planned for Carrickmore and Fintona. However, the Member is aware that I needed £7·8 billion to renew Health Service infrastructure over the next 10 years, and I received £3·3 billion. I have less than half of what I need; therefore, I must prioritise. The Western Health and Social Care Trust will make those decisions. The spend on new hospitals in Enniskillen and Omagh, provisions at Altnagelvin, and new healthcare provisions at Omagh and Lisnaskee are major parts of that budget over the three-year CSR period and beyond. Getting more money into the Western Health and Social Care Trust will depend on my increasing the entire budget.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

Given that County Tyrone has to depend solely on primary care since the recent announcement that the last strand of acute services is to be removed from the Tyrone County Hospital by the end of this month, would it not have been good practice to have had all those primary care facilities in place prior to the removal of acute services, since that is what the people in County Tyrone will have to depend on? I would welcome the opportunity to have a meeting with GPs and the Minister on those issues.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

The Tyrone County Hospital is an old administrative unit. Health services are delivered regionally, and subregionally, through the trusts. The Western Health and Social Care Trust area includes Omagh and most of County Tyrone and has two acute hospitals, Altnagelvin Hospital and the Erne Hospital in Enniskillen. Around £260 million is about to be spent on rebuilding the hospital in Enniskillen. The enhanced local hospital in Omagh will be rebuilt at a projected cost of £190 million. In addition, there will be other primary care investments, such as those in Omagh and in Lisnaskee. Considerable amounts of money are being spent in the Western Health and Social Care Trust area to address concerns.

It is my desire to build health and care centres at Carrickmore and Fintona, and it is my desire to build centres in many other places. I will need to see the capital budget envelope increased, and I am looking at ways to do that. However, Members will appreciate that that is very difficult in the current circumstances. At the same time, I am trying to handle the 3% CSR efficiency savings, which will take £700 million out of the Health Service over three years. I assure Members that that is not easy. As I have said over and over again in House, if Members have better ideas about the way things should be done, please let me know; I am listening.

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

Does the Minister understand that the concerns that the people in rural parts of County Tyrone have about primary care provision have been heightened by the emergence of plans for private provision? Does he agree that there is a real danger that public provision of that important level of primary healthcare could well be weakened by private provision? Does he have any plans to address that issue?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I have no knowledge of that private company — Primacure. I think that it got planning permission and made an announcement. It has had no discussions with me or the Department, nor, as I understand it, with the relevant trust — the Western Health and Social Care Trust. My position on healthcare is absolutely clear; there should be cradle-to-the-grave healthcare, and it should be free for all. From time to time, we have to opt for private purchase and provision, but that is always to reinforce the principle rather than to breach it.

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

1. asked the Minister for Regional Development what plans he has to change the waiting times at loading bays from the current limit of five minutes. (AQO 1946/09)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Loading bays are provided to facilitate the loading and unloading of goods that, by reason of their size or weight, cannot be reasonably conveyed by any other means than a vehicle. Loading bays may be used for as long as is necessary to convey goods to or from premises. Vehicles are not permitted to wait in loading bays for any purpose other than loading and unloading. Traffic attendants enforce those restrictions and observe vehicles in loading bays to ensure that they are properly using the facility. A traffic attendant will issue a vehicle with a parking ticket if it is observed parked in loading bay without loading or unloading.

Since the commencement of the decentralised parking enforcement contract in October 2006, the policy of Roads Service in my Department has been to been allow a five-minute observation period for all vehicles before a parking ticket is issued. However, following a recent enforcement policy review, Roads Service officials decided to adjust that period to 10 minutes for commercial vehicles only. All other vehicles will retain a five-minute observation period. That policy change has been effective from 19 January 2009.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I remind Members to turn off their mobile phones because they interfere with the recording system.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I welcome the extension of the waiting time for commercial businesses, albeit that it is only an extension of five minutes. I am sure that the Minister is aware from his experience in his own constituency, and in other constituencies, that the five-minute waiting period has caused problems. The Minister referred to issues that involve the National Car Parks Limited (NCP) attendants. It is important that businesses are given a bit of latitude. The traffic attendants should not be waiting about for vehicles to exceed the five minutes or not. I am sure that there are other cars that are breaking the law. Can the Minister ensure that NCP will not be as rigorous in its approach to businesses and will not issue tickets if a vehicle has been parked for one second over the 10 minutes? That is what is happening in some parts with the five-minute waiting period.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

A balance must be struck, and I think that NCP employs some degree of common sense when dealing with all those issues. However, spaces in town and city centres are very contested as far as parking and traffic movement is concerned. If a vehicle is parked for longer than the allowed waiting period, it prevents another vehicle from loading or offloading to other premises. A balance must be struck between keeping loading bays ticking over — keeping the space available as often as is possible — and allowing people to reasonably do their business. The Member has welcomed the extension of the waiting period for commercial vehicles from five to 10 minutes. As I said, NCP adopts a common-sense approach, but there is also an onus on its attendants to keep traffic flowing in town centres, where there are obviously congestion issues. They must ensure that people do not delay unduly, and, in doing so, prevent other traders from getting goods in and out of their premises.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Is loading and unloading permitted in streets with yellow line restrictions?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The answer is yes, unless it is otherwise stated. Loading and unloading is permitted on yellow line restrictions and the change of observation time for commercial vehicles from five to 10 minutes also applies to areas with yellow lines.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

2. asked the Minister for Regional Development for his assessment on the economic impact of roadworks in the Belfast and Ards area. (AQO 1947/09)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I understand that the Member’s question relates to street works that are carried out by utilities. Unfortunately, it is simply not possible to ascertain the economic impact of such street works by utilities in the North. Any such economic impact would be based largely on the cost of related traffic delays, and the magnitude and severity of those effects is difficult to quantify. I understand that that is similar to the position in England, where two recent studies that were carried out to determine the cost of traffic delays due to street works came up with significantly different answers.

I fully appreciate the Member’s concerns about the number of roadworks being carried out by utilities. However, modern society cannot function without essential services such as water supply, waste-water disposal, electricity, gas and telecommunications. That is why utility companies were given the right by Westminster to locate their equipment under public roads. Such services cannot be installed and maintained without some damage to the infrastructure of the road and disruption to traffic. However, we recognise the frustration of road users at the disruption that is caused when roads and footways are opened by the utility companies and, in particular, when there is poor co-ordination between them.

Roads Service has a duty to minimise disruption to the public and to protect the road network, so it has implemented effective arrangements for utilities to share information on planned work, to minimise traffic disruption and ensure that roads are properly reinstated.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his answer. He will not be surprised that I am returning to the subject of the roads on the Ards Peninsula, a place that he visited not that long ago. Economic development is talked about; however, there has been no economic development on the Ards Peninsula for many years because of lack of investment in local roads. Will the Minister provide assurance that there will be further investment in roads, particularly those on the Ards Peninsula, which will give us some semblance of economic progress?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The Members is correct: I visited the roads on the Ards Peninsula and, like many roads across the North, they could do with being repaired and upgraded. It is no secret that the structural maintenance budget is not what Roads Service and others estimate is required to keep roads here at a necessary standard. Thus, we continue to argue every year, as part of the Budget and in-year monitoring processes, for additional funds to be made available to Roads Service. Those funds should be spread equally and evenly across all Roads Service divisions so that all areas get an opportunity to receive improvements.

The Member knows that we are playing catch-up on roads infrastructure, not just on the main routes, but on all roads across the North. Although we do not have a sufficient budget to treat all roads as we would wish to; when money becomes available, we must ensure that it goes to areas where there is the most pressing need and ensure that it is spread equally across all divisions.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

Does the Minister agree that allocation of the roads budget should follow the work of the service facilities? The Minister has been in our neck of the woods at least twice, so he will be well aware of the substandard state of the roads due to service facilities and reinstatements. Is the Minister aware of the damage being done to vehicles because of service facility roadworks? The claims from drivers on those roads are substantial. Does the Minister agree that more money should be spent on roads in the Ards and in Belfast?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

As I said, many areas have pressing needs, including the Ards. Since I took up my ministerial post, I have had the good fortune to visit many constituencies across the North.

As I said in my original answer, utilities are very important and are part of the service infrastructure. If people want to develop economic opportunities in the Ards, then infrastructure for water, waste-water removal, electricity and telecommunications is required. Such infrastructure is necessary for economic development. Roads Service cannot prevent utilities from laying infrastructure under roads or from repairing, or amending, such infrastructure. However, we try to organise the works so that they do not cause huge disruption and we require utility companies to reinstate roads to a satisfactory condition. From experience, I know that people across the North often complain that that does not happen. Therefore, Roads Service must keep checking with utilities so that any damage done to roads is repaired and that roads are reinstated properly.

Patsy McGlone (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

In light of the significant increase in compensation claims that have been made for damage to vehicles due to potholes on our rural roads and the cost of that to the Department, why is so little money being put into roads maintenance in areas such as mid-Ulster where the roads are as bad as they have ever been during my time as a councillor?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I can supply the Member with figures to show that, over the past number of years, there has been a significant increase in the amount of money that has been spent on roads maintenance, but it is still not enough. When the Member and his colleagues from that corner of the House argue for more money for social housing, I hope that they will argue equally for more money for the provision of rural roads. When those Members are looking to raid other budgets to augment the social housing budget, I will gladly take money from them for the roads budget.

It is all very well for Members to argue that certain issues should be key priorities for the Executive, but the roads maintenance budget for rural roads and roads infrastructure is not at the required level. We argued that as part of the budgetary process, but I did not hear many other voices supporting us. We can normally top that up with in-year monitoring funds, but this year has been particularly difficult because the budget is stretched, and there are many loud demands being made from other areas of the public spend about what money should be applied there. Therefore, I am glad to hear the Member arguing for an upgrade of the budget for rural roads, and I am sure that the next time that he mentions social housing, he will mention rural roads in the same breath.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I remind Members that supplementary questions should relate to the original question.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a chuid freagraí.

The Minister intimated that Roads Service has a role in relation to traffic delays and street works. Will he outline that role? How does Roads Service monitor it?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Roads Service’s role is to minimise disruption to the public and to protect the road network. It puts in place arrangements for utilities to share information, to plan work in order to minimise traffic disruption and to ensure that roads are properly reinstated. Roads Service, in partnership with the utilities companies, has a computerised register, which is known as the Northern Ireland street register and notification system (NISRANS), where planned street works are notified before the start of works.

The advanced notification system allows Roads Service and utilities to co-ordinate works that are likely to occur around the same time or on the same road. It also allows utilities to stagger works in order to minimise disruptions. Emergency and urgent works are notified retrospectively.

In addition, Roads Service has introduced the Street Works (Amendment) Order 2007, which is based on the Traffic Management Act 2004, and it includes provision to reduce traffic delays related to street works. The legislation also includes direction-making powers aimed at minimising congestion through the reduction of delays related to street works.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

3. asked the Minister for Regional Development what steps have been taken to reduce the energy used by street lighting. (AQO 1948/09)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The energy efficiency of street lighting is a major consideration for my Department’s Roads Service. It is committed to maintaining the standards of street lighting, while, at the same time, reducing its energy costs. It has already undertaken a number of energy conservation measures, including the increased use of energy-efficient lanterns for new and replacement street lighting installations, replacing the highest wattage street lights, where possible, with more efficient energy-efficient lanterns while still maintaining street lighting standards and trialling the use of energy conservation measures, such as reduced burning hours and the use of white lamps, which allow for lower lighting levels.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

Is the Minister aware that some councils in England and Wales recently took the decision to turn off street lights, much to the disappointment of the Automobile Association — which states that it will cause road safety issues — and the police, who are worried about increased crime? Does the Minister agree that a more common-sense approach would be to investigate new technology, such as LED lighting for street lamps? Such lighting has been used in China and in the United States, where it has been reported that there could be up to 50% energy savings on this new technology.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The Member is correct in saying that the feasibility of turning off all, or some, street lights between certain periods has been considered and assessed, but it has been rejected on safety grounds. However, it is incumbent on Roads Service to continue to monitor developments and to reconsider all options when next reviewing energy conservation plans.

As I said in my original answer, Roads Service has already begun to assess new technology and its effectiveness, because the issue is about the cost of street lighting, not just the lighting pollution issues in the countryside. The cost of street lighting energy has risen, and it has placed a burden on Roads Service’s budget, which impacts on the last question, which related to structural maintenance. The cost of street lighting is continuing to rise, and, wherever possible, Roads Service has been examining new technology to try to introduce new elements to street lighting, which will reduce the cost, and the effects, of pollution.

3.15 pm

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I wish the Minister every success in getting more money from the Executive for roads. When will the next review of the energy conservation plan — with particular reference to street lighting — take place? Go raibh maith agat.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Roads Service will next review the street lighting energy conservation plan in the 2009-2010 financial year.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Minister tell the House what his Department is doing to explore and implement alternative sources of energy technology, such as solar power? That would surely reduce costs and, perhaps, the Department’s carbon footprint.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Someone still has a mobile telephone on. I ask that it be switched off, because it is interfering with the recording system.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

It could not be a solar-powered telephone that is interfering with the recording system. [Laughter.]

Solar-powered lighting for street-lighting purposes is not currently considered as viable. However, rapid developments in the efficiency of photovoltaic cells and lamp technologies will likely make solar power a realistic solution for street lighting in the near future. Roads Service will continue to monitor advances in such technology, and will conduct trials at the earliest opportunity when the technology can meet the needs of street-lighting operations.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

4. asked the Minister for Regional Development how many meetings have been held between his Department and the Department of the Environment in relation to road safety issues; and if the future of the NI Road Safety Council was discussed. (AQO 1949/09)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I assure Members that I give a high priority to road safety generally, and that I am fully committed to making a significant contribution towards achieving a reduction in the number of casualties on our roads. To that end, I met the previous Minister of the Environment on 10 July 2007 and again on 10 March 2008 in order to discuss a range of safety issues associated with the road safety strategy for the North. Furthermore, road safety is an important item for discussion at the North/South Ministerial Council transport sectoral meetings, at which the Minister for the Environment and I discuss road safety issues with my counterpart in the South.

Roads Service has also developed excellent working relationships with the National Roads Authority, and officials meet regularly to discuss road safety issues and to share best practice. More recently, I met Minister Wilson and Minister Ritchie to discuss plans for the development of Belfast city centre, and we agreed that our Departments would conduct a high-level review of the emerging plans in order to ensure that any resulting proposals recognise the importance of traffic safety, while meeting the needs of the essential user groups, including pedestrians, traders and public transport users and providers.

Roads Service officials regularly meet the Department of the Environment (DOE) officials in order to review the current road safety strategy and exchange ideas for improving road safety. As a result, DOE is preparing a new road safety strategy, which is due for publication in 2010. I have agreed that the Department for Regional Development (DRD) officials should participate in developing that strategy.

The future of the Road Safety Council is a matter for Minister Wilson and his Department. My Department is not represented on that body, which is funded by the DOE to promote voluntary road safety activity. I am aware of the report on the Road Safety Council, and of Minister Wilson’s decision. That body’s future is not a matter for my Department.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for giving such a detailed answer. I know that he is dedicated to road safety, as we all are. Will he acknowledge the contribution that the Road Safety Council has made in giving leadership and a strategic role to so many small voluntary committees across Northern Ireland? In addition, would it not make better sense, given that a new strategy is about to be introduced, that roads and road safety be met under the remit of a single Department and a single Minister?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

When the original six Departments were divided into 10, elements of the original DOE were moved to different Departments, but responsibility for road safety stayed with the DOE. Roads engineering and its contribution to road safety went to DRD and Roads Service. There is a crossover in some of those arrangements, and I acknowledge the work of the Road Safety Council. As I said, my Department is not represented on that body, and its future is a matter for the Minister of the Environment. Road safety issues are dealt with by a range of bodies, North and South and cross-border, all of which are making a very important contribution. We were all heartened to see that the number of fatalities and serious injuries on our roads are reducing steadily North and South of the border. However, there is much more work to be done.

The Department of the Environment is responsible for road safety, and Minister Wilson has to make a decision about the Road Safety Council. As my Department is not represented on that body, it is not a matter for me. However, those organisations or agencies that contribute to road safety are doing valuable work, and I encourage them to continue to do so.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. What are the Minister’s plans for excluding all traffic from Belfast city centre?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

As I said in my answer to the lead question, I met Ministers Wilson and Ritchie to discuss the development of Belfast city centre. As the Member knows, three Departments have interests in the city centre. Roads Service is responsible for road engineering and the enforcement of waiting restrictions on the streets; the Department of the Environment has interests in road safety education; and the Department for Social Development is responsible for the Streets Ahead programme, which administers the streetscape work. Furthermore, the PSNI is responsible for enforcing traffic regulations and waiting restrictions.

The Ministers met recently, and some of the discussion was prompted, in part, by the tragic fatality in Belfast city centre. Devolved Government provides an opportunity for Ministers to meet regularly to ensure that individual plans that might impact on the streetscape of Belfast city centre or on public transport and the way in which it moves around the city — which is my Department’s responsibility — co-ordinate and make sense and to ensure that road safety and the safety of pedestrians are at the forefront of any plans that are considered.

Ministers met, and we asked senior officials of our Departments to examine existing plans and bring back some options and recommendations. We expect to meet again in May to consider those options, and we will then be in a position to outline a way forward.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Do Roads Service officials regularly engage with local road-safety committees? I declare an interest as a member of such a voluntary committee. In view of DRD and DOE’s overlapping responsibilities, will the Minister tell us whether he was consulted about the proposals to end funding to the Road Safety Council of Northern Ireland? Will he assure us that Road Service staff will continue to engage with local voluntary committees to improve everyone’s safety?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

As I said in my answer to the lead question, the DRD is not represented on that committee, and it is understandable that it was not involved in the Environment Minister’s decision: we had no part in that. I assure the Member that Roads Service is keen to co-operate, not only at senior, but at local level with all who have an interest in road safety to ensure that the numbers of deaths, serious injuries and accidents are reduced. That is in everyone’s interest. Roads Service will want to continue with that work.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

5. asked the Minister for Regional Development what strategies his Department has in place to meet its Public Service Agreement and Business Plan Target of reducing journey times on the key transport corridors by 2.5% by 2015, compared to the figure in 2001. (AQO 1950/09)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I wish to clarify that public service agreement (PSA) 13 states that, by 2015, we will reduce journey times on key transport corridors by 2·5% compared with 2003 — not 2001, as the question states.

When that challenging target is achieved, it will bring significant benefits to our economy. The ‘Investment Delivery Plan for Roads’, published in April 2008, sets out the priorities and plans of my Department’s Roads Service for the 10-year period, 2008-2018. It aims to address bottlenecks on the strategic road network and gives priority to the key transport corridors.

The investment delivery plan contains a programme of major road improvements based on the funding levels indicated in the investment strategy. That strategic road improvement programme identifies improvements not only to the key transport corridors, but to the link corridors and the remainder of the trunk-road network. The network connects our main provincial towns and cities to the Belfast metropolitan area, the regional gateways and the roads network in the South.

In order to achieve PSA 13, Roads Service has significant schemes for key transport corridors in the planning and under construction. Those under construction include the M1/Westlink/M2 works; the 12-kilometre dualling of the A1 around Newry; the 20-kilometre dualling of the A4 between Dungannon and Ballygawley. Roads Service is on target to have completed, approximately, a further 160 kilometres of dual carriageway in the key transport corridors by 2015.

The promotion of public transport is another objective of PSA 13. The Department has plans in place for the increasing the usage of public transport, including improvements to the rail and Goldline services which have the most impact in decreasing car journeys on the strategic road network. I am confident that the strategic road-improvement schemes, combined with the promotion of public transport, will result in the achievement of that challenging target and reduce journey times on the key transport corridors.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Is it just my opinion, or have the journey times on the Westlink deteriorated to the point where we are back to where we started? As I understand it, the business case for the improvements was that much of the traffic coming into Belfast was through-traffic, and we would see a great improvement as a result of them. I see a real problem with that. Will the Minister explain why that should happen, and whether he has any plans to deal with it in the foreseeable future?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

It is just the Member.

As a regular user of the Westlink, I must tell him that everyone that I have spoken to about it has remarked on how the journey from the south into Belfast, and leaving Belfast in the evening, has improved dramatically since the work began. That may not have been so this morning, as two lanes that were opened in advance of when they should have been, to facilitate Christmas traffic, are having work completed on them. The works on the Westlink are almost at completion stage. There has been substantial improvement there.

Plans are being developed by the Roads Service to remove the junction at York Street, which has caused a bottleneck. They are in the early stages of design, but there are plans. Following that, there will be a continuous flow of traffic — to take the full extent of it —from Arklow towards Rosslare, right up as far as Larne. There will be a dual carriageway along the entire eastern seaboard of the island. I think that that is good news.

The Member will be aware that it is very difficult to build our way out of traffic congestion. That is why another key part of the public service agreement target is to improve public transport and improve usage of public transport. Although we have been spending significant money on the Westlink and, I would contend, improving the journey times and experience on the Westlink, we have also been investing significantly in park-and-ride facilities, in improving the rail network, and in trying to encourage people out of their cars and onto public transport. The growth in passenger numbers on public transport shows that the investment that we are making there is bearing fruit.

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Will the Minister explain what progress has been made in the provision of a dual carriageway on the A5, A6 and A8 routes? Is the Minister aware of the Stand up for Derry campaign?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Unfortunately, the answer to the second part of the Member’s question is yes.

I was pleased to announce the preferred corridor for the A5 Derry to Aughnacloy and the A8 Belfast to Larne dual carriageway schemes last November. The design of those schemes, which will receive a £400 million contribution in funding from the Irish Government, is proceeding at pace. I expect to be in a position to announce the preferred route for both projects in summer 2009. I also hope to announce the preferred route for the dualling of the A6 Derry to Dungiven scheme in the spring, and will bring forward a departmental statement on the Randalstown to Castledawson dual carriageway scheme in response to the inspector’s report later this year.

Work on the A5 and A8 schemes could possibly commence in 2012 or 2013, subject to the normal statutory processes. I anticipate commencement of the A6 Derry to Dungiven scheme in a roughly similar time frame, with similar provisos. Work on the Randalstown to Castledawson scheme could commence in 2011, with completion expected in 2014.

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

I am pleased that the Minister has already referred to the A6. Does he agree with me that the travel times could not be realistically reduced without a bypass at Dungiven? Will he give us an assurance that that will happen long before 2015?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I have had this discussion with the Member, the Regional Development Committee and with people I have met in Dungiven and here many times before. I think that they, and many other people, are convinced by the assurances that we have given that we will take forward that scheme as quickly as possible. We do not anticipate any undue delay in that. Work on the design of that scheme, and in bringing forward the options around it, is well under way, and we look forward to further announcements later in the year. The Member can be assured that I see the road as a priority, and I intend to make sure that there is no delay.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

6. asked the Minister for Regional Development what plans his Department has to increase resources for public transport. (AQO 1951/09)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The regional transportation strategy assumed a total investment of £3·5 billion over the 10-year period 2002-2012, which comprised the pre-2002 baseline level of £2·1 billion being maintained, and included £1·4 billion additional funding, but with the caveat that the final outcome would be subject to the normal budgetary processes.

The result has been that transportation has been successful in attracting finance, and the Budget for the period 2008-2011 provides significant levels of capital funding for public transport of £51 million this year, rising to £54 million next year, and £90 million in 2010-11. My Department is committed to undertaking a review of the current regional transportation strategy and is carrying out a stocktaking exercise in implementing the strategy to date, including budgets secured, and the rate of implementation of the projects.

The review will determine key outcomes for local transport, including emissions from traffic, the safety of travel, and the accessibility of transport services. It will seek to address a number of developments that have occurred since 2002, including the focus on climate change and sustainable development. The findings from the review will inform my Department’s bids for future budget and investment strategy exercises.

Social Development

David Simpson (DUP, Upper Bann)

1. asked the Minister for Social Development what is the estimated number of homes in Upper Bann that will benefit from the additional proposed payment of £150 to assist with winter-fuel costs. (AQO 1966/09)

Margaret Ritchie (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I expect the Financial Assistance Bill to be given Royal Assent on Friday 6 February. The Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) will then designate a Department to deliver a fuel credit or fuel payment. I am unable to confirm precisely when that fuel credit or fuel payment will be made, as there are still a number of key decisions to be made around how it will be processed. Those decisions will not be made final until the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister has designated a Department to deliver that credit or payment. It is likely, of course, that the designated Department will be the Department for Social Development (DSD).

Approximately 8,000 households in Upper Bann — and I stress that that is only a rough estimate — will benefit from the payment. Although it will not be immediate, the aim will be to get the payment out as quickly as possible to those who need it.