When are we likely to see a paper on the matter from the Department?

Mr Gallagher's remarks contain nothing with which I can disagree. In fact, I agree with all of what he said. The whole concept of equality is vital, and it underpins the Good Friday Agreement. In our approach to that challenge, I have always been conscious that, when examining the minutiae of the faults in our education system, it is essential that everyone accept that a modern education system for the twenty-first century must be provided. That means that choice must be available for parents and children. I remind Members that the first two guiding principles proposed by the review body state that

My commitment to equality is absolute. When will people see the next stage? I have made it clear to the Assembly today that I intend to introduce proposals in December. However, that will not happen until I have had critical discussions with education partners in the coming weeks. When the proposals are introduced, Tommy Gallagher and all Members who believe in a progressive approach will welcome that important change.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I wholeheartedly welcome the Minister's announcement. Does the Minister agree that people, including the household survey respondents and the education bodies, have clearly expressed widespread support for an end to the 11-plus? That support demonstrates that there is a broad acceptance that the primary-school curriculum has traumatised and alienated many children, and created a two-tier system. The Minister, therefore, has an obligation to act on that broad consensus.

In a week during which shipbuilding appears to have ceased to be an industry here, during which the Minister has announced profound changes to the future of the education system, does the Minister agree that it is ironic that Unionists on the Benches opposite, who profess such a passionate interest in those subjects, are engaged in such an unseemly scramble - [Interruption].

Where is the question?

I have asked the Minister whether he will agree with me.

Order.

The Member should settle himself down.

Order. Mr Murphy, I would appreciate understanding what your second question is in a nutshell.

I shall repeat the question for your benefit, Madam Deputy Speaker, and for the benefit of those Members on the opposite Benches who are hard of hearing.

Does the Minister agree that it is ironic that, in the week during which the shipbuilding industry appears to be coming to an end, during which he has announced profound changes to the future of the education system, Unionists on the opposite Benches, who profess such a passionate interest in those subjects, are engaged in an unseemly scramble to see who can be first out of the very institution that will give -

Order. The question is not related to the 11-plus.

It is related to the future consultation on the 11-plus, but the people who profess such an interest in those matters will not be here for the future consultation.

Order.

In answer to that question, it is important to say that almost all of the responses supported the abolition of the transfer tests, because the tests are unfair; they are inappropriate to the current and future educational needs of learners; they skew the primary school curriculum; and they have a detrimental and stressful impact on children.

Without dealing specifically with the controversy in regard to the Member's last question, it is important to say that, throughout this process, I have articulated my deeply held belief that, as we move forward, the concern is to improve the educational opportunities of all our children - regardless of where they live, whether it be the Bogside, the Shankill Road, Portadown or Maghera.

The Alliance Party believes that this should be a milestone on the way to a better education for our children. I hope that we will have the opportunity to continue the consultation exercise and the debate in the Committee for Education and in the Assembly. It would be a dreadful indictment of all of us, and our children would suffer, if this exercise were to be suspended because of prevailing political circumstances. My party welcomes the Minister's clear statement on transfer tests and the end of the 11-plus, and we will take part in the consultation to ensure that that is carried out as quickly as possible.

Because of the late receipt of the Minister's statement, my three questions relate only to the statement. Academic selection has already been discussed, and I appreciate what the Minister said. However, how will those concerns be directly addressed in the consultation exercise? On a practical level, with regard to the timetable for the end of the transfer tests, how will parents of children in primary 5 and primary 6 be assured that future stress will not be placed on those children during the transition period?

In general, I welcome the comments at the end of the statement. However, I am sure that the Minister will not be surprised at my next question. Whatever results from the consultation, will specific details on addressing the needs of children with special educational difficulties be included in this fairer education system that enables all young people to fulfil their potential, irrespective of background or circumstances?

Order.

I thank the Member for the constructive role that she and others have played throughout the course of this debate. With regard to the concerns identified by the Member, I have said time and time again that I want to build consensus on the new arrangements. Meetings with key education interests will be held in November to discuss their views on the responses to the consultation and how best to take forward the next stages of the review.

In developing the way forward, I shall consider carefully the comments and views expressed by our education partners at those meetings, together with the views of the Assembly and the Committee for Education, and the responses to the consultation. I shall announce my proposals for the next stage of the review in December.

I am aware of the anxieties and concerns of parents and teachers regarding change. The Member was right to draw attention to that. I assure Members that the interests of children will continue to be my prime concern throughout the review. I said earlier - and I want it to be absolutely clear - that there will be no chaos in the education system. Neither will any children suffer as guinea pigs. Changes will be introduced in a planned and orderly manner to safeguard the education of children in school. My objective is to improve our children's educational experiences and to improve standards for all. I shall work closely with our education partners to achieve that.

In respect of replacing the transfer tests with another test, the response to the consultation showed overwhelming support for the abolition of the tests.

As I have said time and time again in the House, revised tests will have the same weaknesses as the current arrangements. I have made clear my commitment to abolish the transfer test, and it is not my intention to replace it with another test that will effectively perpetuate the weaknesses in the current system.

I welcome the Minister's statement, which, because it concerns future of generations of working-class children, may address the most important decision to be made by the Assembly. Unfortunately, the media are likely to focus on the events of Friday 4 October rather than on this debate.

In line with targeting social need, how does the Minister propose to secure equality of access for all children who sit the transfer test next month? Will he consider a voluntary collaboration pilot scheme to include maintained, controlled, integrated and special schools? Is the Minister aware that such a voluntary collaboration network operates in north Belfast? Does he propose to review initial teacher-training programmes to facilitate the changes in the education system?

Although we cannot pre-empt the outcome of next month's meetings with the education partners, a review of the initial teacher-training programmes must be given serious consideration. We know that there will be new arrangements of which initial teacher training must take account.

Children from disadvantaged backgrounds constitute only 8% of pupils in grammar schools. The objective of the post-primary arrangements must be to ensure that all pupils, regardless of where their gifts lie, can progress and fulfil their full potential. I am seeking post-primary arrangements that provide flexible, diverse and high-quality choices to suit the varied needs, abilities and aptitudes of all our children. I passionately believe, as do most sensible people, that every child should be given the opportunity to succeed. My aim is to develop new arrangements that will address the weaknesses of the current system, be fair to all pupils and enable all pupils to fulfil their potential, irrespective of their background and circumstances.

The current academic selection system disadvantages low-income children in the following ways: pupils from the least disadvantaged schools are almost three times more likely to achieve a grade A than pupils from the most disadvantaged schools; the proportion of pupils in grammar schools entitled to free school meals is only 8% and has been declining in the past five years; disadvantaged pupils are only half as likely as other children to achieve five good GCSEs, grades A-C; and pupils from disadvantaged Protestant areas benefit least from the current system.

I have a tremendous amount of sympathy with Billy Hutchinson's comments. His contribution to the debate, like the contributions of many other Members from all sides of the House, has been constructive and positive, which, as we continue the review, is the mood that we must capture. The positive mood exists in the education system. There is a good relationship between my Department and the education partners. There are difficult issues that must be faced up to, but we are well placed to do that. It is critical that we continue to work in a positive way. We must respect strongly held views from all sides. I have detected a strong mood of co-operation, which I have no doubt will carry over to the important deliberations that will take place in November before I bring my proposals to the Assembly in December.

The Minister's statement is important. It sends the message from the Assembly that there is an emerging consensus about the widespread consultation, for which I thank the Minister. It was good that a household survey was conducted. However, were its findings broken down by class? Often only those who have the capacity to respond to household surveys do so, and lower income families do not. Was that the case, because, if so, that may have had an impact on the findings?

Given the emerging consensus about the Burns Report, it seems that the issues we have to resolve are the common admissions criteria and the opposition to the collegiate system. Given that the issue of proximity to schools seems to have caused the greatest divergence of opinion, will the Minister tell us what he plans to do about that in the interim? What does he plan to do about the inequities of the school transport system and how will he address that issue in the long term?

I made it clear in a previous debate that my Department was working on a review of school transport. However, I am conscious of the points that Ms McWilliams made. There is no doubt that we shall have to consider the issues raised today as we move forward. That said, we must recognise that it would be wrong of me to pre-empt the outcome of our deliberations with our education partners next month. We shall have to see what transpires from them before we proceed.

As regards Ms McWilliams's point about class, we could not put all of the information about breakdown by class in the booklet published this morning because, had we done so, Members would not have been able to carry it home. As I said during my speech, further information is available and can be found on the web site.

As regards the household response form, the response was much lower from people in socially disadvantaged areas than elsewhere. However, it is important to point out that we should not focus exclusively on any one strand of the consultation. The views of the socially disadvantaged are fully represented in the responses from community and voluntary groups as well as in those of the umbrella bodies, such as the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA), schools in disadvantaged areas, the churches, political parties and human rights and equality groups.

Views on the proposals for the common admissions criterion were mixed. Many views were expressed on the individual criteria, and a lottery system was the most commonly suggested alternative tie-breaker. We must give considerable thought to the outcome of the consultation, and I have no doubt that, as we proceed through November, we shall face up to the challenges that the matter holds for us all.

I shall reserve judgement on the report. I have had unfortunate experience of welcoming reports, only to find that the devil was in the detail. I am fascinated by the Minister's crocodile tears for the people of the Shankill Road: I am sure they appreciate his tears given the previous occupations of some of his Colleagues and their nocturnal visits to the Shankill Road.

I am very concerned that the Minister has taken a selective approach to the statistics. It is unfortunate that Members received the booklet less than half an hour before arriving at the Chamber, and we got the Minister's statement only on arrival at the Chamber Door - Members have not had an opportunity to dissect the documentation properly.

Would the Minister define the term "key stakeholder" and how that compares with "educational partners", a term he bandies across the Chamber a lot? Who are the educational partners and who are the key stakeholders?

Will the Minister assure the House and the concerned parents of Northern Ireland, who have made their feelings clear on some areas that the Minister has chosen almost to ignore this morning, that the consultation on the consultation will not constitute yet another attempt to skew our education system to suit his view of society? I heard one or two comments earlier in the debate that concerned me further -

Order.

Will the Minister also assure the House that the Committee for Education will be consulted and given adequate opportunity to make its views known and have them taken into account more meaningfully than heretofore? I notice that the Minister has all of his cheerleaders around him this morning, but perhaps that shows just how uncertain he is of this particular case -

Order. When the Deputy Speaker is standing, the Member will sit down.

The matter is far too important -

The Member will sit when the Deputy Speaker is standing. Mr Robinson, order.

This is far too important, Madam Deputy Speaker, to allow the Minister away -

Mr Robinson, are you challenging the ruling of the Deputy Speaker?

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am trying to make an educational point.

I ask the Member to resume his seat.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I have found that in previous important debates when a member of a Committee attempts to make an important point, he or she, unfortunately, never -

I ask the Member to resume his seat.

Madam Deputy Speaker -

Madam Deputy Speaker: I will not ask again, Mr Robinson.

Madam Deputy Speaker, may I make my point?

Will the Member resume his seat?

Madam Deputy Speaker, may I make my point?

The Member will resume his seat while the Deputy Speaker is standing. Those are the Standing Orders that I assume the Member is acquainted with.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I have waited patiently this morning. I am also required to attend another extremely important Committee in the House, and I would like to make my point to the Minister.

I am warning the Member.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister has dilly-dallied this morning and time has gone by -

I am warning the Member that I will name him and ask for him to be removed. I have given fair warning to you, Mr Robinson.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am making sure that I can make my point. I have given up my place on another Committee. The Minister has wasted time this morning.

I ask the Member to withdraw from the Chamber.

Madam Deputy Speaker, that is -

I ask the Member to withdraw from the Chamber.

The description of key stakeholders can be found at appendix 7 of the document. I will not go through each one, as the list is very long.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I apologise for being late for this important debate. It must be realised that it is the same distance from Beragh to Stormont as it is from Stormont to Beragh.

I will ask serious questions of the Minister. Some parts of the Gallagher Report have been drawn to my attention and to the attention of other Committee members. [Interruption].

Order.

Parts of that report were the basis for the Burns Report. I have discovered that references in the 'Effects of the Selective System of Secondary Education in Northern Ireland' are not found in the Gallagher Report. In a letter, the Vice Chancellor of Queen's University described that as "unfortunate". It is alleged that those references were published, but that is incorrect. The Minister based much of his thinking on that first premise. If there is a suspicion of a flaw in the original Gallagher research, we should know whether that research was tested by his academic peers. Such a flaw would cast suspicion on the whole exercise. I want the Minister to treat that question seriously.

Last week, at the end of the Labour Party conference, the leader of the working-class population said -

Order. Mr Gibson, I am sorry, but you will be aware that time is important.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I will be brief with my questions. The representative of the working-class population of the United Kingdom said that we are now in a post-comprehensive period.

Can the Minister ignore such a statement and continue to advocate comprehensive education? I ask the Minister to consider those serious questions. I am concerned about the original statement.

I have a short answer. The Gallagher and Smith research has never been challenged seriously by anyone. In relation to the second point, there is no doubt whatsoever that during our discussions with the education partners we will have plenty of opportunities to deal with that. That is how I intend to deal with it.

On a personal and lighter note, this morning over his boiled egg, my son Charlie, who is in P7, asked, "Daddy, could you ask that man in Stormont who is in charge of education to get rid of the 11-plus?" I can now go home armed with the knowledge that the Minister has at long last abolished the 11-plus. Many schoolchildren and parents throughout Northern Ireland will be delighted. Alas, it comes too late for my son, Charlie. Perhaps the Minister will make an exception for him this year. [Interruption].

Order. Mr Gibson and Mr Paisley Jnr, resume your seats.

Will the Member give way?

No, not during questions. This is a very unruly crowd - it is a very unruly class.

There have been mixed responses to the Burns proposals by the public generally and by academics.

Will the Member give way?

However, there is a consensus against the 11-plus. That is beyond peradventure. The consultation has demonstrated consensus on the need for a common curriculum to the age of 14. Has the Minister proposals in the pipeline to create a common curriculum up to the age of 14 to meet that clear demand?

Strong views were expressed about the need for a common curriculum to the age of 14, and we will undoubtedly have many opportunities to deal with that. There was strong support for a common curriculum and for a broader range of curricular choices to be available to all pupils in Key Stage 4. Nobody should be under any illusions about that. We will deal with it, and we hope to outline to everyone how we intend to advance the issue in the proposals that we will submit in December.

I also want to tell the Member that I am going to write to Charlie to tell him that he has got his wish. [Interruption].

Order.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The behaviour of some members of the Education Committee on the opposite Benches has been completely disgraceful. It seems that they have not read Standing Orders and do not know to ask questions during statements instead of making long-winded statements.

Order. Get to the question, Mr McHugh.

I welcome the Minister's statement on the abolition of the 11-plus, as do most people. Does the Minister not agree that even though the so-called grammar school lobby was effective in mobilising its supporters to complete the household survey, the people have spoken clearly about the 11-plus? That has implications for the future structures of post-primary education, its curriculum and assessment.

It is open to any group to make its views known on matters of major public interest. The grammar school campaign has a legitimate interest in this. The Governing Bodies Association conducted a public advertising campaign in the newspapers, and many grammar schools held meetings with parents to discuss the Burns proposals.

That was reflected in the responses to the household survey, which showed a higher response rate from parents with children attending, or who had attended, grammar schools than from other parents. However, that does not in any way invalidate the views expressed. It is clear that many of those parents have genuine concerns about the potential impact that change will have on education standards. I shall take those concerns into account when new arrangements are being developed. My objective is to raise standards for all pupils.

I remind the Minister of the inadequate answer that he gave to questions on academic selection. I point out to him, to the House and to the Public Gallery, which may not yet be aware of the report, that 579 responses - 510 from schools and 69 from further and higher education institutes, community groups and training organisations - expressed a wish to see an end to academic selection.

Opposed to that were the views that were sought from 200,551 households. Some 64% of respondents favoured retaining academic selection. The Omnibus Survey reflected that view. From a sample of 2,200 members of the public, 54% favoured retaining academic selection.

When we look at parents - [Interruption].

Will the Member give way?

There is no giving way.

No, I shall not. Therefore, 64% of parents were in favour of retention. Interestingly, when one looks at the figure for schools that claimed to oppose academic selection, one sees that 62% of the teachers surveyed favoured retaining it. A figure that has not been quoted, and which is contained in the report's summary, is that the opinion of primary and post-primary pupils was divided equally for and against academic selection. Therefore, even within - [Interruption].

Will the Member get to his question?

Yes. Some 50% of pupils were in favour of academic selection. In the light of those overwhelming figures in favour of academic selection, how can the Minister of Education stand before the House and say that the predominant view is that academic selection should be ended? Did the Minister of Education not go to the country to seek people's views, thinking that he would hear what suited him, only to get a reaction that he did not expect? Instead of respecting the will of the people, he is trying to impose his will on the people.

I again remind Members that the household response form is only one strand of the consultation. Sixteen per cent of the adult population responded, from which just under two thirds were opposed to ending academic selection. Their views are important and will be taken into account. However, we must look at the wider picture and consider the greater number of people who did not respond, and also the responses to the other - [Interruption].

Order. Order. The Minister is entitled to be heard.

The majority - [Interruption].

Order.

The majority is based on the fact that there was support for ending academic selection from all five education and library boards, the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools, the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education, Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta, the Transferor Representatives' Council, institutes of further and higher education, the five main teachers' unions, two thirds of schools, 30% of those who responded to the household response form - [Interruption].

Order.

- a majority of the voluntary and community interests that responded, the SDLP, Sinn Féin, the Alliance Party, the Progressive Unionist Party, the Women's Coalition, the Workers' Party, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, the Children's Law Centre, the Committee on the Administration of Justice, the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance and the Campaign Against Selection.

Conditional support also came from the northern Catholic bishops, the Confederation of British Industry, the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment and the Catholic Heads Association. Opposition came from the Governing Bodies Association, the Secondary Heads Association, one third of schools, two thirds of those who responded to the household response forms, rural interest groups, the Ulster Unionist Party, the DUP, the four district councils that responded, the Institute of Directors and a majority of the 16 training organisations that responded. That is clear. [Interruption].

Order.

Detention is in order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Expulsion would be better.

Order.

There was a clearly expressed volume of support for pupil profiles. However, almost everyone seems to have his own ideas about what "pupil profile" means. How will the Minister be able to progress the development of pupil profiles to the satisfaction of all, being conscious of the administrative burden that might fall on teaching staff and of the interesting academic arguments about pupil profiles?

The concept of pupil profiles has been universally welcomed as a way of providing better information for parents and informing decisions about meeting the needs of learners. There are concerns about the use of pupil profiles in the transfer process, the need for consistency and fairness and the increased workload and pressure on teachers. However, I shall discuss that key issue in my meetings with the main education interests to consider how best to progress the next stages of the review.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Most right-thinking people would welcome the abolition of the injustice of the 11-plus. [Interruption].

Order.

In the city where I live, that injustice resulted in the introduction of a busing system. That was not in Boston, where they bused in the failures and bused out the successes in the various estates. I welcome the Minister's announcement. Does he agree that any future system must provide not only equality of opportunity, but also equality of access and provision, issues that emerged as a result of the consultation process?

I am satisfied, given the constructive way in which the entire process has moved along over the past couple of years, that we can face up to the issues raised by Mrs Nelis. I have already addressed the central theme of her question. I shall not do the Assembly the disservice of giving another long answer.

TOP

Strategic Investment and Regeneration of Sites Bill: 
Second Stage

The following motion stood in the Order Paper:

TOP

Energy Bill: Second Stage

The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (Sir Reg Empey):

I beg to move

The energy scene in Northern Ireland has changed considerably in the last decade, and the pace of change shows no sign of slowing.

The next decade will bring a further raft of changes: EU Directives will require full market opening in electricity and gas; the gas networks will be substantially developed outside the Greater Belfast area; and the new North/South gas interconnection will be developed. There are associated developments in new, modern, efficient generation capacity and electricity interconnection, and there is interest in greatly increasing the proportion of Northern Ireland's energy from renewable sources.

These exciting developments will bring enormous opportunities to Northern Ireland, but they will also bring challenges. It is crucial that Northern Ireland be positioned to meet those challenges and to use the changes to get the best results for its consumers. The Energy Bill will help us to achieve that. The items included in the Bill have been identified through consultation exercises as priorities requiring legislation. It is my intention that the Bill will enable Northern Ireland to meet the immediate energy challenges that it is likely to face.

There is more to be done, and I expect that further legislation will be necessary in due course. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is developing a new energy strategy for Northern Ireland for the next 10 years or so to fulfil a Programme for Government commitment, and I expect that more legislation will be necessary to give effect to that strategy. However, the issues that have been included in the Energy Bill will be important in setting the framework within which to develop any new strategy.

The issues included in the Bill result from several public consultation exercises to which there were almost 200 responses. In October 2001, the Department issued a consultation paper on renewable energy entitled 'Realising the Potential'. Responses to the paper supported the introduction of an obligation on electricity suppliers to encourage further growth of renewable energy in Northern Ireland. I welcome the wholehearted endorsement of such a mechanism by the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment and its comprehensive and valuable energy inquiry report.

In March 2002, the Department sought a wide range of views on the direction of a new energy market strategy through the publication of 'Towards a New Energy Market Strategy for Northern Ireland'. That paper sought views on priority energy issues requiring legislation to be taken forward in a Bill in the lifetime of the Assembly. Among the priorities that the Department identified at the time were changes to consumer representation arrangements, changes to the regulatory framework, and postalisation of gas conveyance prices. The Department also sought consultees' views on other issues.

Accordingly, the Department developed a draft Energy Bill that was issued for consultation in June of this year along with the draft equality and regulatory impact assessments. The Department outlined at that time its intention to add to the Bill, before its introduction in the Assembly, provisions enabling the restructuring of energy business activities to enable Northern Ireland to meet European obligations and to allow full market opening to proceed.

In setting a new regulatory framework and introducing changes to the consumer representation arrangements, the Energy Bill moves the consumer - particularly the vulnerable consumer - to the centre of the energy agenda.

Clauses 1 to 6 and schedule 1 create a new Northern Ireland Authority for Energy Regulation. This will bring energy, electricity and gas regulation together in Northern Ireland for the first time, and it will allow the authority to take account of the interests of consumers of gas when considering electricity issues and vice versa. This important change removes the artificial distinction between the two industries, reflecting the closer relationship between the sectors.

The authority structure is modelled on the structures in Great Britain under the Utilities Act 2000, but it is my intention that the Northern Ireland authority should be tailored to the needs of Northern Ireland. It has been given a name that reflects its distinctiveness. The Northern Ireland authority should not require many members; rather, members should be required to bring to matters of regulation their experience and expertise in relevant energy areas.

I intend that the present regulator, Douglas McIldoon, will become chairman, and the Department will liaise with him before appointing other members. The Bill also enables the authority to co-operate with persons in other member states. This provision is aimed at increasing North/South co-operation on all-island issues but will also enable the authority to explore wider European issues.

Clauses 7 and 8 bring responsibility for energy consumer representation issues together under the remit of the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland. I announced my intention to reform energy consumer representation matters in this way in August 2001, and the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment supported that approach in its energy report. Like the Committee, I believe that consumers will be best served by having a single point of contact for advice and information.

In consequence of the new arrangements, the Bill abolishes the Northern Ireland Consumer Committee for Electricity. I commend that committee for its sterling work on behalf of electricity consumers and for the dedication of its members and chairperson. The General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland will continue to build on that work, and the enhanced powers under the Bill will enable the council to be a strong voice for energy consumers in Northern Ireland.

The authority and the council will have a close working relationship, and clause 9 reflects that by requiring information flows between both organisations and obliging them to draw up and publish a memorandum setting out the arrangements for securing co-operation between them. The authority and the Department are given new principal objectives and duties in relation to electricity and gas, and they are set out in full in clauses 10 and 12.

The principal objectives for electricity and gas are different. For electricity, the principal objective is to protect the interest of consumers, where appropriate, by promoting effective competition. For gas, the principal objective is to promote the development and maintenance of an efficient, economic and co-ordinated gas industry in Northern Ireland. That reflects the different stages of the electricity and gas markets in Northern Ireland and can be contrasted with the position in GB, where both markets are relatively mature.

In relation to electricity and gas, however, consumer issues have been moved much higher up the agenda. In particular, the Department and the authority, in exercising their duties under the Bill, are required to have regard to the interests of vulnerable consumers, defined as those who are disabled or chronically sick, of pensionable age, with low incomes, or, in the case of electricity, those who live in rural areas. Those vulnerable consumers may have particular issues with regard to energy, and this provision acknowledges that.

Part III of the Bill, which covers clauses 14 to 25, requires the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland to establish a group in connection with its energy-related functions. It gives the council a wide range of functions in relation to electricity and gas. Those include keeping itself informed about consumer issues and views; providing and publishing advice and information; and dealing with complaints. The council is given strengthened powers in relation to electricity and gas matters. It can require information from the new regulatory authority and from licence holders, and it can conduct investigations.

Part IV of the Bill, which covers clauses 26 to 37, contains important new provisions creating new licences for electricity and gas. They position Northern Ireland to conform to the requirements of European Directives requiring the separation of energy company business activities to move to full market opening.

The effect of clauses 26 to 30 will be to enable more than one company to hold an electricity transmission or gas conveyance licence in a particular area. That will be done by allowing more than one company to carry out different functions in relation to the same transmission or conveyance assets. The different roles and functions will be specified in the licence conditions of the respective companies. The most immediate need for the provisions in the electricity sector relates to the desire to see the legal separation of the system operation activities in Northern Ireland Electricity from the company's asset ownership function. Depending on the outcome of the present discussions on gas postalisation arrangements, there may be a similar need in the gas sector.

There are additional provisions in clauses 36 and 37, supplemented in schedule 2, to alter the scope of licensable activities either by making licensable activities that are not currently licensable, or by removing activities from regulatory control. The provisions give the Department additional flexibility to make further changes, if necessary, to comply with European Directives or otherwise to ensure the most appropriate energy market structure for Northern Ireland.

Any Orders made under those clauses would be subject to affirmative resolution in the Assembly. In addition, before an activity that is not currently licensable can be made to require a licence against the wishes of anyone carrying out that activity, the Competition Commission must indicate that it is against the public interest for the activity not to be regulated.

Clauses 31 and 32 of the Bill provide, among other things, that licence conditions may enable the application of a levy through an increase of the charges to a licence holder. I introduced those provisions primarily to ensure that certain costs associated with future development of the electricity market in Northern Ireland can be spread across all customers, thereby avoiding the problem of stranded costs.

Nevertheless, there have been various proposals for such a levy provision in order to reduce the cost of capital in the energy sector. The proposition is that banks would take greater comfort from such a provision, which could guarantee a revenue stream from consumers to lenders. The banks, therefore, would be likely to lend at lower rates of interest. Those more efficient financing arrangements, it is suggested, could then be substituted for existing arrangements, and consumers would be the beneficiaries of the consequent reduction in repayments.

I invite the proponents of such a proposal to consider how the provision that is included in the Bill might be used in developing their ideas into specific proposals, which must address potential state-aid issues and tax implications before any consumer benefit can be fully assessed.

Clauses 34 and 35 alter the current position with regard to changes to electricity and gas licences following a reference to the Competition Commission. The changes introduced by those clauses give the Competition Commission the final say in determining the licence modifications which should be made to remedy matters that the Commission has identified as operating against the public interest following a reference from the authority, thereby securing greater certainty of outcome in such matters.

The authority will still put forward its proposals about the appropriate modifications, but the Competition Commission can substitute its own, if it feels that they are more appropriate.

In Part V of the Bill, clauses 42 to 47 strengthen the existing enforcement powers of the authority and give it new powers to enable it to carry out its functions effectively. The provisions enable the authority to impose fines on licensees of up to 10% of the turnover of that licensee for breach of licence conditions, certain statutory obligations or, in relation to electricity, standards of performance.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>