Northern Ireland Assembly
Monday 23 October 2000 (continued)
11.45 am
Ms McWilliams queried whether dispensing checks had in fact brought any measurable benefit. Dispensing checks have had some success, and it is estimated that the income collected as a result has increased by approximately £1 million this year. However, this does not obviate our difficulties and the need to introduce further measures.
Mr McCarthy asked about reducing prescription charges. This Bill tackles the specific problem of the evasion of these charges, so that issue is outside its jurisdiction. A wide range of exemptions from charges is in place to protect people who may have difficulty paying or who have special needs. As part of my plans to ensure that the Department fully meets its equality obligations under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I will be looking at the equality implications of Health Service charges in due course, but the matter is not relevant to today's Bill.
Ms Ramsey indicated the need to investigate institutional fraud in nursing homes, GP practices, dental surgeries and so on. The Department is already taking action to detect and prevent fraud in all areas. All health and personal social service organisations are required to have fraud response plans in place. I have established a counter-fraud unit in the Central Services Agency to assist boards in the investigation of potential fraud in family practitioner services. GP claims are subject to post-payment validation checks, and similar checks are undertaken for pharmacists, dentists and opticians. Members will note that the clauses in this Bill relate not only to individuals but also to Health Service practices.
I shall now turn to the questions from Dr Hendron, Mr Berry and Ms Ramsey on the timing of the new arrangements for primary care. I intend to publish proposals for those new arrangements for formal consultation in the near future. I agree that it is important to learn from the lessons of fundholding and from other models of primary care commissioning. I make a point of working on the lessons of the past and building on positive experiences from the past when developing new arrangements. We must also ensure that those new arrangements reflect local circumstances.
Mr McFarland asked about GP contracts. I am aware that preliminary proposals to amend GP contracts are emerging from the NHS plan in England, and I will study those proposals closely and follow that debate. I will introduce new arrangements here only if it is appropriate to do so, given our local circumstances.
Dr McDonnell asked about fundholding. I accept that there were positive aspects to fundholding, and I will attempt to build on those. However, in general, Members will agree that it is time to end GP fundholding.
On the question of chief executives' pay, I recognise the problems highlighted by Mr McFarland. The Audit Office published a report recently in response to those problems and identified important lessons for setting contracts and regulating termination payments. Although they came to attention earlier this year, these problems arose a number of years ago. I want to ensure that they do not reoccur and that the powers of direction contained in this Bill will facilitate the introduction of fair and open arrangements.
I want to address Dr McDonnell's question on accessing services. I know there are difficulties in accessing services, but the problems identified by the Member concern resources, which are a priority for me. However, they are not concerned with legislation, which is why they are not being dealt with today. That is not to suggest, however, that they are not being dealt with at all.
Tá súil agam gur chlúdaigh mé iomlán na bpointí a luadh, ach gabhaim mo leithscéal má d'fhág mé ceist ar bith ar lár. Scrúdóidh mo chuid feidhmeannach tuairisc na díospóireachta, agus scríobhfaidh mé chuig Teachta ar bith nár freagraíodh a cheist nó nár clúdaíodh a cheist go hiomlán.
Gabhaim buíochas arís le Teachtaí as ucht a suime sa díospóireacht.
I hope I have dealt with the bulk of Members' questions, and I look forward to further discussions with Assembly Members and Committee members on the provisions of the Bill. I apologise if I have overlooked any questions. My officials will scrutinise the record of this debate, and I will write to any Member whose question has not been answered. I would like to thank Members for their interest.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Health and Personal Social Services Bill (NIA 3/00) be agreed.
Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill:
Further Consideration Stage
Mr Speaker:
By leave of the Assembly, I propose to take clauses 1 to 64 of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill en bloc, there being no amendments and no indication that Members wish to speak against their standing part. This will be followed by clause 65, to which there is one amendment on the Marshalled List, and then by the remaining clauses, schedules 1 to 9 and, finally, the long title.
Clauses 1 to 64 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 65 (Tests for determining paternity)
Amendment (No 1) proposed: In page 64, line 11, after the second "that" insert
", having regard to the age and understanding of the child,". - [Ms Gildernew]
Ms Gildernew:
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Clause 65, subsection 3 of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill will give the courts the power to force children under the age of 16 to give a blood sample to establish paternity through DNA testing. I have reservations about this section of the Bill. A child of 14 or 15 who has never known his father could be forced to give a blood sample. Is this child to be held down and forced to give that blood to determine his paternity?
If the person with care and control of that child does not believe that it is in the child's best interest to give blood, surely we should respect that view. To force a child to give a blood sample is a violation of the child's rights. Allowance for the child's age and understanding should be incorporated in the Bill, taking the child's needs into consideration.
The Minister has written to my Colleague, Sue Ramsey, to say that he cannot guarantee that the sample will be destroyed after the test has been conducted. We should not allow this clause to go unchallenged.
This would be the same as having that young person's DNA sample on record for life, and it could be used to convict him or her years later. That would be a breach of his or her civil liberties, and we cannot allow this clause in the Bill to go through without amendment. Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.
Mr Ford:
I share Ms Gildernew's concerns, but I shall not repeat them at great length. I wrote to the Minister some time ago about where this section of this Bill impinged on the Family Law Reform Bill. He responded that that was a matter for another Minister, but there is clearly a problem when we have two related Bills going through, one of which is being treated as a parity measure and as though all discussion on it is impossible. Yet again, as with some of the clauses we debated last week, easy reading of the Bill does not make for easy recognition of the rights of a child, and these rights are not necessarily the same as the rights of those seeking to enforce financial payments.
The Minister will tell us that as this is a matter of parity we should accept it, but that is not a good enough answer. Perhaps he could indicate whether it will be difficult to force the courts to take into account the views of the child in a case such as this, or whether it will merely be best practice for the courts to do so anyway. Will he give us a specific assurance that he is confident that it has passed the test of the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights), because I am anything but confident that that is the case?
Mr Morrow:
I have listened to the points that have been made, and if I seem slightly confused, I suspect the House will forgive me. The arguments put forward in support of the amendment, while I understand the sentiments, are based on a misunderstanding.
Under the existing law a blood sample cannot be taken from a child under 16 to determine paternity without the consent of the person who has care and control of the child. Normally such consent is given, but there are cases where it is not forthcoming. In a recent High Court judgement, the judge expressed the view that the existing law may not comply with the ECHR in that it can deny the child the opportunity to know its paternity. It is unsatisfactory that the person with care and control of the child, who may well be a party to the proceedings, should be able to frustrate those proceedings and prevent the child's paternity from being established. This can have the effect of denying the child the right to know his father, and the father the right to be recognised as such.
The provision therefore focuses on the best interests of the child when deciding whether to give a direction for tests to establish paternity. The court has the flexibility to distinguish between cases where establishing paternity is in a child's best interests and those where it may not be. Where the court considers that the child is old enough to express a view, it will take that view into account when reaching its decision. Clause 65(3) amends article 9 of the Family Law Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 to allow a court to permit the taking of a sample where it considers it to be in the best interests of the child. This will ensure that directions given in the best interest of the child can be effectively enforced and that the law in this area complies with the ECHR.
Turning to the amendment, the court will take account of a range of issues, including the age and understanding of the child, when considering whether or not to make a direction. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary. However, the amendment, as drafted - and I cannot believe that the Member intended this - could have the adverse effect of fettering the court's powers. If the amendment were to be accepted, a court could interpret the legislation as allowing it to take account of the age and understanding of the child only, but of no other factors.
12.00
I cannot believe that that is what the Member intends. In view of the fact that the court will, as a matter of course, take account of the age and understanding of the child, and given the possible unintended implications of the amendment, I ask the Member to withdraw it. However, if the Member feels unable to do so, I must ask the House to reject it.
Regarding the destruction of samples used for DNA testing, I have written to the Member who raised that issue to confirm that samples are destroyed, normally after three months, although that period can be extended, for example, where the test results are challenged.
Ms Gildernew:
Go raibh maith agat. It was useful to have that point clarified, and I am glad to hear that the court will not run roughshod over the rights of a child in order to determine paternity. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 66 to 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 1 to 9 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.
Mr Speaker:
The Bill is now referred to the Speaker for further consideration. Normally, we would require a five-day interval between Further Consideration and Final Stage. By accelerated passage, however, it may be considered at an earlier time. However, between Further Consideration by the House and the Final Stage, the Speaker needs to satisfy himself that the Bill is still competent and conforms to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Since Final Stage can take the form of a debate if the House so wishes, Members may also wish to prepare some remarks to make at that time in the light of what has happened at Further Consideration Stage. It is intended, however, that the final Stage of this Bill will be taken after Question Time today at 4 o'clock.
Members will see on the Order Paper that the next item at that time is the Government Resources and Accounts Bill. However, I remind Members of the five-day interval required for Bills for which there is not accelerated passage. Since the First Stage of that Bill took place last Monday, the earliest time at which it can be considered again is tomorrow morning. After the Final Stage of this Bill, the sitting will be suspended until tomorrow morning, when the Government Resources and Accounts Bill will be taken.
Mr Dodds:
You anticipated my point, and I am grateful for your explanation of the timing and procedure with regard to the Final Stage of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill. Many Members will regret that we cannot proceed with Private Members' Business, although it is understandable under our present procedures. Perhaps if we have time later we will. However, I fully understand and accept the reasons you have given.
Mr Speaker:
Part of the difficulty arises because we have a single Order Paper for the week. It would be different if we had an Order Paper for each day, and perhaps the Business Committee will consider that matter.
The sitting was suspended at 12.05 pm.
On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McCelland] in the Chair) -
Oral Answers to Questions
Education
School Transportation
2.30 pm
1.
Mr Berry
asked the Minister of Education if he will outline his plans for the future development of school transportation in the next five years, and if he will make a statement.
The Minister of Education (Mr M McGuinness):
The home-to-school transport arrangements approved by my Department support parental preference and enable education and library boards to provide transport assistance if a pupil is unable to gain a place in a suitable school within statutory walking distance of his or her home. The definition of a suitable school has regard to well-established categories - controlled, Catholic maintained, integrated and Irish-medium schools and, in the grammar school sector, denominational and non-denominational schools. I have no plans to extend the policy. To do so would be to divert resources from the classroom when our aim should be to concentrate maximum public resources on teaching and learning.
Mr Berry:
There is great concern about the safety of schoolchildren after a bus driver has dropped them off. There is also concern about overcrowded buses. I would like more answers from the Department of Education.
I am not convinced that the Minister of Education is concerned about the children of Northern Ireland. After all, his party has been leaving them orphaned for over 30 years. [Interrpution]
Mr Deputy Speaker:
Order.
Mr M McGuinness:
The Department of Education is concerned about the safety of our children. It is essential that everybody charged with responsibility for the safety of children - either at school or when transporting them to and from school - is conscious of the need to ensure that children are looked after and educated about the need for public safety.
In relation to the safety of children who travel on buses, the Member will know that legislation on the carrying capacity of vehicles is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment. Education and library board and other providers of home-to-school transport operate within the terms of that legislation. I am aware that the Environment Committee is to hold a formal inquiry into transport for schoolchildren which will include consideration of the legislation governing the number of children permitted to travel on buses.
Mr Hussey:
I note the Minister's answer to Mr Berry's question. The Minister is obviously aware of public concern about how schoolchildren are obliged to stand on school buses. He will realise that this is worse in rural areas where schoolchildren travel distances of 20 to 25 miles for their secondary-level education. Will future developments for school transport address the issue? Would it not be circumspect for the Minister to issue a directive to all education and library boards to impose a moratorium on all carriers forbidding schoolchildren from standing on buses until a full inquiry has been completed?
Mr M McGuinness:
I do not wish to repeat myself. I made it clear that legislation regarding the carrying capacity of vehicles, indeed everything to do with safety on buses, is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment. It is not that of the Department of Education. It is important that the formal inquiry into transport that the Environment Committee intends to hold takes place as soon as possible. That inquiry will consider all those matters, and the Department of Education keenly awaits the outcome. Any decisions taken by the Minister of the Environment, or any advice offered by the Environment Committee, must be taken seriously by my Department. We have a huge responsibility, first to see the outcome of that inquiry and, secondly, to consider its full implications. Many Members are concerned about that issue, including myself. That is the most sensible way to proceed.
Ms Lewsley:
I wish to commend the Minister's Department for putting together the training package for drivers and escorts for children with special needs. At present that package has been delivered to the escorts. How long will it be before drivers are also offered that training package? Also, will the Minister's Department consider offering that training to the private sector and encourage that sector to become involved in that training by extending contracts from one year to three years?
Mr M McGuinness:
I agree that this issue is vital. People know that steps have been taken to ensure the safety of children on buses. We take care of the extra difficulties created by the fact that we are dealing with children who, in some circumstances, are disabled and have particular problems and difficulties.
I am keen that everyone should receive the highest quality of training available, and I will ensure, from the perspective of the Department of Education, that all relevant authorities involved in the safety and proper provision of school transport adhere rigidly to the training.
Mr C Murphy:
Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Does the Minister agree that the rigid application of the school transport policy restricts rather than helps choice? This is particularly true in the case of those parents who can least afford school transport. Their choice of a particular school is adversely affected by the transport policy since they cannot pass a school that is deemed by the Department of Education to be suitable for them. Does he also agree that examination of this policy is required in order to give people a wider choice, particularly in relation to secondary or grammar schools in rural areas?
Mr M McGuinness:
This is clearly a sensitive issue, and the Department has dealt with a number of letters from parents who have sought this particular facility for some time. Applications are often refused simply because it has been decided that the code is the most sensible way of ensuring that as many children as possible can avail themselves of the facility.
Everyone knows that transport costs have been a heavy burden on the Department. Over the 1996-97 period there was an increase of £7·8 million, and last year we spent around £46·2 million. We are concerned about the increasing cost of home-to-school transport and the detrimental effect that this has had on the resources available in the classroom.
The current policy on nearest suitable schools was introduced to reduce the numbers eligible for transport with the aim of containing the rising costs and directing more resources to schools. It is important that people recognise and understand that this is an expensive issue and one that uses up considerable resources within the Department.
For the purposes of transport arrangements the term "suitable school" has a precise definition, and, as I said earlier, relates to the established educational categories of controlled, maintained, integrated and Irish medium schools and also to the grammar sector - both denominational and non-denominational.
Transport assistance will be provided to a school that is outside the statutory walking distance in a chosen category provided that there are no similar schools within statutory walking distance to which the pupil could have been admitted. People need to consider that if that measure were to be relaxed, the Department would be faced with the huge problem of having to direct elsewhere the much needed resources that it is trying to direct into the classroom. That would have a detrimental effect on our education system.
Schools: Safety of Staff and Pupils
2.
Mr Paisley Jnr
asked the Minister of Education if, following the recent attack on staff at a school in Ballymoney, he will outline the steps he is taking to ensure the safety of pupils and staff at all schools in Northern Ireland.
Mr M McGuinness:
The recent attack on staff in Dalriada was disgraceful and I deplore it. While responsibility for health and safety matters falls to employing authorities, my Department has issued guidance to all schools on security and personal safety in schools. This document provides practical advice and guidance on matters relating to the security and overall safety management of schools and other premises used by young people.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
This is a wholly unacceptable answer from the "couldn't-care-less" Minister of Education. A bit of paper to protect a school and children - that is unacceptable. I want to know why the Department appears to have learned nothing from this pernicious and evil attack on a school in my constituency. Why has it learned nothing from other attacks on schools in other constituencies? I want to know what resources and strategy the Minister is going to put in place to protect children from similar attacks.
The majority of this House will agree with me when I say this: when you appoint a terrorist to a position in the Government of Northern Ireland, it is little wonder that there is a drop in standards in education.
Mr M McGuinness:
The law places responsibility for health and safety on the employer, in this case the school authority. However, I take the issue of school security very seriously and my Department has issued guidance to schools on the development and implementation of a school security policy. Employing authorities have an important responsibility for ensuring that their schools are safe and secure for staff and pupils. As well as having security strategies they should ensure that risk assessments are undertaken to enable security needs to be identified and addressed.
I recognise that it is difficult for authorities to guarantee school security under all circumstances and there are limits to what can be sensibly done to protect against the most extreme incidents. A proper balance must be struck between making schools secure and keeping them accessible.
Over the course of the last four years my Department has made available additional resources of some £4 million, specifically for basic security measures in schools. The measures have taken the form of access controls on doors to control visitor access, internal audio and visual monitoring systems and intruder alarms. The measures are largely directed towards personal protection of staff and pupils and are determined on the basis of risk assessments carried out by individual schools. These are in addition to more significant capital works undertaken by boards and individual schools to protect school buildings. These take the form of fencing, CCTV, external security lighting, security grilles on windows and the provision of security stores. This followed on from the many lessons that were learned in the aftermath of the fatal stabbing of the headteacher, Philip Lawrence, in England. We always have to be conscious and aware of our responsibilities to schools, to the people who work in them and to the young people.
It is also important to point out that during the summer quite a number of schools were attacked in the north Antrim area. I was very pleased to see that the Paisleys - Mr Ian Paisley Snr and Mr Ian Paisley Jnr - have at long last decided to say something about that. That is an encouraging development because at one of the schools that was attacked the board of governors was actually meeting when someone threw a petrol bomb into the school. There was not a cheep out of Mr Paisley about that incident then. [Interruption]
Mr Paisley Jnr:
Liar. You are a liar.
Mr M McGuinness:
In the course of the last couple of weeks - [Interruption]
Mr J Kelly:
Point of order, a LeasCheann Comhairle.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
There are no points of order during Questions.
Mr M McGuinness:
In the course of the last couple of weeks, and the recent attacks, [Interruption]
Mr Paisley Jnr:
Liar.
Mr M McGuinness:
It is most welcome that Mr Paisley Snr and Mr Paisley Jnr have at last found their voices.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
You are a liar.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
Before I call the next Member I remind all Members that we are only at Question 2 - we have a substantial number of Questions still to get through. If Members would keep their Questions relatively short and the Minister the answers relatively short, we might get through more business.
Mr K Robinson:
Does the Minister agree that it is far from satisfactory that term-time only staff, such as school secretaries, find themselves in the frontline of defence in the security systems of many of our schools? Will he bear this in mind when job evaluation exercises and negotiations over retainer fees for such staff are being discused by the agencies under the aegis of his Department?
2.45 pm
Mr M McGuinness:
I agree with the Member. The people presently involved in the joint negotiating council should seriously consider these matters in relation to the ongoing discussions to resolve the problems relating to term-time workers. As everybody is aware, one proposal is that a job evaluation process should be established. I certainly agree that this is important and should be taken into consideration.
School Standards (Rural Areas)
3.
Mr B Bell
asked the Minister of Education if he will detail his plans to sustain a high standard of schools in rural areas, and if he will make a statement.
Mr M McGuinness:
The accommodation needs of rural schools, like those of all schools, are addressed by my Department's capital prioritisation arrangements. These give high priority to the replacement of rural schools that are currently operating in sub-standard accommodation. It is important that rural communities have a network of strong local schools with the necessary accommodation, equipment and range of teaching experience. On the rationalisation of rural schools, I will wish to be satisfied that every option has been examined in consultation with parents and the community before making any decisions on closures.
Mr B Bell:
I note from the Minister's reply that he shares some of my concerns. How does he intend to ensure that school facilities in rural areas are maintained and improved? Do the capital building priorities address this problem?
Mr M McGuinness:
In previous Question Time discussions I have made it clear that rural schools, and small rural schools in particular, make a huge contribution to community life. Anybody who knows me will know how greatly I value this contribution. To progress this issue, it is vital that consultation takes place involving local communities, school authorities, boards of governors, school principals, teachers and parents. It is crucial to get this right. In the course of our deliberations on school capital funding programmes and on suggestions or proposals for rationalisation we must ensure that we move forward sensibly on this issue. It is of great concern to people, particularly those living in rural areas.
The rural nature of this area, and the structure of education here, means that there will be a significant number of small rural schools. The accommodation needs of these schools are met via the Department's capital prioritisation arrangements. There are limited funds available for new school building schemes each year, so only high-priority projects can proceed in planning. This includes the replacement of those rural schools currently located in sub-standard accommodation. Following completion of an economic appraisal, the planning of a project is permitted to proceed to enable the scheme to compete for funding under the annual new starts programme. It is important to appreciate the huge contribution that such schools have made. It is vital that we move forward sensibly, bearing in mind that resources are limited.
The Chairperson of the Education Committee (Mr Kennedy):
Given the high levels of need experienced by rural schools, what proactive measures - and we have heard much in extremely general terms in the earlier replies - does the Minister intend to take to address this problem?
Mr M McGuinness:
The Department of Education considers it important that rural communities have access to a network of strong local schools with the necessary accommodation, equipment and range of teaching experience to provide a broad and balanced curriculum.
A strong rural school has advantages in the range of the curriculum, the expertise of the staff, the educational benefits of single-age-group classes, enhanced interaction for pupils and teachers, and more curricular activities. In moving this issue forward and ensuring that a proper locally based education is provided in small rural communities, we must take account of the limited finances and resources available. Many small primary schools throughout the North are over 100 years old. There is huge pressure on the Department in terms of what can be achieved in any given period.
For example, the largest ever capital building programme for schools was announced at the beginning of this year - £70 million. I have made it clear that when one considers the problems and difficulties that exist, this is only a drop in the ocean, and there are few in the House who would disagree. As a result, there has been a debate about rationalisation in education: how to improve facilities and conditions for children, parents, teachers and school authorities, and how to do that sensibly with the available resources. It will be difficult, and it will not be possible to please everybody.
The Department is looking proactively at the issue of rural schools, particularly small rural schools. We appreciate the contribution that they make. There are a number of outstanding proposals before my Department, on which I expect to announce decisions over the next few weeks. People will find these decisions are an interesting departure from previous policy.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
I again remind Members to keep their questions and answers relatively brief. There are still a number of questions to be put.
Mr Gallagher:
The importance of small schools has quite rightly been stressed. Nowhere is that more important than in the west of the Province, especially in the Western Education and Library Board area, which has the highest number of small schools of all the boards. From Hallowe'en, canteen staff in some small schools in the Western Education and Library Board area will have their hours cut because fewer children are taking school meals because of increased meal prices from 1 September at primary and secondary school level. Given the serious implications of that issue, will the Minister consider a review of all aspects of this decision, including the provision of free school milk for families on income support in all board areas?
A Member:
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. That question is not relevant.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
I will take points of order after Question Time, but on this occasion I will ask the Minister whether he considers that question relevant to Question 3.
Mr M McGuinness:
It is not relevant to the question before us today, but it is a relevant question. It is one that should concern us. Members will be aware that the education and library boards have the key responsibility for the cost of school meals. The Department can only do so much.
Again, this question relates to the level of available resources and whether we are pushing as much finance as possible straight towards our children's education in an attempt to ensure that resources are classroom-based, as opposed to the other difficulties. We must give serious consideration to the matters raised by Mr Gallagher. I am involved in ongoing discussions with the education and library boards about these issues.
The Deputy Chairperson of the Education Committee (Mr S Wilson): Perhaps, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will inform the Minister that although this is described as Question Time, it requires that some answers be given to the House.
I notice that in his responses to the questions on rural schools he has told us -
Mr Deputy Speaker:
Mr Wilson, do you have a question?
Mr S Wilson:
Yes, I do, and I would like an answer to the question. My preamble is to ensure that we do get an answer.
The Minister has told us that he thinks that this is an important issue and that he is going to give it serious consideration. Perhaps he would tell us what he intends to do to help rural schools. Secondly, will he give this House an assurance that in this year's capital spending programme we will not see the same bias as we saw last year when the money went in favour of maintained schools at a ratio of four to one?
Mr M McGuinness:
The last comment is totally inaccurate, as usual - we should not be surprised about that. The reality is that the school capital building programme, which I announced at the beginning of this year, was very well received, and there was very little criticism, even from the Member's own party, at the time.
One thing is certain in the Department of Education, over which I have stewardship: under no circumstances will any community be treated the way the community that I come from has been treated over the course of 70 to 80 years under British rule.
It is also vital to state that my Department is committed to ensuring support for small rural schools and for education in the rural community. A number of issues are currently before me, and I will take decisions on those over the next couple of weeks. The decisions taken will clearly demonstrate - better than any answer I can give in this House - that I am absolutely committed to the preservation of the rural community and of education within the rural community.
Schools Reorganisation (Strabane)
4.
Mr McMenamin
asked the Minister of Education if he will outline when the proposed major reorganisation of schools in Strabane will be announced.
Mr M McGuinness:
I hope to be in a position to make an announcement later in the autumn.
Mr McMenamin:
I appreciate the implications of the current review for the whole of the North of Ireland in relation to secondary education. However, Strabane is alone in these new proposals and this is causing tremendous uncertainty and concern. Parents and teachers have been left in limbo for too long. Will the Minister take steps to assure me that there will be an announcement sooner rather than later?
Mr M McGuinness:
First, and I do not think that anyone will be surprised at this, it would be totally inappropriate of me to pre-empt the outcome of the development proposal in relation to the school in Strabane. My Department is currently preparing a submission for my consideration which will examine the key educational, structural and management factors involved, as well as taking account of the objections raised. The issue that the Member mentioned will, of course, have a huge impact not only in Strabane but also in areas all over the North.
By the end of this month I hope to announce the composition of the review body that will be charged to take forward what I consider to be the most important debate on education that we have had in 100 years. I hope that the review body will come back to me by May 2001 with definite proposals as to how this should be taken forward. Of course, all of this will impact not only on the development proposals for Strabane but also on schools throughout the North.
We will make a decision on the Strabane proposal soon, and we will continue with the debate into post-primary education. I hope that at the end of that process we can come forward with proposals that will allow us manage the whole issue of post-primary education in a way that benefits all our children.
Mr Hussey:
The question refers to the major reorganisation of schools in Strabane. The Minister has addressed the issue of the maintained sector and a particular problem in Strabane. However, I also understand that last year the board of governors of Strabane Grammar School entered into discussions with the Western Education and Library Board and the Department with regard to the school's long-term accommodation needs and that various options were to be investigated and costed. Can the Minister update the Assembly on the current situation of Strabane Grammar School which, to quote its principal, "urgently needs a new-build programme to bring it into the twenty-first century"?
3.00 pm
Mr Deputy Speaker:
Will the Minister please make his answer brief.
Mr M McGuinness:
Discussions are taking place, and have taken place, between the officials of Strabane Grammar School and representatives from the Western Education and Library Board. We are very concerned about the state of the schools estate throughout the North, not just in Strabane Grammar School, and it is vitally important that we deal with this in a sensible way.
The Department of Education believes that the announcement of the school capital building programme at the beginning of 2001 will go some way towards alleviating the difficulties of many schools throughout the North. However, there is an added consideration now as a result of the pilot schemes that have taken place with relation to the private finance initiative approach. The Department of Education is also considering how it can take that initiative forward in order to enhance the quality of accommodation at different schools throughout the North. When one considers the huge legacy of neglect and underfunding, I am sure Members will agree that that is the sensible approach.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
The time is up.
Mr J Kelly:
On a point of order, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Is it in order for a Member to refer to a Colleague as a liar without having supporting evidence for such a serious allegation?
Mr Deputy Speaker:
It is not in order for a Member to describe the Minister as a liar, and I give Mr Ian Paisley Jnr the opportunity to withdraw the remark.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
How can a Member withdraw something that was said from a sedentary position when it does not appear on the public record?
Mr Deputy Speaker:
It will appear in the record now because it has been raised as a point of order.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
If the Minister is not happy with being called a liar - even if he is - the public record should show that he has been a purveyor of blatant untruths. Let the public record also show that he is a stranger to the truth and an apologist for murder. I would put that on the public record.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
Mr Paisley, are you withdrawing your remarks?
Mr J Kelly:
A LeasCheann Comhairle, you asked for a withdrawal. Did we get it?
Mr Deputy Speaker:
I ask Mr Ian Paisley Jnr again to withdraw the remarks.
Mr S Wilson:
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The only person on record in the House as having called the Minister a liar is his own Colleague. The remarks of my Colleague will not be on the record because they were made from a sedentary position. As far as I am aware, the only person who made the comment that will appear on the record was Mr Kelly. Maybe he would like to withdraw it.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
Order, Mr Wilson. I will examine Hansard and come back to the matter. I am now moving on to the next item - [Interruption]
Mr B Hutchinson:
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker - [Interruption]
Mr Kennedy:
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to Mr Hutchinson for giving way - even though it was not willingly.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am extremely dissatisfied at the conduct of questions to the Minister of Education. We had a total of four questions. Question 1 lasted for nine minutes 52 seconds; question 2 lasted for six minutes 48 seconds; and question 3 lasted for a record time of - [Interruption]
Mr Deputy Speaker:
Mr Kennedy, what is your point of order?
Mr Kennedy:
I am not satisfied with the chairing of Question Time. It has been done in a manner in which all Members who took the time and trouble to place on record - [Interruption]
Mr Deputy Speaker:
Mr Kennedy, you are out of order. No statement concerning the chairing of the Assembly can be made from the Floor. I drew the attention of the Minister and Members to the length of questions and answers.
Mr B Hutchinson:
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Standing Order 19(7) states - and this is what I would have said if Mr Kennedy had allowed me to continue -
"For the purposes of scrutiny, questions should be answered as clearly and fully as possible."
However, that is not my point of order. My point of order relates to Question 3. You allowed your Colleague from Fermanagh and South Tyrone to introduce a question which was not on the paper. Standing Order 19(7) states that
"a supplementary question may be asked to elucidate an answer".
His question did not do that. He asked a different question.
He did not then have the decency to stay to listen to the reminder of the questions to the Minister of Education. It was a cheap shot to let his constituents know that he was concerned about what was happening in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. You should have ruled under Standing Order 19(7) that he sit down and that the Minister not answer the question.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
Mr Hutchinson, it is for me to decide on what to rule, not you. I am on my feet.
Mr B Hutchinson:
Further to that point of order.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
Mr Hutchinson, I am on my feet. Order. The Minister was asked whether he wished to take the question and he continued with it. We are eating into the business of the next section -
Mr B Hutchinson:
Further to that point of order.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
I am sorry, Mr Hutchinson. I am taking no further points of order at this stage.
Mr B Hutchinson:
Further to that point of order.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
I am taking no further points of order.
Mr B Hutchinson:
Further to that point of order.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
I am now moving on to questions - [Interruption]. Order.
Mr B Hutchinson:
Further to that point of order.
Mr S Wilson rose.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
Order. Sit down, Mr Wilson. I am on my feet. I am moving on to the next item of business.
Mr B Hutchinson:
Further to that point of order. You cannot stop me making a point of order. It is in the rules.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
I am taking no further points of order at this stage.
Mr B Hutchinson:
Further to that point of order.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
I am on my feet, and I am taking no further points of order.
Mr B Hutchinson:
Further to that point of order. You must take my point of order. I have the rule book here.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
I am taking no further points of order. I am moving on to the next item of business, which is questions to the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. I call Mr Roy Beggs.
Mr B Hutchinson:
Further to that point of order.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
Mr Hutchinson, if you do not sit down you will be named.
Mr B Hutchinson:
Further to that point of order.
Health, Social Services and Public Safety
National Health Service Direct
1.
Mr Beggs
asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety if she intends to introduce the National Health Service Direct service to Northern Ireland, and if she will make a statement.
The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Ms de Brún):
Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Níl pleananna ar bith agam faoi láthair NHS Direct a thabhairt isteach anseo. Bheadh £3 milliún sa bhliain air dá dtabhairfimis a léithid de scéim isteach anseo. Níl mé cinnte go dtabharfadh sí an luach airgid is fearr dúinn nuair a chuirtear san áireamh na tairiscintí eile ar acmhainní na seirbhísí sláinte atá san iomaíocht léi.
I have no plans to introduce NHS Direct here at present. The introduction of an equivalent scheme here would cost around £3 million per year. I am not convinced that it would give the best value for money, bearing in mind the other competing bids for Health Service resources.
Mr Beggs:
I am most dissatisfied with that answer. Is the Minister aware of the Modernising Government annual report 2000, 'Putting Citizens First', in which the nursing director of NHS Direct in Hampshire says that she is saving lives and that figures show that around 43% of callers have been helped directly without having to leave their homes? This service would benefit the entire community in Northern Ireland. I ask the Minister to reassess her position carefully and to look again at where she is spending the money in order to find this £3 million.
Perhaps if the Minister stopped spending money on speaking Irish and on issuing press releases in Irish and spent it on the patients, we could afford this service.
Ms de Brún:
I have yet to spend £3 million on speaking Irish.
Officials have read and analysed the recent review of the operation of NHS Direct in England. This contains a variety of factual information but the summary assessment of NHS Direct's performance merely says that it may be beginning to achieve the policy objectives for which it was designed. Officials and board colleagues have also visited Scotland, information has been obtained from Wales, and the different approaches are being discussed. However, we need to ensure that we identify the most appropriate way forward to suit local circumstances and that we do that within the resources available to us, not the resources available to England, the resources available to Scotland or the resources available to Wales. As I have pointed out on several occasions, all of these are greater than the resources available for the Health Service here.
Rev Robert Coulter:
The Minister will be aware that NHS Direct now covers 65% of the United Kingdom population and that by the end of this year all of England, Scotland and Wales will be covered by it. Does the Minister not agree that it is a poor reflection on her stewardship of health care here that this successful innovation has not yet been implemented in Northern Ireland?
Ms de Brún:
Rev Robert Coulter will be aware that there are differences in approach in Scotland and England. I am determined to ensure that the public here gets the best services possible given the resources available, and that means assessing relative priorities to ensure resources are targeted on the greatest needs. We need to ensure that the type of service we have is the most appropriate one for our local circumstances. That could include, for example, nurse triage to support better self-help, or more appropriate referrals to the various branches of the Health Service, in particular GPs, out-of-hours and hospital accident and emergency services.
As I said, I am not convinced that even if all the resources elsewhere were to become available to me, spending £300 million a year on NHS Direct would give the best value for money, and specifically not when bearing in mind the other competing bids for the existing Health Service resources.
Mrs Carson:
I would like parity with the rest of the UK in the Minister's replies. Has the Minister discussed the matter with the Secretary of State for Health? If not, will she undertake to do so at the earliest opportunity?
Ms de Brún:
That is being done at official level and, as I have said, officials have read and analysed the review of the operation of NHS Direct in England, they have visited Scotland and information has been obtained for Wales. I need to base my proposals on what is the best method to meet local needs within available resources. Therefore, I do not think it would be a good use of either my time or Alan Milburn's time to have such a discussion at present.
Down Lisburn Trust:
Mental Health Services
2.
Ms Lewsley
asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety if she will detail the criteria used by Down Lisburn Trust to divert funding from the mental health department to other programmes within the trust in the last five years, and if she will make a statement.
Ms de Brún:
Tugadh le fios domh go ndearna Iontaobhas an Dúin agus Lios na gCearrbhach iarracht tabhairt faoi na brúnna taobh istigh dá chlár géarmhíochaine ospidéal sa bhliain reatha trí chistí a aistriú go sealadach ó chláir mheabhairshláinte, mhíchumais agus chúraim phobail. Dá bharr seo, aistríodh tuairim le £100,000 ón chlár meabhairshláinte agus suim den mhéid chéanna ón dá chlár eile. Is lú ná 1% de chaiteachas iomlán na seirbhísí meabhairshláinte an £100,000. Ní dhearnadh aon aistrithe ábhartha eile cistí chuig cláir ar bith eile le cúig bliana anuas.
I am informed that Down Lisburn Trust has sought to address pressures within its acute hospital programme in the current year through a temporary transfer of funds from the mental health, disability and community care programmes. As a result, some £100,000 has been transferred from the mental health programme, and a similar amount has been transferred from the other two programmes. That is less than 1% of the total mental health services spend. There have been no other material transfers of funds to other programmes over the past five years.
I am also informed that the trust hopes to restore the funding to mental health services next year, subject to resource availability. All of this, as I would remind Members, happens within the context wherein Scotland spends £128 more per head each year on health and social services and Wales spends 51% more per person, per year.
I have been assured that the trust remains committed to the delivery of high-quality mental health services, as demonstrated by the recruitment of an additional six consultants in mental health services over the past five years.
Ms Lewsley:
In light of the concerns expressed, in particular by GPs in the Lisburn area, about access to emergency psychiatric beds, it seems that mental health is always seen as the poor relation. If cuts are to be made, they are usually made in mental health services first. Does the Minister not agree that it is entirely inappropriate for Down Lisburn Trust to divert £150,000 from the mental health care programme to other programmes within that trust over the past 12 months?
Ms de Brún:
I refer the Member to my previous answer. As regards spending on mental health services, overall expenditure on those services here has risen from £93·7 million in 1995-6 to £114·7 million in 1998-9, which is an increase of 22%.
Notwithstanding that, I have made it clear that I believe there is a need for a significant increase in spending across all programmes of care if the needs of the population are to be fully met.