7.

asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what action is being taken to encourage organic farming.

(AQO 315/01)

The organic farming scheme was introduced in June 1999. It increased significantly the amount of aid available to prospective organic producers, especially in the first two years of conversion. Since the introduction of the scheme, 64 producers, farming a total of just over 3,400 hectares, have been accepted into it. Payments to producers under the scheme in the 2000-01 financial year totalled £470,000. I have also commissioned, and published for consultation, a strategic study on the best way to develop organic farming in Northern Ireland to a position where 1,000 producers will be farming 30,000 hectares organically by 2006. The closing date for receipt of comments is 30 November 2001.

In addition, earlier this year I secured £2 million from the Executive programme funds for a scheme to assist some 150 to 200 farmers over the next three years with the extra costs of converting, or providing, animal housing systems to comply with organic standards. The scheme is subject to state-aid approval from the European Commission.

Given the increasing demand for organic products, does the Minister regard the numbers quoted as being anywhere near adequate to meet consumer demand and the changing needs of agriculture? Does the Minister agree that giving the entire population easier access to organic products could mean that the growing demand on our Health Service would be greatly reduced?

A proposed increase to 30,000 hectares from an initial figure of 3,400 hectares is a substantial increase. I understand that there is an increasing market demand for organic food in Northern Ireland, but it is still not as great as that in other places, and it is confined to specific categories and classes of food. The proposed increase, and the target of 1,000 producers from a base of 64, is considerable, and I am happy that that is the case.

In view of the semi-organic state of hill farming in the Mournes, the Sperrins and on the Antrim Plateau and other upland areas, is there any economic potential for a special scheme to exploit the semi-organic nature of the food produced in those areas?

Most upland farming in Northern Ireland is extensive by nature and would require little adjustment to switch to organic farming - hence Dr McDonnell's reference to "semi-organic" farming. However, the producers must decide whether they want to switch or not. My officials ensure that they have the information necessary to enable them to make a business decision that reflects their circumstances.

Will the Minister comment on the fact that, unless there is a reasonable profit margin, there is little point in encouraging organic farming when Northern Ireland farmers' produce carries the farm quality assurance label?

The profit margin is a commercial issue, and I cannot deal with it. I understand the Member's question, and there is a market for organic farm produce. We are not producing enough organic food at present, and that means importing a great deal of organic produce from across the water. Organic farming appears to be profitable. Because that market exists, we are encouraging farmers and providing the necessary resources to cope with the length of time that it takes to change to organic farming.

8.

asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, pursuant to AQO 145/01, to detail the timescale for implementing an inquiry into foot-and- mouth disease.

(AQO 316/01)

As I announced at a recent Committee meeting, it is my intention to conduct an independent investigation into the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Northern Ireland. That review will highlight the lessons to be learned from the epidemic so that we will be better prepared for any future events of that nature. The terms of reference of the investigation are to review the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Northern Ireland with particular reference to contingency plans, preparedness, cause, spread, handling, logistics, compensation, cross- border issues and trade implications.

In the light of the lessons learned, the review should make recommendations to me by 31 March 2002 on how future outbreaks of epizootic diseases here should be handled. The review will be conducted by independent consultants, who will be selected by tender and will provide their own secretariat. The deadline of 31 March may be a little ambitious and may require further review. The function of the review is not to pass judgement on the actions of the Government, individuals or groups but to identify areas where improvements can be made.

What are the precedents for conducting an inquiry of this sort by a competitive tendering? Does the Minister expect that farmers and others will accept that an exercise carried out by a business which is commercially responsible to the Department that is commissioning it will fully consider the facts and criticise the Department where necessary? Does she expect to be more successful than the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was in persuading people that the internal investigation in England and Wales was conducted in an independent manner? Would it not be better to take a little longer to bring in independent experts, in whom there could be true confidence, to ensure that the inquiry has positive results and is acted upon, rather than do something that appears unacceptable?

First, I have been at pains to explain to the Committee that this is not an inquiry, which would have all the implications of a public inquiry. This is a review of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. I am satisfied that it will be independent. It is being carried out by consultants.

Nevertheless, there is no point in having a review that just tells us what we want to hear. As Minister, I would not countenance paying consultants to conduct a review on the basis that they were careful not to offend us. As I said, the review has a very wide remit and will look at every aspect of the handling of the foot-and-mouth outbreak in Northern Ireland.

I am happy that the review - not the "inquiry" - will be open and accountable. There will be no formal hearings with lawyers and submissions of evidence. The consultants will interview and take written input from all principal stakeholders as well as from anyone else who wishes to contribute. The findings of the review will be published in due course. I hope that Members see that I am conducting the exercise in a totally open way from start to finish. I have been open and honest at all stages during the foot-and-mouth epidemic, and I intend to be so with this review.

Mr Poots's question has been withdrawn. Question 10 is in the name of Mr Mick Murphy, but he is not in his place.

11.

asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to detail (a) her initial response to the vision report, and (b) what consultation is taking place; and to make a statement.

(AQO 314/01)

I received the vision steering group's report on 4 October and have started considering the recommendations. I want my response to be informed by the views of the various stakeholders, and I have started a consultation process.

Last week I met representatives from the Ulster Farmers' Union, the Livestock and Meat Commission, the Northern Ireland Consumer Council and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. I am keen to meet as many stakeholders as possible. I hope soon to announce details of a conference to be held at Loughry College in mid-to-late November. The consultation process will last until 31 December, and I will publish an action plan early in 2002 in response to the vision group's recommendations.

Can the Minister comment on any particular recommendations at this point? Does she believe that a suspension of the institutions will seriously hinder this very important consultation process?

All recommendations will be actively considered. My decision will be influenced by the views that stakeholders give during the consultation process and by the availability of resources. Some recommendations are for the industry to address.

When the consultation ends and the action plan is addressed, there will be a 10-year vision for agriculture here. It would be unfortunate, to say the least, if a local Administration, Executive and Minister were unable to take action on the specific needs and priorities in Northern Ireland.

12.

asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what strategy will be adopted under the cross-border animal health programme to fight bovine tuberculosis.

(AQO 303/01)

As the Member knows, cross-border animal health is being addressed at working group level. However, we will be able to consider a cross-border strategy only when that group, set up under the North/South Ministerial Council arrangements, carries out its work. Unfortunately, because of the foot-and-mouth outbreak, we have been unable to make as much progress on that as we might have. Nevertheless, my officials were in Dublin last week to discuss that subject, and brucellosis, with their Republic of Ireland counterparts. Progress has been made.

Just this morning I welcomed the progress to date. What cross-border arrangements are currently in place to deal with bovine tuberculosis?

Senior officials from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development meet on a regular basis to discuss tuberculosis and other animal health issues that affect the agriculture industry on both sides of the border. It is hard to get your tongue around all the different acronyms, especially since MAFF (the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food) became DEFRA (the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs).

Veterinarians meet regularly to discuss the epidemiology of tuberculosis and to consider the options available to deal with it. In areas where landowners have cattle on both sides of the border, there is ongoing local contact at divisional veterinary offices to co-ordinate the testing programme and discuss associated issues.

13.

asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to state the number of women employed in agriculture and what steps she has taken to ensure equality of opportunity.

(AQO 329/01)

Last year's EU farm structure survey showed that some 16,000 to 17,000 women work on farms in Northern Ireland. Of those, 12,000 are farmers' spouses. As the Member knows, I am fully committed to the promotion of equality of opportunity in all walks of life and well aware of the considerable contribution made by women to agriculture and rural life.

I hope that the ambitious social survey undertaken by my Department will be completed by spring 2002. That will throw greater light on the contribution made by women to family farms and will provide information on their aspirations for training and development. That should enable us to identify gaps in existing provision and to assess how such gaps might be filled.

I thank the Minister for her answer and pay tribute to her for the emphasis she has placed on the rights of rural women. What particular training programmes are provided? Can a woman as Minister of Agriculture stop the drift of women from the land?

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development colleges provide a comprehensive range of lifelong training and learning programmes tailored to the needs of those who work in the Northern Ireland agrifood industry. Increasing numbers of such women are participating in that lifelong learning provision, and that trend has been especially apparent in information technology and business management programmes.

In addition, my Department has supported the development and delivery of the Women In Agriculture programme in County Fermanagh, involving more than 200 women. That programme was launched in 1999 and aims to facilitate the competence development needs of women with farming backgrounds. Training provided has included farm administration, secretarial skills, IT in agriculture and livestock management. The programme also incorporates a farmhouse food initiative that has resulted in the establishment of four microbusinesses. The success of the programme will be marked by a special event, Celebration of Women Day, at Enniskillen College on 2 November 2001. I plan to attend, circumstances permitting.

With regard to Mr Dallat's question about a woman being Minister of Agriculture, I am very pleased to say that as I go round various events I notice that more and more women are becoming involved in rural development and other farming activities. Perhaps having a woman as Minister of Agriculture is not a disincentive.

Mr McHugh is not in his place.

Review of Post-Primary Education in Northern Ireland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What about the DUP?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<< Prev