I apologise for not being present at the start of the debate. I support the motion for three reasons. First, it was said that those who opposed the motion wished to preserve devolved power. That power is not real; it is cosmetic, and it is a veil. Child benefit in Northern Ireland is administered at the same rate as in the rest of the United Kingdom, and it is inconceivable that we would wish that position to change in future. Therefore, it is a power without any great benefit.

Secondly, those who attempt to take a principled stance to preserve that small part of devolved power are in grave danger of hurting the poor. That is a strange attitude for parties that claim to have a social, democratic or radical basis to take. A parity principle is in place; the levels of social services and benefits across the United Kingdom should be the same. That principle was established - at some cost and difficulty - by previous Administrations that operated from this House during the 1920s, and after 1945, when the Labour Government under Attlee developed the welfare state in the UK.

Members should hesitate before they throw out the motion and threaten the long-established and beneficial practice of parity in social services and benefits in the United Kingdom. That is the longer-term danger should the motion be rejected. The more immediate danger, as has already been stated, is that an attempt to establish our own duplicate services for tax credits might incur costs. Those services would uselessly mirror the Inland Revenue in London.

Finally, a consultation exercise on integrated child and employment tax credits ran from the summer to the autumn. I responded to that, and I wonder how many of the opponents of the motion took that opportunity to raise some of the issues that we have heard today.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I oppose the motion. If we have devolved powers, we should not hand them back. It is Committees' role to scrutinise legislation. Why did the issue not go before the Committee for Social Development? Did its Chairperson, Mr Cobain, equivocate because the issue did not go before the Committee, or is he opposed to the power being returned to Westminster? That important distinction must be made. We heard that jobs will not be lost. However, if jobs are not to be lost, why would we transfer back the power? The issue must be teased out more thoroughly, and I support the SDLP's view that it should be either postponed or withdrawn.

The Committees' role is to scrutinise, and I would like the Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development to clarify whether he is unsure about that, or whether he feels that the point is valid and that the motion should be scrutinised before any further action is taken.

I have listened carefully to Members' points. Many raised important issues and concerns, and I hoped that I had dealt earlier with some of those; indeed, in my opening remarks I addressed some of the themes that were raised. However, I am happy to address those concerns again, and to deal with other issues that arose.

I will try to explain why we are at this stage and why we are proceeding in this way. It is in the interests of the recipients of child benefit and the people of Northern Ireland. I have heard arguments about principles and parity; and there may need to be further debate in Committees and in the House about parity as it relates to the area of social security. People speak about having power over social security but, as Dr Birnie rightly reminded us, it is a power that is never exercised. Who in their right mind would want to exercise that power to the detriment of the people of Northern Ireland by creating a less favourable situation than exists in the rest of the UK?

I will return to that theme, but we must concentrate on the matter before us, and on what impact the motion will have. Let us deal with issues such as devolution and principle, but let us not lose sight of the impact there will be on Northern Ireland - and the implications for the Northern Ireland block - if we do not proceed in this way.

Mr Cobain, the Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development, Mr Hutchinson, Mr Gallagher and others raised the issue of the role of the Committee. There has been much talk about the role of the Assembly in relation to tax credits and tax credits legislation. The Inland Revenue is responsible for the Tax Credits Bill: the Assembly has no choice in the matter. Taxation is a reserved matter, whether we like it or not. The matter is being brought forward at Westminster, whether we like it or not. That is the reality.

We could talk all day about this, but the Chancellor and the Government at Westminster have responsibility for the matter and are proceeding with it. The Government are going down this route, and we are merely being asked to consider the changes that will result from the establishment of tax credits. There seems to be a misunderstanding that we could have a role to play if we deferred the matter. The Bill is going ahead; all that the Assembly is being asked to do is to deal with the consequences. The choice is between maintaining the administration of child benefit using our own computer systems, administration, and the cost of doing that, and transferring that responsibility to the Inland Revenue following the changes under the tax credits legislation. This is not a situation where, if we do not go through with this, we can sit down and discuss the issue of tax credits. That is not the issue. Some Members have greatly misunderstood what we are being asked to do.

The document that Dr Birnie referred to, 'New Tax Credits - Supporting Families, Making Work Pay, Tackling Poverty', was published in July. There was a 12-week consultation period that finished on 12 October. I presume that all Members who were so exercised about the issue responded during the consultation period. I will look carefully at the responses of Members who raised these issues to make sure that they did so to the relevant Government, which in this case is Westminster. A copy of the document was sent to each MLA - indeed it was sent wider afield. As I made clear to the House from the start, no significant concerns were raised - according to those who deal with the policy and practical aspect of these issues. I will deal with the staff employment issues shortly.

As the Chairperson said, a letter providing details of tax credits, dated 20 September, was sent to the Committee for Social Development. We should remember that tax credits are not a devolved issue for Northern Ireland; they are an issue for Westminster. It was not possible to bring the matter before the Committee earlier due to the confidential nature of correspondence. Members often wax eloquent and lyrical about the agreement, the legislation, and so on. However, in keeping with the memorandum of understanding and the devolution guidance note 8, the Executive must respect the confidentiality of such exchanges between the mainland United Kingdom Government and the Assembly as a devolved institution.

I shall examine ways to involve the Committee in such issues as early as possible. My record, and that of my predecessor, shows that we try to do that as much as is possible. However, we have to deal with a mechanism and a framework that sometimes circumscribe our ability to do that. It is not of our making, but we have to deal with it.

I have already mentioned the limited response to the consultation process. However, I re-emphasise that responsibility for tax credits does not fall within the Assembly's remit.

Billy Hutchinson mentioned the situation in Scotland. We have discussed devolution, and whether it is a real power. In regions of England, Scotland and Wales, the Scottish Parliament is held up as an example of the best and strongest form of devolution. However, the Scottish Parliament does not have responsibility for social security. Therefore, the idea that there is a massive point of principle involved in the benefits issue in Northern Ireland is misguided. The recipients of those benefits must be kept at the forefront of the debate. The Scottish Parliament would be consulted only about those areas within its control that are affected by tax credits - issues such as training. We must be clear about the real issues.

Some Members, including Mr ONeill, have asked me to delay the motion. However, by so doing, we would lose the opportunity to have the consequential changes carried at Westminster. The Assembly cannot avoid the task, for the Westminster Bill is ready to go before Parliament, where responsibility for tax credits lies, and where decisions will be taken.

I have also dealt with the costs issue. Members have spoken about a procedural matter of principle - it is more than that. A decision that is not in the best interest of the people of Northern Ireland will affect the Northern Ireland Budget and block. The estimated cost of procuring and operating a computer system to handle Northern Ireland-only child benefit claims and administration is likely to be some £5 million per annum. As a Member from this side of the House asked, what purpose does that serve if it is simply to duplicate what has already been done in Great Britain? The current charge is £215,000. Annual maintenance charges are likely to be much higher than that £215,000, given the need to maintain a similar service to that provided in Great Britain. That £5 million will supply only the basic, minimum system.

It does not take account of future development costs of keeping the system in line with changes that may occur in Great Britain. This is not something that Members can vote on without there being an implication here - there are strong implications.

If the Assembly decides to retain this area of child benefit administration, it must be aware of the consequences. The reality is that Members will want to maintain child benefit at the same rate and under the same conditions as elsewhere. Regarding the talk about power and where it lies, is anyone seriously going to come before the Assembly and suggest that we should not have the same position as elsewhere? The increases are funded centrally, they are demand-led, and they do not come out of the Northern Ireland block. Of course, Members might suggest differences that will have to be met out of the Northern Ireland block - I would be interested to hear where that money is likely to come from.

The reality is that the Assembly will want to maintain parity so that our people receive the same benefits as those elsewhere. If this motion is not passed today, we will need a system that will guarantee payment to Northern Ireland recipients. We will have to make provision for the introduction of new computer systems and the associated administrative costs. We cannot run away from this reality. The idea that the Inland Revenue will pick up the costs is simply pie-in-the-sky, fantasy nonsense. What compelling argument could be advanced to suggest that the Inland Revenue would be willing to finance a separate system when it is offering to include that as part of an overall UK-wide system? Clearly, the costs would have to be borne out of the Northern Ireland block - that is the reality.

Mr Gallagher mentioned cross-border workers. We have been down this route before. Working families' tax credit already deals with such workers on a satisfactory basis. The problem was recognised when the system was established and measures built in. I hope that that takes care of the point Mr Gallagher and others made on that issue. Some Members referred to benefits for women and lone parents. Much of the benefit of the new integrated child credit will go to women, including lone parents. People with disabilities will continue to benefit from support as now. It has been concluded that there have been no identified negative differential impacts arising from a person's sexual orientation, political or religious beliefs. Of course, that situation will continue to be monitored, and a final equality impact assessment will be issued after the consultation period.

What are the advantages? Some Members, including Mr Gallagher, asked who will benefit from this and expressed concern about access. I emphasise that child benefit will continue to be administered in Northern Ireland. People will continue to have access to the same staff on the same basis as at present - we have seen this happen already in the case of working families' tax credit. I would be interested to know of any Member's representations of dissatisfaction on that score - and I am talking here about access to staff, not to the system.

Consultation with the union will continue. The transfer will not take place until 2003 and, as I said in my opening remarks, will affect some 150 staff in the Social Security Agency. Similar transfers have taken place before involving 229 staff - 106 from family credit and 123 from the contributions unit. Those transfers clearly suggest that terms and conditions of service are similar, and they have not proved contentious.

Negotiations with NIPSA will continue as part of the overall consultation process. Some Members raised the issue of staff transfers and the number of staff that will be required. There will be no reduction in staff requirements, and staff will not be transferred out of Northern Ireland. The Inland Revenue had to recruit additional staff to administer the working families' tax credit. It is expected that additional staff will be needed to deal with the new children's tax credit. Mr Shannon raised the possibility of delays in manual payments. Delays will be likely only if the motion is not passed and if the Assembly breaks with the parity principle and the current system.

The additional costs that would result from the failure to pass the motion would have to be met from elsewhere in the Northern Ireland block, as would the administrative costs. I have further long-term concerns regarding the issue of parity. The Treasury may raise concerns that funding for something that is classified as social security costs in Northern Ireland does not have a corresponding social security benefit in Great Britain. The Assembly must recognise that, and it may have to deal with the issue. We can discuss the issues with the Government at Westminster and lobby there. However, those issues must be decided at Westminster. As tax credits and child benefit become more closely aligned and developed by the Inland Revenue, it will become increasingly difficult for Northern Ireland to replicate those changes. The Assembly would have to decide how to legislate for the annual upgrading of those benefits, the amounts to be upgraded and the basis for the upgrading. Whether any increases would be in line with the increase in child benefit set by the Inland Revenue, or possibly determined by some other method is a further consideration.

It is difficult to envisage circumstances in which the Assembly would not want to maintain parity. Considerable costs will be incurred by allowing the systems to diverge in the long term. Section 87 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 - a piece of legislation that many Members have quoted as something that must be supported and reinforced - states that:

They have agreed to continue to operate the existing parity system.

The argument that such a motion, which is of benefit to the people of Northern Ireland and to the Northern Ireland block, is against devolution per se, is ludicrous and without foundation, particularly when compared to the situation in Scotland. The Assembly has a duty to bring that forward in the interest of the recipients of child benefit. The concept of parity means that people in Northern Ireland pay the same rate of income tax and national insurance contributions as elsewhere. In return they have access to the same range of benefits, both contributory and non-contributory, paid at the same rates and subject to the same rules and conditions.

I would welcome a debate on the wider issues and principles; that could be beneficial. However, the accepted view is that parity works to the advantage of the Province. Contributory benefits, such as retirement pensions and incapacity benefit, are funded from national insurance contributions. The amount raised in Northern Ireland from those contributions is insufficient to meet the demands of those benefits. It has been so for a long time. The shortfall in the Northern Ireland national insurance fund is made up by a transfer from the fund in Great Britain. Similarly, in relation to non-contributory benefits financed from taxation revenue, expenditure is demand-led and outside the managed block. That is in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland.

I hope that I have addressed most of the issues raised. When Hansard is printed, I will ensure that Members receive a written response to any matters that I may have omitted. I remind the Assembly that the main purpose of the debate is to give Members the opportunity to endorse the principle that in Northern Ireland all social security benefits should continue to operate in strict parity with Great Britain, and thus be fully funded by the Treasury. Agreeing to the transfer of the administration of child benefit to the Inland Revenue is the only way for Northern Ireland to maintain that position.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 43; Noes 32.

Assembly: Ad Hoc Committee on the Proposal for a Draft Justice
(Northern Ireland) Bill and the Criminal Justice Review Implementation Plan

I beg to move

(a) The proposal for a draft Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill; and

(b) The Criminal Justice Review Implementation Plan, referred by the Secretary of State and to submit a report to the Assembly by 11 December 2001.

Composition: UUP 2
SDLP 2
DUP 2
SF 2
Other Parties 3

Quorum: The quorum shall be five.

Procedure: The procedures of the Committee shall be such as the Committee shall determine.

Go raibh maith agat. Our party has no difficulty with the formation of an Ad Hoc Committee. However, we have problems with the way in which this is being advanced. A very short time is available for public consultation, and that runs contrary to the guidelines, custom and practice that have developed through the requirements of equality legislation. Having put down that marker, we will work with the Ad Hoc Committee to ensure that there is the fullest possible public consultation on this. The Assembly needs to debate the ramifications. We support the motion.

My party is concerned about the short time that this Ad Hoc Committee will have to consider issues that are important and which go to the heart of the legal system.

It is not good enough that we should have such a short time. That is the way in which several issues presented to the House have been managed - perhaps deliberately - by the Government at Westminster. It is unfair to force us to rush through our consideration of far-reaching reforms of the legal system. I reiterate the point made by Mr McLaughlin: it is wrong, in principle, for the Government to put the Assembly in that position. They have done so before, and they have now done so again on an issue of fundamental importance to the community. On behalf of SDLP Members, I express deep regret at the manner in which the matter has been put to the Assembly.

(a) The proposal for a draft Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill; and

(b) The Criminal Justice Review Implementation Plan, referred by the Secretary of State and to submit a report to the Assembly by 11 December 2001.

Composition: UUP 2
SDLP 2
DUP 2
SF 2
Other Parties 3

Quorum: The quorum shall be five.

Procedure: The procedures of the Committee shall be such as the Committee shall determine.

TOP

Oral Answers

Education

Question 13, in the name of Mr Derek Hussey, has been withdrawn.

1.

asked the Minister of Education what resources have been allocated to schools to further his ICT strategy and if the deployment of Classroom 2000 will take place within the expected timescale.

(AQO 392/01)

The Department of Education met the £3 million costs of the education and library boards' 'connecting teachers to ICT' programme, which trained teachers in core information and communication technology (ICT) skills in preparation for their training in the use of ICT in their subject areas. The new opportunities fund is funding the latter training with a grant of £10·81 million over three years. The Department has also assisted schools with that comprehensive training programme by providing £20 million for 12,000 laptop computers and almost 1,000 digital projectors, and by granting exceptional closure days that can be used for the training.

A further £15·8 million has been made available to enhance electrical and data cabling circuits in schools. I also recently announced an investment of £16 million to implement the Classroom 2000-managed services in 574 small primary schools over the next eight months. That is the first of several procurements that are well under way. The plan is to award the contract for the remaining primary schools at the end of January, and the contract for special and secondary schools before the end of this school year.

All that major investment is additional to the schools' computer-based administration systems and the NINE Connect Internet services, which are already in place. It is envisaged that the Classroom 2000 managed services will be available in all schools by the start of the 2003 school year. Through the entire process, expenditure has been managed centrally in order to minimise the bureaucratic burden on schools, so that they can concentrate on the educational use of ICT.

Is the Minister satisfied with the resources that have been allocated by the Minister of Finance and Personnel? Will they enable the Minister to implement the ICT strategy, including Classroom 2000?

ICT has an important role to play in education. When used effectively in teaching and learning, it helps to raise standards. Teachers have responded well to the challenge. I have no doubt that their training programme, the NINE Connect services and Classroom 2000 provide the kind of support that enables teachers and learners to be creative in their use of the new educational technologies.

How does the Minister intend to address complaints that teachers receive inadequate and inappropriate computer training, and that they must undertake training at home, sustaining personal telephone charges?

I have not heard those complaints, but if the Member forwards details of instances in which he believes that to have happened or about which complaints have been made to him, I will gladly have them investigated by my officials.

The younger generation has accepted IT as the new infrastructure for Northern Ireland. Does the Minister not consider the resources that he has announced today - and previously - inadequate to ensure sufficient provision to allow Northern Ireland to compete equally on the European scene?

Anyone who listened carefully to my answer to Mr Murphy would know that the Department of Education had put a great deal of finance into the development of Classroom 2000. During the recent negotiations, there have been some difficulties, which we are now well on our way to overcoming. The Department has put important resources directly into the classroom and will continue to do that in the coming months. It will pay off. Young people, teachers and everyone else in the education system understand the vital importance of ICT in the classroom.

As we have said recently, we are seeking to bring about a modern education system for a modern world and, indeed, for modern children, who are well up to the challenge. On my travels, I have been amazed by some 80-year-old "children" who think it important to attend training courses on ICT. There have been many examples of that, and there is a growing appreciation, particularly within education, of the importance of ICT in people's lives.

2.

asked the Minister of Education what plans he has to introduce grants to assist the unemployed and those families on low incomes to buy primary school uniforms.

(AQO 389/01)

Wearing a school uniform is not governed by legislation; it is a matter for each school's board of governors. Given the pressure on the recurrent and capital education budgets, it would be extremely difficult to justify diverting scarce resources to that end. Therefore, I have no plans at present to extend eligibility for uniform grants to the primary sector.

Does the Minister accept that in many primary schools school uniforms are necessary, whether or not they are compulsory, because they help children to avoid being stigmatised or being seen as different? Does the Minister recognise the hardship and debt that is faced by many families? How can he justify uniform grants being given for post-primary school pupils and not for primary school pupils?

Generally, uniforms for primary schools are simple and cheaper. Most primary schools have a school tie that is distinctive, but the rest of the uniforms can usually be obtained from any of the major chain stores and, hence, at competitive prices. Some schools may require a sweater with distinctive piping, but that is not a major cost.

I must have regard to spending priorities, and my aim is to ensure that the maximum level of resources is directed to classrooms. Extending the clothing allowance scheme would be relatively expensive. A grant of £50 would cost an additional £2 million a year. Funding would have to come from elsewhere in the budget, and I cannot justify diverting resources to this at present.

To follow up, can the Minister assure us that the additional cost of sports equipment, and so on, is no longer a source of embarrassment for families on low income? Whether it is a tennis racquet or a camogie stick, can he assure us that no child is embarrassed by not having one?

We are keen to see that no children are embarrassed by any situation that can develop in schools. Regarding school uniforms, the modest sum that is granted to families by the education and library boards is to deal with basic clothing. If we start supplying equipment for sporting occasions, the education budget will rocket. That is where important decisions have to be made.

Increasingly, the Department of Education is concerned to see that money goes directly to the classrooms. That is vital. Clothing grants are a matter for the education and library boards and parents. Dealing with the issue that the Member has raised would have to mean a substantial increase in my allocation from the block grant, and that would mean a huge battle in the Executive.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The Minister said that boards of governors decide whether school uniforms should be worn, but what consultation is there? Is he in a position to direct a board of governors on that?

The individual school's board of governors will decide whether the school should adopt a uniform. My Department has suggested to boards of governors that they consider the importance of ensuring, through school prospectuses, that parents are aware of the school's policy on uniforms and its cost implications, especially for those parents on a low income.

3.

asked the Minister of Education to detail the criteria used to determine the availability of free school transport.

(AQO 380/01)

Legislation requires education and library boards to make such arrangements for the provision of transport as they consider necessary, or as are directed by the Department, to facilitate the attendance of pupils at grant-aided schools. The arrangements made by boards are subject to the Department's approval.

The current approved arrangements, introduced in 1997, enable transport to be provided where pupils have been unable to gain a place in all suitable schools within statutory walking distance of their home: that is two miles for primary school pupils and three miles for others, measured by the nearest available route.

The term "suitable school" relates to the established educational categories of controlled, Catholic maintained, integrated and Irish-medium schools, and, in the grammar sector, denominational and non-denominational schools.

Is the Minister aware of the anomaly that exists in the Foyle constituency? Parents are advised, when their son leaves primary school, to nominate a school that is not his first choice. Parents do this in the knowledge that their child will not be accepted because of enhanced criteria used at that school to determine those entitled to free school transport. If they do not go through that procedure, the parents must pay for their child to attend the grammar school of their choice. That issue needs to be addressed.

The transport arrangements must be administered fairly and equitably. Many grammar schools admit pupils with lower test grades. The guidance makes it clear that to qualify for transport assistance to a school outside statutory walking distance, parents must formally apply for and be refused a place in all schools in the chosen category that are within statutory walking distance. No exceptions are made on the basis of possible rejection by nearer schools. That does not affect the likelihood of a child being admitted to other schools, as the order of preference expressed by parents may not be included in schools' admission criteria. Any child refused a place at a nearer school would have his or her application for admission to more distant schools considered on its own merits and on an equal footing with all other applications received by the school.

Will the Minister give an assessment of the recommendations made by the Committee for the Environment in its recent report into transport used by children travelling to and from school?

I welcome the Committee's report and assure the Assembly that my Department and the education and library boards take their responsibilities in relation to safety seriously. I shall consider the Committee's recommendations. We must, however, recognise that the full implementation of its recommendations would require significant additional resources. Some £42 million would be needed for capital costs, as well as £23 million for running costs to remove standing passengers on school buses and the three-for-two seating arrangement. Further substantial costs would be associated with other recommendations, such as the installation of seat belts. There is a need for detailed costings and clear evidence of the benefits that would be accrued through the implementation of those recommendations before any decision is made.

4.

asked the Minister of Education to outline his plans in respect of the consultation process for the second phase of the post-primary review.

(AQO 394/01)

The Burns review body's report is significant for the education system. I launched an extended consultation period to ensure that everyone with an interest will have the opportunity to consider the proposals and submit their views. The report has been sent to all MLAs, schools, education partners, further and higher education institutions, district councils, and business and community organisations.

It is available to the public and libraries on the Department's web site and on request from the Department. In view of the report's complexity, I asked the review body to undertake a programme of information seminars for teachers, principals, school governors and education and related bodies. Five seminars have been held already, and nine more will take place in the next few weeks.

This consultation presents a unique opportunity for us to shape our education system for the future. I urge all who have an interest or an opinion to submit their views in writing to my Department by 17 May 2002.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Given the need for change in post-primary school provision, does the Minister not think that the consultation period is too long, and that it delays unnecessarily the implementation of a new and better post-primary system?

It is important to take sufficient time to agree the best way forward rather than to rush into ill-considered change. These matters are vital to the future of our education system. For that reason, I decided that there should be an extended consultation period. Our overriding objective must be to create an education system that will enable all children to reach their full potential. I intend to consider carefully all the responses we receive, and proposals for future post-primary arrangements will be discussed by the Executive, the Education Committee and the Assembly.

I have been heartened by how the debate has been conducted by everyone - educationalists, schools, teachers, principals, boards of governors and the Assembly - not only during the last couple of weeks, but over some 18 months. Many parties have made a huge contribution towards the sensible and mature discussions that we must have if we are to deal with such an important issue for children and the education system. I want to pay tribute to Assembly Members, who have adopted a well-considered approach to this. By the way in which they have contributed to the debate, they have shown that the prospects and opportunities for children are much more important than anything else. That is encouraging. I hope that people will continue to think carefully about this. From next January they can contribute to a debate which is vital to everyone.

Does the Minister agree that the abolition of academic selection, as recommended in the Burns report on post-primary education, will have a detrimental effect on the standard of education in Northern Ireland?

First, we should pay tribute to Gerry Burns and the review body for producing an important report. What is pleasing about the review is that it places children at the centre of its thinking. It places the needs and rights of all children above the preservation of structures, which is crucial.

Those who have been involved in considering the weighty body of research which has recently been put before us know that there are serious weaknesses in the education system. The research conducted by Prof Tony Gallagher from Queen's University and Prof Alan Smith from the University of Ulster, together with the work carried out by Save the Children and the Education Committee, has shown up those weaknesses. The Committee has made it clear that we must accept that change is necessary and appropriate, and the Assembly has endorsed that.

We know the difficulties that exist. Much of children's time is wasted in preparing for the transfer test - at the expense of real learning. One third of children who benefit from a grammar school education do so at the expense of the two thirds who are regarded as failures. The confidence and self-esteem of those two thirds takes a terrible knock that is difficult to restore in the secondary sector. Inevitably, the selection process also leaves a long tail of low-achieving schools. Only 10% of children from low-income families make it to grammar schools. Indeed, that figure is as low as 2% in the Shankill Road area. That is totally unacceptable and makes a very convincing case for change.

Change is needed. The fact that the Committee for Education and the Burns review body have spoken on this indicates that their approach is correct. We need an education system based on equality, excellence, choice and accessibility. The big challenge for us is to provide an education system where all children - irrespective of their backgrounds or circumstances - can realise their potential. We need a modern education system that caters for all children and gives them the confidence and encouragement to move into a new era.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>