I congratulate the Committee on Procedures for examining this highly complex issue. It is right that our procedures should be subject to regular review. We are learning all the time, and we need to be able to make adjustments to the way in which we do business. The review undertaken by the Committee on Procedures is particularly important to the Social Development Committee.

The main issues considered by the Committee on Procedures, listed in paragraph 2.2.1 on page 5 of the report, go to the heart of the way in which legislation is handled in the House, and they should be of interest to everyone.

I am confident that members of the Social Development Committee will welcome recommendation 4.7 of the report, which states that

That recommendation speaks for itself. Statutory Committees have scrutiny, policy development and consultation roles, and they undertake the Committee Stage of relevant primary legislation. It is therefore entirely sensible that they should be involved with legislative proposals as early as possible.

I am even more confident that the Social Development Committee will welcome the recommendations in paragraph 2.5.3, which calls for the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to present to the Committee on Procedures

That issue exercises the Social Development Committee greatly in respect of both primary and subordinate legislation.

The Social Development Committee has been faced with two recent examples of so-called parity legislation, which have been handled in completely different ways. First, the House was told that the Social Security Fraud Bill was parity legislation, and it accepted that statement. It did so, because, although social security is a devolved matter, it is important to maintain parity with the rest of Great Britain. Therefore a Social Security Fraud Bill which mirrored the GB provisions was brought before the House.

The Bill was denied accelerated passage and, as a result, was subject to scrutiny at the Committee Stage. We were told of the desperate financial implications of going our own way on social security matters. We were warned that we would have to find moneys from the Northern Ireland block grant, and that we would have to set up a separate, expensive, local social security computer system. Those warnings were used as justification for maintaining the parity principle. Some people described it as

Have we ever been given a definition of parity? Neither the Social Development Committee nor I believe that we have. I submit that the Committee and the House need a clear definition of parity.

The second example relates to the programme of welfare reform which is being pursued by the Government in Westminster. Last year they published proposals for a Tax Credit Bill. We were told that the reforms applied across the United Kingdom. We were told that it was a matter of parity.

However, because taxation is not a devolved matter, the provisions that relate to Northern Ireland were contained in a Westminster Bill. They were not subject to scrutiny by the Assembly.

Other issues must be resolved. The Minister for Social Development recently told the Committee that he intends to bring a housing support Bill to the Assembly soon. The Bill has its origins in legislative reform generated at Westminster. Is it parity legislation? The Committee has also become aware of two other pieces of primary legislation to deal with social security and state pensions, which presumably come under welfare reform. Are they parity Bills? What are the chances that the case will be made for accelerated passage for those Bills, despite the Assembly being told that accelerated passage should be used only in exceptional circumstances? Is it right that Standing Order 40 provides the opportunity for accelerated passage?

I do not share the confidence of the Committee on Procedures that, if the requirement of unanimity is reduced to cross-community support, the procedures will not be abused. There will be circumstances in which someone may seek to abuse that facility, while arguing forcibly that that is not the case. Perhaps parity will be central to that argument.

Accelerated passage and the welfare reform Bills might be the best way to proceed. The Assembly has little choice but to accept the arguments for a single system. That may be because of the threat that exists to the Northern Ireland block grant; because of the cost of introducing a separate computer system; or because people in Belfast should be treated the same as people in Birmingham.

When those arguments are considered, they eventually come full circle and return to the vexed question of the effect that it may have on the block grant. The outcome may prove to be a combination of all three scenarios. A paper on parity would be welcome - especially were it to offer a full and clear definition of parity. Proposals on how to deal differently with parity legislation would also be welcome, especially if the Committee on Procedures examined it carefully in order to ensure protection of the rights and responsibilities of the House, and that the House and its Committees do the job that they are required to do under the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

If the Assembly is sincere about its responsibilities to the electorate, that issue must be sorted out once and for all. However, it must be done carefully. I contend that where it is clear that Northern Ireland will be legislated for by Westminster, especially in situations in which powers have been devolved, there is a case for procedure to be put in place. That procedure should enable the relevant Secretary of State to consult formally with the Statutory Committees at an appropriate time. Moreover, the procedure should ensure that the Assembly's input is acknowledged and valued.

I welcome the acknowledgement that Committee Stage invariably takes longer than is currently provided for in Standing Orders. In my usual spirit of helpfulness, I wonder if the Committee might consider an alternative amendment to Standing Orders, which would provide for the length of Committee Stage to be determined by the House when a Bill is first introduced. I should have thought that, given the pre-introductory consultation stage envisaged and proposed by the Committee on Procedures, and knowing the size and potential for controversy of any Bill, it would be possible for the Committee to indicate, perhaps at First Stage, how long might be needed to conclude Committee Stage. That might help the Assembly's business planning.

There are only a few Members left to speak, most of whom are members of the Business Committee. I propose that, rather than suspend now and resume the debate later, we complete the debate and, by leave of the House, suspend until after lunch.

I found Mr Cobain's contribution interesting. The question of the definition of parity legislation must be looked at in more depth. It is something that the Committee on Procedures should consider further.

I thank Mr Conor Murphy for his chairmanship in relation to the report and for steering the Committee through difficult areas. I also thank the Committee Clerk and the other staff who assisted with the report.

I support the motion. This investigation of the legislative procedure has been a learning process for all the Committee members. As the Chairperson said, we are in our infancy as regards progressing legislation. As the legislative programme increases, there will undoubtedly be further procedural quirks or problems that will need to be fully addressed.

The report highlights - and this should be recognised - the fact that legislation is progressed relatively quickly and efficiently through the Assembly. It also demonstrates that the institutions that emerged from the Good Friday Agreement work, and that Committees do an effective job in scrutinising draft legislation.

I will concentrate my remarks on the Committees. It is important that Members' attention be drawn to Committees and their roles. Current Standing Orders do not permit Committees to amend Bills. I am puzzled as to why that is so. Like many other Members, I suspect that when the Act was drafted there were some, perhaps understandable, fears about how Committees might behave - or even misbehave. Indeed, there may have been some concern as to whether they would actually work at all.

There may also have been a fear that, if Committees were given the authority to amend Bills at Committee Stage, Bills would be amended beyond recognition and, effectively, shredded. The recent argument over the Local Government (Best Value) Bill puts that fear to bed. That Bill is an example of how a Committee can use its influence to radically alter a Bill without actually having the power to amend it.

As the Chairperson of a Statutory Committee, I am particularly interested in that issue. On the Committee's visits to the Oireachtas and the Scottish Parliament, I was extremely impressed by the scrutiny role that Committees play in those legislatures, especially the way in which Committees are able to go through a Bill line by line with the Minister and seek his explanation for any provisions that they wish to query.

As such meetings are in public session and are recorded, it is possible for the public, and indeed other Members, to see the Minister's intention behind any particular provision of a Bill. It could be compared with the practice of using probing amendments, which are designed to get the Minister's explanation of a particular clause on public record without really intending to amend the clause. This Assembly might benefit from the use of probing amendments.

Having observed the practice in other places, the Committee and I gave much thought to giving Assembly Committees the authority to amend Bills. I can see no substantive reason why Committees should not be given that authority. I find it strange that the Committee for Regional Development, of which I am Chairperson, can, at least in theory, bring forward its own legislation, yet it cannot amend legislation.

However, I accept that any such change would require more in-depth consultation, particularly with the Executive, because a change at Committee Stage would have implications for the role of the Minister.

Equally, further consultation with each Committee would be necessary. As the Chairperson may have mentioned, the Committees have made no substantive demand for that. That will change, perhaps not during this Assembly mandate, but probably in the next, when I hope that we will all be present - [Interruption].

I note that everyone endorses that hope. In time, Committees will exercise fully the responsibility and authority that was given to them by the Good Friday Agreement.

In conclusion, the importance of the review should not be underestimated. It has shown that as a legislature we are fulfilling people's expectations and hopes by legislating to the benefit of everyone in Northern Ireland.

I apologise for not having been present to move a motion in my name, due to circumstances far beyond my control.

The report details a thorough review of the current procedures for progressing legislation through the Assembly. The Committee discussed at length the key issue of parity legislation. As a former Minister, I know only too well the need to introduce legislation quickly. That applies to social security legislation, as the unique position of social security, child support and pensions is specifically recognised in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Section 87 of the Act recognises the long-standing principle of parity between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in social security. Although social security is still a devolved matter, it has already been agreed with the Secretary of State responsible for social security that there will be a single system for social security, child support and pensions.

Although I acknowledge that parity is necessary and that the speedy introduction of such legislation is important, I am mindful of the relevant Committee's important statutory obligation to scrutinise legislation. A balance must be reached, but we are not at the stage of recommending a method of achieving that. That is unfortunate, because the matter should be addressed sooner rather than later. It is a complex issue, which is not as straightforward as sometimes it seems. For example, there are differences of opinion on the exact meaning of "parity". Its meaning is clear to me, but I cannot speak for everyone in the House.

Parity covers the content of the legislation as well as the timing of its implementation, and we must ensure that the people of Northern Ireland do not lose out. That is a real danger, particularly when we deal with social security legislation, and, as Minister for Social Development, I made that point when I sought accelerated passage for the Social Security Fraud Bill in 2001.

I recognise that there must be further work and consultation on the issue, and I am pleased to note that OFMDFM will present draft procedures to the Committee on Procedures.

I urge that that be done sooner rather than later, so that the draft procedures are not lost in the ether of OFMDFM.

I congratulate the Committee on Procedures on the substantial amount of work that it did when considering the issue. All the answers have not been provided, but a start has been made that will focus people's minds. The Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development addressed most of the issues that I intended to address, and I support his remarks.

Several points reinforce his comments. Problems exist with parity and accelerated passage. The situation is different in the Scottish Parliament. People claim that that is because Scotland has a Parliament, while Northern Ireland has an Assembly. However, if Westminster legislation is to be introduced in Scotland, the Scottish Parliament is informed in advance. Members of the Scottish Parliament have the opportunity to consider the legislation ahead of time - we do not have that opportunity. We are told that, because of parity, we cannot consider legislation until Westminster has agreed it.

I agree with most of what Mr Morrow said, except for his comments on balance. We must make decisions. If the balance problem concerns content or timing, we must decide whether we accept parity and allow legislation to have accelerated passage, or whether we believe that we should have an input earlier in the formulation of legislation rather than at its introduction. The argument is not whether people in Liverpool and Londonderry should get the same money. The argument is about content, and what it could mean for people's human rights.

The best system for us would be for the Assembly to consider the legislation at the beginning of the drafting process. If we decide that Westminster should introduce legislation for the entire United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, we should allow the Committee for Social Development to bring other Bills before the House to be scrutinised. Social security legislation is important, but members of the Committee for Social Development are frustrated because they have little say in its creation. They cannot scrutinise it - it is presented to them as a fait accompli. That must change or else we must concede that, as we accept parity, we accept that Westminster will not introduce legislation here that contains inequalities.

I accept what Conor Murphy said about the amount of legislation that is introduced. However, we should exercise caution when saying that the Assembly's infancy is the reason for the paralysis. We must examine the paralysis that exists in introducing legislation and find a cure for it. We should not make excuses about the Assembly being in its infancy. We must consider how best to introduce, scrutinise and implement legislation so that the people benefit from it.

TOP

I support the motion and endorse the report. The report marks the end of an extensive review of the procedures that we use to progress legislation in the Assembly. As we enter the final year of the current Assembly mandate, it is only right that we evaluate how efficient our procedures are for progressing the basic function of the Assembly, which is to legislate.

The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures highlighted several important recommendations in the report, and I support that. One of the report's most practical recommendations relates to the Further Consideration Stage of a Bill. The Committee on Procedures introduced that stage in July 2000 in response to concern that was expressed - which the Committee shared - that the Assembly should be given a second opportunity to amend a Bill.

Prior to that, there was only one opportunity - at Consideration Stage - to amend legislation. When the Further Consideration Stage was introduced, it was recognised that an evaluation of its effectiveness would be required at a later date. This was primarily because it was agreed, with good reason, that Further Consideration Stage should be a rerun of Consideration Stage. Again, that was introduced when this legislature had considered only a few Bills.

It must be acknowledged that Further Consideration Stage has not caused any procedural problems to date. However, the Committee concluded that it could foresee a scenario where, in an extreme case, a clause or schedule of a Bill could be voted in at Consideration Stage and voted down at Further Consideration Stage. The net result of that would be, at best, bad legislation, and, at worst, defective legislation. The Committee agreed that the loophole must be closed.

To address the situation, the Committee recommends that Further Consideration Stage should apply only to those clauses or schedules that are subject to amendment, and that only amendments should be voted on. That clause or schedule should not be voted on again, because it has already been voted to stand part of the Bill. This is consistent with the practice in the House of Commons and the Scottish Parliament.

Although the Committee focused most of its attention on the procedures relating to primary legislation, it made a couple of recommendations on subordinate legislation. The main recommendation addresses what the Committee considered to be a gap in Standing Orders, and concerns the Assembly's ability to scrutinise all subordinate legislation, which is the practice in the Scottish Parliament and Westminster. Under existing Standing Orders, some pieces of subordinate legislation are not subject to Assembly scrutiny, despite the fact that they have considerable powers. For example, the Examiner of Statutory Rules' recent report highlighted the way in which some subordinate legislation that is not subject to Assembly scrutiny has the power to modify primary legislation. I am sure that Members agree that we should not continue to allow that scenario to exist.

In its consideration of the matter, the Committee agreed that the Assembly should have the power to scrutinise all legislation. It is important, as a legislature, that we have procedures in place that allow the closest possible examination of subordinate legislation.

I endorse the report and commend it to the Assembly.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank Members for their contributions. I am pleased that they agree that the Committee's review of the legislative process was worthwhile. It was certainly timely because many of the frustrations with, and anomalies in, the system have been highlighted. We have dealt with some of those, and we will have to set our minds to dealing with others.

Members made it clear that some of the issues that were raised in the report will be revisited in the near future. The issue of parity legislation, which was highlighted by Fred Cobain, Maurice Morrow and Billy Hutchinson, is recognised by the Committee as being a complex issue. The Committee accepts that the matter will need to be examined in greater detail in the next few months. There is a divergence of opinion on the issue, and it will not be easy to reach agreement, but we must set our minds to it.

Fred Cobain made several points about parity legislation, the first of which concerned the definition of "parity". That is useful, but I am not sure whether it is the responsibility of the Committee on Procedures or the Committee for Social Development to pursue that. He also proposed a formal mechanism for the scrutiny of Bills that are passed in Westminster. I am sure that the Committee Clerks have noted those points, and we must check which Committee is responsible; it may be the Committee on Procedures. However, if those Bills would normally fall to the Social Development Committee, it may be a matter for it to pursue. The proposal for such a mechanism would find widespread sympathy here.

I echo Maurice Morrow's call for the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to bring forward proposals to deal with parity legislation sooner rather than later - that is important.

Fred Cobain mentioned the abuse of the accelerated passage procedure. Parity legislation is important for the people that we represent, but there are even bigger decisions that do not require such a high threshold as obtaining the leave of the House, and, therefore, the Committee proposes to lower the threshold so that all that is required is cross-community support. Of course, that system can be abused, but so can any voting procedure. We propose that one Member's objection to a Bill should no longer be sufficient to stop that Bill from gaining accelerated passage - in order for it to be blocked, there must be some substantial disagreement.

All procedures and Standing Orders are continuously reviewed; we regularly get suggestions from Committees, Members, the Executive and the Speaker as to changes that they feel are necessary, and we revise them on that basis.

Fred Cobain suggested the idea of an alternative amendment to allow the House to decide the length of the Committee Stage, Bill by Bill, depending on how complex the Bill is considered to be. Although we have not heard that suggestion before, we received a variety of opinions on how long the Committee Stage should be. We have changed the length from 30 calendar days to 30 working days - in effect, six weeks.

The Committee that has dealt with the most legislation is the Committee for Finance and Personnel. Some Committees have never dealt with the Committee Stage of a Bill, and we will happily revisit the matter if this proves not to work properly. If Members find that there is a case for deciding on the length of the Committee Stage of each Bill as it proceeds through the House, we will re-examine the matter. One of the most important points in our report is the need for proper pre-legislative scrutiny - an idea that Mr Cobain supported. The introduction of draft Bills to Committees would considerably reduce the length of time needed at Committee Stage.

Alban Maginness spoke about our consideration of the suggestion that all Committees should be given the authority to amend Bills. Although he, and others, have supported that suggestion, the fact that no Committee has asked for that facility to be granted to it was a key factor in our decision not to introduce that suggestion at this stage. However, as with all the other proposals, we are willing to revisit it should a case be made, and I am sure that that will happen as Committees gain more expertise in dealing with Bills.

Billy Hutchinson mentioned the paralysis in legislation coming forward from OFMDFM. The Committee's report does not attempt to provide any rationale or excuse for that. Many people share Mr Hutchinson's frustration. Our report examines the legislative process with a view to making it more efficient, although not necessarily with a view to speeding it up. The report deals with the period between the introduction of a Bill and its Final Stage. The delay in introducing Bills for a First Stage is outside the remit of this report, but it is an issue that many Members have raised and will continue to raise until those delays are dealt with effectively.

David McClarty mentioned Further Consideration Stage and subordinate legislation. A recurring theme throughout the inquiry was that the Executive wanted the process of legislation speeded up and the Members wanted it slowed down - although it may not have been expressed as bluntly as that. We did not try to strike a balance because that is not our job. Our job is to represent what we believe are Members' interests and those of the House as a whole, and that means providing proper scrutiny. At times, we heard contrary views from the Executive and the Committees in general. The proposals make for more effective scrutiny of legislation, which is our role here. Their purpose is not simply to facilitate the rushing through of legislation; it is also to facilitate more effective scrutiny on behalf of the electorate.

As I said at the start of the debate, the procedures for the progression of legislation need to be kept under continuous review. As Committees gain more experience in the scrutiny of legislation, they will be better informed to identify necessary improvements to procedures. The Committee on Procedures firmly believes that the recommendations identified in its report will improve the efficiency with which we progress legislation in the Assembly. However, the cornerstone to any improvements will be more detailed and meaningful pre- legislative consultation. I ask the Executive to take on board that point and to do their utmost to ensure that Committees are consulted at an early stage about proposed legislation. Where possible, a draft of the Bill should be submitted to the Committee for scrutiny.

I conclude by endorsing the report to the Assembly and, once again, by thanking all who took time to participate in the debate. I also want to place on record, as Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures, Committee members' appreciation for the Clerk and staff of the Committee, and all who assisted in the production of the report.

Before putting the question, I remind the House, for the sake of clarity, that the passage of this report, insofar as it calls for changes in Standing Orders, will not implement changes in Standing Orders. They will have to be implemented at a subsequent stage and, of course, voted through on a cross-community basis.

TOP

Capital Spending in Education

I beg to move

Is there any indication as to whether the Minister of Education intends to be present for the debate?

I have not been informed by the Minister as to whether he will be in attendance.

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek clarification on the objective criteria deployed to select amendments. For the second year running in this type of debate, an amendment offered by my party has been disregarded, even though it is fairly close in substance and form to the original motion. I have to wonder whether this is political correctness. We are very concerned about the sidelining of our amendment. Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

I shall make two remarks. First, the Member has been in the Assembly long enough to know that he need not be informed of the reason why the Speaker selected, or did not select, an amendment. Secondly, I strongly advise the Member against any inference that the Speaker's Office might be in any way politically motivated. I cannot emphasise that strongly enough.

I speak as a private Member and not in my role as the Chairperson of the Committee for Education. I am concerned at the absence of the Minister of Education, and I wait with interest to see whether he attends this important and very timely debate.

The motion seeks to draw the Assembly's attention to the unacceptable condition of schools in every sector of our education system. Although I accept that school capital projects have been underfunded for many years - even from before the Assembly was created - I must highlight the current Minister's poor record in addressing that problem.

It is not good enough for the Minister to hide behind the historic underfunding excuse, given his failure either to entice more money from the Executive or to produce proposals based on PFIs or public-private partnerships to meet the needs of our schools.

During my regular contact with school principals, boards of governors and educationists it has become clear that the condition of our schools has reached crisis point. Fresh, imaginative thinking must be employed to address the situation. Members will be aware - through constituency work and their service on school boards of governors - that the schools estate is in a very sorry state, with crumbling buildings and many out-of-date and unacceptable mobile classrooms. We expect pupils to excel in those circumstances and for teachers and staff to withstand those conditions. Meanwhile, the Minister and his Department seem powerless to address those problems. The motion is a cry for help to the Assembly to do something about the situation rather than to wring our hands and blame the Tories.

The other main section of the motion highlights the very real concern over the confirmed pattern of underfunding that exists in the controlled sector, as well as the indisputable evidence that such discrimination exists and is apparently actively pursued by the Minister, presumably to pursue his party's narrow political ends.

Undoubtedly the Minister will attempt to excuse his actions and previous announcements by quoting statistics that effectively seek to gloss over the true situation and to ignore reality. I am especially concerned at the treatment meted out by the Minister to post-primary schools - secondary and grammar - in the controlled sector over recent years. The truth does not lie in the statistics produced by the Minister and his officials, which at first seem fair and equitable. It is only when one digs deeply into the ministerial announcements and press releases that one begins to unearth the truth of the matter.

For example, last year no school in what might crudely be called the Protestant grammar sector received any funding allocation. Whether that was a result of the Minister's well-documented opposition to the grammar sector remains a matter for speculation; only the Minister can answer that. Whether it was the politics of envy being practised by an old-style socialist matters not: no allocation was made.

The other method that the Minister consistently used to cover his tracks when dealing with allegations of unfair treatment against the controlled sector was to pretend that schools such as special schools are really controlled schools, or that integrated schools fit into the controlled category. Again, such assertions are a blatant distortion of the facts. Most Members will accept that special schools cannot, and should not, be categorised or labelled as being either controlled or maintained, given that they serve the needs of the entire community in a non-sectarian fashion. They are entitled to a category of their own that will recognise their unique contribution to education in Northern Ireland.

Likewise, it is wrong that the integrated sector should be included in the controlled sector simply to balance the ministerial books. I suspect that the advocates of integrated education - some of whom are prominent Members of the House - would be horrified to imagine that their schools were grouped within the controlled sector when the Minister was performing the sectarian headcount. It would be much more honest and honourable to recognise them in their own status.

The sad truth is that successive Ministers - not just the present incumbent - have used this rather novel system when crediting the controlled sector with allocations in capital building announcements. Tony Worthington did so, as did John McFall. Even poor old Michael Ancram fell into the trap. Undoubtedly predecessors such as Brian Mawhinney did so too. The Minister can put away his book of impressive statistics; they simply will not wash.

I wish to touch on two other matters. First, I want to highlight the ongoing lack of transparency in the system by which the Minister and his Department make allocations. Secondly, I wish to mention the role of the education and library boards in this process.

In spite of detailed discussions with departmental officials on the system used to determine the allocations made each year under category 3, it proved impossible for the Committee for Education to gain a clear understanding of how projects are chosen for inclusion. Although the members of the Committee for Education are an extremely determined bunch, we could not establish, try as we might, how the final allocations were made. Bagehot's famous phrase about the royal family and letting in light upon magic appears to be appropriate here. It is an unacceptable state of affairs that should, and must, be addressed by the Minister to the satisfaction, not only of the Education Committee, but of all Members.

My final concern surrounds the role played by the education and library boards in the system used by the Department to consider bids for the final allocation of capital building funds. The Education Committee found clear evidence that over the past couple of years, projects put forward as contenders by the boards were rejected by the Department because they were apparently incomplete. That is an unsatisfactory situation that the relevant boards must address and resolve without delay. Many schools in the controlled sector were oblivious to that situation, and it gave them a false expectation that could never be met.

In conclusion, if the Assembly is to help build a new Northern Ireland, that must be done purely on the basis of equity between all our people, and by clearly transparent policies, evident and practised throughout our system of government. If the current Minister of Education wishes to subscribe to those principles, he must stop taking decisions and making announcements that are clearly at odds with the notion of fairness and equity so publicly enunciated by him. It is time for the Minister to go back to the drawing board, and that will be the test of his stewardship as Minister of Education. The question is, will he pass or will he fail? At the moment it is not looking good.

TOP

I beg to move the following amendment: In line 3 delete all after "Northern Ireland".

I am sure that all Members will join me in expressing concern at the backlog of capital school building works required across all geographical areas and the different sectors of education in Northern Ireland. If we could wave a wand and deal with all the schools on the planning list for capital development, it would take - at the very least - £500 million. As everybody knows, we cannot do that. Far too many schools will continue to be in a state of disrepair. Members know that poor accommodation and sub-standard school premises hinder the learning process of children caught up in such unfortunate circumstances.

I draw Members' attention to the important word in the motion. The important word is "all", as in "all geographical areas and all sectors of education". The Assembly is committed to the principle of equality. Most important of all is the principle of equal treatment for our children. In deciding the allocation of funding - whenever that is done - the principle of equality has to be adhered to. Therefore allocation must be on the basis of need. That must be a guiding principle that underlies and underpins any allocations of funds, not just in March 2002 as the motion says, but every year. If we are to create a pluralist society that recognises and values diversity, we cannot see gain in one educational sector as a loss in any other.

The second sentence of the motion implies, and the remarks of the mover of the motion confirm, that the concern is sectoral, as opposed to a concern for the needs of all children in all schools. We have heard examples used to suggest that there is a biased pattern of spending in the capital development programme. I have reservations about how Mr Kennedy makes the distinction between schools in the controlled sector and those outside it. I disagree with the way in which he has presented and interpreted that distinction.

I want to return to the principle of equality. As I said before, no school should be denied funding on the grounds that it belongs to a particular sector. Another important factor that greatly influences allocation, to which the mover referred, is whether a school that is on the planning list has those plans at a sufficiently advanced stage for approval to be given and funds to be allocated. Very often, as some Members will know, schools are not eligible for funding because their plans are not complete. That is one area that needs a great deal more attention. If we are to achieve equality of treatment and direct resources to the most deserving and needy schools, more must be done to ensure that the schools with the worst conditions get the necessary help to have their plans ready in time for consideration. There have been examples over the years where expectations were built up that schools would get allocations, only to not receive them. That has been repeated year after year. We have to look seriously at that issue and assist schools so that they can get their plans ready and receive their allocations.

Will the Member give way?

I will not give way. Lack of preparedness of development plans in the past has meant that some schools in need have missed out. That has more to do with the failure to achieve funding rather than a suggestion of bias against any sector. There are ongoing concerns, and I want to refer briefly to those projects identified to go forward under public-private partnership (PPP). Projects for several schools were announced in last year's round. It is regrettable that, since then, we have seen no sign of progress on that work. The rate of progress under PPP seems to be very slow - [Interruption].

Order. The Member is entitled to be heard.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We are aware - [Interruption].

Mr McCartney - Order.

While there is - [Interruption].

Mr McCartney, I will remind you about your attitude towards the Table for the last time this afternoon.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Since you did not warn me before, how can you warn me for the last time?

Sit down, Mr McCartney, or I will have you named and taken from the Chamber.

No, you will not have me taken from the Chamber. You may have me named.

Sit down, Mr Gallagher. I name you, Mr McCartney. Please leave.

The rate of progress under PPP is very slow. Schools are not seeing any progress, although they are aware that in the case of one school the figure that the Minister quoted for consultants' fees was in excess of £620,000. The Assembly must receive definite information soon from the Minister and the Department about the start date for such schemes.

Accepting the substantive motion takes us into the realm of sectoral rivalry. Therefore I ask Members to support the amendment because it best serves and safeguards the interests of all our schools.

As Members are aware, 90 minutes have been allocated for the debate. Therefore I must restrict each Member to five minutes.

I welcome the opportunity to speak, and I thank the Members who tabled the motion. They do a service to the community when they highlight blatant sectarianism in the allocation of finances. Schools across the Province are in an unacceptable condition, but the record in the state sector, under the stewardship of the Minister of Education, breaks all the bounds of any political agenda. No one can hide behind the argument of historic underfunding. It has been a reality in the maintained and controlled sectors. We know what it is to have crumbling school buildings and, therefore, we are asking for some fairness concerning the money that is available.

It is about time that we unearthed the truth. It is difficult to get answers from the Department of Education. I asked questions, but I was denied the answers because it would cost too much money to provide them. I tried another approach to obtain some of the figures. However, what I find in the written answers is far from the reality of the situation that I am trying to unearth.

Children's education is one of the most important aspects of modern day parenting. We have entered a period when learning will define our lives as never before. In the twentieth century, education was made a basic right for all, yet the high standard of education for all has conspicuously failed to be delivered.

The expenditure of funds in Mid Ulster, which is my constituency and the Minister's, highlights the inequality in the allocation of money. Members should come to the Magherafelt District Council area and see the situation for themselves. In recent years, several million pounds have been spent on the construction of St Mary's Grammar School on the Castledawson Road. That was necessary, and the money did need to be spent. All sectors of education have the right to spend money on their schools.

The next school that we come to is the controlled high school. It is a dilapidated building; the mobile classrooms and building itself are falling apart. Little money has been spent on it.

One hundred yards along the road is St Pius X High School. From 2001-03, a budget of £12 million will be spent on that building and its furnishings. I was not provided with that information in any of the answers that I requested. St Mary's Grammar School is at one end of the town and St Pius X High School is at the other - and approximately £20 million being spent on those two schools.

A dilapidated, deteriorating state school that everyone is entitled to attend is located between those schools. Protestant children are expected to continue their education in out-of-date laboratories and accommodation.

Maghera High School is deteriorating also; however, millions of pounds were spent on St Patrick's school recently. New maintained schools are planned for Cookstown and Donaghmore. What about the state-controlled schools that everyone is welcome to attend? The Minister should be ashamed, rather than running around with a brass neck - the allocation of funds is discriminatory and blatantly sectarian. That is unacceptable from the so-called Minister.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The motion that Sammy Wilson and Danny Kennedy tabled is seriously flawed. We should be able to reasonably expect more from the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Education than for them to advocate a biased sectoral approach whereby money is diverted away from the needy and allocated on a sectarian basis instead.

Will the Member give way?

The Member will have a chance to reply later in the form of a winding-up speech. Initially, Sammy Wilson brought this hardy annual before the Assembly, and the Committee Chairperson has now joined the enterprise. The proposers are feigning and inventing a sense of discrimination against the controlled sector as a means of Minister-bashing and to extract more funds for one sector. Rather, provision should be judged on the basis of need.

It is worrying for other Committee members that Sammy Wilson should be joined by the Committee Chairperson, who seems to be constantly looking over the Deputy Chairperson's shoulder for fear that he will be outmanoeuvred by him. Sammy went it alone last year, but Danny is now acting as his sidekick on the matter. It damages the Committee's reputation and that of the office of Chairperson.

Will the Member give way?

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>