No two children are the same. All children are born with different abilities. Some are prepared to work harder to achieve their goals, but the goal of education is to bring out the best in all children and bring out the best of their abilities.

I am surprised that the Minister, who professes a "Brits out" attitude in everything else that he does, when it comes to education he wants to ape the failed English system and introduce comprehensive education to Northern Ireland through the back door. The comprehensive system in England has failed. At the age of 14, pupils in Northern Ireland's selective system are 18 months ahead of pupils in England in English and mathematics, and they achieve GCSE results that are 10% better than those of pupils in England. That shows that the selective system is better for all pupils, for those at widely underrated secondary schools as well as for those at grammar schools. Before comprehensive education, A-level results in Northern Ireland were lower than those in England, yet shortly after the introduction of comprehensive education, Northern Ireland's A-level passes exceeded those of England and have continued to do so ever since.

The changeover to comprehensive schools has led to the following shortfalls in England: each year, approximately 60,000 16-year-olds, who would otherwise do well, fail to achieve five or more GCSEs. Approximately 80,000 18-year-olds, who would otherwise do well, fail to achieve two or more A levels. The increased access to universities for working-class students up until 1960, primarily due to grammar schools, has gone into reverse with the spread of comprehensive education. Some 31% of working-class pupils go to university in Northern Ireland, compared with 23% in Scotland, England and Wales. The selective system appears to enable pupils from the lower social classes in Northern Ireland to achieve better GCSE and A-level results and to obtain more university places than those in the rest of the United Kingdom. Taken together and compared with comprehensive schools, selective schools perform 37% better in maths, 27% better in English language, 28% better in science subjects, 32% better in geography and 70% better in French. Taking an average of all the main subjects, the advantage is approximately 35% in favour of selective schools.

Teachers and parents ask why there was not one practising school principal on the review body who had hands-on expertise in the daily running of schools. Why does Burns not report that 85% of respondents want grammar schools to remain while wishing to see an end to the 11-plus tests? Why impose a completely untried system unheard of anywhere in the civilised world? Should our children be punished in such a way? Why should our children be thus disadvantaged? How collegiates will work is unclear; history shows that children perform best alongside children of similar aptitude.

Why is pastoral care omitted from the report? It is a recognised fact that the percentage of Northern Ireland boys and girls achieving fewer than five GCSEs has dropped in the past five years to 3%. That performance is significantly better than in other areas with similar socio-economic conditions.

Billy Hutchinson's views reflect those of some in the Unionist community. No one makes points to reflect the views of a significant number in the Nationalist community who want to retain grammar schools and a selective system. Shame on the Nationalist representatives in the Chamber that they do not represent the views of their people, many of whom have had to come to us to have their views expressed.

I regret that this is turning into a Unionist versus Nationalist debate, because the matter transcends constitutional politics, Unionism and Nationalism. The debate is universal, and it is a shame that Nationalists have not represented the views of the many who send their children to grammar schools and who wish to retain the grammar school system.

I went to a grammar school, but we chose a secondary school for our first child in spite of his having achieved a grade that would have secured him a place in a grammar school. We sent him to a school that would best suit his needs. We must look sensibly at the selective system and allow children to be assessed by their academic ability and not by postcode.

I agree with my two Colleagues and with Mr Sammy Wilson, the mover of the motion. His contribution set the scene for the debate and summed up the feelings of many in the Province, certainly of those in the community that I represent. The Minister of Education is making a huge error of judgement. He is advocating a comprehensive system of education, similar to the one across the water. That system has failed miserably and has resulted in lower educational standards.

We have a system in Northern Ireland that has produced the best results in the whole of the United Kingdom for pupils in secondary and grammar schools. My Colleague Edwin Poots graphically outlined the successes of each education sector and how Northern Ireland seems to be streets ahead of the rest of the United Kingdom. It is a fact that 56% of pupils in Northern Ireland are achieving five or more GCSEs. On the UK mainland, the average is just 48%. At the other end of the spectrum, the Northern Ireland figure for those leaving school with no qualifications is much lower than the UK average. It is 3·5% in Northern Ireland and 6% on the UK mainland.

Even though the figures prove that our education system is well and working, it is the Minister's opinion that a working system needs changing without investigating the alternatives. The Minister is out of touch with the people of the Province and out of touch with what they wish to have. I am a parent. I have three boys who have gone through, or are in the process of going through, the education system. The system has worked well for them, and it has worked well for most people in the Chamber today. Those who claim that the post-primary education system is failing are talking nonsense. Some 35% of children go to grammar schools, and a further 35% of pupils from a working-class background in Northern Ireland - the background that I come from - go on to university. That compares favourably with the situation in England and the rest of the UK.

I accept that some changes are needed in order to modernise the system and to bring it into line with other excelling countries in Europe. Transfer should be deferred until the age of 12. We could perhaps have a transfer test carried out by way of continual assessment, instead of two examinations, the results of which depend on the mood or condition of the child on a given day.

Post-primary schools are redefining themselves all the time, and they should be encouraged to do so. They should offer academic, vocational and technical courses. In that way, we can reduce the number of children who are leaving school with no qualifications. Such courses would also reduce the number of truants - those pupils who stay away from school because they cannot handle the academia, but who are suited to hands-on student work. Students should be able to transfer between schools. We often find that grammar school children drop out at the age of 16. They have passed the 11-plus but have, for one reason or another, not got to grips with what grammar schools have on offer. Many schools in rural areas - and Craigavon is an example of this - have a school that provides all-through education for children. That provides stability, and many friendships are maintained throughout school life because the cut-off at age 11 does not take place. The system works well for students, teachers and parents.

Some bureaucrat who has not investigated the full implications of changing the system should not be able to interfere with it. The aim should be to protect the best and improve the rest. We should not let the Minister destroy the whole lot simply because it is a British system. He is opposed to anything that has even a hint of Britishness about it. His views have more to do with politics than educational standards.

The Minister is at odds with the Committee for Education, the schools and the greater number of pupils, teachers and parents, and he should consider the motion proposed today and the comments that Members have made. The Minister's opinion is at odds with the views of the people.

The Minister of Education (Mr M McGuinness): Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity afforded by Sammy Wilson's motion to discuss the review of post-primary education. I agree with Peter Weir that it is currently the most important issue facing the education sector. Many contributions have been made today. Many have been thoughtful, although some were not so thoughtful. Overall, it has been a good debate, and I have no doubt that there are people on all sides of the argument who hold sincere views. However, the object of the exercise is to build consensus and ensure that the House and all political representatives recognise the challenge before us. We politicians have a huge responsibility to put in place the best possible education system for all our children.

We have been given a real opportunity to put in place post-primary arrangements that will meet our needs in the twenty-first century and that will equip our young people and future generations with the knowledge and skills that they need in a rapidly changing and increasingly global world. As we engage in the debate, we are all obliged to ensure that we are properly informed and that our arguments are based on facts and data rather than on myths.

Yesterday in the House I referred to the three great myths about our education system, and we have heard more of that today. The first myth is that we have a world-class education system that is the best in these islands. Mary Nelis spoke eloquently on that myth. I am the first to acknowledge that we have a high proportion of pupils who achieve good examination results, yet comparisons show that as many pupils in Scotland achieve five high-grade GCSEs in its comprehensive system. Scotland also has markedly more people entering higher education. More people here than in England achieve five high-grade GCSEs, but even England, which is often caricatured as having a failed comprehensive system, has fewer pupils who do not achieve five GCSE passes. We still have the highest proportion of children in these islands with low qualifications, and that is the long tail of low achievement that has been highlighted by research.

Paddy Roche referred to international comparisons, as did Robert McCartney, Peter Weir and Edwin Poots. I remind Members that recent international research into standards found that, among 15-year-olds, our pupils performed on a par with pupils in England and Scotland, but did substantially less well than the top performers. Where were the top performers? They were in Finland, South Korea, New Zealand and Canada, all of which have non-selective systems. When people talk about comparisons, they must take a broader view and consider that there is a bigger world outside England, Scotland and Wales, and, indeed, here. We must recognise that other systems in the world are doing well, and we have a responsibility to look at that and learn lessons.

More critically, the variation in our best and worst scores was among the widest in the participating countries, which highlights the recurrent theme of an education system with high achievement and substantial low achievement - a system that performs well for some but poorly for the rest. The 1996 International Adult Literacy Survey found that almost one quarter of our adult workforce has the lowest level of literacy. That legacy has been left to us by our so-called world-class education system, and the sooner we wake up to that, the better.

The second myth is that academic selection provides a ladder to success for working-class and disadvantaged children. Peter Weir, Bob McCartney and Ken Robinson dealt with that. Bob McCartney was particularly disappointing when he repeated that point in what I thought was an intellectually barren and narrow-minded contribution. We must look at the facts. Under our current system of academic selection, children from low-income families make up only 8% of pupils in grammar schools, and that proportion has fallen in the past four years. Far from being a ladder for working-class children, academic selection is an increasingly slippery pole.

Consider the transfer test results: the least disadvantaged pupils who sit the 11-plus are almost three times as likely to achieve a grade A as the most disadvantaged pupils. That hardly supports the case for academic selection as an escape route from poverty.

Which group in our society achieves the worst results in academic selection? The answer, which may be unpalatable, is the most disadvantaged sections of the Protestant community. The poorest 11-plus results are achieved in controlled schools with high levels of free school meals that serve working-class Protestant areas. David Ervine and Billy Hutchinson of the Progressive Unionist Party told me that, in many working-class Protestant areas, a grammar school place is beyond the reach of almost all pupils. In the Shankill, less than 2% of pupils gain a grammar school place. If that is not a damming indictment, I do not know what is.

The proportion of pupils from the most disadvantaged controlled primary schools in other areas of Belfast who obtain a grammar school place is also appallingly low - 4% in west Belfast, 5% in east Belfast, 8% in north Belfast and 15% in south Belfast. Those figures demolish the myth that academic selection provides a ladder to success for disadvantaged children, especially in Protestant communities.

Members raised an important and perplexing matter, which I responded to during Question Time yesterday, that has not yet been satisfactorily answered. In the light of those disturbing figures, why do the main Unionist parties support the continuation of an academically selective system that impacts most negatively on disadvantaged Protestant communities?

That is an issue for those parties to consider, but I shall make my position, as Minister of Education, clear. Some Members may dispute it, but it is sincerely held. I want fairness and better educational opportunities for all children, whether they live on the Falls Road or the Shankill Road, in the Bogside or the Waterside, in Crossmaglen or Portadown, regardless of their colour or creed, whether they are well off or disadvantaged, and whatever their abilities. Every child must be given the opportunity to succeed. I shall work to ensure that the new arrangements deliver that opportunity.

Someone said recently that the idea that every child can succeed is a myth. I totally disagree with that. As educationalists, we have a responsibility to create an education system in which every child can succeed and fulfil his or her full potential. During the debate, Mr Shannon said that we should keep the best and improve the rest. I want the best for everyone, regardless of where they live or who they are.

The third myth is that, in order to go to university and get a good job, a grammar school education is necessary. Traditionally, grammar schools have been the main providers of university entrants. However, the world moves on. Currently, 35% of pupils obtain places in grammar schools, yet the participation rate in higher education is much greater at 44%, and is projected to increase. A place in higher education is not dependent on a grammar school education now and will be even less so in the future.

Prof Gerry McKenna, vice-chancellor of the University of Ulster, told me that only approximately 50% of its students have traditional A levels, with the rest coming from a variety of routes. Significantly, the university found no difference in academic outcome, irrespective of the route that students had taken. Prof George Bain, vice-chancellor of Queen's University, informed me that many of its students, including some of the best, did not follow the traditional A-level route.

The facts do not support the three great myths, which are that we have a world-class education system, academic selection is a ladder to success for working-class children, and grammar schools are an essential route to entry to higher education and university.

Local research has strongly confirmed the clear and pressing need for change. Prof Gallagher and Prof Smith found that the current arrangements distort the primary curriculum and create a sense of failure in two thirds of our children. I heard about that sense of failure this morning when I met with representatives of the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA) in Belfast.

We have schools that do not achieve good results. In addition, disadvantaged children come from low-income families and cause unnecessary pressure and anxiety. Our discussions this morning focused on those issues. When the people around the table spoke of their experiences with colleagues in colleges in this city, a great deal of pain and hurt was revealed.

Prof John Gardner's research highlighted the technical inadequacy of the 11-plus. Save the Children used children's own words to make the most powerful case for change. I have been criticised by some people for quoting them, but we must listen to what children tell us. I make no apology for repeating their views. Commenting on the test, one child said:

Another child gave her view on the test, and she said, most tellingly:

The complete absurdity of the 11-plus was succinctly expressed by another child when she said:

I ask Members how they would feel if their children said that to them. I cannot and will not accept educational arrangements that make children sick with nerves, make them feel stupid and that judge them on two hours of their lives. There must be change, and I am pleased that the Committee for Education agrees. In its report, the Committee concluded that change is both necessary and appropriate. I have been encouraged greatly by the almost unanimous agreement that change is needed and by the shift in the debate from the question of whether change is necessary to what kind of change is needed.

Billy Hutchinson hit the nail on the head - his contribution was thoughtful and knowledgeable, and his remarks about social justice were well made. He also addressed the issue of early intervention, which is important. I agree that there is a need for early intervention and support, and the Department of Education has already undertaken some initiatives: the pre-school education system has been greatly expanded; the Making a Good Start initiative was established; classroom assistants have been employed for primary 1 classes, and that provision has been extended to primary 2 classes in the most deprived schools. The local management of schools (LMS) common funding formula will skew more of the available funding towards the primary sector, and the review of the curriculum that is under way will examine what children learn and when they learn it. All those matters are important.

The Burns proposals that were published for consultation in October 2001 set out one possible model for change, and I must address several misconceptions about the consultation process. First, it is important to stress that no decisions have been taken about the proposals. Some people think that this is a done deal; nothing could be further from the truth.

Secondly, the choice is not between the Burns proposals, in their entirety, and nothing. The Burns Report offers one way forward, but it may not be the only way. Therefore, I have invited comments on the Burns Report and asked for suggestions for modifications to the report, or alternative approaches.

Thirdly, there is a view that there is no point in responding to the consultation because no one is interested in what people have to say and that Ministers will simply make decisions anyway. That may have been how things were done in the past, but we now have a local Administration and Ministers who are accountable to the electorate. Everyone's views count.

The publication of the Burns Report has generated a huge and ongoing public debate, and it is useful to take stock of how the debate is developing. Despite the impression that is often given through the media, significant areas of consensus are emerging on the guiding principles that underpin the Burns proposals, particularly the view that each child should be valued equally, the abolition of the transfer test, the value of the pupil profile and the value of collaboration and co-operation between schools.

There are also areas of contention, and, in seeking to advance the debate, I have stressed the need to focus on academic selection. This is central to the shape of any new arrangements, and Oliver Gibson referred to this crucial issue.

There is a view that the 11-plus can simply be abolished - clearly this cannot happen unless another process of academic selection is put in its place or academic selection is abolished. The review body made clear its view that simply to replace the test with another form of academic selection would perpetuate many of the weaknesses of the present arrangements. The 11-plus and academic selection are inextricably linked. The sole reason for the 11-plus is to provide a means of academic selection for grammar schools. The issue is not about the test but about academic selection, and we must be clear on this. Academic selection for some means academic rejection for most of our children. We must all look beyond the symptom - dissatisfaction with the 11-plus - to the cause, which is academic selection and rejection. That is what the debate must be about. I welcome the growing concentration on this key issue in public discussions, and I am holding meetings with interested parties to discuss the issues raised by the post-primary review.

Esmond Birnie referred to the need for a cross-departmental approach, and I welcome the interest of the Committee for Employment and Learning. I have already met representatives of higher and further education, the chief executives of all five boards, the main teachers' unions, the CCMS, the Progressive Unionist Party, and the Belfast partnerships. Some consistent views have been expressed, including a general recognition that there are serious problems with our education system and a widespread acceptance of the adverse effects of academic selection, which is considered to be socially divisive. CCMS, the five main teachers' unions, the vice-chancellors, further education principals, the Belfast partnerships and the Progressive Unionist Party all agreed that academic selection should end, and the boards want a system that puts children at the heart of the process. The same strong message was given to the Education Committee and is set out in its report. It states:

I have planned further meetings with principals of primary schools, Catholic and controlled grammar schools, NICIE (Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education), NICVA (Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action), the Transferor Representatives' Council and my Colleague at the Department for Employment and Learning. I have also written to the other political parties inviting them to discuss the review, and I hope that they will all accept this invitation.

A meeting has also been arranged with the Governing Bodies Association (GBA), and I look forward to hearing its perspective. I have welcomed its statements supporting the need for change. The GBA has concerns about the Burns proposals but has given a commitment to identify an acceptable method of happily matching pupils to schools. This is a positive and responsible approach, but time is moving on, and no proposals have yet been produced. If the GBA has developed acceptable proposals, I urge it to make them available for public scrutiny and consideration as soon as possible, certainly before the end of the consultation period.

The recent statement by the Northern bishops was a crucial contribution to the debate. They are the trustees of the majority of Catholic-managed grammar and secondary schools, which represent almost half our post-primary schools. They have given a clear message to the whole of the Catholic-managed school sector that academic selection by testing at age 11 or later is not acceptable. The bishops stated that pupils and parents, guided by teachers and career guidance counsellors using continuous assessment, should make decisions about educational pathways on the basis of election and choice. The bishops' statement has moved the debate on significantly in the Catholic school sector, which can now focus on how best to develop arrangements that meet the bishops' aim of providing an education system that fosters justice, social cohesion and reconciliation and maintains and enhances quality but does not promote elitism. I encourage others to consider the key issue of academic selection as the first crucial step in progressing their response to the review.

My Department's consultation on the post-primary review is the largest ever undertaken on an educational issue. We have issued a consultation pack, including a video to all schools, further education colleges, training organisations, community organisations and public libraries in order to encourage and stimulate discussion of the issues. These bodies will also receive a detailed response booklet at the end of April. The views of the public are important, and we will be gathering those through a household response form that will be issued to every household in late May. The massive scale of this consultation reflects the importance of the issue. I want as many people as possible to take part in the debate and to submit their comments to my Department.

I want to deal with as many of the issues raised as time will allow. Sammy Wilson raised the issue of the meeting with the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools. It was alleged that I stated that academic selection must go. It was the CCMS that stated after the meeting that academic selection must go, not me. Mr Wilson's other more political comments clearly show that, after all this time, he is still in absolute denial about the Good Friday Agreement. His hope that after next year's Assembly elections the DUP, as the largest party, would prevent Sinn Féin being involved in Government shows that the DUP is not only running away from the Good Friday Agreement, but it is running away from the issue of post-primary education. The issue will not go away and will have to be faced up to.

Sammy Wilson also raised the issue of academic selection and the transfer tests. It was suggested that I had called for an end to selection, whereas Burns referred to the abolition of academic selection. I have said throughout this consultation that academic selection is the key issue that must be addressed. Transfer tests and academic selection are inextricably linked. There cannot be a selective system without a means of selection. The transfer test cannot be abolished unless some other process is put in its place.

Sammy Wilson also raised the issue of the household response form and its neutrality. The response form provides everyone with the opportunity to contribute to the debate; therefore, it is important that its content be politically neutral. The response form will include a summary of the main proposals made by Burns and will ask several questions on the key issues. It is important that we consider educational issues and raise the debate above any party political perspective. I provided the Committee for Education, of which Sammy Wilson is the Deputy Chairperson, with a copy of both the household response form and the detailed response booklet before they were finalised so that members could make suggestions about how they could be improved, and to clarify the issues and help to facilitate responses.

Sammy Wilson, Danny Kennedy, Patricia Lewsley and Peter Weir discussed admissions. It is difficult for children from disadvantaged areas to access grammar schools. I am aware of the allegations expressed by some that the admissions criteria proposed by Burns would lead to selection by postcode. Others say that our existing education system is socially selective and that it disadvantages the working class. It is also claimed that a comprehensive system based on neighbourhood schools would lead to social selection and would be accompanied by the introduction of private schools. These are difficult issues, but I do not rule out the possibility of devising alternative arrangements for making decisions on school admissions to avoid some of these problems. There are examples in other countries that we could consider.

I have noted the concerns expressed specifically about the admissions criteria, including the use of proximity as a final criterion. Let me make it clear: I have invited alternatives to the Burns proposals. It is open to everyone to suggest alternative or additional criteria.

Peter Weir and Sammy Wilson raised the issue of pupil profiling. The establishment of pupil profiles is one of the key recommendations in the report. The intention is to provide a better basis on which parents and pupils can make decisions on their post-primary school. I welcome comments on that as part of the response to the full report. Concerns have been expressed that it would increase the administrative burden on teachers and schools. I am conscious of the bureaucratic burden on teachers, and I will continue to work to reduce that in any new arrangements that are implemented.

Using the pupil profile for admission purposes would not be another form of academic selection. The full range of information contained in a profile would have to be reduced to a single letter or grade. That would be difficult to do and would run counter to the whole purpose of a holistic pupil profile. The use of the pupil profile in that way would not overcome the weakness that two thirds of the pupils are regarded as failures at the age of 11, and they suffer a huge and enduring blow to their self-esteem.

In addition, using the pupil profile would put more pressure on teachers and parents, and it is unlikely to have the broad support of the teaching profession. It has been suggested that the pupil profile could be used for selection purposes. Teachers' unions are adamantly opposed to the use of the pupil profile for any form of selection.

Danny Kennedy and Ken Robinson said that the consultation was biased, and that the Department was not conducting a fair and open consultation. I am satisfied that the consultation has been handled properly, and I refute any claims that it has been biased. My role in the consultation is to facilitate and encourage debate on the key issues by everyone who has an interest or an opinion. It is important that all sides of the arguments be voiced so that there is an open and balanced debate.

Recent press statements that I issued reflect the views that were expressed to me. I am holding a series of meetings with key interests to listen to their views and to help to stimulate informed debate on the issues. The video and support materials, the household response forms and the detailed response booklets are politically neutral and were made available to the Education Committee for comment. Several helpful comments and suggestions were incorporated into the materials. I intend to publish a summary of the responses. It will take time to analyse those responses, but I expect to be able to publish a summary by the end of September 2002.

I want to place on record my appreciation of the valuable contribution made by the Education Committee, and the fact that it was able to respond to tight deadlines dictated by the timescale for the consultation. That illustrates my good working relationship with the Committee, and I look forward to that continuing as the review progresses.

Paddy Roche raised the issue of grammar schools. Our grammar schools provide high standards of attainment for one third of our pupils. However, we need to think about the impact of our academically selective arrangements on the large majority of children who do not get to a grammar school. There is evidence from Scotland, and from the recent Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) study of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, to suggest that other systems can achieve comparable, or even better, results.

There is a significant variation in the performance of our grammar schools. The percentage of pupils achieving three or more A levels can range from 30% in the lowest-achieving schools to 68% in the highest-achieving schools. The percentage of pupils achieving seven or more GCSEs at grades A to C can range from 75% in the lowest-achieving schools to 98% in the highest-achieving schools.

I hope that the voluntary grammar schools will support and participate in whatever new post-primary arrangements are put in place. Any school that is thinking about becoming independent will have to consider the financial implications. Parents would have to meet tuition costs and any future school capital development costs -

Order. I ask the Minister to bring his response to a conclusion.

There is an issue about the recovery of capital grants paid to the schools by my Department. Teachers in independent schools would be removed from the current pay and pension arrangements. Fees would be determined by each school and would vary from school to school. The annual fees in independent schools in England range from £6,000 to £10,000.

There is a pressing demand for change, and it is incumbent on us to focus on the needs of children rather than on party politics or the interests of particular institutions. The challenge for us all is to recognise that change is necessary, and that we must build the maximum possible consensus on new arrangements.

In his final remarks, the Minister has shown the House how sincere he is when he talks about consensus on the subject. It is clear that those who do not go down the route that Martin McGuinness wants will have the financial and the administrative Armalite held to their heads as they are pushed into acceding to the Minister's wishes. I am glad to see that the gloves are coming off in this fight. I hope that the Minister's last remarks will be a wake-up call to all those who have sat back complacently, believing that the decent thing will be done, because this Minister does not intend to do the decent thing by education. As other people have said, he intends to ram through his 1960s socialist dogma regardless of whether there is consensus or not.

This has been an interesting debate. We have had a range of views. Patricia Lewsley stuck her head in the sand and ignored the views of the many middle-class Nationalists who are flocking to grammar schools. However, Patricia Lewsley's answer is to have all-ability comprehensive schools with all-ability classes and no streaming. That really is going back to the failed policies of the 1960s. I very much doubt that too many SDLP voters will be sympathetic to that.

As usual, Eileen Bell sat firmly on the fence. She wants to keep the best aspects of the grammar schools but do away with selection. I do not know how that can be done. Perhaps she will explain it to us some other time. Mary Nelis was also stuck in the 1960s. The only thing missing from Mary Nelis's speech about elitism and class discrimination was a rendition of 'The Red Flag' at the end.

The Minister displayed his usual stuck-needle approach. I have heard and read his speech before. It went to the INTO conference and to the CCMS, and now we have had it in the Assembly. At least he could have done the decent thing and dreamt up a new speech for today. He started off by saying that the debate had to be based on properly informed opinions and on data. He may even have used the phrase "robust data". What did we get? We got three stories about wee girls waking up in the middle of the night and sleepwalking. Is that robust data? [Interruption].

No.

This is what the Minister is using: emotional blackmail or emotional claptrap. Either the argument is based on data and facts, or it is based on the kind of nonsense that we got from the Minister today. That is not the way to proceed. When it comes to data, I would have thought that he would have learned the lesson from his long years of interrogation by the police, the Army and others - get your story straight before you open your mouth or else keep it shut.

The Minister tells us that 8% of working-class youngsters get to a grammar school. Gerry McHugh tells us that 15% of those who go to grammar schools are on free school meals. Which is it? Is it 8% or 15%? Perhaps it is something different. However, we are told that our arguments must be based on data - myth number two or three, or whatever it was.

The Minister tells us in England fewer pupils leave school with fewer than five GCSEs. That is not what he told Peter Weir on 21 March. My understanding is that 11% is greater than 8%, but perhaps I am wrong. That is what the Minister said in a written answer to Peter Weir. If he is going to base these claims on data, he should get the data and the story right. However, the evidence and the arguments do not matter; the Minister is determined to go down a certain route.

He mentioned that you cannot have a selective system without some form of selection - that is right. The end of academic selection will not mean that there will be a non-selective system. Mr Burns made that clear when he stated in his report that there would still be oversubscribed schools. Will the Minister tell us how people will be selected, if he is not going to select on the basis of what is best for them academically? Let us make it clear that selection does not involve academic rejection; it is a selection for the best route. You are not rejecting people; you are saying that one route is best for some people and that another is best for others. The use of emotional language is the final appeal of someone whose arguments are bankrupt. If you are not going to select people on the basis of their academic ability and what is best for them educationally, what are you left with? You are left with only two other kinds of selection - economic selection or social selection. Socially deprived people would come out far worse on those counts than they do on the basis of academic selection.

We have the evidence in England of the Prime Minister's escaping the bog-standard system of education that people want to introduce into Northern Ireland by paying for his youngsters to go to school. Half of his Cabinet have turned their backs on their socialist principles - or perhaps they do not have any socialist principles. In any case, they have turned their backs on their rhetoric, and they pay to send their youngsters to school. That is the alternative to academic selection. Trade unions are opposed to pupil profiles being used for any form of selection. Mr Burns also pointed that out:

Schools may be prevented from seeing those profiles before youngsters arrive, but when they get those profiles, one cannot stop them from using them for streaming. They can do whatever they wish with them then. The things that the Minister told us that he would abolish will not be abolished. In fact, they will be stretched out over one, two or three years. I am not saying that; Mr Burns said it, and the Minister admitted it.

The trade unions do not want pupil profiles to be used for any form of selection, but, once they are published, neither the trade unions nor the Minister nor anyone else can stop them from being used for that purpose. Let us not pretend that these issues are clear-cut. I want to pick up on a point that Billy Hutchinson made because there is an attempt to drive a wedge between Unionists. I represent a working-class constituency, but I could no longer describe myself as working class. Given their incomes, I do not think that any Members could describe themselves as such.

Nevertheless, let me say this. The sacrifices that my parents made to send me to a grammar school, which I earned a place in, enabled me to climb up the ladder. I have taught numerous youngsters from working-class backgrounds in a grammar school, and they have since been able to climb up the ladder as a result of the system. There are many others who will be advantaged by the continuation of a system that caters for diverse needs by providing different institutions for them.

However, there is a problem, and Bob McCartney highlighted one answer to it. It is not only a matter of the 11-plus - it is a whole attitude in society. How do we value those who go a different educational route? A change in the 11-plus, or increased spending at the lower end of education, will not answer that question. Many complex issues need to be addressed, and I hope that, in the coming months, we shall have the opportunity to do that. As I said earlier, I trust that the Minister will not run away from the House when it comes to making decisions; that he will listen to the Members of the House; and that the big stick that he wielded at the end of his speech does not show the way in which the debate will be conducted.

Recycling of Waste

TOP

I beg to move

I hope that the exodus of Members does not reflect their interest in the subject that I am about to discuss and that I hope to do something about. I shall ignore those leaving the Chamber and get on with the business. I do not need to remind Members that waste management is one of the biggest bread-and-butter issues to face us at this time, whatever our party or constituency. Each of us is concerned from time to time with very local aspects of waste management, such as litter control. At times we may focus more on the domestic side of waste management. Some of us yearn for separate bins - blue bins, white bins, green bins and yellow bins - for glass and paper in order to separate organic and garden waste so that it can be used for compost, and to set aside residual general waste. However, if we want to make a difference, we must deal with the bigger picture. We need to step back and have a long-term view on the problem.

The issue is bigger than Northern Ireland; it is an all-Ireland and, indeed, an all-Europe issue. Approaches to it should be on the agenda for the relevant cross-border ministerial meetings and involve co-operation between Departments, North and South, as there are no politics in this as such. If we cannot find solutions by working together and by giving mutual support; North and South; we shall disappear under the ever-growing mountain of rubbish.

I am intrigued by Minister Noel Dempsey's efforts in the South; his recent taxation of plastic bags was interesting. Overnight there was a rapid reduction in the number of bags blowing about in hedgerows across Southern Ireland, and the public reacted favourably. My difficulty with our current efforts on waste management and recycling is that we all talk the talk, but we do not walk the walk. We speak the jargon, we have all the clichés, but we do nothing substantial, and the waste management strategy remains fragmented, piecemeal and effectively useless.

Much of the responsibility for handling our waste rests with local district councils, and in many cases they dispose of waste into landfill sites. However, it is the Department of the Environment that sets the policy, even though overall responsibility does not appear to rest anywhere. There is a magic circle in which the buck keeps being passed. To overcome that and get everyone on board, we need a cohesive, dynamic partnership between our Government - regional government and local government - and the environmental interests in the broader community. A free-standing agency that can relate to all interests will best meet that objective.

There is a problem with our current approach. We do not have a lack of raw material, as there is any God's amount of it. We do not have a lack of public interest - if a member of the public recognises someone as a public representative, whether at local government or Assembly level, he or she will get an earbashing about waste management. The difficulty is outlets and markets for the product - or the by-product - and the lack of meaningful vision to take a large-scale, long-term view and make a difference.

It behoves us to find ways and means to create opportunities and outlets to allow recycling to flourish. Why does the Department for Regional Development, which is involved in the big infrastructure contracts, not specify that recycled concrete from brick rubble and the like can be used as hard-core fill for road and other infrastructure schemes, such as car parking? I am not suggesting that it should be used to resurface a road, although 25% to 30% of the hard-core rubble that goes into much of those developments could be derived from recycled material.

We must have commitment as an Assembly, and we must create that commitment and stick with it until we have solved the waste problem. We need to act in a meaningful, functional joined-up mode, and the only way to do that is to create a strong, powerful agency in the North to work closely with whatever authority exists in the South. Better than that would be an all-island agency like Tourism Ireland Ltd to manage this crisis aggressively and with authority.

We have to begin to sort out the bigger aspects. I shall now deal with construction, demolition and industrial waste rather than domestic waste, which we tend to focus on more often.

The problem of domestic waste will be resolved. There was an interesting EU Directive recently about recycling electrical appliances or returning them to the manufacturers. I am not sure how that will work, but I shall monitor it with interest.

If the next Department of Agriculture and Rural Development contract for a road scheme were to specify that 20% of the hard core is to be from recycled sources, that would make a vast difference. Many people in that business are struggling. They stockpile a certain amount of recycled material and must dump the rest as landfill because there is no market for it. If there were an outlet for the material, a conveyor-belt system would be created that would allow construction and demolition waste to be reused. If we had a market for such waste, even for industrial waste, much of which is metal in the form of old engines or machines, the problem of domestic waste could be resolved through pre-selection into separate bins for different destinations.

Some of us were excited by what we saw in Denmark, where in the middle of Copenhagan, there is a large non-toxic incinerator that generated masses of electricity at a low cost and also supplied the neighbourhood for a mile around with relatively free heating and hot water. That incinerator fascinated me. It burned wood, clothing, paper, some plastic bags and even disposable nappies. Few Members will be aware that the biggest element of domestic waste in a home in which there are small children is disposable nappies. They do not make useful landfill.

Food and organic waste can go into compost heaps, and we have to create the culture for that. Many people will be happy to make such provision. Garden waste and hedge cuttings can also go into the compost heap.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>