The Temporary Chairperson:

Order. The Member has a right to be heard.

Mr P Robinson:

I think your difficulty is at the very heart of the problem. The debate was curtailed on 18 January because they do not like hearing arguments that do not come from their own party. The Initial Presiding Officer's decision was one that denied free speech.

We should ask why the Ulster Unionist Party put the Initial Presiding Officer in that position. Could they not find Members prepared to support what the First Minister (Designate) had put forwad in his report? That is certainly possible. Or could they not hold the line? I saw some evidence of that as the DUP often talks about paramilitary beatings. I saw parliamentary beatings taking place during that day when the political cudgels were being wielded against their Members because they were not coming into line.

Of course, the fear was that, as the debate continued, Members would hear the arguments and Whips would be unable to keep them in line, which they were clearly struggling to do. Another fear was that they would find out that Mo Mowlam was going to use the motion to proceed with the setting up of structures. The last thing they wanted was for the public to hear the arguments. Other parties should be very careful - the rights that they trample on today are the same rights that they will seek in the future.

In the future, I am certain, some Members will say our rights have been trampled on simply by the exercise of a majority voting in one direction or the other. That is why we have a Presiding Officer who is given discretion to safeguard the rights of minorities in the Assembly. Therefore there were two principal reasons - [Interruption]

The Temporary Chairperson:

Order.

Mr McCartney:

On a point of order. A section of the Ulster Unionist Party is talking loudly even when the Temporary Chair is calling for order.

The Temporary Chairperson:

Thank you, Mr McCartney. Members in all parts of the House are conversing while the Chair is speaking. I ask for silence during the winding-up speeches.

Mr P Robinson:

The Democratic Unionist Party felt it necessary to table the motion for two reasons. First, we sought, procedurally, to restore the amount of time which was denied to it. On 18 January we made it clear, through points of order, that procedures are a two-edged sword. Today all those Members who were denied the right to speak on 18 January had that right restored.

I particularly congratulate my colleagues who made their maiden speeches today. They showed excellent potential. We have shown that procedural devices can be used to ensure that our rights are maintained.

Secondly, we wanted to ensure that no precedents would be set by the Initial Presiding Officer's ruling. His ruling was manifestly wrong. However, as Ms McWilliams said, everyone can get it wrong sometimes. The greatest act of courage is when people admit that they got it wrong. It has been made clear that, procedurally, such a ruling would be unacceptable in any other democratic establishment. The Initial Presiding Officer should reconsider this matter and ensure that what happened is not used as a precedent.

Some almost personal references were made in relation to the Initial Presiding Officer. More than anyone in the Assembly, I could be said to have a gripe against the Initial Presiding Officer for he has contested my East Belfast constituency on many occasions. We have met each other on the hustings many times. Throughout that period of election campaigning we have never fallen out on any of the issues. Many Members will agree that he has fulfilled his role in a competent manner during his tenure as Initial Presiding Officer. That should be acknowledged.

If a wrong precedent is set early in the life of a democratic institution, it may continue throughout the life of that institution.

In the light of the debate, I urge the Initial Presiding Officer to reconsider his ruling. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the motion.

The Temporary Chairperson:

Does the Assembly agree to withdrawal of the motion?

Several Members:

No.

The Temporary Chairperson:

In that case, I must put the Question.

Question put and negatived.

4.15 pm

The Temporary Chairperson:

I would like to thank Members for their support in what has been my maiden chairmanship.

The Initial Presiding Officer resumed the Chair.

Assembly: Ad Hoc Committee on Ports

TOP

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Item 4 on the Order Paper is a business motion, and Members need not debate it unless they specifically wish to do so. The Assembly would normally debate such a matter on presentation of a report.

Mr McGrady:

I beg to move the following motion:

This Assembly, viewing with concern the Belfast Harbour Commissioners' proposals regarding the port of Belfast and their effect on other ports in Northern Ireland, appoints an Ad Hoc Committee to consider the serious implications of such proposals and to hold public hearings before submitting a report to the Assembly.

Composition:	UUP SDLP DUP SF Alliance NIUP UUAP NIWC PUP	4 4 3 3 1 1 1 1 1
Quorum:		8

 

 

We touched on this problem when the Minister, Mr Murphy, attended the Assembly to discuss the question of the public expenditure survey. On that occasion grave concern was expressed - on a cross-party basis - at the speed with which it was proposed to change the status of the Belfast Harbour Commissioners. And, with that change of status, of course, there would also be a change in the disposal and use of the assets belonging to them.

On 12 October last I was informed on good authority that terms of reference for total privatisation were put to the Department of the Environment and the Department of Economic Development by the Harbour Commissioners, that there would be a short consultative period and that a button could be pressed and the privatisation would go through by Christmas. Fortunately, the exposure of that particular process has nullified it, and we now have the opportunity to properly consider how best to deal, in the future, with the tremendous asset that the Belfast Harbour Commissioners manage on our behalf.

There are two aspects to the problem. A substantial amount of Northern Ireland's commerce passes through this port, and it is important that we preserve its status and availability for the good of the general public. Second, its asset resources, in terms of the extremely valuable land that lies virtually in the centre of Belfast, must be developed in the best way possible, not just for the people of Belfast but for those in the whole of the North of Ireland. As well as their assets there is, of course, the question of the considerable cash resources which are currently at the disposal of the Harbour Commissioners.

I have another concern in respect of the proposals coming from the Commissioners. How will the other trust ports in Northern Ireland be affected - those at Derry and at Warrenpoint? Larne is already a privatised port.

Another shared area of concern is the problem of the transfer from trust port status - a semi-public, semi-private situation - to total privatisation. The transfer was to take place by way of what is known as a placed flotation. In other words, a selected body of share dealers would be asked to place the shares in the hands of those they thought would be best to manage it. Unlike BT, NIE and others, there was no question of the people of Northern Ireland being given the opportunity to participate in the privatisation. This was to be a placed flotation, a new cartel created to manage the Port of Belfast.

Many of us made rapid conclusions as to where those shares would be, as to who would be involved, and as to where the resulting new millionaires would come from. For that reason I expressed, on behalf of my party, concern to Mr Murphy when he addressed the Assembly and, subsequently, on several occasions in the House of Commons and elsewhere.

It is interesting to note that the process was galloping along at an enormous pace. It started in 1997, and by May 1998 the Harbour Commissioners had already put a transfer scheme to the Department. We are nearing the end of that process, which was allegedly a process of consultation. However, I have yet to find any meaningful consultation that took place with the political parties, the Port Users Association or anyone else. Now a block has been put in that path and it is now open for full and proper consultation. The decision which was to have been made by the "push-button exercise" by the Department and the Minister has now been aborted. Now the process will be carried forward only after full consideration by the Assembly and by all those who have an interest in the matter.

The great problem and the alleged urgency at the time was due to the fact that some major road schemes affecting Belfast, Derry and Newry were based on the instant sale of this enormous asset belonging to the people of Northern Ireland.

The much vaunted publication of May 1998 from the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that Northern Ireland would get an additional £130 million. Please read the small print. Of that, £100 million was our own assets, namely, Belfast Harbour Commissioners. A bit of creative bookkeeping was involved in that particular exercise, but that is not the way that it should be done. It is not for me to put proposals on how it should be done, but simply to flag up some further considerations.

How should the port be managed in the future? Should it be public, private or a combination of these? How should the revenue of the port be disposed of? At the moment it is entirely for the use of the Port Users Association. Could it be used for other projects such as roads, hospitals or schools? How should the very valuable land and real-estate assets be marketed? Should it be piecemeal, lump sum or should it create its own market?

The marketability of the leaseholds and freeholds has been enormously enhanced by the considerable funds brought into the Laganside development through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). The calf has already been fattened by that funding. It is important that all the people of Northern Ireland should benefit, not just the property developers and the proposed millionaires. It is important that the fatted-calf syndrome that we have seen with other privatisations should not be allowed to occur in this case.

Mr McCartney:

Will the Member confirm, for my benefit and, I am sure, for the benefit of others, that if substantive power is transferred on 10 March, as is suggested, the Assembly will be in a position to say "Yea" or "Nay" to any privatisation, or will that power remain within the Northern Ireland Office or the Westminster Government?

Mr McGrady:

The hon Member makes a very valid point, and I am sure his legal expertise makes him better qualified to answer the question than I am. However, the political answer to the question - never mind the judicial one - is yes. If powers are transferred and devolution takes place, then, presumably, the Minister and the Executive would have the ability, with the consent of the Assembly following debate, to take what action they felt appropriate.

That is why it was important that the Minister was not allowed to proceed with the push-button exercise that commenced last December. Now the Assembly can have its say.

Members should also be aware of the grave concerns of the Port of Belfast Harbour's trade-union side, which is most strongly urging the Assembly to take cognisance of potential employment problems in the harbour precinct if the current proposals proceed. There are many ways in which this issue can be handled. I do not want to be dogmatic about how it should be handled - I have my opinions, and other Members will have theirs. This asset is huge and has great potential benefits for the years ahead, and if Members want to use the income for other purposes, it is important that they be fully and carefully considered.

It is for this reason that Peter Robinson from East Belfast and I have jointly framed this motion to allow a Committee of the House to be established. The Committee's composition will be proportionate to the strengths of the parties in the House, and the Committee will undertake, extraordinarily, a full, public examination of the pros and the cons of the debate. I hope that after taking public and other evidence, a report can be presented to the Assembly for debate, amendment and ratification - one that will arrive at a resolution which will be of the greatest benefit to the greatest number.

Mr P Robinson:

This is essentially a business motion and, as such, is not normally debatable. As movers of the motion, we appreciate the opportunity to outline the case for setting up the Committee for the purpose stated in that motion.

There are almost 2000 acres of land at the Belfast port, and that is a very considerable area. Much of it is a very valuable asset indeed. Those Members who are going to be on the Ad Hoc Committee should be warned at the outset that they will have very considerable briefing made available to them. Dr Stephen Donnelly, who is assisting the Assembly with research, has already prepared a volume for the Committee to look at, and that is just the independent research that we have had carried out. Members can be certain that witnesses will bring forward very significant tomes as well.

My Colleagues and I visited the harbour towards the end of last week. Those Members who had not seen it before were impressed by the scale of the operation and by how profitable that operation is.

4.30 pm

We are talking about a business that has a 50% profit ratio; a business that has £20 million in the bank; and a business which is worth much more than that in terms of the capital assets that it has at its disposal. This is a very important issue for Northern Ireland and further importance can be attached to it because of the position that the port of Belfast has in terms of the life of the Province. Fuel oil, coal, grain and foodstuff all come through Belfast, and the depth of the channel means, effectively, that it is the only place in Northern Ireland where they can come in, so it is vital that the port be under responsible control.

It is vital too that whatever the future pricing policies are, some restrictions are placed on it. It is, therefore, an appropriate subject for the Assembly to investigate. What made me put down this motion jointly with the Member for South Down is the fact that the Harbour Commission was beginning to take a lead in terms of the consultation process.

The Harbour Commissioners would have been controlling the process: bringing in the parties to speak to them; talking to the trade unions; and talking to others. There is no reason why they should not do all of that - indeed, they should be encouraged to do that - but that should not be the principal method by which the Assembly decides how to deal with this matter.

Mr McGrady is absolutely right. If powers are devolved to Northern Ireland, this will clearly be a transferred matter and, therefore, the responsibility of the Minister of Regional Development to bring forward proposals for dealing with this matter to the Assembly's Executive.

The Assembly could give or withhold its support for those proposals, so it is a matter that will be dealt with in a post-devolution state, and the decisions that we take on these matters will be vital. Members who will take those decisions eventually should be well-informed, and how better to be well-informed than by having a Committee which will look at all the relevant issues and come forward with recommendations.

There are a number of possibilities for the disposal. One possibility is simply a Tory-style sell-off, allowing the highest bidder to take it with no restrictions at all - very dangerous as far as the future of the port is concerned.

The Harbour Commissioners prefer a public/private partnership whereby the public - and in this case it would be the new Government of Northern Ireland - would hold on to a golden share. They would have an agreed percentage of the shares of the company, and the remainder would be part of a flotation which, presumably, would provide the funds necessary to pay for the roads around Toome and elsewhere that have already been identified in the Government's expenditure programme.

The Government are forcing our hands in terms of the sale of the port because they have already spent the money in their expenditure programme, so we have to deal with a number of those realities. The Committee's work is vital but perhaps all that it will be able to do is set out the principles that should guide the Minister when he looks at the matter, and a number of those issues will come forward from the research that has been carried out by Mr Donnelly. I wish the Committee well. I will certainly watch very closely the work that it carries out.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

This is a business motion and both proposers have been fairly fulsome in their introduction. There have been one or two requests to speak briefly, and I am minded to permit them, but I do urge Members not to get into a habit of full introductions to business motions.

Ms O'Hagan:

Sinn Féin welcomes the opportunity to engage in consultations on Belfast port. My party was to meet Belfast Harbour Commissioners today, but the meeting had to be rescheduled because of this debate.

It is wrong to link the sale of the port with necessary road and transport development, such as the Toome bypass. This is a clear attempt by the British Government to sound generous, within the Gordon Brown package, towards the Six Counties while playing one sector off against the other. We are told that if the port is not sold we cannot have the bypass.

There are many compelling arguments against the proposed sell-off of the vital assets at Belfast harbour; and we do not need to rehearse them all. Not least is the sale of valuable land, which is both short-sighted and detrimental to the long-term interests of Belfast port. Sinn Féin is against the privatisation proposals. It is incomprehensible that a Labour Government would carry on with the privatisation policies of the previous Tory Administration.

The proposal to sell the port is short-sighted in the extreme, especially in view of its considerable assets. The future of Belfast port needs to be revisited, and the process should be open and accountable. My party looks forward to such a consultation process by way of public hearings.

Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Taylor:

I have listened to the debate with interest. These are important matters not only for the City of Belfast but for the whole of Northern Ireland. There is one issue on which I should like some clarification from the proposers of the motion. If and when we have devolution in Northern Ireland, and when the transfer of powers from Westminster to Stormont is completed and Departments and departmental Committees have been created, the departmental Committees will have various responsibilities. A departmental Committee will look into the issue of the sale of Belfast port. Will there be a conflict between the Committee that we are being asked to create and the pending departmental Committee?

Mr McCartney:

I congratulate those who have moved the motion. It has been described as one that has the support of all parties in the Assembly, including my own. It is regrettable, however, that all the parties except mine are represented on this Committee. It is heartening to know that there is such a wealth of talent, and that people do not require the services of probably the only senior practising lawyer in the House. Although I am not to be a member of the Committee, I would be happy to contribute in any way I can to its work, even as an adviser.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

A question was posed by Mr Taylor. Perhaps it could be answered in the winding-up speech.

Mr P Robinson:

I do not intend to make a winding-up speech, but I am happy to respond to the question. The issue is one of timing. As I understand it, the intention is to complete procedures by June. Even if devolution were to take place by 10 March - and there seems to be some doubt about that - it would be a considerable task for the Assembly to get its Ministers in place and get the Assembly Committees up and running.

There may be other priorities such as roads, transport, water, or planning strategy, all of which would come under the remit of the same Committee. But that Committee would not have to accept the outcome of this one, and may present further reports asking the Assembly to look at the matter in the light of new evidence. The Assembly has the final decision. Having considered the issue, the Committee would report to the Assembly, which may take a different view of the matter.

Mr McGrady:

I wish to respond in kind to what the Member for East Belfast has said regarding the question from the Member from North Down. In terms of the motion, it is an Ad Hoc Committee and has the in-House statutory longevity which such Committees are inclined to have. I see no conflict there. When the appropriate departmental Committee is in place the Committee can terminate - if it has not already done so - or make arrangements for its dissolution. It was a degree of urgency that necessitated the motion before us.

With reference to Mr McCartney's point, we are always appreciative of free legal advice as it is such a rare commodity.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

This Assembly, viewing with concern the Belfast Harbour Commissioners' proposals regarding the port of Belfast and their effect on other ports in Northern Ireland, appoints an Ad Hoc Committee to consider the serious implications of such proposals and to hold public hearings before submitting a report to the Assembly.

 

 

Composition:	UUP SDLP DUP SF Alliance NIUP UUAP NIWC PUP	4 4 3 3 1 1 1 1 1
Quorum:		8

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motion made:

That the Assembly do now adjourn. - [The Initial Presiding Officer]

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Of those Members who have yet to make a maiden speech in the Assembly - and after today there are fewer of them - applications to speak in this debate have been received from two, and both shall be heard.

Action for Community Employment (Ace)

TOP

Mr Agnew:

Members on these Benches have some difficulty hearing what is being said. I could only just hear my name being called. I urge you to address this problem.

As Colleagues will be aware, in July the ACE programme that has served Northern Ireland so well for many years will come to an end. People of all ages, races and religions and of both sexes have benefited from ACE. While it is not perfect, the advantages of ACE outweigh the disadvantages. Many young people have learned skills, obtained qualifications and training. Older people have learned new skills that have helped them find employment in a technological age. Communities have benefited from environmental work, and the massive contribution that ACE schemes have made towards bringing people together cannot be underestimated.

We are supposed to be living in the midst of a peace process, but, even before the Belfast Agreement, cross-community groups working under ACE were keeping communities together.

ACE funding has been decreasing. At its height it received almost £50 million. Now around £30 million only come from the Exchequer to fund the programme. A few hundred core workers and a few thousand places still exist in ACE.

Up until last November the Government were saying that they had no plans to wind up the ACE programme - a programme that employment consultants from England and Scotland have been studying as a model for dealing with the long-term unemployed. And who is better at dealing with unemployment than the people of Northern Ireland?

Someone, in his wisdom, decided that money could be saved using the New Deal Programme. Under this benefit-plus scheme all will be registered as employed. Funding will come from the massive amount of money that the Government have accrued from windfall taxes. By doing this the Government can recoup into the Exchequer some £30 million, and that is a squalid fraud on working-class people by a so-called socialist Government.

There is no better scheme to cater for all ages of those needing welfare benefits than ACE. Under New Deal one must be under 25. It is not a better deal, it is not even a good deal. It is interesting to note that among the first to sign up to New Deal were the large supermarkets - for three months they can employ cheap labour to fill their shelves.

4.45 pm

Many questions must be asked about the New Deal. How can one get a qualification in three months? How can such a scheme adequately teach job skills? Even though those involved in the New Deal will be registered as employed and, therefore, reducing unemployment, there will be fewer job skills. This scheme has not been very successful in England. It is important to note that in west Belfast alone fewer than 70 people are employed under it. Last week the Deputy First Minister (Designate) was speaking at a conference where he welcomed the New Deal Programme, I urge him to rethink his position because his views do not represent those of the people of north and west Belfast.

The Training and Employment Agency says that consultation with ACE providers has taken place. However, there was no proper consultation - not even with those in the Department who are aware of the situation.

Some Members are associated with Farset, which is perhaps the largest ACE scheme in the Province. Its manager, Mr Jackie Hewitt, confirmed to me today that nobody had consulted with him. Mr Arbuthnot of the Training and Employment Agency has said that one third of the Province's ACE providers have signed up to the New Deal. Yet the two or three employed under the New Deal in an organisation like Farset will go if ACE goes. It is a crazy situation.

Mr Shannon:

Does Mr Agnew agree that the ACE scheme helped the elderly and the disabled and that the ACE scheme helped to create community care? Does he agree that the ACE groups were involved in many environmental schemes?

The Initial Presiding Officer:

It is not usual to intervene in maiden speeches.

Mr Shannon:

I apologise.

Mr Agnew:

I was happy to give way because this is something that all Members can get involved in and should be concerned with. The New Deal only involves under-25-year-olds. What will happen to those who are over 25? They will be cast to the wall and forgotten about. That was not the case under the ACE scheme.

I agree with Mr Shannon's point about the environmental aspects of ACE. Those providing work under ACE have developed important environmental initiatives in their communities.

Mr Arbuthnot's point was that one third of the Province's ACE providers have signed up to the New Deal. Yet the two or three engaged under the New Deal in an organisation like Farset will go. It is as simple as that. Its core workers will go as well because the New Deal programme does not provide for them. It is almost self-policing.

We face a difficult situation. All over the Province ACE providers are now making arrangements to wind down their schemes. They are now putting in place a process that will result in the inevitable closure of some of these tremendous schemes, such as Farset. It is as serious as that.

The Training and Employment Agency should cease immediately the rundown of the successful ACE programme, and allow a period of six months for proper consultation with those who are providing it. Otherwise, the consequences of the current policy will have far-reaching implications for both training and employment in communities all over Northern Ireland.

 

Education

TOP

Mr Benson:

I wish to speak on the way forward in education. I do not intend to give a blueprint for future education in Northern Ireland; I want rather to assess the education system that we have and raise some questions about the future. Changes in education have been wholesale over the last 30 years, and, as a result, stress levels have never been so high among teachers, pupils and parents. Teachers have never been so overloaded with administration.

With the birth of the Assembly we have a golden opportunity to take our decisions wisely. It is time to assess the success and drawbacks of our current system to ensure that it is the best education that we offer to our children. We must consult with the people who are the experts in the field - the teachers. We must assess and ensure improvement in the areas of nursery, primary and secondary/grammar education. We must consider the provision of integrated education, and further and higher education must be reviewed. The administration of education must be assessed.

Ideals, however, are only as good as the financial backing they are given. There has not been an endless supply of capital for education in Northern Ireland in the past, and there will not be in the future. With our own Government we must seek to spend wisely on education. Nursery education for all four-year olds is an objective with which all can agree. This is a target of the Labour Government and one to be adopted by the New Northern Ireland Assembly. We are all aware of the benefits nursery education brings in preparing children for their primary regime.

However, in spite of an injection of capital to provide more nursery places, many parents find that it is a lottery when making an application for a local nursery school place. Nursery schools are forced to use criteria which are unfair to many children and can rule out many hard working tax-paying families who are the backbone of this society. Nursery education for all must be a priority.

In the primary sector one of the most contentious issues is that of testing with the selection process the most often debated. Assessment is, of course, crucial to a child's development. However, will testing at Key Stage One achieve anything but overloaded teachers with more costly and unnecessary administration? Teachers need time to get on with teaching literacy and numeracy. The last Conservative Government's obsession with all things science-related seemed to encourage primary schools to put the cart before the horse. What is to be gained from understanding Archimedes's principle if an 11-year-old cannot punctuate a sentence properly or check his change in a shop? Our primary schools are staffed by enthusiastic and dedicated teachers, but they must be allowed to teach without the burden of unwieldy and unnecessary administration. This leads me to the culmination of the primary process - the selection procedure.

Over the years there have been many dissenting voices. The selection procedure, the transfer process, the eleven-plus or the "qually" - call it what you will - still strikes fear into the hearts of children and parents alike. This weekend many families will wait in trepidation for the postman to bring notification of success or failure.

However, selection in some form is the backbone of secondary education. In successful and competitive nations such as Germany, France, Japan and the USA selection is crucial. It is the correct age for selection, however, that is open to debate.

Secondary schools must be valued and properly resourced, to allow them to continue to provide appropriate education to the majority of young people who attend them. Incidentally, I understand that school league tables are being published today.

Grammar schools in Northern Ireland - often the subject of debate - provide appropriate and wide-ranging education to the most able and most highly motivated young people. Grammar schools offer a route to success to all pupils, irrespective of social background. Surely this is one of the Labour Government's most highly cherished objectives.

All pupils of proven ability should have the right to a grammar school education, and we should strive to ensure that pupils from across Northern Ireland have equal access to this opportunity. At present, in some board areas pupils are admitted to grammar schools with grades A, B1, B2, or even C. However, the largest controlled grammar school in the South-Eastern Board area, Regent House Grammar School, will accept only grade A pupils, forcing those with grades B1 and B2 to travel to schools outside the board area for their grammar school education.

This inequity must be addressed, and there should be increased financial support for grammar school provision in what is one of the areas of largest population growth in Northern Ireland.

The promotion of integrated education must be a long-term objective, if we are to create a truly peaceful and tolerant society. In attempting to achieve that objective, we must encourage existing schools to opt for change to integrated status, and to convince them that that is the most cost-effective and successful way to promote mutual tolerance among young people. We should, however, be aware that this change can only come about when the local communities served by these schools support the idea. Therefore, our immediate objective must be to increase the atmosphere of mutual tolerance in existing schools, thus increasing support for an eventual formal change to integrated status.

In terms of further and higher education, the Government are committed to the creation of a new culture of lifelong learning. That commitment has already been made apparent in the recent announcement by the Education Minister, Mr John McFall, of a £39 million package for further education. The Assembly should aim to facilitate the greatest possible access to continuing education for people in the post-16 age group. We should encourage the expansion of second chance learning opportunities.

We should also consider whether Northern Ireland needs two relatively small universities, or if we would be better served by a single multi-campus institution that is capable of competing with institutions around the world at the highest possible academic level. Together, our universities have a student body of some 40,000, and that would make a single institution a significant body on an international level. Our universities should endeavour to bring education to the people. It should be possible, for example, for a young mother in Enniskillen to pursue a degree course by means of the Internet and other resources provided by her local further education college.

The Assembly must also address the issue of the administration of the education system, so that we can provide the best possible support to our 470,000 pupils and students, and ensure taxpayers of value for money. The present administrative system, which includes nine statutory bodies and a range of voluntary bodies, is unnecessarily complex. It costs £16 million to run the Department of Education for Northern Ireland, £21 million for the five education and library boards, and millions more for the associated statutory bodies.

It would be more sensible to restructure the Department of Education to give it responsibility for all aspects of education, from the cradle to the grave. There is also a pressing need to address the question of whether Northern Ireland needs five education and library boards and, thus, five chief librarians, five chief finance officers and five chief executives - all to provide a service for just 1,300 schools. In addition, we should consider the cost of supporting the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools and related bodies.

Many principals identify financial management responsibilities as the main source of stress among senior school management. We should introduce a system of professional financial management, with qualified accountants taking responsibility for school finance matters. That would enable principals to give their full concentration to the curriculum.

5.00 pm

Such appointments would give confidence to boards of governors, who often lack financial expertise. To benefit our pupils we must make the administration of our education system as efficient as possible.

We in the Northern Ireland Assembly will soon hold the future of our young people in our hands. It is incumbent on us to ensure that we provide, for as wide a range of people as possible, the best quality and most cost-effective education in an environment conducive to learning.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

Mr Agnew raised the matter of audibility at the back of the Chamber. You will appreciate that because of the events of earlier today, I have more of an understanding of how difficult it is for Members on those Benches to hear. I found myself leaning back and using the hidden speakers behind the Benches. Some of you will know that this also happens in the House of Lords. Their Lordships are often criticised for being asleep; they are not of course asleep, they are merely listening to the speakers behind. I urge Members, who are clearly not somnolent, to use those speakers, but I will also speak to our technical officers and see if there is anything further we can do.

Mr Boyd:

Sometimes I cannot hear the person in front of me. There is still a problem with the sound.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

When you are at the desks, the covert speakers are not behind you but in front, on the desks. Those Members who are lying across the desks are also not asleep but merely listening more carefully.

Mr Hussey:

I have raised this matter before. Perhaps the microphones are too high and when Members are looking at their notes, the microphones are not picking up their words properly.

The Initial Presiding Officer:

There is some truth in that. I urge Members to throw their shoulders back and make sure that the rest of the Chamber hears them fully. Some of the problems are occasioned by Members leaving the Chamber noisily or conversing with each other. That is rather unfair to Members who are speaking.

Finally, the much-mentioned Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer will meet at 5.30 pm in Room 152.

Adjourned at 5.02 pm.

<< Prev