The principle of a common funding formula has already been agreed by the Executive and is an objective of the Programme for Government. It received widespread endorsement in the major consultation exercise that I undertook last year and is supported by the Committee for Education. Although the make-up of the formula has yet to be agreed, there is general agreement that there should be a common formula.

Clauses 1 to 7 of the Bill will enable the Department to introduce a common funding scheme to prescribe the formula to be used, how each factor is to operate and the values or tariffs to be applied to each. The Bill will also provide the Department with the power to require education and library boards to adopt a common funding scheme. That scheme will be made up of two elements: the formula itself; and the arrangements for access to resources, held centrally by each education and library board for controlled and maintained schools and by the Department for voluntary grammar and grant-maintained integrated schools. This two-tier funding arrangement is a continuation of current practice, but a single formula will be used instead of the seven currently in use.

My proposals for the formula were the subject of a detailed, public consultation exercise that lasted for almost six months in 2001. In addition to more than 600 responses to the consultations, I received a very helpful report from the Committee for Education. Having regard to that report and the comments that I received during the consultations, I have written to the Committee setting out my proposals for the formula. I look forward to further discussions with the Committee on the matter.

The resources held centrally provide each funding authority with a budget from which it allocates additional resources to schools for certain purposes, such as assisting with substitution costs when a teacher is absent for a specified time or helping with the costs of providing additional support to a pupil with a statement of special educational needs. Significant progress has been made over the past few years towards harmonising the arrangements for the distribution of these funds, and there are unlikely to be any substantial changes in this area.

Clause 1 of the Bill also sets out arrangements for consultation on the scheme. I expect that, as is the case with the existing LMS schemes, the common funding scheme will need to be revised periodically, not only in the light of experience of its operation, but to take account of schools' changing needs. Therefore, it is important that all those affected by the funding scheme can put forward their views on the need for revision and the implications of that. The arrangements proposed in the Bill will provide for this ongoing consultation.

The Bill retains the provision set out in the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 whereby responsibility for funding voluntary grammar and grant-maintained integrated schools will transfer to the education and library boards. This will be accomplished by means of an appointed day procedure, which I do not intend to initiate until the outcome of the review of public administration is known. The main reason for this transfer is that there is little logic in having a different funding source for less than 10% of schools. The funding of these schools, alongside their controlled and maintained counterparts, will simplify the operation and ensure greater transparency.

The common funding scheme provides safeguards for funding voluntary grammar and grant-maintained integrated schools. Members will welcome these provisions, as they will remove the inequalities in the current system of funding our schools. I stress that nothing in the arrangements for the common funding formula will prejudice or pre-empt any decision about the most appropriate structures for post-primary education.

Moving to the rest of the Bill, I am taking this opportunity to include a range of other provisions on education matters. Many are amendments to existing legislation, and the need for the majority of these has been identified over time. None is of sufficient significance to justify primary legislation in its own right. I do not propose to comment on each of the provisions, but I will outline some of the issues addressed. Of course, I will be happy to respond to Members' questions on the other clauses at the end.

Part II of the Bill contains provisions relating to how the five education and library boards will receive and account for resources allocated to them by their funding Departments. I should explain that although the bulk of the resources received by the boards comes from my Department, the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure and the Department for Employment and Learning pay other amounts for certain services provided by the boards. For example, the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure funds the public library service.

For the most part, these new provisions are technical changes required as a result of Government financial accounting's moving from cash to an accrual basis. However, I want to draw Members' attention to those provisions that will formally introduce best value in the five education and library boards.

When the Labour Party came to power in 1997, it gave a commitment to replace compulsory competitive tendering (CCT) with a new duty of best value in the delivery of public services. At that time, my Department introduced subordinate legislation to suspend the operation of CCT provisions for certain specified education and library board services until 31 March 2003. New arrangements need to be put in place before this period of suspension of CCT comes to an end.

I am proposing in this Bill to introduce a best value regime in respect of services provided by the education and library boards and to revoke fully the CCT provisions of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1993. These actions are provided for in clauses 11 and 14 of the Bill respectively. The five education and library boards operate best value principles on a voluntary basis, but this part of the Bill provides a statutory basis for best value. The boards will be required to make arrangements for continuous improvement in the way in which they carry out their functions, having regard to economy, efficiency and effectiveness.

My Department has no wish to increase the burden on the boards by prescribing how they should carry out their duty in this regard. It is for the boards to decide for themselves. However, in deciding how to carry out their duty, it is important that they consult those who use, are likely to use or, indeed, have an interest in the services provided by them. The Bill provides for such consultation.

Article 20 of the 1993 Order specifies a list of non-commercial matters that should not be taken into consideration by an education and library board when awarding contracts for the supply of goods, materials or services. Such non-commercial matters include the terms and conditions of employment of a potential contractor's workforce and the country or territory of origin of supplies to be used in meeting the contract.

Clause 12 of the Bill provides my Department with powers to make subordinate legislation, subject to a draft's being approved by the Assembly, amending this list in the interest of promoting other key policy issues. That will allow a balance to be struck between avoiding discriminatory practice in awarding contracts and ensuring that all relevant matters are taken into consideration. That replicates the approach adopted in the Local Government (Best Value) Act (Northern Ireland) 2002 and the equivalent legislation in Britain.

To ensure that boards can deliver their duty of best value, provision is included in clause 13 of the Bill to enable my Department to make an Order to remove any obstacles preventing or obstructing boards from complying with their statutory duty in this regard or, if necessary, to give appropriate powers to boards to ensure that they can comply with their duty of best value. However, before any proposed Order is laid formally before the Assembly for approval, my Department will advance an explanatory document containing details of the draft proposals together with details of consultations that have taken place on them.

In determining how we would implement best value in the boards, I have had regard to the provision of the Local Government (Best Value) Act (Northern Ireland) 2002. Therefore, the approach that I have taken is similar to the way in which best value will apply in local government here. My Colleagues, the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure and the Minister for Employment and Learning, support this proposal for the services provided by the boards for which they have responsibility.

A LeasCheann Comhairle, in part III of the Bill I plan to introduce several provisions that are concerned directly with children's protection and welfare. In clause 15 I propose that the duty of care, which is already placed on a school's board of governors in respect of pupils who are boarders under the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, be extended to include all pupils who attend the school.

In addition, my Department has power to direct a board of governors to comply with a duty set out in education legislation. I seek a further power extending this to include the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 duty of care in respect of pupils in boarding departments. This will mean that should an inspection of facilities in a boarding department identify weaknesses that place pupils at risk, action can be taken by my Department to direct improvement.

Perhaps the most important provision in this part of the Bill is clause 16. It will introduce a requirement for all grant-aided schools to have a written child protection policy and to make a copy of the policy available to parents. While I am assured that, as a matter of good practice, all schools have a child protection policy, there is a widely held concern among those engaged actively in promoting the safety of children that reliance on good practice in such an important matter is insufficient. Other Members and I share that concern.

Consequently, clause 16 will impose a duty on boards of governors to ensure that there is a child protection policy at their school and that it is implemented. Furthermore, it will require that, in preparing the policy, schools must take account of guidance provided by my Department, the boards and the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS). This will ensure that school policies are kept up to date and are based on the most recent advice available.

Clause 17 contains another significant provision. It will require schools to address the problem of bullying through their discipline policies. I have told the Assembly on several occasions of my intention to make this a requirement for schools. Members should note that for the first time here the legislation includes a requirement for schools to consult with pupils when developing their anti-bullying policies. This development is entirely consistent with our broader agenda to create an inclusive society. It will allow young people to participate actively in forming strategies to tackle a problem that directly concerns them. I am confident that the involvement of all pupils - those who are bullied, those who bully and those on the sidelines not knowing what to do - in the development of an anti-bullying culture will improve considerably the chances of tackling effectively this most pernicious and persistent problem.

A LeasCheann Comhairle, this part of the Bill also contains several other provisions, some of which I will now outline. First, clause 20 contains a new power to allocate places in special schools to children from the South of Ireland or other jurisdictions for an appropriate charge. This will maximise the use of our special schools and allow the needs of more children to be met. The provision will also make it clear that places can only be offered to non-resident children if they are not needed for local children.

Secondly, in clause 21, I propose to introduce a new power to make regulations to enable the Department, in exceptional circumstances, to remove from office all voting and co-opted members of a school's boards of governors. However, it would not apply to the school principal, who is a non-voting member. It is expected that the use of this power will arise only rarely. It is designed to deal with circumstances in which a school is failing to provide an adequate education for the children, and the Department is of the view that the entire board of governors, either through its actions or inactions, is contributing in whole or in part to that failure.

Before a decision is taken to remove a board of governors, consultation will take place with the appropriate body, such as the local education and library board or the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools. Arrangements will also be made to advise and consult with the board of governors concerned about the decision and for any representations to be considered. Appointments to the board of governors are made by a range of bodies, and the new powers will allow those bodies that have authority to nominate individual representatives to a board of governors and to remove and replace their individual representatives.

Clause 22 will make it a statutory requirement that the person or body representing the school should consult with the board of governors, teaching staff and parents before the publication of a development proposal. Such a proposal is a statutory process, which is required when a school authority wishes to make a significant change to the education provision in a specific area - for example, a school closure or the amalgamation of two or more schools. The clause will ensure that all relevant interests are consulted fully about such changes.

In support of the initiative to ease the bureaucratic burden on schools, a provision will be introduced in clause 25 to allow the Department to consult a representative sample of schools, rather than all affected schools, before making regulations about provision of information on pupils and school performance targets. That will not affect the right of any school to express a view on any consultation, and all schools will continue to be notified that consultation exercises have been initiated.

Four of the provisions in part IV of the Bill, clauses 27 to 30, will reduce or remove entirely the need for education and library boards to seek the approval of my Department on certain administrative matters. Clause 32 will allow education and library boards to make arrangements for education to be provided by an institution of further education for certain pupils, such as expelled or disaffected pupils who are over 14 years of age and not on a school register. There is already provision in existing legislation for the education of pupils at Key Stage 4 on link or work-related courses that are provided at further education colleges rather than at schools. This proposed change would extend that provision for an estimated 200 pupils each year.

Clause 34 will amend legislation introduced in 1987 to make corporal punishment unlawful in all schools, including the small number of independent schools here, and also in settings where education is provided other than at a mainstream school. That will bring the legislative provisions here into line with those in Britain, following a decision of the European Court.

The main purpose of the Bill is to introduce a common formula for calculating school budgets. That will remove the inequities in the present system, and the Assembly will welcome that commitment. The detail of the common funding scheme, including the formula, has yet to be finalised. I hope to work closely with the Committee for Education over the next few months on that important task.

The remainder of the Bill deals with a range of issues, some of a technical and minor nature and others of importance for young people. I have not covered every provision, but I have focused on those that are the most important. I shall be happy to respond to any points raised by Members.

In broad terms I welcome the Education and Libraries Bill. My Committee members are looking forward to the Committee Stage. The Committee appreciated the fact that officials from the Department of Education attended a recent meeting and briefed members on the purpose and detail of the Bill.

I intend to keep my comments brief, because it is important that the Committee for Education considers the Bill in great detail. The Committee expects to be given the opportunity for full and appropriate consideration of the Bill, and would be concerned were there to be a request for accelerated passage.

As the Minister has said, the Bill's primary purpose is to provide enabling power to introduce a single common formula to calculate school budgets for all schools under local management of schools (LMS) arrangements. However, the Minister has confirmed that the Bill will not prescribe that formula.

The Committee expects that any new LMS arrangements would have to have widespread support and carry the Committee's endorsement. I seek an assurance from the Minister that he will ensure that that consensus is worked for and achieved, and that he will not attempt to force his own proposals into the new arrangements. As in most matters, the devil is in the detail, and the Committee will expect to see the details and to be in a position to approve them.

The Committee for Education strongly believes that the current situation, in which schools in different sectors but with identical characteristics receive varying budgets, is neither satisfactory nor equitable. Therefore, we welcome the introduction of a common funding formula for grant-aided schools. The Committee spent a great deal of time examining in detail the proposals for a common formula for grant-aided schools. It produced a comprehensive report that included several key recommendations. We anticipate that those recommendations will form the basis of the new funding arrangements.

It is clear that the outcome of any changes will impact on the amount of money that every school in Northern Ireland will have to spend on providing the best education for our children. Therefore, we shall wish to give detailed consideration to the relevant clauses.

Part II of the Bill deals with the financing of boards and the duty of best value. That is an opportunity to place the present voluntary application of best value to education and library board services on a statutory footing, which is to be welcomed.

Part III of the Bill includes provisions for the Department to remove a school's board of governors. It is the Department's intention to invoke that power where it is convinced that it would be in the best interest of the school. However, that would be a court of last resort and should be viewed as such. The Committee looks forward to scrutinising that area in detail.

Those provisions of the Bill that require schools to have a written child protection policy and an anti-bullying policy reassure the Committee. Those policies will serve to strengthen the rights of children. All Members will agree that the welfare of our children is of the utmost importance.

Additional clauses that involve the abolition of corporal punishment will undoubtedly arouse interest and much debate, not least in the independent school sector.

I draw the Minister's attention - and he referred to this in his opening remarks - to the need for a cohesive approach, not only with regard to the local management of schools common funding formula, but also the proposals and possible implementation which will arise from the outcome of the Burns Report and the curriculum review. It would be nonsensical to move forward on any of those proposals in isolation of the other important issues. They are all interlinked, and good common sense determines that to make progress we must be aware of the structural, financial and curriculum implications.

The Committee for Education looks forward to considering the Bill and examining the clauses in detail. It is committed to conducting a detailed scrutiny, and it intends to consult widely and take evidence from interested parties. The Committee will want to examine the detail of the proposals - not just the generalities - and it will want to be satisfied that there is a strong consensus in the Committee, the Executive and the Assembly for new proposals when they are brought forward.

Although many of the provisions in the Bill are necessary tidying-up measures which reflect changes that have occurred in the education system, some of the issues are insidious and Members should be concerned about them. The Bill should not be allowed to go through in its totality or without significant amendment.

Clauses 1 to 7 deal with the funding of grant-aided schools and the common funding scheme. The Minister's proposals have already caused considerable opposition, some from right across the board. There has been consultation, but the Bill makes it clear that it will be up to the Minister to determine what goes into the common funding formula.

Clause 1 goes through the consultation process. It is important to remember - as the Chairperson said - that the contents of the Bill affect the fairness of moneys available for the education of children in all school sectors in Northern Ireland. Clause 1(8) proposes that following all the consultation:

Clause 11 then states that it will be the duty of each board to implement the scheme.

Given that there is already a degree of suspicion about the scheme as presented by the Minister and since on many occasions he has ignored the outcome of consultation and turned his back on the views of the Assembly and the Committee for Education, I am not happy about enabling legislation that allows him to implement, without first having presented it to the Assembly, a scheme which Members have not yet seen and which they will not be required to approve, according to the Bill.

That is a very dangerous way to proceed. I suspect that the enabling legislation was proposed because the Minister knows that parts of his scheme will be unacceptable to elements in the Assembly. A well-aired concern is the favourable treatment that he proposed and that was recommended by a small minority to whom, I suspect, the Minister will pay great heed.

The Minister proposes to provide additional funding for Irish-medium education. If he adopted some of the recommendations of the Irish-medium sector, youngsters at those schools could receive nearly £1,000 more funding than pupils at controlled or maintained schools. That is one reason why the controlled and the maintained sectors opposed the scheme.

I could give other examples, but we are not discussing the common funding formula. I wanted to illustrate why Members should not empower the Minister to implement a scheme for which there is a consultation process that the Bill enables him to ignore. I have grave concerns about the current Minister of Education, but I would not want to grant that power to any Minister. Major decisions such as funding are crucial to schools' ability to carry out their functions. Members should not give a carte blanche to the Minister as regards school funding.

I hope that clauses 1 to 7 do not remain in the Bill. I have no difficulty with legislation to enable the Minister to introduce a common funding formula scheme that has been seen and agreed. However, I will not take a leap of faith by believing that the Minister will do the decent thing. The scheme must be seen and agreed. It will be important that the Committee for Education address clauses 1 to 7 in great detail.

I do not imagine that anyone opposes the imposition of a duty on boards of governors to safeguard and promote the welfare of pupils. However, Members must be clear about the implications. Given the onerous duties and burdens on boards of governors, it is often difficult to get people to serve on those bodies. They now have financial responsibility for schools, and that burden increases daily, especially given schools' funding deficit. Now we are to impose on boards of governors the duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of pupils registered at the school at all times, either when they are on the premises or in the lawful control or charge of school staff. What does that mean? What are its implications?

If youngsters go on a school trip and something happens, such as the tragic accident in France last week, which may be due to negligence of an individual, will the board of governors be legally responsible? If school procedures break down and a child is injured, will the boards of governors be held responsible? If so, it will be even more difficult to serve on a board of governors. The Committee ought to be teasing out the implications of that.

Clause 16 (2) goes even further. Part of the child protection measures is that abuse

The board of governors is responsible for that, but how far does it go? It is a catch-all. If a youngster is under pressure at exam time, is that a form of mental abuse? Is the board of governors responsible for schools pushing youngsters too hard or pushing them over the brink? I do not know. However, those questions must be answered because a board of governors consists of people who give up their time for no remuneration. They ought to know that they are not placing their livelihoods in jeopardy by legislation that is vaguely worded and is therefore a lawyers' paradise or which may even be designed to put more responsibility on the boards.

Clause 17, which the Chairperson of the Education Committee mentioned, refers to school discipline measures to prevent bullying. Some may think it ironic that the Minister of Education is concerned about bullying. I will not go down that route, although I could speak for quite a while on it. Our response is to present more paper documents. School policies on bullying will not solve the problem. Schools can write all the fanciful documents they wish, but that does not deal with the problem.

Schools and teachers must have effective sanctions to deal with bullies. Ironically, clause 34 abolishes one of the sanctions that teachers had to deal with classroom bullies. Schools will not be permitted under any circumstances to use corporal punishment. On one hand, it is foolish to say that we will tackle these problems - and teachers complain about that all the time - and on the other hand remove the means for teachers to tackle them. I notice that a few Members of IRA/Sinn Féin are laughing at that. One of the actions strongly advocated by IRA/Sinn Féin for dealing with bullies in the ghettos that it controls is corporal punishment administered with nail-studded baseball bats. Nevertheless, they seem to think it funny that we ask for powers of corporal punishment to be available to teachers.

In Part IV of the Bill, clause 32 deals with the provision of secondary education for pupils by institutions of further education. I understand why some schools might welcome that. However, I also envisage difficulties because of the way in which the system currently operates. Unless there are good reasons for a youngster who is under the age of 16 to be educated somewhere other than at school, he or she cannot be educated in a college of further education, although that can happen when local arrangements have been made. The Bill may simply be designed to regularise that. Many colleges of further education welcomed the fact that they no longer had to take in GCSE students. However, colleges with falling student numbers may welcome back those students.

One thing must be made clear. If a board arranges for secondary education to be provided by an institute of further education for youngsters who are registered at Key Stage 4 and who are over the age of 14, the grounds on which that can be done should be specified. There will be all kinds of difficulties for boards and schools, such as when parents who are in despair about their child - or youngsters who are unhappy at school - put undue pressure on the board to move them to a college of further education, regardless of whether that is the most suitable place to educate them. The criteria on which that can be done must be made clear. It should not be open-ended. The Committee will examine that matter.

Parts of the Bill should be welcomed. However, certain sections of the Bill, such as the enabling legislation, should not be passed until Members know exactly what the Department will impose on boards. Until there is clarification from the Department, the Assembly should be wary of some parts of the Bill.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Having listened to Sammy Wilson's remarks, I am glad that he is not the Minister of Education. He seemed to know what my Colleague and I were laughing at, though he has to admit that he has been a figure of fun in the past - not least in the media.

There is much to be welcomed in the Bill, but there is still much work to be done. You would have thought that this was the main debate of the day. The battle lines have been drawn about how agreement is reached on various issues. However, I can see how that will work itself out.

The Minister's past practice has always been to the benefit and best interest of all the children of Northern Ireland, and not any particular grouping. I welcome the consideration that lies behind the Bill and look forward to the Committee's discussion of the final details, especially part I, clauses 1 to 7. I welcome the enabling legislation that will allow the Minister to introduce a common funding formula for schools, thus bringing to an end the disparity between similar schools in the board areas and the fact that there were seven different formulae. The issue was debated at length last year. Many schools, especially those in areas of high disadvantage, await the Minister's final proposals with hope and some trepidation. I hope that the Minister will take advantage of the enabling legislation in order to introduce a fair and equitable funding scheme. Perhaps the fears that were mentioned will not unfold.

Clauses 11, 12 and 13 in part II of the Bill are based on the wording of the Local Government (Best Value) Act (Northern Ireland) 2002, which was passed by the Assembly earlier this year. Those clauses will allow the Department of Education to take steps to ensure that education and library boards comply with equality legislation in the functions that they exercise and in the contracts that they enter into.

Issues such as fair employment and equality can be taken into account, not just price. I welcome the departure from the purely monetary approach of the past.

I especially commend the Minister and his Department on part III of the Bill, which proposes to strengthen children's rights. I particularly applaud the proposed requirement for schools to have a written anti-bullying policy that complies with current departmental guidance. It is important that those policies be written down.

The present approach is very haphazard. Schools can decide to have no guidance or policy. Where policies are designed, they often depend on how people feel at the time, or on how individuals feel about dealing with bullying or any difficulties with young children. It is down to individuals, individual schools, boards of governors and whomever else they consult at the time. Guidelines must be written down in order for people to know exactly how to react to those difficulties.

Bullying is an especially complex issue. We want to find a way of resolving it because, as has been said, it has one of the greatest impacts on individuals and schools. Something must be done, because the problem has not been dealt with yet. Some form of approach is required, and written guidance would be no bad thing. Unless such a policy exists in writing and is of a certain standard, it is difficult for pupils and their parents to discuss bullying with a school that parents feel has failed to protect their children adequately.

It is unfortunate that, in those unhappy cases where a child has been left vulnerable, the legislation does not require written guidance. Recent research into mental health and the well-being of young people has listed bullying as a major factor in depression and suicide. Bullying is not only a matter of children's rights, but a matter of children's health.

I welcome part IV, which mentions a complete ban on corporal punishment, as proposed in clause 34. I will not comment on it as it has already been mentioned. However, I am opposed completely to Sammy Wilson's notion of corporal punishment and, indeed, his laughable comments on other issues.

Corporal punishment in schools is recognised widely as an assault on children. It can only be described as a physical assault on children. It is no longer seen as the hallmark of good education, but rather as an admission of a school's failure to establish good behaviour except through the use of force.

At a time when this society is moving away from the use of force to solve its political problems, it would be a very unwelcome step to go back or continue with corporal punishment for the benefit of education. I will continue to hold that view in this debate and at Committee level. There is no place for corporal punishment, and Members should not support it.

The Bill boils down to providing the Department with the power to require education and library boards to adopt the common funding scheme. Clause 1 provides for widespread consultation, yet there does not appear to be any obligation on the Department to take note of any views expressed either by education and library boards or by boards of governors. Clause 13 refers to the power to modify statutory provisions, and subsection (9) of that clause requires the Department to consider any representations made. Can that obligation not be made clear with reference to the consultation in clause 1?

Clause I, subsection (10) gives the Department the authority to adopt and publish a scheme where the Department does not consider that it makes any significant change to the previous scheme.

What consideration has been given to assistance for schools that may be affected adversely by the change of formula? How does the Department of Education propose to agree enrolment figures for the purposes of funding in respect of school intakes in September? At the latter end of the previous financial year, that could be highly speculative.

In part I of the Bill, clause 2(5)(b) states that the common funding formula

The explanatory and financial memorandum refers to voluntary grammar schools and grant-maintained integrated schools. Why does the Bill not mention them? Will a common formula apply to all primary, secondary and grammar schools?

The implication in clause 2, subsections (5), (6) and (7) is that the preparatory department of a grammar school is likely to receive nil funding. Why is a preparatory school not permitted funding equal to that of a primary school? There are tiny primary schools and Irish-medium schools, all of which receive funding. In the name of equality I cannot understand why, if some parents choose a preparatory school, why funding should not be equal.

Clause 21 gives the Minister of Education the right, following consultation with

to determine certain circumstances regarding the removal of members of boards of governors. The explanatory and financial memorandum refers to those bodies as the education and library boards and the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS). Could that not be made clear in the Bill? In addition, why is this the only instance in which the Minister, and not the Department of Education, has been given the power?

When taking into account the common funding formula, consideration should be given to the exclusion of teachers' salaries from the local management of schools budget. Teachers' salary costs should be centrally retained, thus removing a major cause of inequality.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The main purpose of the Bill is dealt with in part I, which contains provisions to enable the Department of Education to introduce a single common funding formula for the calculation of budgets for all schools funded under LMS arrangements.

I repeat that to have seven different formulae is indefensible, inequitable and nonsensical. I am committed, as are almost all of us, to the single common formula. That will effectively ensure that schools with similar characteristics receive similar levels of funding, regardless of the area or sector in which they are located.

We must also remember that the principle of a common funding formula has been agreed by the Executive and is stated in the Programme for Government. It received widespread endorsement in the consultation exercise undertaken last year, and it is supported by the Committee for Education, apart from the individual comments of some Members. Although the make-up of the formula has not yet been agreed, it is agreed generally that there should be a common formula.

I am sure that Members in general will welcome these provisions for the simple reason that they remove the inequalities in our current system of funding for schools. It is important to emphasise that nothing in the arrangements for the common funding formula would prejudice or pre-empt any decision on the most appropriate structures for post-primary education. Danny Kennedy raised that point in the course of his contribution.

The main purpose of the Bill is to introduce a common funding formula for calculating schools' budgets. Here we can address an outstanding issue that many Members agree must be dealt with. The detail of the common funding scheme, including the formula, has yet to be finalised, and I hope to work closely with the Committee for Education in the coming months.

I thank those Members who contributed to such an important debate. Danny Kennedy's contribution was especially encouraging, as it was generally positive and helpful. I am always happy to discuss the need for change with the Committee. I welcome its views, and, although I may not agree with all of them, it is essential that those views be fed into the decision-making process. Decisions on funding levels impact on schools, and on the pupils and staff. In my response to the Committee's report, I stated that I am happy to discuss the relevant issues with it.

Sammy Wilson raised concerns about the level of support for the common funding formula. Most of the proposals commanded majority support, with a significant number attracting a high level of support. Not surprisingly, some proposals attracted less support and my officials have reflected further on respondents' comments. Points that were raised include: the size of the budget; TSN; the treatment of teachers' salary costs; and the funding of Irish-medium provision. I expect those issues to be subject to further discussions with the Committee for Education as part of the development of the common funding scheme.

Sammy Wilson referred also to the approval of the scheme. The common funding scheme will be published by the Department and made available to Members as a matter of course. However, it is not the intention that the scheme will be subject to the approval of the Assembly, although, of course, the Committee for Education can continue to play an important role in its development and operation. Any Member can initiate a debate on the scheme at any time.

It is also important to point out to Sammy Wilson that existing LMS schemes are not set out in Regulations. The timetable for subordinate legislation would mean that any changes to the common funding scheme would have to be identified up to a year in advance of application, which would restrict the formula's capacity to react quickly to changing circumstances. Were Regulations a requirement, the common formula could not be implemented for the 2003-04 funding allocations.

Will the Minister give way?

No, I want to respond to all Sammy Wilson's points. He raised the issue of ministerial decision making. I note his concerns but I must take account of the practicalities. Schools must be informed of their budgets in advance of the new financial year. Decisions on the make-up of the scheme and the formula must be made on the basis of the information that is available on trends in schools. That highlights the need to avoid a cumbersome and bureaucratic approval process. I am conscious of the need to work closely with the Committee to achieve as much consensus as possible, and I shall continue to do so.

Sammy Wilson said that policies on bullying will not solve the problem and that effective sanctions are needed. I am abolishing corporal punishment, which has been outlawed in all grant-aided schools since 1987. New provision will extend that law to independent schools and is necessary to comply with a judgement of the European Court of Human Rights, so we do not have any discretion. The provision is necessary because bullying exists in our schools and can have a serious educational and emotional impact on the children involved. Many schools have already voluntarily developed an anti-bullying policy. However, I want to strengthen the legislation on school discipline to make it mandatory for every grant-aided school to have a written anti-bullying policy, and, more importantly, to implement it.

Duty of care is also important. The provisions that I am introducing simply make the in loco parentis duty explicit. That duty is existing common law, and the courts rely on it. It has existed since 1995 for boarders. There has been no evidence that that provision has been used mischievously - all children deserve the same safeguards.

The clause dealing with Key Stage 4 pupils who continue on to further education colleges allows education and library boards to make provision at a further education institution for any pupil over 14 who is not on a school register. A pupil will not be able to decide to leave school to go to further education. The clause will allow boards to provide for expelled and disaffected pupils for whom they are obliged to provide education; this they do by means of home tuition or education at places other than schools. Boards will now be able to do that by placing pupils in further education colleges.

Sammy Wilson and Joan Carson referred to removing boards of governors. The legislation allows governors to be removed for particular reasons, such as bankruptcy. The Department of Education also has the power to appoint governors to a board in certain circumstances. I expect this power to be used only in exceptional circumstances. It is designed to deal with situations in which, for example, a school fails to provide adequate education, and the Department holds the view that the entire board of governors, through its actions or inaction, contributes wholly or partly to that failure. It is not possible to prescribe all the circumstances in which that may arise, so it is intended that the Department should be able to invoke the power when it is convinced that that is in a school's best interests.

Mrs Carson also mentioned grammar schools' preparatory departments, and she asked whether further reductions in public funding are planned for them. My answer is "Not necessarily", but given the need to maintain firm control of public expenditure, it is simply impossible to give guarantees on any area of expenditure.

Mrs Carson also mentioned teachers' salaries. During the consultation there was no significant support for removing teachers' salaries from the local management of schools funding, and it is important to point that out.

Sammy Wilson referred to Irish-medium education. I do not propose to go into detail on that -

The Minister will recall that in the consultation on the local management of schools funding formula on teachers' salaries, the clear suggestion was made that the actual salaries should be met rather than the average salaries, which is the present situation. Is the Minister prepared to accept that principle in his new arrangements?

It was clear during the consultation, and everybody accepted it, that there was no significant support for removing teachers' salaries from local management of schools funding. If there are other dimensions to that, there will doubtless be further discussions between officials, the Committee for Education and me.

It is important to point out that Irish-medium schools and units have additional costs. I will be happy to discuss that with the Committee for Education in future.

That is effectively all that I have to say. I welcome Mrs Carson's, Mr McHugh's and Mr Kennedy's positive and constructive comments. I am slightly disappointed that Mr S Wilson got involved in some of his usual grandstanding, but that is only to be expected.

This is an important Bill that deals with important issues and removes inequalities. It is recognised that having seven different formulae does not make sense. The majority of MLAs recognise that reform is needed, and I commend the Bill to the House.

The Bill stands referred to the Committee for Education.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>