COMMITTEE FOR EDUCATION
OFFICIAL REPORT
(Hansard)
Education Bill
11 March 2009
Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Mervyn Storey (Chairperson)
Mrs Mary Bradley
Mr Tom Elliott
Mr Trevor Lunn
Mr Nelson McCausland
Mr Basil McCrea
Miss Michelle McIlveen
Mr John O’Dowd
Michelle O’Neill
Witnesses:
| Dr Evelyn Dermott | } |
| Mr Brett Lockhart | } Governing Bodies Association |
| Mr Finbar McCallion | } |
| Mr Shane McBrien | } |
| Mr Stephen McConnell | } Northern Ireland Voluntary Grammar Schools’ Bursars Association |
| Mr John Robinson | } |
| Mr John McGrath | } |
| Mr Chris Stewart | } Department of Education |
| Ms Eve Stewart | } |
The Chairperson (Mr Storey):
You are very welcome. However, I am afraid that I must vacate the Chair and hand over to Mr McCausland.
(The Acting Chairperson [Mr McCausland] in the Chair)
The Acting Chairperson (Mr McCausland):
I welcome the representatives of the Governing Bodies Association. I remind members that four additional stakeholder responses have been added to the papers for today’s evidence session. There is also a spreadsheet, which groups stakeholders’ comments by clause or schedule. It is an interim version, but it comprises the most substantial responses that have been received to date. Members will be provided with an updated version as soon as possible.
I will now hand over to Dr Evelyn Dermott, Mr Brett Lockhart and Mr Finbar McCallion. You will have 10 minutes to make your presentation and then we will move into questions.
Dr Evelyn Dermott (Governing Bodies Association):
Thank you for your invitation to present the Governing Bodies Association’s (GBA) position on the Education Bill to the Committee. As members know, we have expressed grave concerns about several aspects of the proposed legislation in meetings with departmental officials and in correspondence with the Minister. We are pleased to have this opportunity to present our concerns to the Committee.
I trust that members have been provided with copies of our written submission and the correspondence between the GBA and the Minister. As time is limited, I will not go through the whole submission paragraph by paragraph; however, I will group the paragraphs and tell you which ones I am speaking to. I hope that that is acceptable.
I will begin with paragraphs 1 to 4. The main purpose of the Education Bill is to set up the Education and Skills Authority (ESA). That body will become the largest education authority in western Europe. It will be an all-powerful controller of every aspect of schools provision in Northern Ireland, and so, it cannot but become a huge and enormously expensive bureaucracy. The original aims of education reform, which we supported, were to reduce bureaucracy, release additional funds for services and develop targeted support for schools. We still want to support those aims. However, the proposals for the ESA indicate that it will be an enormous and costly bureaucratic controlling body, which will have ultimate responsibility for all significant decisions on the running of schools.
The GBA is concerned that the ESA, as outlined in the Bill, will, inevitably, become an ever-growing bureaucracy, with no restriction on the proportion of the education budget that it can accrue unto itself. Among other things, it will be the employer of all staff and the sole procurement authority. It will have powers to appoint, remove and replace governors. It will standardise the schemes of management of our schools, and it will determine the precise role of every school through area planning. In contrast to that all-empowering body, the GBA would like to see an ESA that would enable, facilitate and support — not control.
Paragraphs 5 to 10 make it clear that the ESA will be the employer of every person involved in education. Staff will be employed in our schools, not by our schools. All attendant responsibilities will, therefore, rest with this remote juggernaut organisation.
We have expressed grave concerns regarding that aspect to the Minister. In her reply, the Minister has given us assurances for which the Bill provides no statutory basis, and that was the bottom line of our concern. She said that some schools may wish to be responsible for all employment matters; but there are no clauses in the Bill to match that statement. We submit, therefore, that clause 3(1) be amended as suggested in paragraphs 8 and 10 of our submission. Our proposed amendment would mean that the schools that did not wish to assume responsibility for employment would have those responsibilities assumed by the ESA. However, a board of governors that chose to do so could continue to act as employer subject to the normal strictures of employment law.
Paragraphs 11 to 13 deal with the principle of autonomy and protection of the ethos of our schools, which, as you know, we hold dear. The GBA maintains that the principle of autonomy and protecting the ethos of schools should be enshrined in law. Ethos-protection provisions are included in the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, and there is no reason, in principle, why ethos protection could not be included in the Bill.
The GBA wishes to have those principles as rights within law. We cannot be satisfied with non-binding intentions, such as those expressed in the Minister’s correspondence. The GBA submits that if the Minister and the Department are genuinely committed to preserving ethos and maximising autonomy in school governance, the present legislative model will require an amendment. It could be done.
Paragraphs 14 to 22 refer to school governance and management, which also come into the Bill. They are areas of great concern. As the Bill is drafted, the powers of the ESA will not only allow regulation of membership of boards of governors, it will allow total control over their procedures to control school schemes of management. We consider that that is excessively bureaucratic and will give power to intervene in all aspects of school management to an unprecedented degree. Again, the Minister’s written sentiments are contrary to the Bill. I refer members to paragraphs 17 and 18 of our submission. Regardless of whether it is the desire of the Minister, the Bill allows intervention in school management to an unacceptable level.
Paragraphs 20 and 21 also deal with governance. The ESA will have powers to intervene if it decides that a school is underperforming. We submit that the need for the centralised intervention in school governance must be predicated on the objectively verifiable and continuing need for that intervention.
I remind the Committee and everyone who is interested in education that good schools and school improvement come about by good leadership and inspired teaching, not by an overwhelming bureaucracy.
The ESA, therefore, should not be given the powers of an inspectorate. Our submission suggests that relevant clauses be aligned with the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998 so that such powers reside with the Department of Education, not with the ESA. That would be much more appropriate.
The GBA has seen no compelling argument as to why governance-oversight arrangements that apply in England and Wales cannot also be appropriate in Northern Ireland. We invite the Committee to reflect on the comparative bureaucratic and resource costs involved in the GB scheme as opposed to those that will arise from those that are proposed in the Education Bill.
The Acting Chairperson:
Has the GBA met with Department of Education officials? The Minister’s letter of 24 February 2009 made that suggestion.
Dr Dermott:
We declined that invitation.
The Acting Chairperson:
Was there a reason for that?
Dr Dermott:
The reason was to do with time.
Mr Finbar McCallion (Governing Bodies Association):
There was also an issue in that the Minister was implying that we did not understand the Bill, and that her officials would explain it to us. We had already had discussions with the officials, who explained the Bill to us and told us that the ESA would be the employer of all teachers. It seemed strange to go back and be told the same thing again.
The Acting Chairperson:
On the basis of clause 8(2), the Department of Education states:
“The ESA may not lawfully refuse to put into effect any proper decision of a board of governors on employment matters.”
If model employment schemes and the associated guidance were to set that out clearly — along with other points that you consider need to be clarified — and if those were subject to full consultation with submitting authorities, possibly with an independent appeals system and/or subject to Assembly regulation and control of ESA guidance and model schemes, would some of your key concerns be removed?
Mr Brett Lockhart (Governing Bodies Association):
There is no doubt that the legislation expresses a desire to retain the principle of accountable autonomy and that the structures and the architecture of the legislation are such that the ESA will try to give effect to the decisions that are made. The concern is that issues of conflict will cause a problem. When such issues arise, a school takes its own decision. It must comply with the law, and if it does not, it must face the consequences. Schools protect and guard their own ethos, and they, ultimately, make the decisions.
If there were a tribunal, there would be a question about who the respondent would be: the answer is that it would be the ESA, because it would be the employer. A school may have all the schemes that it wants, and the ESA may say that it will give effect to the school’s desires, but the retention of discretion remains with the ESA. If there were a major issue in a school and a teacher were sacked, the ESA would defend that decision. The ESA, for all its desire to maintain ethos, will be a huge bureaucratic organisation that will not, with the best will in the world, do that in the way that schools are able to do.
For example, in the 1930s, the Protestant Churches decided that they could entrust the control of their schools to the state. All sorts of promises were offered, and the Churches accepted them. For years, Protestant ministers had ex officio positions in controlled schools. Recently, the Transferor Representatives’ Council, which is the representative body for the Churches in those schools, was informed that they can no longer have ex officio positions because that would be in breach of equality legislation. The ex officio positions were removed from Stranmillis University College because it was decided that that was in breach of equality legislation.
A plethora of instances and opportunities exist for debate and disagreement on what is stated in the Human Rights Act 1998 or in equality legislation, and on the obligations for schools. The ESA will be the body that has to defend that. With the best will in the world, that will not happen. Realistically, schools must defend their position. They have done so successfully for generations, but someone has now decided that he or she has a much better idea. The opportunities for dispute are legion, and the idea that the ESA will somehow be able to take on board each and every ethos and represent them in other jurisdictions and forums is fanciful.
Mr Lunn:
You said that the ESA will become a monolithic structure, and that it will be costly, overly bureaucratic, and totally controlling. Setting aside the element of control, on what do you base your assertion that it will be costly?
Dr Dermott:
It is perfectly simple: the amount of work that it will have to do will mean that it will have to employ a legion of people.
Mr Lunn:
Is that similar to the present situation with the boards? The ESA is intended to save money: how did you assess that it would cost more?
Mr McCallion:
One problem with the ESA is that the Bill places no financial control on it. In paragraph 6.14 of his report, Professor Bain highlighted that school boards of governors in Northern Ireland receive 62% of the education budget to manage their schools, whereas schools in England typically receive more than 80%. Is that because the English are more generous? No; it is because the law in England states that local education authorities (LEAs) must drive up the percentage of money that goes directly to schools. The Education Bill does not contain such a provision and, therefore, the ESA, by its nature, must acquire the money slowly.
We are also concerned about the situation of primary schools in Northern Ireland. The amounts of money received per pupil in Northern Ireland and Wales are similar, yet the amount that goes to each primary school here is £500 less than in Wales. It is not that the Welsh are less generous, but that the bureaucracy in Wales squeezed the money out into the schools. The problem for voluntary grammar schools is that when we dealt with the Department in the past, we managed to get about 90% of our budget, because the Department did not hoard the money. The difficulty with the boards is that they tended to expand their facilities and services.
Almost 10% of Northern Ireland’s Budget is earmarked for particular issues, which is a much higher figure than Congress in America is complaining about. Northern Ireland has an enormous number of issues for which funding has been earmarked, and the problem is that those issues are difficult to control. At present, local people can complain to the boards, but the ESA will be a much more centralised and centralising organisation. People who live in Armagh can get in touch with the chief officer of the Southern Board, as some members have probably done. You also know where to find Barry Mulholland of the Western Board. However, what will happen when there is one central board, regardless of where the ESA may be located?
People are able to reach the boards because their councillors talk to them monthly or even weekly. I sat on the Belfast Board, and I know the amount of pushing and shoving that goes on between boards and councillors. However, even with that, the boards took too much money. RPA was intended to address that problem.
The problem for us is that we are going into a scheme, under RPA, which is intended to save money. However, there is nothing in the Bill stating how the money will be saved or specifying the percentage of money that should be used by the ESA. I do not mind whether it is 5% or 10 %, but a percentage must be fixed. As the Bill does not fix a percentage, it is likely that when we return in two or three years’ time we may discover that the ESA is spending 30% of the money, and we will be told that that is a success.
Mr Lunn:
Perhaps we can take up that point: you certainly made it forcefully. However, it is only your opinion that the ESA will be monolithic, huge and expensive: you have no calculations to prove that. You have an impression that that will be the case as, in fairness, do many others. However the ESA has calculated that it will make savings; not more expense.
Mr McCallion:
I think that their savings are based on the expenditure of the boards. One needs to compare those savings with what is happening elsewhere in, for example, GB. In the Republic of Ireland, the Committee on Education and Science takes a lower percentage of the budget than bureaucracy in Northern Ireland.
We have been frightened. There are currently five chief officers of the boards plus the head of the CCMS. Initial plans for the ESA proposed that there should be eight such people, as well as a chief officer of the ESA, which makes nine, plus one for the Library Authority. Therefore, six people would be replaced by nine, or 10, depending on what way it worked out.
Perhaps that was a mistake, and perhaps it has been changed. However, there is vigilance. Our fear is that the Bill does not provide for that. If six chief officers did the job previously, then having nine — which seems a lot — or even eight, seven or six seems like too many if one is trying to save money.
Mr Lunn:
You have already mentioned your concerns about employment rules and the fact that the ESA will be the ultimate employer. The Department’s response to your submission contradicts everything you say. Nelson has already mentioned the key point that:
“The ESA may not lawfully refuse to put into effect any proper decision of a board of governors on employment matters.”
It also states:
“However, the proposed arrangements do not involve any real or practical loss of autonomy, as boards of governors will remain responsible for the exercise of employment functions within their schools, and will take employment decisions the ESA will be under a legal duty to put into effect.”
I know that your response will be that it does not say that in the Bill.
Mr Lockhart:
Of course, it does not.
Mr Lunn:
The Department’s view is that that is already provided for in the education Orders that the Bill supplements. There is a clear difference of opinion.
Mr Lockhart:
The fact is that the Bill has been looked at by all sorts of lawyers. I have not found any of them who take a different view to mine; that the ESA will be the ultimate employer and that it will be charged with legal responsibility.
Let us try to be more practical about the matter: is it possible that there will disagreement about what is lawful? Is it possible that the ESA will have a dispute with a Catholic school about upholding its ethos and about whether it is lawful that a teacher must subscribe to that ethos? Will there be an adoption-agency issue writ large in the school system, in which the Government simply direct that schools must comply with the law and have no obligation to maintain rights of conscience?
Undoubtedly, there will be issues in which there is conflict of rights between the right to religious expression, the right to education, and the requirement to enforce the law. That is how lawyers make their money. Essentially, that is what they must interpret. The fact is that there is a wealth of issues on which there will be conflict. The ESA might say that it can take certain actions because the law is clear; however, someone else might say that the Human Rights Act 1998 is clear and that, therefore, the ESA cannot take that action. That is where conflict will arise.
Mr Lunn:
That could be the case if the ESA had never been —
Mr Lockhart:
The problem is who will preserve the ethos of schools. That is the point. The ESA will be a large, monolithic, bureaucratic organisation that has no particular remit to understand or stand for the ethos of schools.
Mr Lunn:
Boards of governors will retain the ethos of their schools.
Mr Lockhart:
Board of governors will not have that power when it comes to an issue that is before a tribunal, or when making a decision. The ESA must implement subject to its interpretation of the law. That is the problem: it will be the ESA’s interpretation of the law. There is room for debate and disagreement. Boards of governors can say that they are sorry, that there is a grey area, and that they take a particular view because it is more consistent with their ethos.
Mr Lunn:
That is what the law is about.
Mr Lockhart:
Exactly: that is why we want it in the Bill. The ultimate decision should be that of boards of governors. If they are wrong, they will take the hit: however, they will stand for their ethos.
The Acting Chairperson:
We have covered that issue as far as possible. Basil and John have both indicated that they want to ask questions. Before we move on too far, I want ask my second question again. Although I got a response, I would like a clear yes or no answer. On the basis of clause 8(2), the Department of Education states that:
“The ESA may not lawfully refuse to put into effect any proper decision of a board of governors on employment matters.”
If model employment schemes and the associated guidance, set that out clearly, and you get clarification of some of the other points, and if that were subject to full consultation with the submitting authorities — and possibly an independent appeals system — and/or subject to regulation and control by the Assembly of ESA guidance and model schemes, would those caveats remove some of your key concerns in that area?
Mr Lockhart:
It would remove some of them, but not all of them. It would also establish an excessively bureaucratic structure. It would introduce a level of bureaucracy into the decision-making process, and that would make the process very difficult for the ESA and schools. I understand the desires and concerns involved. In most instances, there will not be a problem. However, I am concerned about the unintended and unexpected consequences that will inevitably arise.
Yes, there are various procedures in place that could ameliorate and mitigate that particular problem. However, a huge amount of bureaucracy would be involved, and, ultimately, it is still the ESA’s view that must prevail because it is, legally, the employer. Boards of governors could potentially challenge the ESA on the decisions it makes, or on its refusal to implement a decision that the board of governors wanted to make because it says that it is not in accordance with the law.
The Acting Chairperson:
Do you at least accept that there are mechanisms that would address some of those concerns?
Mr Lockhart:
Why are we introducing those levels of structures into what should really be a reasonably straightforward system, which works well at the moment? The proposal would introduce a Byzantine complexity into the system, and that is completely unnecessary.
The Acting Chairperson:
I just wanted to get some clarity on mechanisms that would address those concerns.
Mr McCallion:
I would like to comment on the matter from an educational viewpoint. All over western Europe, the argument has been that we need to improve education. A major way to do that is to delegate power to the boards of governors. However, what we are seeing here is drawing power away from boards of governors. The power is going in the wrong direction. Sometimes, it is not the change that matters, but the direction of change. This Bill is sending out a signal that the really important decisions should not be made by boards of governors, parents, pupils and schools; rather they should be made centrally and involve bureaucracy. That is the risk that is being run.
Mr B McCrea:
It is a pleasure to see such an eminent QC cross-examine the Committee. [Laughter.] You might help us, since we have the experience here. Prior to this meeting, I expressed concern about the sugar-coated words, assurances and interpretations being offered as regards the Bill.
Mr Elliott:
You are not suggesting that it is bluff, are you?
Mr B McCrea:
I could not possibly use those words. I am interested in how important it is that the necessary provisions are written into the primary legislation, and how much can we rely upon guidance, interpretation, notes and such like. If something is in the Bill, is that important; and if it is not in the Bill, is that important?
Mr Lockhart:
As a lawyer, my first instinct is to look to the primary legislation; the statute. I would be looking to see who has legal responsibility. I have mentioned the TRC as an example, but I am afraid that what I term goodwill assurances — perhaps, more pejoratively, blandishments — promises, even codes of practice and guidelines may all be very interesting in a judicial review, because they may be a relevant consideration when it comes to making a decision. However, what gives comfort to the people involved is being able to refer to the primary legislation. For example, I see clause 3, which means every member of staff, and I can see that it affects not just teachers, but cleaners and ancillary staff — basically, anyone who is employed by schools.
I am from Methodist College, and there is also the Methodist College Preparatory School. As I understand it, there is a move now to do away entirely with any subvention to the preparatory schools, yet the ESA will be the employer. The message seems to be: “Folks, you are going to have to raise all the money and be responsible for it, but we will be the employer of all your staff and we will make the ultimate decisions”.
Those are genuine concerns. If the matter is not written into primary legislation, it will be of less legal benefit. The fact that boards of governors can, ultimately, make decisions provides protection.
Mr B McCrea:
I want to tease that matter out, because there has been discussion about clause 3(1) and 3(2)(b), which refers to persons employed by the ESA. If the ESA holds the contract of employment, can a school’s board of governors make appointments and dismissals?
Mr Lockhart:
I am sure that their views will be considered in almost every case. However, at the moment, an inversion is taking place. I do not think that boards of governors will attend tribunals to deal with cases, because a barrister from the ESA, which is the employer, will deal with the matter. That is important, because the school’s reputation is on the line. A tribunal is a public forum, and the ESA, as the employer, will represent the school at it. The school will be under no legal obligation to attend, except in an assisting capacity.
Basil asked about staff appointments. As the employer, the ESA might give effect to the decisions that schools make. As I understand it, when a school makes an appointment a representative from the Department of Education attends. That system works well; why invert it? Although the ESA will give effect to lawful employment decisions, the school, in effect, shoulders the legal responsibility. The proposals do not comfort schools sufficiently. Why do we need to change the process?
Ten or 15 years ago, many schools — mostly in the controlled sector — had problems managing employment issues; they needed the positive support that the ESA will provide. However, many schools across the spectrum, such as voluntary Catholic schools and voluntary grammar schools, have managed such matters well for many years. Those schools regard that as the key to protecting and maintaining their ethos.
Mr B McCrea:
I have concerns about many issues in the Bill. Is the employment of staff a central tenet of the argument or a peripheral issue? Will it be fine 95% of the time?
Mr McCallion:
It is absolutely central. It is an essential part of the proposal and is typical of education in the rest of these islands. In Britain, when a school is under pressure and decides to reform and to become a city academy, what do the Government do? They take the school out of the control of the local education authority and appoint a board of governors that is responsible for the school. Such a process transforms schools.
We could debate the merits of the city academy model; however, it significantly transforms schools in Britain. The key is to give power to boards of governors — it is up to them whether they want to cede it. However, that arrangement ensures that boards of governors, principals and teachers know that they work for a school. The alternative is the Soviet Union model: school 197. What is the difference between school 197 and school 198? It is not the management, because that is controlled centrally. We are moving towards a centralised model.
We are unique; we are the only people in western Europe to go that way. We are waving people goodbye on the train as they all go the other way. It is quite odd.
Mr B McCrea:
I wonder, Finbar, whether I could have that quote. School 197? Is that on the Limestone Road?
Mr O’Dowd:
Thank you for your presentation. I too am aware of Brett’s legal capabilities, so I will not cross him. [Laughter.]
Mr Lockhart:
I have respect for you, too, John.
Mr O’Dowd:
He was on our side last time, I am glad to say. What is your definition of accountable autonomy?
Mr Lockhart:
Is it an oxymoron? It is an interesting phrase that conjures up all sorts of ideas. Accountable autonomy is provided for in existing legislation. Boards of governors cannot act outside the law; that tension already exists in the system. The Bill will simply invert that and take away the existing powers of boards of governors. They will still have some powers, but, essentially, the Bill changes things round. The emphasis will be on the ESA rather than on boards of governors.
At present, the boards hold things in tension, and both sides must consult with each other. However, the situation will be inverted so that the ESA has the whip hand — the primary legal responsibility. I am concerned about all the promises that have been made, John. On 95% of occasions, things will be fine; there will not be a problem, because people will learn how to get along. Problems will arise when conflicts come along.
Mr O’Dowd:
I am concerned that you mean independence.
Mr Lockhart:
No; that is not the case.
Mr O’Dowd:
I am concerned that a group of schools seeks public funds but does not want public accountability. In the past financial year, voluntary grammar schools received £209,430,734 in public funds for revenue; for capital, they received £30,744,507. That is all public money. To whom should those schools be accountable? The ESA is the body to which all schools that receive public funds should be accountable, but there should be a working relationship with the schools. I agree with you: the boards of governors are responsible for raising standards in schools. However, like any other recipient of public money, they must have mechanisms that can plot their accountability through the ESA and the Department — and this Committee. We will have a role.
Mr Lockhart:
There are two points: first, the record of virtually all voluntary schools in managing budgets and ensuring value for money is extremely good; secondly, as I said, accountable autonomy already exists. The voluntary schools are already constrained by regulations and requirements on how they use that money. The proposed change will put the emphasis on the centralised body as opposed to the boards of governors. If that comes about, it will cause problems.
I do not subscribe to the view that, as recipients of large amounts of public money, boards of governors of voluntary schools should not be accountable for the money that they receive. They are already accountable. To centralise accountability is fine; but the powers of boards of governors should not be taken away. I tell you now that as the decades pass, the nature of those schools will be changed as a result. That concerns me, because those schools have been successful — leaving aside the issue of the transfer test for the moment.
Mr McCallion:
I will give members an example. Let us suppose that an Irish-medium school that believes in immersion in Irish appoints a member of staff under ESA regulations. What would happen if that teacher said that they did not believe in the immersion teaching of Irish and that children had the right to be taught in English? As the employer, the ESA could not argue that case in court, because the teacher’s lawyers would say that all other teachers in Northern Ireland must teach through English. That would create a tension. I do not know how such a case would be resolved, since the teacher who took the job would have known what was required. Our concerns could easily be portrayed as the grammar schools looking after themselves; however, it could affect all schools.
I have sat on boards of governors of controlled schools, and we have fumed and shouted and given off about the board officers arriving and telling us what to do. Our argument was that we had a school of 1,000 pupils so we knew what we were going to do. This mammy-knows-best, or granny-knows-best or we will put you under our thumb and you will do what we tell you approach is not on. It is very difficult to encourage school governors to raise the standards in their schools with such an attitude being taken. Set them free.
Mr O’Dowd:
Fortunately, not even Mr Lockhart could defend that case. [Laughter.]
Mr McCallion:
Do not be so sure. [Laughter.]
Mr O’Dowd:
Are there any legal barriers to the representation of schools at tribunals?
Mr Lockhart:
Why would schools be represented?
Mr O’Dowd:
Therefore there is no legal barrier to schools’ representation?
Mr Lockhart:
There is nothing in the legislation that says that they cannot be represented. What rights of locus standi have schools? What rights do they have to appear? Who is the employer? It is the ESA: what would a school be doing there?
Mr O’Dowd:
Nevertheless, there is no legal barrier to their appearing.
Mr Lockhart:
A school could attend the tribunal as a friend.
Mr O’Dowd:
Come on now, Brett.
Mr B McCrea:
That would create work and money for barristers. Do not complain.
Mr McCallion:
Let me draw that out. I have sat in tribunals at which the CCMS held a different view from the board of governors of a Catholic maintained school. Such tension is pretty fierce, and it does not disappear when the tribunal is over; the school remembers what happened. Boards of governors are made up of willing volunteers; we have thousands of them in Northern Ireland. Could we not trust them and give them a bit of space?
Miss McIlveen:
Thank you for your presentation. I am concerned but not surprised that there is little discussion between you and the Department on those issues. I hope that that applies only to those issues and that other topics are fully discussed.
Dr Dermott:
We have had discussions with the Department. As Mr McCallion explained earlier, we felt that if we took up the most recent invitation, we would merely be repeating discussions that we had already had.
Is that what concerns you?
Miss McIlveen:
Yes. I am concerned that things had got to the stage where —
Dr Dermott:
We had already ploughed and harrowed that ground.
Miss McIlveen:
We are now at a stage where you submit a paper and we receive a paper from the Department asking us to get clarification on issues that you have raised. Most of what interests me has already been dealt with, so I am not going to revisit it.
I wish to address the issues of ethos and employment in the Department’s submission. It seems that the Department is unclear about which provisions of anti-discrimination or fair employment legislation you suggest ought not to apply in schools.
Mr Lockhart:
All such legislation will apply to schools. In the Republic, schools are protected by section 37(1) of the Employment Equality Act 1998:
“A religious, educational or medical institution which is under the direction or control of a body established for religious purposes or whose objectives include the provision of services … which promotes certain religious values shall not be taken to discriminate against a person for the purposes of this Part … — if
(a) it gives more favourable treatment, on the religion ground, to an employee or a prospective employee … where it is reasonable to do so in order to maintain the religious ethos of the institution …”
That is written into employment law in the Republic to allow schools to protect their ethos.
The UK legislation is much more fluid, and it is extremely difficult to balance the various rights. Two years ago, for instance, a major dispute arose between the Catholic Church and the Government over the issue of adoption agencies, as the Church and other agencies wanted an exemption. The Church said that it would refer gay couples to another agency but that in conscience it could not entrust children to them. The Government refused to allow that, saying that it was not acceptable. There was an issue about whether, on a fact-specific basis, Church adoption agencies could write appropriate stipulations into their constitutions. It is all in a state of flux. The result has been that quite a few Catholic adoption agencies that dealt with the most disadvantaged children in England have had to close.
Northern Ireland has civil partnership legislation. A Catholic school — and perhaps other schools — might say that civil partnership causes a problem and that its aims, values and ethos make it impossible for it to have a teacher who is in such a partnership.
I am simply giving civil partnerships as an example. The ESA might regret having to tell a school that it was acting outside the law, but it would have to do so. A school may be forced to act against its ethos, but tough; that is the law. The board of governors might think that, under the provisions of freedom for religious expression in the Human Rights Act 1998, there is room for debate and that the matter is fact-specific enough to allow the board to make a case. However, the ESA would say that, ultimately, it takes the decisions and it does not think that the school is acting within the law.
That may not be the best example; nevertheless, there are issues of religious conscience. For example, if a sex education code of practice were introduced for the whole of the UK that certain Churches said they did not want, the Government would say that it must be taught in all schools because it is in legislation. That is the kind of conscience issue that may come up.
Who will be the defender of a school’s ethos in that case? The ESA will simply say that its interpretation of the law is different. That is the problem. I am using that simply as an example.
Mr McCallion:
There was a rumpus when a British Airways staff member wore a crucifix in public. Did it do the individual any good? Did it do the airline any good? Did it do the lawyers any good — yes, it did; they made a great deal of money.
Mr B McCrea:
They always do.
Mr McCallion:
However, it did not do anybody else good. It did not do community relationships in that organisation any good either, as it created tension between Sikhs and born-again Christians who could see no reason why they should not be allowed to wear the cross. At present, such tensions as exist in schools are local problems, and the people who should resolve them are the boards of governors.
The Acting Chairperson:
I think that we have covered the issues thoroughly. Thank you for your presentation.
Dr Dermott:
Thank you for listening to us and for your questions. I also thank my colleagues for their constructive answers.
We support an administrative rationalisation, but we oppose the creation of an all-powerful controller. We seek amendments to the Bill on the employment of staff, the protection of ethos, and school governance management. We would also like responsibility for procurement to rest with boards of governors, and an aspiration towards 90% of the education budget going to schools not into bureaucracy.
The Acting Chairperson:
I welcome Stephen McConnell, the chairman of the Northern Ireland Voluntary Grammar Schools Bursars’ Association (NIVGSBA); John Robinson, the vice-chairman; and Shane McBrien who is a committee member and bursar of St Malachy’s College. There will be 10 minutes for your presentation, gentlemen, and then we will ask questions.
Mr Stephen McConnell (Northern Ireland Voluntary Grammar Schools Bursars’ Association):
On behalf of our association, I thank the Committee for affording us this opportunity to speak about the Education Bill.
The association represents bursars in 51 voluntary grammar schools throughout Northern Ireland. In those schools, the bursar is normally responsible to the governing body for the conduct of their school’s financial affairs, business management and for the material state of the premises and grounds. Bursars are professionals who usually have qualifications in management, accountancy and/or law. A bursar has many responsibilities, but, perhaps above all, the bursar’s role in voluntary schools is an enabling one that allows the school to carry out its function of educating children.
From the outset, I must say that the association is in favour of achieving greater efficiencies in the education sector and of improving education outcomes. Today’s presentation is more than narrow self-interest because our association has been assured that the role of bursar will continue in some shape or form within the ESA framework. Nevertheless, there are aspects of the proposed Education Bill that we believe will lead to greater inefficiencies and therefore be counterproductive.
Of the 51 voluntary grammar schools, 29 are owned and governed by the trustees of the Catholic Church; the remaining 22 are owned by their own trustees and run by boards of governors. Most, if not all, of those schools are long established and have an enviable record of education outcomes over many years.
The chief characteristics of the voluntary schools are: trustees own the land and buildings; the trustees’ responsibilities are usually set down in a foundation deed of trust, which sets out the aims of the school and the obligations that fall on the trustee governors; schools’ recurrent funding comes directly from, and therefore they are directly accountable to, the Department of Education — there is no intermediate body; their governing bodies employ all members of staff, and they are responsible for recruiting, deploying, managing and paying all those who work for the school; governing bodies are responsible for schools’ financial management; and, in addition to the duties laid down in their foundation documents, schools are charged with carrying out exactly the same statutory duties and responsibilities as every other grant-aided school.
The present system provides clear lines of responsibility and accountability for the delivery of education to a high standard and to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy between funder and provider. Over the many years of their existence, the schools have demonstrated that they can use public funds effectively and efficiently for the benefit of their pupils.
The original proposals in the review of public administration suggested that the relationship between schools and the ESA should be characterised by maximised supported autonomy. Furthermore, it said that the new arrangements must have sufficient flexibility to accommodate schools that wish to avail themselves of differing degrees of autonomy. The RPA highlighted the importance of maximising schools’ autonomy, whereas, in contrast, the proposed Education Bill will reduce the autonomy of voluntary schools by transferring significant control to a centralised body.
By establishing the ESA, the Education Bill will remove the employing-authority role from boards of governors; undermine the voluntary principle of school governance, due to the command-and-control structure proposed by the ESA; introduce a one-size-fits-all education system; and contradict developments in the UK, where the Government’s stated desire is that there should be diversity of school-management structures, and where the focus is on maximising autonomy at local level in schools, as evidenced in the growth of city technology schools, trust schools and city academies.
One of the key factors enabling voluntary schools to develop and maintain a distinctive ethos is the right of boards of governors, as the employing authority, to employ, promote, discipline and carry out employment-law functions for their staff within a policy framework set by the boards.
As members heard earlier, one of the key roles proposed for the ESA is underscored in clause 3, which states that the ESA will employ all staff in grant-aided schools. Contracts of employment for all staff in voluntary schools are at present with the board of governors of each school. That means that board members are responsible for the key decisions of appointing and dismissing staff, who are selected in accordance with the ethos of the school, which may be academic or linked to a particular religious denomination.
Staff have an affinity with and loyalty to their schools, the values, ethos and traditions of which they seek to uphold. However, boards of governors will no longer be considered the employer if contractual responsibility for all staff lies with the ESA and not with boards of governors. Under the legislation, the ESA as employer could redeploy staff between institutions, and that may result in staff having no affinity with or loyalty to a particular school. Staff may not, therefore, have the same motivation to drive up standards of attainment or to enforce discipline as they do at present.
Clause 4 contains provisions for the preparation of employment schemes for all grant-aided schools; those schemes must be approved by the ESA under clause 6. If a scheme is not considered to be in line with the guidance issued by the ESA, that body has, under clause 6(2)(a) the reserved power to make an employment scheme for the school, which:
“shall be treated for all purposes as if it had been prepared by the submitting authority of the school”.
We believe that that is unduly prescriptive and dictatorial and further dilutes the autonomy of boards of governors.
All staff will have a standard contract of employment with the ESA, and because they will have no affinity with a body employing more than 50,000 staff, they will carry out only those duties outlined in their standard terms and conditions of employment. For example, it may be the case that staff will no longer voluntarily assist with sporting activities or organised school trips. It is therefore imperative that voluntary schools’ boards of governors have the right to retain staff contracts of employment and remain the employing authority. It is accepted, however, that some schools may wish to have the ESA as employer while others may wish it to provide a supporting role in assisting with the drawing up of contractual terms and providing legal advice as and when required.
It is essential that the Bill be amended to give boards of governors the crucial right of employing and managing staff, with the ESA being given a supportive function in this context if required. We also believe that there has been a serious underestimation of the challenges that lie ahead should the ESA take control of the voluntary sector.
Although we understand that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) are not strictly applicable in this instance, in practice, the ESA, as the employing authority, would take over the employees from the various current employers under their existing terms and conditions of employment. The TUPE regulations preserve employees’ terms and conditions when a business or undertaking is transferred to a new employer. The new employer takes over the contracts of employment of all employees who were employed at the undertaking immediately before the transfer. The new employer takes over all rights and obligations arising from those contracts of employment and any collective agreements made on behalf of the employees that were enforced immediately before the transfer.
All non-teaching and support staff in the voluntary sector have widely differing roles and responsibilities. Transferring all those staff to one employer could leave the ESA open to a raft of legal challenges, as staff working under one employer will compare the differing terms and conditions of employment throughout the sector. That will apply equally to teaching staff who, when under one employer, will expect to be awarded the same responsibility points as staff of other schools carrying out similar duties. As each voluntary school is autonomous, there is little read-across of salary and conditions of service, which will be difficult to administer for the new umbrella organisation. It is very likely that that will raise issues of equality and job evaluation when the new agency is only bedding in.
Key governance provisions in the Bill can be found in clauses 30 to 33. Schools will further lose their autonomy by virtue of the standardised schemes of management. Such schemes must be approved by the ESA. If a scheme is not considered to be in accordance with the guidance issued by the ESA under clause 32, the ESA can make a scheme of management that will be treated as if prepared by the submitting authority. Such a scheme will regulate the membership and procedures of boards of governors, as well as the management of schools and relations between boards of governors, principals and any other persons specified in the scheme. It is the association’s opinion that that is likely to involve a prescriptive and bureaucratic model of school governance. The ESA will have the power to appoint governors as considered necessary and the power to choose community governors who may not be approved by individual boards of governors.
The key benefit of the existing model is the ability of schools to attract governors from a wide range of professional backgrounds to volunteer to serve on boards. Many such governors have a long-standing relationship with a particular school, together with specific expertise that adds greatly to the management of a school. In future, under the conditions outlined in the legislation, it is likely that the schools will have great difficulty in attracting governors with relevant experience. Governors may not give of their time and expertise freely when the main managing authority will be the ESA and when they will be required to operate within a framework of stringent rules that may not be to the best interest of individual schools.
From the outset, I wish to say that the associations and relationships that bursars of voluntary grammar schools have had with the Department of Education and its voluntary grammar finance branch, with regard to financial management and procurement, have been excellent throughout the years. All our schools are accountable to the Department of Education, each being subject to the Department’s financial auditing arrangements, and are rigorously audited annually, with the production of both internal and external audit reports prepared by independent professionals. The internal audit is carried out in order to ensure that robust systems of control and governance are in place. External audits provide assurances as to the stewardship of the funds provided by theDepartment and the financial stability and viability of schools.
In addition to the funds received from the Department, many voluntary schools receive additional funding from parents and benefactors. We believe that the standardisation that will inevitably result from the Education Bill will lessen the incentive to make such contributions in future. That will ultimately put an additional strain on the public purse.
A number of voluntary schools also carry out additional educational activities outside those that are directly grant-aided by the Department. Such activities generate non-public funds, which should not come under the proposed legislative framework. Although the Bill is largely silent on procurement, it is understood that when the second Bill is introduced there will be further legislation that will considerably reduce the autonomy of voluntary schools through centralising the procurement function, which could undoubtedly lead to increased costs and inefficiencies.
To allay genuine concerns about preserving the ethos of schools and maximising the autonomy of school governance, the proposed legislation must be amended. There should be no alteration of the role of boards of governors as the sole employing authorities for voluntary schools. Individual boards of governors must retain the autonomy that will allow them to make decisions that are in the best interests of their schools: that must be reflected in the legislation.
The association cannot find evidence to suggest that the proposal to enable the ESA to manage voluntary schools, as outlined in the Bill, will result in improvements to education administration and achieve better outcomes.
The Acting Chairperson:
Thank you. You mentioned additional funding in your presentation and in your written submission. How much additional funding is received?
Mr McConnell:
I cannot give you an exact figure for the whole of the sector. However, I can speak for my school, which receives an additional £100,000 a year for the secondary department. My school also has a preparatory department and a boarding department. The revenue generated by the boarding department is close to £750,000. We employ all the staff in the boarding department, and we manage the funds from the fees that come in from boarding pupils. We do not believe that the ESA, which would have no conduit to those funds, should be the employer of staff that we employ by virtue of those non-public funds.
Mr John Robinson (Northern Ireland Voluntary Grammar Schools’ Bursars Association):
May I add to that? My school is Methodist College. We receive revenue in excess of £500,000 a year from parents and voluntary contributions. That money is used entirely in the secondary department and is accounted for in that department. Without it, we could not provide the services that we provide for the children who attend the school. It is very straightforward.
(The Chairperson [Mr Storey] in the Chair)The Chairperson (Mr Storey):
I thank Nelson McCausland for chairing the meeting in my absence.
Miss McIlveen:
Thank you for your presentation. You made a comment about teaching staff. If I were a teacher and knew that a teacher in another school was being paid differently for doing the same job, I would be asking questions. You also talked about the organisation of trips, and so on, which might be curtailed under the ESA. As a teacher in a previous life, I know that many teachers work beyond what is in their contract. They do what they feel is necessary, and to say that they would be bound by contracts is a bit cynical.
You also said that because a voluntary school is autonomous, there is little read-across regarding salaries and conditions. Have you done any work in order to address that or to get a feel for what the differences may be?
Mr J Robinson:
Voluntary schools are slightly different in that, as Stephen said, many have preparatory departments and boarding departments. There is more of a difference in terms and conditions than there is in pay. In our school, for example, we run janitors on a continuous rota system. I understand that that is different from almost any other school in the Province. That is one example, but terms and conditions are the key issue.
Our message is that the nature of life, and people, is that people react better when their employer is local and when they know who their employer is. I have no great issue with ensuring that staff are properly remunerated in line with that across the sector. In fact, teachers in voluntary schools are paid on exactly the same basis as those in the controlled sector, and I do not know of any exceptions to that. There may be some enhancements for the additional work that they carry out and which is line with the salary policy, but, generally, that is not a great issue.
We are saying that the change, and the move towards that change, is difficult. On the basis of many years experience as a manager outside the education sector, I believe that the key message is that people have an affinity for a local employer. The key factors are: who holds the contract, and who deals with discipline and grievances in the normal employment relationship. The board of governors have control of those issues in voluntary grammar schools.
Miss McIlveen:
It also involves an interpretation of how local is local. We are not talking about an organisation that is based across the water; it will be reasonably local without being located in a school.
Mr J Robinson:
The key is that it should be in the school and in the board of governors of the school.
Miss McIlveen:
Is your primary concern around commitments?
Mr J Robinson:
Yes — and teaching staff. Teaching staff look to the board of governors of the school as their employer if the employment relationship is correct.
Mr O’Dowd:
Thank you for your presentation. I also noted the issues that Michelle raised. You referred to auxiliary and support staff at your school, and I see that they are also mentioned in your letter:
“The Regulations have the effect that employees employed by their respective Board of Governors would automatically become employees of the ESA on the same terms and conditions.”
To me, that is why the ESA should be in place. Recently, the Minister diverted more than £1 million to ensure that voluntary schools’ classroom assistants had the same terms and conditions as other classroom assistants. Should the Minister take that money back?
Mr McConnell:
I do not wish to get into an argument over classroom assistants.
Mr O’Dowd:
I do — but perhaps I am being unfair to you in that sense.
The public purse was opened up and more than £1 million was taken out to ensure that staff in your schools received the same terms and conditions as other staff. Today, you are arguing that the ESA is a bad idea because all staff will be on the same terms and conditions. That is a crazy argument.
Mr J Robinson:
The argument is about the transition and the difficulties in setting up the ESA.
Mr O’Dowd:
A lengthy and exhaustive process of job evaluation has taken place. In the beginning, the job-evaluation process was not managed properly. When I was Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee, we reported on the matter. However, the process is now in place and is ticking over. Therefore, ensuring that employees in your sector are on the same terms, grades and conditions as those in other sectors would not be a major problem.
Mr McConnell:
In any industry, a job-evaluation process will increase costs. Therefore, that would impact on the education budget. The first job-evaluation process started a number of years ago, and there has been significant erosion in the differentials in the rates of pay between, for example, ground staff and cleaning staff. In some schools, therefore, it is almost better to be employed as a cleaner in the afternoon than as a clerical officer. A job-evaluation exercise will be carried out for clerical staff. What will happen is that suddenly everyone’s rate of pay will increase. There is no bottomless pit of money from HM Treasury. Therefore, we are being realistic in saying that the exercise will cost the Government significantly more money.
Mr O’Dowd:
I do not think that that is the reason that you are arguing against it. You have the right to give that response, but I do not accept it.
Mr J Robinson:
To add to that response, the key point is that there are differences in the job descriptions of some staff. I will give an example that applies to classroom assistants in our school. We compared their job descriptions with the job-evaluated description and found that they are virtually the same; there is no substantial difference. Therefore, our classroom assistants will be given the money when it comes through. We consulted them and told them that we hope that that will resolve the problem with terms and conditions. Let me stress that I do not think that any voluntary grammar school will ever argue about not paying their staff a proper rate for the job. However, there are differences between the schools as regards job descriptions.
Mr O’Dowd:
Job evaluation has managed to go across five boards. It has been a very difficult process and has gone through many hoops, hurdles and mistakes. However, the process is in place now, so I assume that it can be applied to 30 voluntary grammar schools.
Mr J Robinson:
That is exactly our point.
Mr O’Dowd:
I am surprised that you are not able to tell us how much voluntary contributions there are across the board. I can tell you how much public contributions there were last year — in the region of £250 million went into the voluntary schools. I note that your presentation states that there are clear lines of responsibility and accountability, and I think that you were referring to education and funding. What are the clear lines of financial accountability for public funds? How are you audited? Have you ever been audited by the Audit Office?
Mr McConnell:
As I said in my presentation, we are audited annually, both internally and externally. We are audited by professional chartered accountants. We submit our annual audited accounts to the Department by 1 June each year, in line with the Treasury’s Faster Closing initiative. We also have internal audits that examine the internal control systems in schools, and the Department of Education receives those internal audit reports. We constantly submit returns to the Department monitoring our financial affairs. The Department receives an initial estimate from us each year on how we will spend the money. That is reviewed in November each year, and a further review of that is sent to the Department. The Department monitors our surpluses and deficits. If there is a surplus or deficit of more than 5%, the Department asks the board of governors in each school what they are doing about it. As far as accountability for the money that we get is concerned, we are very accountable to the Department and to the public purse.
Mr O’Dowd:
The CCMS, the education boards, Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta, and so forth, have to present themselves quarterly to the Minister and explain how they are accounting for the money spent. Do the grammar schools do that?
Mr McConnell:
We do not have to meet quarterly, but, as I explained —
Mr O’Dowd:
When was the last time that you went before the Minister of Education to discuss your accounts?
Mr McConnell:
We have never done so.
Mr J Robinson:
It would not be a problem for us, but it would not be appropriate for us to do so, because we are not the proper body to meet as regards accounting for the money that goes into the voluntary grammar sector. It would have to be the GBA, or some other body, and I am unaware of the arrangements in place between that body, or individual schools, and the Department.
Mr Elliott:
Items 27 and 28 in your presentation concern additional education activities outside those that are directly grant-aided by the Department. Will you elaborate on that? I understood that those took place in all schools, including schools in the controlled sector. How does that differ in the voluntary grammar sector? What are your concerns in that respect?
Mr McConnell:
I was making reference to activities in boarding schools and preparatory schools.
Mr Elliott:
Would it have any effect on day schools?
Mr McConnell:
No. The only additional funds that would be applicable to day schools are the voluntary contributions from parents, which have the effect of reducing schools’ deficits.
Mr Elliott:
Are you saying that there would be an issue with staff in the respect? Or, would it be an issue because of the ESA?
Mr J Robinson:
The issue has not been sorted out. The ESA chief executive designate has met us on a couple of occasions, and for that I thank him. We have been told that staff who fall within the educational sector will be employed by the ESA. There is a difficulty with that in that some staff will have a couple of masters. For instance, a boarding department is not that educational, and funding comes from parents towards boarding. That is one issue that needs to be resolved.
Mr Elliott:
I have noticed a common theme among various associations that have provided evidence to us, and paragraphs 23 and 24 of your submission echo that point when you state that policy is not being reflected in the Bill. Perhaps, we should ask this of the departmental officials, but I would like you to expand on that. I know that you have limited your concerns to one point, but is that the only point that you have or is it broader?
Mr J Robinson:
The original documentation, the policy paper and our initial meeting with people involved with the setting up of the ESA — which was some time ago — assured us that maximum autonomy would be given to the schools that could deal with it. That assured us to some extent, but it took us more towards the academy model, which is happening in England, and our own models. The Bill is a disappointment, because it seems to be prescriptive in all the areas — and certainly in employment.
We believe that there may have been some movement on the employment of staff. The Bill states clearly that staff will be employed by the ESA. We understand the need for efficiencies, and so on, but that is a fundamental change — and, as a manager, I do not believe that it is a change for the better. I am not arguing for worse terms for anyone; I am arguing, from the management perspective, that this is not the best way forward.
Mr Lunn:
Thank you for your presentation. I want to pick up on one point, which you have highlighted in your submission. You are concerned about clause 18(1) of the Bill, which states that:
“ESA may do anything that appears to it to be conducive or incidental to the discharge of its functions.”
Why are you so concerned about that? It comes at the end of a long list of functions and duties that are being given to the ESA. It seems like a tidying-up line to cover anything that may have been forgotten. You say that it provides all-embracing powers; it does not. The words are further qualified later in clause 18. The same words are used in clause 19, which deals with the powers of the ESA to undertake commercial activities, and it is qualified by certain restrictions. If that line were not part of the clause, would it make a difference to what the ESA can or cannot do? I do not know why you are concerned about it.
Mr J Robinson:
Again, I refer to the submission by Mr Lockhart, and his comment about the law of unforeseen eventualities. We are concerned about the clause because it allows the ESA to make adjustments and regulations should something crop up that may not have been foreseen during the passage of the Bill. Therefore, I — not as a lawyer, but as an accountant — will find it helpful to have some qualification of the clause. You are quite right: it is a catch-all clause, and I imagine that that is why it has been written into the Bill. If I were drafting the Bill, I would do exactly the same — I would include a clause that allows some flexibility in future rather than have to go through the churn of the legislative process all over again.
Mr Lunn:
My guess is that there is probably a similar clause in existing legislation governing the activities of the present governing bodies — we can ask the departmental officials about that later. Have you checked that legislation, or have you just picked this clause out and said: that is appalling; we cannot have it in the Bill.
Mr J Robinson:
We are dealing with, and commenting on, the legislation that is in front of us. As for other legislation, there would usually be a little more qualification.
Mr Lunn:
Well, we are not going to agree. I just wondered why the matter was so important to you.
The Chairperson:
Obviously, that is a concern for the Committee. Previously, we told the Department that if it is not in the legislation, we are going to have difficulty with it.
I will conclude this session by asking a question that was asked in an earlier session, and it relates to clause 8, which deals with employment schemes. If there were a system of independent appeal, or if the Assembly had the power to regulate and control the ESA guidance and model schemes, would that address some of your concerns about employment schemes and other schemes of management?
Mr J Robinson:
Again, I agree with what Mr Lockhart said. I deal with employment law and employment issues in our school. What is being proposed would create an unwieldy bureaucratic means of dealing with the issue.
As regards schemes of management and accountability, many of our schools have schemes of management with the Department. I can speak only for myself, but I have no issue with that. Lawyers are often quoted as saying that employment law is the second most difficult area of law. We deal with that area of law, and I do not think that it would be helpful to introduce other layers of bureaucracy into the arrangement between employer and employee given that employment issues can be difficult to deal with in general.
The Chairperson:
Stephen, Shane and John, thank you very much for your presentation. You are welcome to stay for the remainder of the meeting. I now ask the departmental officials to join us — undoubtedly, they have been imbibing all that has been said in the past hour or so.
The Department sent the Committee a response to the GBA paper, but I suspect that, after today’s session, other issues will also need to be dealt with. Mr McGrath, I am sure that the Committee will agree that the paper submitted by the GBA today should be given to you, and that we should continue to consider the issues raised in that paper, in this presentation and in the Department’s response. The paper was sent yesterday, so members should have received it. John, I am in your hands.
Mr John McGrath (Department of Education):
I am glad to be with the Committee again. Chris will lead off on the Department’s response to the initial paper.
Mr Chris Stewart (Department of Education):
We welcome the opportunity to consider the presentations and hear the evidence from the Governing Bodies Association (GBA) and the Northern Ireland Voluntary Grammar Schools' Bursars Association. It is clear that we agree on a great deal and that we disagree on some fundamental points, which I want to concentrate on in my presentation.
I am conscious that the Committee is pressed for time, so my presentation will be shorter than it might otherwise have been. It is important to set the context and to remind ourselves of our aims. There, we begin to see the commonality of view between ourselves and the GBA. The RPA arrangements are based on autonomy for schools and on the aim that schools are best placed to run their own affairs but with accountability for their actions and for the educational outcomes that they produce. We intend to achieve that effect through the Bill.
I want to respond specifically to the GBA’s three major areas of concern: its objection to the proposed employment arrangements; its objection to the proposed governance arrangements for schools, and comparisons with legislation in England and Wales.
The GBA has argued consistently that the employment arrangements will result in a loss of autonomy for some schools. We recognise and acknowledge the genuine sense of loss in those schools. However, the Department contends that there is no real loss of autonomy, because boards of governors will remain responsible for the exercise of employment functions and will take employment decisions that the ESA will be under a legal duty to put into effect. Our policy aim is to ensure that that degree of autonomy is available to all schools on the basis of equality, rather than to some schools on the basis of historical differences in ownership.
The GBA contends that the Bill will not have such an effect, that decision-making powers will rest with the ESA and that boards of governors will be restricted to making suggestions or requests. That is not the case. The Education Bill makes it clear that boards of governors will make decisions — which is the phraseology used in the Bill — not recommendations on employment matters. We have referred to clause 8(2) several times, and it is worth remembering its content and meaning. That clause’s effect is that the ESA may not lawfully refuse to put into effect boards of governors’ proper decisions on employment matters.
Mr Lockhart spoke earlier and made a number of points to which I want to respond. His central point was that the separate employment arrangements that pertain at present somehow offer those schools a degree of freedom that they would lose under the proposed arrangements to interpret the law. As I have confessed to the Committee many times, I am not a lawyer, and I rely on legal advice. The legal advice is that I have received is different and states that schools do not enjoy that degree of freedom.
If a board of governors, in its role as employer, proposed to act outside the law, the Department would prevent that and would exercise its powers of direction. If, for some reason, the Department failed to act, in a case of unlawful dismissal, a tribunal would have the power to impose a substantial fine or to order the reinstatement of the member of staff. Those arrangements will pertain irrespective of whether we continue to have separate employers or whether the ESA becomes the single employer. That advice has been provided by the Departmental Solicitor, who is also the chairman of employment tribunals and has considerable experience in such matters.
Furthermore, the GBA suggested that it is not possible to put the proposed arrangements into effect in law. Mr Lockhart said that only the ESA would be present at employment tribunals and courts. Again, our legal advice is different and states that a court or tribunal would automatically join to the proceedings any body or person who played a part in the matter that was the subject of complaint. Therefore, the board of governors and the ESA would be represented in proceedings by order of the tribunal or the court.
The GBA argued that it is not possible to achieve the Department’s desired effect in law.
However, not only is it possible — it has already been done. We have discussed schedule 2 to the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 in the Committee on several occasions. Several key points in respect of that schedule — which refers to controlled schools — are worth emphasising.
It is solely for boards of governors to determine staff complement; there is no role for the employer in that regard. It is for boards of governors to draw up and implement disciplinary rules and procedures, and the employer’s role is limited to one of consultee. Boards of governors and principals — not employers — have the power to suspend staff and to end suspensions. Crucially, it is for boards of governors only to take decisions on the dismissal of staff. The only exception to that is if a member of staff becomes ineligible for employment; for example, if their registration to teach is revoked.
Those provisions demonstrate that boards of governors can, and will, be given an autonomous statutory role in employment matters, including dismissal. There are also clear and effective duties on the ESA, as the employer, to put the lawful decisions of boards of governors into effect. Schools may feel that they have a degree of freedom in how to interpret the law, but that is not the case.
The GBA has stated its opposition to the provisions in clauses 30 to 33 very clearly. Those clauses require each school to draw up a scheme of management, taking account of guidance produced by the ESA, and to submit that scheme to the ESA for approval. We find it difficult to understand the GBA’s objection and, indeed, its description of the arrangements as a striking transfer of power. Grant-aided schools are publicly funded institutions that deliver a key public service. The Department contends that it is reasonable and necessary to require each school to have clear governance arrangements and to abide by them. In essence, we are saying that schools must have rules and stick to them. We do not regard that as an unreasonable requirement or a striking transfer of power.
In its paper, the GBA suggested that only failing schools should be subject to those requirements. That seems to suggest that we should have a statutory duty to bolt the stable door long after the horse has disappeared over the horizon; we do not think that that is an appropriate way forward. The legislative requirements are not new; they have been in statute since 1989. Article 9(a) to 9(d) of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 requires schemes of management to be prepared and submitted to the Department for approval and contain powers for the Department to modify and impose — or default — on those schemes. The provisions in the Education Bill are very similar to those arrangements, but the approval role rests with the ESA rather than with the Department.
The GBA drew comparisons with the legislation in England and Wales and suggested that that legislation might be a better route for us to follow. There is a Chinese proverb: “be careful what you ask for — you might get it.” It is worth bearing that proverb in mind when considering the relevant legislation, namely the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. That Act is more prescriptive and contains a broader range of intervention powers for local education authorities than anything that we have proposed for the education and skills authority.
The equivalent of management schemes are known as instruments of government in English legislation, the key provisions of which are section 37 and schedule 12 of the 1998 Act. Schools are required to draw up instruments of government that they must submit to local education authorities for approval. That is very similar to the Northern Ireland provisions, but the key difference is that schools here will have more flexibility to shape their schemes. Schools in Northern Ireland can tailor their schemes of management and take account of the ESA guidance. By contrast, schools in England are legally required to draw up instruments of government in prescribed form and with no scope for variation.
I now turn to the intervention powers of local education authorities and the ESA. We have striven to maintain that the emphasis is on schools self-improving. Schools are to be supported and challenged — but not controlled — by the ESA, and the ESA’s intervention powers are to be kept to a minimum. Action to raise standards and tackle underperformance will be schools-led. Following inspection, the legislation will require a school — not the ESA — to produce an action plan detailing what action that school proposes to take to address an inspection’s findings.
The interventions regime under the English Act is rather different. In England, LEAs may, depending on a school’s performance, issue a formal direction that requires the school to take specified actions; appoint additional governors, overriding the school’s instrument of government; suspend the delegation of a school’s budget; take over the role of setting a school’s staffing complement; remove a governing body’s right to appoint or dismiss staff; and direct a governing body to dismiss staff.
By contrast, the ESA will have no such powers; it cannot direct schools with regard to raising standards; it cannot withhold grants; it cannot interfere with a school’s staff complement or the appointment of staff; neither can it direct the dismissal of staff. The strongest powers in Northern Ireland legislation, which are rather less extensive than any in England and Wales, are reserved exclusively by the Department and will not be in the hands of the ESA.
The GBA said that legislation in England and Wales is preferable to proposals in the Education Bill. However, a comparison demonstrates that the English legislation is more prescriptive; offers less flexibility to schools in determining their governance arrangements; and gives much greater powers of intervention to local education authorities than anything in current legislation or anything proposed in the Education Bill.
The Chairperson:
Thank you, Chris. I am more worried about Irish blarney than Chinese proverbs. The worry, which you have heard repeated by the Committee several times and to which Trevor referred earlier, is that there is a sense that the Bill creates a catch-all scenario; provisions are made and powers are given that cover every eventuality. Organisations that have attended the Committee today, such as the Northern Ireland Voluntary Grammar Schools Bursars’ Association and the GBA, are still not convinced that the legislation will not manifest their worst-case scenarios.
For example, as regards clause 8, does the Department not feel that to allay concerns, there should be adequate provision in the legislation for an independent appeals mechanism subject to resolution, control or regulation by the Assembly? Would that be helpful?
Mr C Stewart:
I recognise that many of the concerns of the GBA, the bursars’ association and, indeed, other stakeholders’ focus on the fact that much of the detail, particularly on employment arrangements, does not appear in the Bill. However, it will appear in guidance and in the schemes of employment when they are drawn up. The aim is to reduce bureaucracy and the degree of prescription in legislation. However, I understand the concern that arises when that detail is not seen in writing; it is perfectly natural to have some concern about what the content might be.
There are two possible approaches, one of which we have discussed previously in the Committee. The first is explicitly linking the role of the ESA in such matters with article 101 of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 and the Department’s power to direct and provide a vehicle for an aggrieved party to complain. The Department would then investigate the matter. If necessary, it would issue a direction to correct any malfeasance on the ESA’s part.
The second mechanism, to which some of your questions pointed earlier, is to provide a scrutiny, challenge or overseeing role for the Assembly, and there is a way to achieve that. We could propose that that detail be contained in guidance. The alternative is to put it in subordinate legislation or regulation, which, of course, could be made subject to Assembly control and would always be subject to scrutiny by the Committee.
We have sought wherever possible to avoid doing that, because, as we have said before, the volume of education legislation is extremely large and we do our best not to add to it unnecessarily. However, if it is felt that we need to be more prescriptive and to provide more clarity in legislation rather than in guidance, there is a mechanism that allows us to do that.
Mr O’Dowd:
Do staff in voluntary grammar schools have more or fewer employment rights now than those working in the controlled or maintained sector?
Mr C Stewart:
I do not see how that could be.
Mr O’Dowd:
Are there any plans to introduce independent, free-standing employment legislation to back up proposals of the education and skills authority? Is there a raft of employment legislation to which the ESA or any other body must adhere? Every time that you draft a Bill, do you have to add the employment legislation to it? Is the ESA rewriting or adding to existing employment legislation?
Mr C Stewart:
The answer to those questions is no.
Mr John McGrath (Department of Education):
It is not in our power to do that. The law on employment will remain as it is now after the ESA has been set up; the ESA does not affect the legislation one way or the other.
Mr O’Dowd:
If a voluntary grammar school’s board of governors interviewed an applicant for a job for which he or she was best qualified, could the board of governors decide not to give the job to him or her because they did not like the look of that person? I am not saying that they would want to do that, but could they?
Mr McGrath:
They should not do that.
Mr O’Dowd:
I am not suggesting that they would want to but whether they could under existing legislation.
Mr McGrath:
The law of the land on fair employment applies to voluntary grammar schools no less or no more than it applies to controlled schools, maintained schools or any other employer.
Mr O’Dowd:
Concerns were expressed that the ethos of a school could be undermined by the ESA’s being the employing authority. However, boards of governors will conduct interviews and appoint staff, and that will not be undermined.
Mr C Stewart:
Ethos is always subject to the law; we touched on this issue several times with the Committee. The Committee has also discussed, and expressed its views on, the exemption on teacher recruitment in the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (FETO). That is why we posed that question in response to the Governing Bodies Association paper that sought clarification on additional exemptions in respect of fair employment and equality legislation for which it appeared to be arguing. Given the existing FETO exemption, it was not clear what additional legislative requirements the association sought to have disapplied to voluntary grammar schools.
The Chairperson:
Chris made a point earlier about the mechanisms that we could use to address those concerns, through either a direction subject to article 101 of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 or additional regulations. Would it be possible to make proposals or prepare a paper on that?
Mr C Stewart:
As a technical challenge, it is certainly possible. We would have to seek a view from the Minister. I am not aware of any technical difficulty that would prevent such a course of action.
The Chairperson:
I want to bring this session to a close because we have a commitment to Portadown College, whose representatives, I am glad to say, have joined us. Will the maintained schools, controlled schools, voluntary grammar schools, integrated schools and various other types of schools in Northern Ireland have equality in the employment schemes? Once the ESA has been established, will we be able to say, without any shadow of doubt, that all schools will be administered and treated equally and that no sector will have any advantage — through any sleight-of-hand or historical accident or privileged position — over any other?
Mr C Stewart:
I sense that you are looking for a straight answer and that answer is yes.
Mr Lunn:
Will you comment briefly on the bursars’ concern about clause 18(1)? It states that:
“… ESA may do anything that appears to it to be conducive or incidental to the discharge of its functions.”
Mr C Stewart:
On first reading, clause 18 appears to offer a degree of latitude to the ESA that might give rise to concern; however, it does not. The qualification that something must be conducive or incidental to the discharge of the ESA’s functions is important. There has to be a direct link between what the ESA wants to do in the discharge of its statutory functions and the education legislation. Therefore, the clause does not allow the ESA to set up private companies that can do something that is not connected to education.
However, apart from that, it is a fairly standard provision that would routinely be inserted into legislation to establish any new non-departmental public body delivering a public service. There is an almost identically worded clause in the Libraries Bill, and, if my memory serves me correctly, in the health and social services RPA legislation. Therefore there is nothing unusual about it.
Mr Lunn:
Could the ESA step outside that rule to do something that could be construed as not being conducive to its normal activities?
Mr C Stewart:
Specific departmental approval will be required for some of the things that the ESA will be entitled to do. In addition, more generally, if the Department felt that it was doing something that was not sufficiently related to its statutory functions in legislation or to the priorities that the Department has determined for it, we would step in very quickly with a formal direction if necessary.
Mr McCausland:
The folk from the Governing Bodies Association suggested that the ESA would be very bureaucratic and, therefore, a substantial portion of the budget would be spent internally in the ESA rather than going to schools. How do you see that working out? Will moving from the boards to the ESA reduce or increase bureaucracy and, therefore, the amount of money kept at the centre?
Mr McGrath:
A key objective of the ESA is to rationalise many of the administrative functions across the five boards and organisations and to bear out savings. The Department will consider the targets that it will set for management costs and bureaucracy, and the Minister has a clear view that she wants to get as much money out of the education budget to the front line of schools. That is a general objective above and beyond issues around voluntary grammars and in schools in general.
Mr McCausland:
What will the target be?
Mr McGrath:
We have not decided on the target yet.
Mr McCausland:
As much as 90% could go to schools.
Mr McGrath:
The Committee has had various discussions on the issue, and it would be helpful to get clarity about what we are counting. The amount of money in the Minister’s budget that goes into schools now — whether it is earmarked or is part of the agreed school budget — will increase over time; however, the scope to do that is limited by the expectations with regard to efficiency savings in future budgets and by cost pressures. Nevertheless, it is a general objective. We want to reduce educational bureaucracy to the minimum necessary to deliver an effective service and to get as much money as possible into classrooms.
Mr McCausland:
When will you have that figure?
Mr McGrath:
It will not be a set figure, but rather a figure over time or for each year.
Mr McCausland:
What will the initial figure be?
Mr McGrath:
I have said to the Committee before that the Department will want to consider setting an envelope for senior management costs in the ESA. That will address concerns that the Chairperson expressed about its structure at the beginning and about whether it could expand willy-nilly. Therefore we will want to put an envelope on it. We would like to get more information and agreement on the precise percentage of money that goes into classrooms, because different figures have been quoted from LEAs across the water. The Minister may want to set an objective for the ESA over a three- or five-year period and change the percentage over time.
Mr McCausland:
That may not happen. However, the ESA will be established on 1 January 2010, which means that the target must be set before that date. At what point during this year will that happen?
Mr McGrath:
It will be a target as part of the general oversight of the ESA to be delivered as it comes into full being. The ESA will not reduce or increase the amount of money into classrooms in three months at the end of the next financial year. However, it could be a target for 2010-11 to 2011-12.
Mr McCausland:
On 1 January 2010, will there not be a reduction in the amount of administration?
Mr McGrath:
There will not be an automatic reduction on 1 January 2010.
Mr McCausland:
When the ESA comes into being and the boards cease to exist, they will no longer employ people; therefore the reduction will have happened at that point.
Mr McGrath:
The people who are employed by the boards on 31 December 2009 will be employed by the ESA on 1 January 2010. Therefore, the rationalisation process will take a bit of time.
Mr McCausland:
How long will it take?
Mr McGrath:
That will depend on each sector. Gavin Boyd has appeared before the Committee to talk about the work that was done in the various sectors. The departmental overseers will have to say how long the process will take. However, we should not underestimate the management challenge of welding together seven or more organisations.
Mr McCausland:
Before we are asked to sign off on a Bill we need a clear steer from you on its benefits in real terms, and a target figure would give us some indication. The argument is being made to us that slimming down administration will put more money into schools, which is great. However, you must have an estimate; you cannot be working totally in the dark. When can we get an estimate? I do not want to overstep the mark, but it is incumbent on the Department to produce an estimate of the increase in money that will go to schools.
Mr McGrath:
I must be careful about what I say: I do not want to feed out figures about savings, because they will then be expected when the ESA is established. We operate in a wider budgetary context; we have 3% efficiency savings to realise at present, and all the indications are that that figure will increase. Therefore any savings made might have to be used to deliver on efficiency savings targets. If we have to make 3·5% efficiency savings in future, the last place that we want to make them is in the classroom. We may set a figure for the percentage of the overall money that goes into the classroom, but that does not necessarily mean that many of the savings will flow if we have efficiency savings —
Mr McCausland:
Yes, but you would be taking out only 3%. I assume that you are trying to make a much bigger saving than 3% by rationalising the system.
Mr McGrath:
Yes, but the 3% figure is for the entire education budget. If you were to turn that into a savings figure on the smaller amount of an administration budget, it could be 10%, 15% or 20%.
Mr McCausland:
Therefore there may not be any money coming out of schools.
Mr McGrath:
There may or may not. As a percentage of the money that has been spent, the Minister has an objective to increase extra money, but she does not know what efficiency target will be set. Therefore, it would be either premature or brave to give a figure for the amount of savings that will automatically be made in the front line when we do not know the efficiency cull.
Mr McCausland:
We know how much is being spent on the boards of administration. By this stage, Gavin Boyd must have some picture in his mind about the structure and the related costs and salaries. What is the difference? What will the saving be? What money will go to meet the 3% cuts or be put into the hands of schools? When will we have those sums? When will Gavin Boyd know the cost of his new regime?
Mr McGrath:
I do not know exactly when he will have answers to those questions. As he said the last time that he gave evidence to the Committee, work is being done on what models will be in certain areas. You are correct that once that has been done, he will be able to work out what the broader picture will look like and how much money will be saved by certain stages. I do not know how long that will take. We can try to find out.
Mr McCausland:
We are now in early March, and the Bill’s Committee Stage will run until some time in September. Can you assure us that we will have a figure before the end of the Committee Stage? Otherwise we are being asked to buy a pig in a poke.
Mr McGrath:
We will do our best to get the information for which you ask.
The Chairperson:
How will that relate to the business case, about which serious issues were raised? Has there been a revision of the business case for the reasons that Nelson McCausland gave? Not revising it creates the impression that everything is vague and hopeful, which is no way to enact legislation. We expect schools and the other parties involved to sign up and be accountable and show where money will be spent, yet we are allowing the ESA to come into existence on a very flimsy and ad hoc basis. We are being asked to agree to look at the ESA in three years’ time and amend it if necessary, but that is not the reason why we are bringing it into existence.
Mr McGrath:
I disagree with that perception. There is a business case on the establishment of the ESA.
The Chairperson:
It is only an outline business case.
Mr McGrath:
Outline is a technical term used by DFP; outline business cases are detailed, rigorous documents. One then moves to a final business case, which is why the previous one is called an outline business case. However, outline business cases still have to be made to green-book standards and with Treasury guidance.
The Department’s outline business case demonstrates that establishing the ESA will save up to £20 million in the first three years; that will create a vehicle in the ESA to rationalise education administration and draw out further savings. The Department is wary of getting the long-term figure up front because it could be offering hostages to fortune. However, the outline business case is one of the more robust pieces of evidence for RPA changes. If it were regarded as flimsy, some of the other institutional changes are flimsy as well.
The Chairperson:
When will we move from outline to final business case before the ESA is brought into existence?
Mr McGrath:
Work is in hand to move from the outline business case to the full business case, as required.
The Chairperson:
Could the Committee get an update on that?
Mr McGrath:
Yes. However, I have had this conversation with you already and with the previous Chairperson. The Department would be hesitant about writing down sure-fire savings over time in a business case. We know that we will have to deliver efficiency savings, and we believe that the ESA is the vehicle to tackle rationalising administration and, as far as possible, make saving that will not affect classrooms. That is the Department’s firm belief.
The Chairperson:
No doubt, Mr McGrath, the Committee will return to that issue.
Mr Elliott:
I have several issues, but I know that we are pushed for time so I will limit them.
The Chairperson:
I assure you that we will come back to them.
Mr Elliott:
The last issue worries me, and Mr McGrath’s answer that the Department is reluctant to put something down on paper worries me even more.
Mr McGrath:
The Department made it clear that the key objective of the ESA — along with raising standards — is to enable savings to be brought out from the current education administration, to sweep them up and, ideally, to get them into the front line. That is the objective. However, at the minute that is difficult, and I would be nervous about offering up a figure that could be taken as Gospel and almost as a contribution towards savings before we even have a further 3% target. Those figures could be taken as opportunistic savings, and we would still have to make 3% savings targets above and beyond that, which would be punitive.
Mr Elliott:
With your indulgence, Chairperson, I think that we will return to that at some stage.
Chris Stewart used the example that the GBA used earlier about defending a case at tribunal, saying that the ESA and the board of governors would be there. Who would take the lead; who would be the defence at the tribunal?
Mr C Stewart:
It would depend on the nature of the complaint and the matter that was being complained about. If, for example, it were a dismissal and the ESA had acted on an instruction from a board of governors to dismiss a member of staff — I am not a lawyer, let alone a tribunal chairperson — I would have thought that the lead party would be the board of governors, since it was the body that had taken the action that had led to the dismissal.
Mr Elliott:
Therefore the ESA would be the secondary party as the main employer?
Mr C Stewart:
I do not know that I would place a great deal of emphasis on who is named first or second.
Mr Elliott:
It would be a huge issue, especially for a board of governors.
Mr C Stewart:
Not necessarily; the tribunal or court would decide where the balance of responsibility or blame lay and would apply its judgement on remedies or damages accordingly.
Mr Elliott:
That is why the Committee wants those who will be responsible to be made clear in the Bill. I appreciate that there will always be legal arguments; however, that highlights the difficulties. I use that as an example, as it shows the ambiguity in the system.
I have another issue that I want to tease out, but I will have time at some other stage.
The Chairperson:
Who pays for the process, and will they all be represented separately? There are many matters to be satisfactorily resolved.
Mr C Stewart:
There is a short and a long answer to that question. The short answer is that if something goes wrong with employment in the public education service, although the taxpayer would meet the monetary costs, education and children would also have a price to pay because money that should have been spent in classrooms would have been wasted on other matters. Whichever body the court or tribunal fines initially is a matter for the court or tribunal; however, in a publicly funded service, ultimately, the taxpayer pays.
Mr O’Dowd:
With respect to Nelson McCausland’s question about the budget, is it not the case that the Department must accumulate some £20 million of savings by the third year of the comprehensive spending review?
Mr McGrath:
Yes. Under the CSR, we must realise savings of 3% per annum compounded. With that in mind, we indicated that establishing the ESA under the original timetable would, by the third year, contribute £21 million of savings. There are some concerns about the timetable being delayed, but the savings are already in the bag and, of course, accounted for. We are, however, wary about predicating decisions on possible savings down the line, which may already have been accounted for in the next budgetary process. That is a real concern for us, because we might have to find yet another 3% of savings.
The Chairperson:
Thank you. We will ensure that you receive copies of today’s submissions from the GBA and the bursars’ association; in addition, we will ensure that the GBA receives a copy of your response to the issues raised. This is not the end of the matter. I thank you again for your attendance, and, no doubt, we will see you again next week.