COMMITTEE FOR EDUCATION

OFFICIAL REPORT

(Hansard)

Area-Based Planning

03 June 2009

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr Mervyn Storey (Chairperson)
Mr Dominic Bradley (Deputy Chairperson)
Mrs Mary Bradley
Mr Trevor Lunn
Mr Basil McCrea
Mrs Michelle O’Neill

Witnesses:

Mr Tom Flynn ) Department of Education
Mr John McGrath ) Department of Education
Mr Denis McMahon ) Department of Education
Mr Chris Stewart ) Department of Education

The Chairperson (Mr Storey):

I welcome the departmental officials to discuss area-based planning, which is part of the second education Bill. I also welcome staff from Hansard, who have made the journey down.

Before the Committee are the deputy secretary of the Department of Education, John McGrath; the honorary member of the Committee, Chris Stewart, who comes before us regularly; Dennis McMahon, head of the investment and infrastructure division; and Tom Flynn, head of programme delivery support. Tom has been with us before. You are very welcome.

Mr McGrath will give us a brief overview of area-based planning before we ask questions. I remind members that we are under a time constraint and that the school has laid on lunch for us. Some pupils also wish, for reasons that I do not understand, to meet Committee members. We do not want to curtail that in any way.

Mr John McGrath (Department of Education):

Thank you, Chairman. My colleagues and I are glad to be before the Committee today in different surroundings; we are also glad to discuss the policy and legislation proposals for area-based planning.

The Department last appeared before the Committee to discuss area-based planning on 11 February 2009, when it circulated papers that dealt with issues that were raised during the consultation exercise on the draft policy paper. At the beginning of April 2009, the Department sent the Minister’s updated policy paper to the Committee. It also forwarded two tables to the Committee showing how it proposed to address the issues highlighted in the consultation exercise and by members of the Committee.

Following my contribution today, Chris will speak briefly but in some detail about the legislative proposals for area-based planning. However, before that I will make some comments on the key issues that have been outlined and the changes that have been made to the policy paper since the February meeting. The Department reported in February that responses to the consultation were broadly supportive of the approach outlined in the draft policy paper. However, the consultation exercise raised issues of roles and responsibilities, community planning, development proposals and the definition of areas. During that briefing, the Department outlined its likely response to those issues, and the two tables sent to the Committee at the beginning of April set out how the Minister proposes to deal with those issues.

Members raised additional points at the February briefing, and I will now touch on the response to those points, which have been set out in the updated policy paper. First, members asked how the post-primary exercise would operate if full area plans were in place. The policy paper makes it clear that the post-primary exercise will provide information for the full statutory area-based planning process. Furthermore, the five local area groups involved in the post-primary exercise reported to the central group in April and that group’s report to the Minister is expected in the next week or so. No doubt, the Committee will hear more about that process at the margins of its sessions today.

Committee members asked about the road map to achieving full area plans across the region and what would happen with the development of proposals in the interim. The policy paper explains that the migration process to put full area plans in place across the region will take time, with some areas requiring, or deserving, attention earlier than others. Furthermore, the policy paper and the legislative proposals that Chris will cover make it clear that all development proposals must be published through the education and skills authority (ESA) when it is established. Chris will elaborate on the distinction between the handling of development proposals under the ESA when area plans are or are not yet in place.

The Committee also asked for more clarity on the roles of the various bodies in the process. The policy paper includes an expanded section on that issue, and explains that the ESA will have the statutory role in preparing area plans. The various interests and sectors will also have an involvement through representation in the ESA-led area-planning groups, and there will be wide consultation on draft plans.

In February, the Committee also made the point that the sustainable schools policy should be reflected more in the area-based planning policy paper. Furthermore, it highlighted the fact that many rural schools that fall beneath the 105-pupil threshold will face a challenge in area-based planning and that that should be explicitly acknowledged in the policy paper. Moreover, the Committee questioned the non-weighting in the sustainable schools policy criteria and how smaller schools could be protected if those schools had a plan that was not accepted by the ESA.

In examining those points, the updated paper refers to several policies and states that the sustainable schools policy, although not the only policy, is a key one. The Department believes that the singling out of enrolments in the paper will require expanding on other criteria and policies, some of which may change and are covered elsewhere. Furthermore, the updated policy paper acknowledges that small schools present particular challenges and that their position will need to be examined carefully, taking account of their local circumstances. In particular, the ESA will be asked to justify how it applies the sustainable schools policy criteria in each circumstance, and how it will ensure that it is consistent with the policy’s recognition of the need for transparency in decision making.

The updated paper acknowledges that small schools are needed, that they must be supported and that there should be local flexibility in defining solutions. The challenge, in many cases, will be to come up with those flexible solutions.

That was a brief run-through of the papers that have been sent to the Committee. I hope that those papers, and today’s presentation, will reassure the Committee that we have considered all the issues that were raised during the consultation and at the Committee meeting. I will ask Chris to complement my remarks by dealing with the proposed legislation.

Mr Chris Stewart (Department of Education):

Thank you, John. Good afternoon, members. Our second paper focuses on the proposed legislation and is a companion piece to the policy paper. I will outline briefly the provisions that we believe are necessary to give effect to the policy that is set out in the first paper, although I will not rehearse all the detail. I apologise that, as usual, it is very dry and technical; that is the nature of legislation.

We will be happy to take questions on any aspect of the proposed legislation, but in my presentation I will focus on three key areas that will be of interest to members and the approach that the legislation will take on those issues: what do we mean by an area plan? What is the legislative process for developing an area plan? Who is involved, how will area plans be controlled, and what is the effect of an area plan once it has been drawn up?

The policy paper that John presented describes the concept of an area plan. In the legislation, an area plan will be defined as having three components. The first is an assessment of need for all education in a defined area — primary, secondary and special education, youth services, and what we refer to in legislation as educational services but which are normally known as early years. The second component is an assessment of the adequacy of provision of education in an area. The third component is the developments that are necessary to close the gap between the first two components and to ensure that that need is adequately met. That is how we will define an area plan in the legislation.

Areas will not be defined in the Bill but in the area plans. Each plan will define the area to which it refers, which will allow for a flexible and evolving approach. As John said, it will take time to achieve full coverage of Northern Ireland with area plans, but we will be able to do that without having to change primary legislation each time practice moves on. A pattern of plans will develop over time, and for that reason the basic planning function of the ESA will be defined as a power rather than as a duty in the legislation. That recognises the fact that it will take time before we have complete coverage.

The second key issue is the legislative process for developing area plans, establishing who will be involved, and the means of controlling the process. Under the provisions of the Bill, the role of the ESA will be to develop plans while the role of the Department will be to consider and approve them. The ESA will be empowered to develop new plans for an area as well as revise, revoke or replace them. That will allow, for example, for defined areas to be changed. We may start off with a pattern based on local council areas, but, over time, as planning develops and becomes more sophisticated, we may move to what we call travel-to-education areas, with a more detailed modelling of education need and uptake. The Department may approve a plan that is submitted by the ESA with or without modification.

The ESA is important, but it is not, of course, the only participant. The involvement of education interests is very important; the consumers and the providers of education — pupils, parents, staff and governors — are as important, if not more so, than the sectoral representative bodies that we often talk about. We have listened carefully to the views of stakeholders and Committee members on aspects of the first Education Bill, such as employment, and we recognise the need to provide clarity and certainty about the roles of participants.

The aim of the area planning legislation will be to strike the right balance. On the one hand, the role of education interests must be real and meaningful and must be guaranteed in legislation to ensure trust and confidence in the arrangements; on the other hand, we must not be over-prescriptive on operational matters, and we must not turn the sectoral bodies in particular into statutory planning authorities.

There will be only one planning authority: the ESA.

The legislation will achieve that balance with powers and duties for the ESA to involve education interests in the preparation of plans. The arrangements that we have in mind are set out in the policy paper and in the operational guidance that goes with it. We envisage a duty in the legislation to involve sectoral bodies and a power to involve other interests. Members may ask why a different approach is taken for each type of interest. The answer is that although there must be a clear policy commitment to involve all interests, it would not be practicable to have an absolute duty to involve every child, parent, staff member, and every governor in the planning arrangements.

The second key issue is control over the process. In addition to its formal approval function, the Department will exercise a proportionate degree of control over the ESA in the discharge of its planning functions. That will be primarily by means of guidance to which the ESA will be obliged to have regard. However, it is likely that there will also be reserved powers for the Department to make regulations on the form and content of plans and on the arrangements for consulting and involving stakeholders.

There will be a power to direct the ESA in the exercise of its functions if necessary. It is important to emphasis that we regard those as reserved powers. The Department will hold the ESA to account; however, it will intervene only when necessary, and it will not micromanage the ESA in the discharge of its role.

The third key issue is what effect an area plan will have when it is drawn up. Area plans will be central to determining the future pattern of development and the allocation of capital resources. The effect of the provisions is that no development proposal will be approved that does not conform to an area plan. That will apply equally to development proposals of any nature for any school in any sector. In particular, it will include proposals to transform a school to acquire integrated status.

The test of conformity will be central to the legislation, and it will develop as the planning process develops. As plans become more sophisticated and detailed, the rigour of the test will increase, and the latitude for development proposals will decrease. Therefore, an initial plan without much detail could be satisfied by various development proposals. However, a more detailed plan would be more difficult to satisfy, and a smaller range of proposals would receive approval. If no area plan is in place, the current process for considering and deciding on development proposals would apply, as set out in article 14 of The Education and Libraries ( Northern Ireland) Order 1986.

Proposals that do not conform to an existing plan would be rejected at an early stage before consultation. Proposals that pass the test of conformity are not guaranteed approval; they will go through the normal consultation and consideration process, which will include an assessment of how well they would meet the assessed need as set out in the plan. Plans will be used to assess and prioritise development proposals and the allocation of resources to make the best use of them.

Drafting of clauses to give effect to that is well advanced, and although it needs more work, we hope, subject to ministerial approval, to let members see the wording of the clauses within the next two weeks. Chairman, that has been a quick gallop over the ground. I will stop at that point for members’ questions.

Mr D Bradley:

Good afternoon, gentlemen. Area-based planning needs to operate within defined geographical boundaries and known pupil populations, and there must be flexibility along the borders of those areas. I believe that you said that in your paper. That might be particularly relevant to Irish-medium and integrated education. It implies, however, that area-based planning will lead to the end of open enrolment. You will want to contain pupil populations between area-based planning boundaries. At present, the transfer system is unregulated, which means that pupils may move into areas other than those in which they live or attend primary school.

The movement of pupils from primary to post-primary schools might go unchecked in future. The system of unregulated transfer will surely present difficulties for area-based planning because it will be more difficult to check the number of pupils in an area, and that will create tension. Will that problem be resolved if the legislation enables open enrolment to be discontinued?

Mr McGrath:

I do not think that there is any commitment to address the policy of open enrolment and how that is linked specifically to area-based planning. You are right about how we define particular geographical areas; at present, we cast a fairly wide net when looking at pupil movement to post-primary schools in Belfast.

We will have to define areas by taking account of circumstances and the existing pattern of pupil movements. We will just have to deal with those difficult issues, Dominic. We must plan provision, because we cannot stop until there is an entirely new or different pattern of pupil movement. We must accommodate that by having sufficient flexibility in the arrangements, in the early days at least.

Most of the physical plans, such as those for school modernisation, are already in place; however, it will be several years before the new plans for provision emerge. By then, I hope that those plans will be able take account of a more settled environment as regards pupil movement from primary to post-primary schools.

Mr Stewart:

Denis and Tom may wish to say a bit more about the practice of area planning as it develops. There are no plans to change the legislation on open enrolment. However, as planning becomes more sophisticated and our ability to predict pupil movement becomes better, it will be easier for us to reflect and accommodate the consequences of open enrolment in area planning.

Mr D Bradley:

Surely, open enrolment flies in the face of area-based planning as described in the briefing paper. Does it not make sense to end open enrolment in order to assist area-based planning?

Mr Stewart:

Whether we should end open enrolment is a separate policy issue. At present, the policy is one of open enrolment. I accept that there is a tension between open enrolment and area planning. As John said, it is incumbent on us to design area-planning arrangements that recognise and cope with that tension. It is not beyond the wit of man or of the ESA to develop a model of education choices and to ensure that area planning reflects that.

Mr D Bradley:

Is there a sufficiently sensitive system of prediction to accommodate that?

Mr Stewart:

Tom may wish to say a bit more about that. We recognise that the model has room for development.

Mr Tom Flynn (Department of Education):

Open enrolment and parental preference are key policy principles in the education system. We have to work around a raft of education policies, some of which lend themselves particularly well to a central planning approach and some of which do not. We need to recognise that. I call area planning an optimisation technique; it is not really about maximisation, because the policies make it more difficult to take a centralised approach.

As regards geographical areas, patterns of pupil-to-school flows have been relatively stable. Therefore, it is possible to envisage area-planned boundaries that internalise those flows in a geographical area. The wider an area is extended, the more flows will become internal to the area plan.

As regards projecting need, it is possible to envisage and define an approach that allows for, if you like, the import and export of pupils into an area. We need to distinguish between the need to delimit a geographical area for the presentation of an area plan, because area plans are like pieces of a jigsaw that make up the region.

There is an analytical need to define hinterlands in a way that completely covers pupil flows to individual schools. For instance, post-primary schools will have much larger geographical hinterlands than primaries, and different sectors will cover different geographical hinterlands. I see no contradiction in the requirement to account for all pupil flows at an analytical level and the need to have a boundary to define an area plan so that we have a set of plans.

The same issue arises in relation to community planning and proposals for new local government districts. People will flow across those boundaries and avail of services in different government districts, but, from a planning perspective, a boundary must be drawn. Therefore, I do not see that open enrolment should be an issue.

Mr B McCrea:

Despite what I have just heard about optimisation, I come back to Dominic’s point that open enrolment is incompatible with area-based planning, because moving parents and children around leads to a completely different result. To say that, in Civil Service-speak, parental preference and open enrolment generate a “certain tension” is an understatement.

Your presentation informed me that the ESA retains absolute power to direct and that the Department retains absolute power to direct the ESA if it is not right, despite the ESA Bills’ promises to maximise local autonomy. I see nothing in this proposal that gives any comfort to schools or sectors; that reinforces my view that the ESA is a Trojan horse that is designed to let the Department dictate to all and sundry that they must do what the Minister wants. Would the witnesses like to disabuse me of those views?

Mr McGrath:

I will comment on them. The Department runs a major public service, and it is important that we plan for its provision by developing a sustainable pattern of services that are sensitive to local needs and deliver good value to the taxpayer. That principle applies across major public services. The Bain Report suggested that we must adopt a strategic planning approach that had hitherto been absent. That is what area-based planning is about.

The ideal planning in a command-and-control system is to tell everyone the school, hospital or benefits office to which they must go so that one can plan around that. However, that is not how it works here. People’s preference for the hospital, clinic or school that they wish to attend must be accommodated. Therefore we do our best to make a strategic assessment and plan provision around it.

Despite managing the tensions created by the scope for individual preference and the need to develop a long-term template, it would be a gross dereliction of duty towards the education sector to suggest that the Department should not take a strategic approach to assessing need and planning long-term provision. Most arguments for area-based planning came from the Bain Report, which was an impressive piece of work that was carried out independently of the Department.

The scope for maximised autonomy relates to how the schools work from day to day and nothing in this works against that. However, a strategic-planning approach is needed, whether the project involves education, health or infrastructure services. I am curious about how that could be abandoned in the long-term as we plan an investment strategy and a robust and sustainable estate. Some issues of pupil flow, for example, could be a question of whether a new school should have one more classroom, not whether the school should be built at all.

That is where the issues about the degree of sophistication in the plan come from. Concerns about open enrolment and individual preferences are not reasons not to adopt strategic planning. They simply demonstrate that there are challenges to be faced.

Mr Stewart:

Your question linked two policies in a way that they are not linked. As John McGrath said, the policy of accountable autonomy is designed to ensure that school leaders, boards of governors and school principals are allowed to take responsibility for the day-to-day running of their schools. The separate area-based planning policy has never been predicated on the suggestion that schools would, themselves, plan the future provision of schools. That is the arrangement that we presently have, and it has led to what has at times been adversarial competition between schools and sectors. I do not think that the evidence suggests that that has always resulted in the best use of resources or the most sustainable delivery of education provision for learners, which is why, in order to ensure both efficient and effective outcomes, as John said, we must move to more strategically planned education provision, particularly given the resource restraints that we presently face.

Mr B McCrea:

We had two presentations before this one, the first of which dealt with specialist status for schools. This school, St Paul’s High School, decided to seek that status. Under your proposals, the school would not be allowed to make that decision unless it falls in with area-based planning. The second presentation was about learning communities working together, and one of the key messages to emerge was about the need to deal with things delicately and proportionately and to bring people with us. Your plan to dictate to schools will work against such co-operation.

Moreover, although I accept that it is good to have a plan and that we should attempt to work matters out, neither the will of the Department of Education, the Minister, Professor Bain nor anybody else must be allowed to prevail; the democratic will of the people must prevail. If you attempt to push those outcomes through, contrary to what parents want for their children, you will have a revolt on your hands. I tell you here and now, everything that I have heard suggests that your proposals are a tool to do just that and that you plan to go through the normal consultation process without listening to what we say. If there is no democratic involvement in the development of area-based plans, the project is doomed to failure. The fact that you are asking us to give you the tools to do that reinforces our concerns. Although those tools might be used benignly we cannot trust that, in the wrong hands, they will not be used against us. As things stand, we are opposed to them.

Mr Stewart:

You will appreciate that I cannot comment on the hands that might use the tools. However, we are satisfied that those are the tools that are required to do the job. I think, perhaps, that you overlooked part of the arrangements that we described. We think that it is very important that both consumers and providers of education play a key role in shaping the plans. That is why it is extremely important that the legislation includes provisions to underpin that role.

As I said, we have listened carefully to the Committee’s concerns that, when framing the first Bill, we did not give sufficient clarity and certainty to the role of stakeholders in relation to employment arrangements. We have received that message, and it is important that the legislation gives clarity and certainty about the role of educational interests when drawing up area plans. Therefore, it is not the case that area-based plans will suddenly appear out of the sky and be dropped or forced on learning communities or anybody else. Indeed, we hope that learning communities will play a central role in developing area-based plans. Schools leaders are the best-placed people to advise on, and shape, the future configuration of the education that is to be delivered in their communities.

Mr B McCrea:

That is a bit like gun manufacturers saying that guns are neutral and that it does not matter which side has them. Whoever gets control of the set of tools that you produce will be able to do with them as they please. My point is that there must be some way to achieve acceptable buy-in from all sections of the community, including elected representatives. You said that you have listened to people, but I do not think that those who have a democratic mandate are fully involved in those proposals.

I will say what everyone knows: people talk about consultation, but it is a joke. One gets informed, but one does not get a chance to change what is going on. Until and unless we discover a way to have genuine engagement with communities, those proposals will not work. I do not need to go on because I have made my point quite forcibly.

The Chairperson:

Following on from that point, there are concerns about article 14 and article 101 of the Education and Libraries ( Northern Ireland) Order 1986, and about the issue of control and absolute authority resting with the ESA or the Department. Will there be any appeal mechanism at all? If a decision comes from on high or a conflict arises whereby there is a clear difference between what has been proposed at a local level and what the ESA or the Department sees as the preferred route, is there any arbitration or appeal other than simply to say that it exists in legislation in article 14 or article 101?

Mr Stewart:

You have anticipated my answer.

The Chairperson:

That is why you are an honorary member of this Committee.

Mr Stewart:

It is contained in article 101. Article 101 is an extremely important mechanism, and sometimes we overlook the most important half of it. We focus on the first half of the article, which provides the opportunity for the Department to direct the ESA, or, at present, the education and library boards, if the Department feels that, for whatever reason, they are not pursuing an appropriate course.

However, the second half of article 101 is, perhaps, more important. That is the mechanism that allows someone who is aggrieved by something that has been done to challenge that action. If the complaint is upheld, the Department is then legally obliged to direct the ESA or education and library board to remedy the matter.

The thinking behind that is to have an accessible mechanism for stakeholders to challenge actions of the ESA without having to resort to, for example, a judicial review, which, although an effective mechanism, is not terribly accessible to education stakeholders. Article 101 provides that accessibility but is just as powerful as the judicial review mechanism in that the directions can be enforced by the courts.

The Chairperson:

The key words, surely, are “if the complaint is upheld”. Therefore, if the Department deems that a complaint is not worthy of being upheld, how does one challenge that? There would still be the same area of conflict in that the Department says that it listened to your concern and believes that you have a reasonable case, but it will not uphold your complaint. Therefore, one is no further forward.

Mr Stewart:

We are, perhaps, getting into the realms of the democratic process. We, as officials, have to operate within the policies and legislation on which legislators and politicians decide. If the complaint is that the legislation is wrongly framed, the Assembly, not us, will decide on that. If the complaint is that the policy is wrong, the Assembly and politicians will direct a change on that matter. However, once policy is set and legislation passed, it is our job, and the job of the ESA, to operate the legislation and to give effect to that policy. It is not for us to take a view different from that taken by the Assembly.

The Chairperson:

The key issue, therefore, is to get the policy and legislation right. That is why we have a lot of work still to do.

Mr McGrath:

The proposals are the building blocks, the lyrics. The melody, I agree entirely with Basil, is how these matters are implemented. We are talking about a process that will involve the ESA, in consultation with different stakeholders, having to work up draft proposals, which will go out for public consultation.

I suspect that that will be a challenge to the education system as a whole, because it will involve not simply sectoral interests; it will involve, as Mr McCrea put it, consumers. At times, the public view might well not be the same view as that of the education providers. The ESA will then have to come to a judgement in finalising its proposals. There might be difficult issues such as the sustainability of small schools, and the ESA will have to come up with ideas.

If the ESA then submits a plan to the Department and Minister for approval that is the subject of debate, discussion or controversy, the Department and Minister, in considering whether to approve the plan, would want to take soundings on it. In certain circumstances the Department may wish to consult again, if hot issues are involved. That is the democratic process, and that is what happens in many other areas. Before any legalistic processes are begun, that is what will happen. There will probably be issues of viability in some cases, and the conclusion may be that a school does not have a future in the long term because it is not sustainable and no one has come up with a solution.

My suspicion is that the process will be very open, with more public debate than is perhaps usual in the education sector. There may well be some tensions between the stakeholders, who are, in a sense, the providers of the system, and the consumers, who will get more of a say, and rightly so. That will be a challenge. Although there are basic legislative datum points, there will also be an accompanying behavioural process that will prove a challenge to everyone.

Mrs M Bradley:

You say that small schools should be supported when they are needed for an area. Is there a need for a rural factor in funding to ensure that the schools that are removed from the main hubs are consistently supported?

Mr McGrath:

Although not directly related to the matter you raise, there are issues around the funding formula, and we are currently working on proposals for a review of that formula to take account of such issues. The funding formula will be under constant review, but it is safe to say that, with the constraints on expenditure in the future, the cost-effectiveness of certain patterns of revision will also have to be considered. We cannot plan for a pattern of provision that we cannot afford. Increasingly, questions related to sustainability will also have to involve a consideration of cost-effectiveness. A funding formula may fund the school, but it could be argued that once the per capita funding has gone over a certain threshold, it is not a good use of taxpayers’ money.

Mrs M Bradley:

So, in the meantime, the teachers and partnerships in the learning communities will have to soldier on and struggle in whatever way they can to gel together and collaborate. They are not able to do it.

Mr McGrath:

Funding is something that will be considered. The area-planning process will give rise to challenges in many areas around small schools. The issue will be whether one can come up with solutions that would sustain those schools in collaboration with others, in federated models with others, or in shared governance arrangements. Those are all possible ways of dealing with the challenges that will arise. Once those are dealt with, the Department may then need a funding formula that takes account of the fact that there are smaller units.

In some cases, the conclusion may be that a school is simply uneconomical, not sustainable in education terms, and may well not have a future. Those are the issues on which the ESA will have to make judgments and submit its views to the Department. That is why I made the point at an earlier meeting that the solutions in each area will not necessarily be the same; much depends on the circumstances involved.

Mrs M Bradley:

You said that consumers would have to be consulted on area planning. By consumers do you mean the young people as well as their parents? A lot of young people know exactly what school they want to go to, and they want to choose that school. Will they be listened to?

Mr McGrath:

The Department and the Minister envisage that the area-planning process will take account of the views of local communities, and, in particular, pupils, parents and families. It will be a broader debate than has perhaps been the case in the past, because there may well be some tensions between what the consumers — kids and their families — want and what providers want. That may prove to be a challenge for all education stakeholders in the future, and there may well be disagreements about preferred patterns.

For that reason ESA will be involved in a process at a local level that includes local consultation, local engagement and local meetings, which has not been the case to date. That will provide a context for the mechanical legislative process that we are setting out and will address some of the issues about which Basil is rightly concerned.

Mrs M Bradley:

So the young people will have their say as well as the parents; that is fine. Thank you.

Mr Lunn:

I do not share Basil’s fear and trepidation about the consultation process, because, in my view, the biggest risk is that this country will eventually drown in a sea of consultation. Consultation to the nth degree is quite normal, and the process will take place on this issue just as it does in all other fields of Government. I do not share the fear that the consultation will be held and then ignored and that we will be dictated to. Basil’s problem is that he does not trust the person at the top of the pyramid — the Minister — to do the right thing.

Basil has a habit of using the word “we” in Committee meetings. In the previous evidence session, he said that we will try to do something about the transportation problems for learning communities, and that is fair enough. That is not a party position, but a sensible proposition that members can all support. However, I want to make it absolutely clear that when he says that we have fears about what is happening — appearing to indicate the Committee — that is a party position, not the Committee’s position. If we took the views of everyone sitting around this Committee table, we would find that members have different views, including much lower levels of suspicion about what is going on. Some elements distrust the whole ESA process and the Minister in particular. We do not all share that distrust.

Mr B McCrea:

May I respond as the comment was about me directly?

The Chairperson:

Yes, briefly.

Mr B McCrea:

I am sorry if my command of grammar has let me down, but I want to make it clear that as far as the issues that we are talking about here are concerned, I am speaking on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party. I am surprised that Trevor does not understand that because he has been at a number of meetings with me. I will be careful to make a point on the particular matter discussed because there are fundamental differences between the approaches that Trevor and I take. He is quite entitled to his approach. If there is any ambiguity on that, I am happy to clarify it.

The Chairperson:

Thank you.

I thank members, and I also thank the Department officials for their help today.