The Public Accounts Committee has helped the Committee for Finance and Personnel by giving its views on accountability matters that were addressed in the legislation brought before the Assembly last year. That led to the successful passage of the Government Resource and Accounts Act (Northern Ireland) 2001, which is one of the most significant developments in Government accounting in over 100 years. Its main purpose was the introduction of resource accounting, which will provide a stronger focus on outputs and hence on what we are getting from our public expenditure.

Resource accounting also provides a clearer distinction between annual short-term spending and longer-term investment in public assets and infrastructure. That will fundamentally change the basis on which the Assembly provides funds to the Executive for the delivery of public services and how the Executive account for the expenditure of those moneys.

The current financial year is the first for which resource accounts will be published. They will be laid before the Assembly in the autumn, and the Public Accounts Committee, together with all other Committees of the Assembly, will in future have annual resource accounts available to assist them with the important work of scrutinising Executive expenditure.

I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of my predecessor. I walk in the shadow of an exemplary Minister of Finance and Personnel, whose work in that capacity was widely acknowledged. Tribute has been paid to him from all sections of the Assembly.

Following representations and discussions with the Committee, my predecessor brought forward an important change which allows the Comptroller and Auditor General more extended rights of inspection than generally apply in the rest of the UK. He also gave an undertaking to bring forward in this session further legislation to deal specifically with audit and accountability matters.

Like my predecessor, I remain committed to the public scrutiny of the business of government, and I shall bring forward legislation to demonstrate that commitment. As Minister of Finance and Personnel, I am in favour of public services and effective accountability and scrutiny, which is clearly in the public interest.

While this debate is, strictly speaking, concerned with matters that fall within the ambit of the Committee, the principles of transparency, robust external audit and accountability should apply throughout the public sector. District councils spend over £400 million per year, and well over £50 million will be dispersed to councils from the Department of the Environment's vote for 2002-03. Council ratepayers should have no less right to information and effective external audit than do the taxpayers who pay for central Government services. Accordingly, I hope that the Assembly will support the Local Government (Best Value) Bill, so that the expenditure and functions of district councils will be subject to scrutiny similar to that to which Departments are rightly exposed. It is essential that the powers of local government audit are broadened and strengthened to achieve that end.

The work of the Public Accounts Committee will extend into that area as a consolidated picture of Government expenditure is provided in future through whole Government accounts. That will give a total picture of expenditure on all public services in Northern Ireland, including local government activities.

Those significant developments will provide better- quality information, as well as improved planning and management of resources. The work of the Committee and the Audit Office will be important to the development of the new financial management regime for the public sector.

The Executive are also carrying out a review of public administration, and in that context many issues of accountability must be addressed. Our planning and control mechanisms for financial management must be constantly reviewed and enhanced, so the Committee's work is important.

The Department of Finance and Personnel, in particular, looks forward to working with the Committee during the course of the next year. The accountability process in Northern Ireland has been, and will continue to be, enhanced by the work of the Committee. The issues highlighted in today's debate will further stimulate work in that area.

I shall now address a number of the points and questions that were raised during the debate. Given the short time available and the level of detail required, I shall be unable to respond to all the points. However, there will be further opportunities to do so.

Mr Billy Bell and Mr Mervyn Carrick raised the important issue of fraud in some areas of public expenditure. Mr Bell made several important points about the challenge that fraud in the public sector poses to us. Fraud robs the public of valuable resources that could be used to improve public services. We must promote and insist on a zero-tolerance attitude to fraud and we must develop common working arrangements across the public sector to tackle it effectively.

We shall ensure that there is proper accountability for the resources allocated and for their actual consumption. The Programme for Government sets out specific actions that the Executive intend to take to reduce losses due to fraud. Mr Carrick also highlighted the level of losses to the public. The Programme for Government, incorporating the public service agreements with the Departments concerned, sets out the way in which arrangements will be designed to deter fraudulent or other dishonest conduct. We are committed to ensuring that public sector resources are used for their intended purposes, and that the risk of error and fraud is minimised.

Mr Bell also referred to clawback arrangements for the Industrial Development Board (IDB) following Northern Ireland Electricity's sale of retail shops. We recognise the importance of having robust clawback arrangements in place, and the IDB, acting on guidance from the Department of Finance and Personnel, has taken remedial action. We also acknowledge that everyone can learn lessons from that case. In the case of Northern Ireland Electricity, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is taking actions to recoup the sums that are due to it. The amount is in dispute and is the subject of arbitration.

Mr Bell and Ms Morrice raised the issue of road safety. We have worked across departmental boundaries to agree a new regional development strategy and to develop a new road safety plan. The details of how those will be implemented are set out in both the Programme for Government and in the public service agreement with the Department of the Environment. With regard to the Committee's specific concern, I am pleased to note that the Department of the Environment has appointed 10 additional road safety officers and that its annual budget for promotion and publicity was increased by 75% in the current year.

Mr John Dallat and Mr Sammy Wilson raised issues regarding the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. Mr Dallat raised important points about its purchasing procedures. The Tourist Board has taken steps to address the weaknesses that were identified in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report. The Public Accounts Committee will also receive a report in June 2002 which will detail the purchasing contracts awarded since April 2000.

The Programme for Government highlighted the opportunity to provide greater accountability and to consider more coherent structures for delivering efficient, quality services. For example, the Executive will bring forward detailed implementation plans to improve public procurement. Those will include the policies, and organisational and procedural actions that are needed. The report will address more general concerns that the Committee has raised in the past about public sector procurement.

Seamus Close queried the conduct of economic appraisals. Accounting officers have acknowledged the shortcomings in the application of the guidance that the Department of Finance and Personnel issued on economic appraisals. Departmental officials have written to accounting officers about that. Further action to improve the matters raised will include the issue of new guidance backed by a training programme and seminars. I expect there to be a progressive improvement in the process of appraisals as an aid to decisions that the Executive may take. I thank Mr Close for his comments about my Department's prompt action on that matter.

Mr Close also raised the matter of the North/South gas pipeline. Roy Beggs echoed his remarks. Both Members asked about ministerial directions with regard to the North/South pipeline. The purpose of the ministerial direction procedure is to ensure that the issue of value for money is highlighted by officials so that it can be taken into account fully in Ministers' decisions. There is no question of interfering with Ministers' political judgement on how to proceed on particular issues. The Executive were of the opinion that the pipeline project should proceed in the light of the wider strategic interests, which include the realisation of an all-island energy strategy, and the social inclusion and environmental benefits of access to greater energy choice. I acknowledge that the potential benefits of the pipeline must be weighed against the wider economic costs. Those costs are such that the accounting officer of that Department could not defend the plans on value-for-money grounds alone. However, the project will have wider strategic and political benefits. The accounting officer does not have the authority to proceed on a strategic or political basis - that is a policy matter for Ministers to judge. Therefore, the accounting officer must ask for a written direction to proceed on such projects.

Mr Close also referred to projected electricity increases. I cannot confirm any level of price change at the moment. However, any consequential adjustments to electricity costs will be a matter of judgement for the Executive. I cannot confirm whether a copy of the investment appraisal of the project can be placed in the public domain at this stage because it may contain commercially sensitive information. I trust that all Members appreciate that.

Sue Ramsey raised the issue of health and personal social services pay. She urged the Department of Finance and Personnel to write to other Departments about the wider pay issues in the public sector. I am pleased to confirm that the Treasury officer of accounts has written to the accounting officers of all Departments. Copies will be forwarded to the Public Accounts Committee and the Comptroller and Auditor General.

I trust that I have touched upon most, though perhaps not all, of the concerns raised by Members. Further information can be provided for those who need it.

I encourage Members to follow the work of the Public Accounts Committee closely, and Members on other Committees should follow up on matters dealt with in my Department's formal memorandum of reply to ensure that the recommendations and the views of the Committees are being dealt with in a timely fashion. That will add value to the process; it will provide a greater understanding of the financial issues involved; and it will help the overall financial management process by supporting the better delivery of public services - something to which we are all committed on behalf of our constituents. I thank Members for their patience and indulgence.

I would like to thank the Committee members, and others, who contributed to this useful debate. I wish to include you in that, Mr Deputy Speaker, because if you had not been conducting your presiding officer duties, you would have taken part in the debate also.

You will not get any extra time for saying that.

Extra time was what I was aiming for. I do not wish to address all the issues that were raised because the Minister has already done so adequately, and I thank him for that. However, I can assure Mr Close and Sammy Wilson that to my knowledge the new watchdog has not been neutered. It has had its full course of injections, is in good health and is fully alert.

I feel a little embarrassed by some of the flattering things that have been said about me. I hope that Members who are not on the Public Accounts Committee do not think that we are running a mutual admiration society - we are running a serious Committee.

I thank the Minister for his positive response. It augurs well for the future and reflects the constructive relationship that the Committee has already built up with his predecessor and staff. I must pay tribute to the two departmental officers who most commonly serviced the Committee. One of them has now moved, but I look forward to developing a similar relationship with the new team and the new Minister.

In his reply, the Minister referred to the new audit and accountability legislation and the submission he received from the Committee. I urge him to take on board every recommendation in the report, because it has the unanimous support of the Committee. We will liaise further on the matter and will keep a close eye on it as the legislation goes through the Assembly.

Like the Minister, I believe in accountability. It is a healthy process that no one should fear. I also believe that the approach to accountability should be common across both central and local government. Speaking as a Member, I will support the forthcoming Bill on best value.

The first 18 months of the Committee's operation has exceeded all expectations. It has investigated and reported on more than a dozen major problem areas in Departments, including the rural development programme, Health Service directors' pay, school inspection and education performance. That is more than the Westminster Public Accounts Committee was able to do in the previous decade and shows the extent to which accountability has been improved in Northern Ireland as a result of devolution. It is my intention to maintain that impetus in the coming year.

The Committee has played a constructive role in pointing out to Departments the lessons that they need to learn to improve performance, and I have been impressed with the extent to which Departments have shown a positive response to our recommendations. One example is the promise of a more active effort to reduce public sector fraud. However, the Committee will continue to monitor the progress on our reports to ensure that these promises are fulfilled.

I want to refer to the point raised by Sammy Wilson about the award of contracts by the Tourist Board. From the report he will see that the Committee has not yet completed its consideration of this matter and it will deal with it again in the future.

The performance of the Social Security Agency has shown much improvement this year, and we hope that this will continue in the future. I thank Sammy Wilson for making those points. I also thank Mr ONeill for his points. I hope all senior public officials have now got the message that their activities are under much closer scrutiny. They will be held more accountable for the spending decisions they make and for delivering the improvements in the services that the Public Accounts Committee and the public have a right to expect.

I commend the report to the Assembly.

TOP

Common Funding Formula

I beg to move

As Chairperson of the Committee for Education, I am pleased to bring this report to the Assembly.

This, the Committee's second report, outlines our findings and conclusions regarding the proposals for a common funding formula for grant-aided schools in Northern Ireland. I am grateful to the members of the Education Committee for their assistance and their contribution to the report. Local management of schools (LMS) funding is complex, and the task of considering the consultation document - which ran to 164 pages - in a relatively short time required concentration and hard work. I also place on record a tribute to our specialist adviser and I thank the Clerk of the Education Committee, her staff and our Assembly researcher for their hard work in bringing the report into being.

The LMS funding system largely determines every school's annual budget. There are currently seven different LMS formulae in operation: one for each of the five education and library boards, one for the grant- maintained integrated schools and one for the voluntary grammar schools. While the factors used in all the current formulae are quite similar, there are some important differences in the amounts that are available to schools under each of the existing formulae and in the values attached to individual factors in each formula. Therefore there are variations in school budgets in different sectors in Northern Ireland.

The issue of how schools are funded has generated the most requests for meetings with the Education Committee, and there have been expressions of concern regarding the matter from all sectors and all sizes of schools. The Committee, therefore, welcomed the Education Department's consultation document, which was published in April 2001 and outlined proposals to introduce a common funding formula.

Initially it was planned to complete the consultation process by 29 June 2001 and to introduce a common funding formula by April 2002. After representations by my Committee, the consultation period was extended to autumn 2001, and the implementation date has been postponed to April 2003. Given the importance and complex nature of LMS funding, the Committee believes that that date is more realistic.

It is regrettable that the Department of Education could not provide real school-level data to the education and library boards. The absence of actual figures has made it almost impossible for respondents to be completely informed and to assess accurately the likely impact of the proposals. That has led to accusations of a lack of transparency, and therefore I welcome the Minister's attendance at this important debate. Perhaps he will wish to respond.

I will deal with the Committee's approach now. There was written and oral evidence from several key education organisations, which proved very helpful in identifying the main issues and concerns surrounding the proposals. The Committee believed that it was important to seek the views of the people who have to work in the current LMS funding system. We therefore discussed the proposals with several primary school and post-primary school principals. They represented a variety of small and large schools, urban and rural, as well as schools that face varying levels of social and economic deprivation.

We also looked at how schools are funded in England, Wales, Scotland and the Republic of Ireland and met with members of the executive working group that reviewed devolved school management in Scotland to oversee various issues, particularly teachers' salaries. As I have illustrated, the Committee consulted on the proposals in detail and was grateful to everyone who showed such willingness to contribute, especially the school principals who took time out of their busy schedules. The evidence received has been published as part of our Committee's report.

I now move on to our findings. I want to emphasise the importance of this matter. While the proposals may appear to be about an abstract financial formula, the outcome of any changes will directly impact on every school in Northern Ireland and how much they have to spend on teachers and providing the best education possible for our children. I am sure that many Members in the House are members of school boards of governors. They, like myself, will have experienced at first hand the difficult decisions that often have to be made, such as whether to make a teacher redundant and whether to use a part-time classroom assistant rather than a full-time one. All of those decisions have to be made to balance the books of the schools. Any changes to the LMS formula will affect all schools, and they must, therefore, be given careful consideration.

I now want to outline some of the main findings of the Committee and its conclusions. Unfortunately, in the time available, it will not be possible to cover all of the issues discussed in the report, but I hope that Members have studied the report carefully. The Committee for Education believes that the current situation where schools with similar characteristics, but in different areas or sectors, receive varying budgets is neither satisfactory nor equitable. We therefore support the introduction of a common funding formula for grant-aided schools.

The evidence received by the Committee, however, suggests that there are several issues and problems in relation to the proposals as they currently stand. Those need, therefore, to be addressed. The first issue is the likely effect on education and library board central services. The Department's preference for a high aggregated schools budget model of school delegation will put an additional £15 million into delegated school budgets. However, there is currently no indication of where that money will come from. If the £15 million is simply removed from the education and library boards' funding for centrally provided services such as home-to-school transport, school meals, special educational needs or curriculum support, the Committee would be concerned about the likely negative impact that that would have on schools and pupils generally and, in particular, on small schools.

While the Committee fully supports the need to target resources as far as possible into school classrooms, we recommend that if additional funding is to be delegated to schools it should be without detriment to the current levels of education and library board central services to schools. The evidence shows that there is little, if any, scope to remove any funding from the boards without that having a severe impact on centrally provided services.

The Committee also considered the current distribution of responsibilities between education and library boards and schools. The division of responsibilities should not be altered at present, but the situation should be reviewed in the light of the results of the forthcoming review of public administration.

I now want to deal with the treatment of teachers' salaries. As Members will be aware, salary costs are the major factor in school budgets. The evidence that we received suggested that the proposals do not adequately address that issue. The current formula provides school budgets with the average costs of employing teachers, but schools are then often charged with the actual costs of their employment. To fund at average costs and charge at actual costs has created major difficulties for many schools. It appears, for example, that some schools are appointing younger teachers and more use is being made of part-time and temporary contracts simply because of school budgets.

It has also been necessary to supplement the budgets of many schools through a salary protection factor in order to protect classroom provision. The purpose of the salary protection factor is to assist schools with the cost of employing teachers in circumstances where a school does not have enough income to meet the requirements of the statutory curriculum. It is proposed to continue this system but to extend the protection factor to a greater number of schools.

While the Committee is content that the cost of teachers' salaries should be retained in delegated budgets, we believe that the current funding arrangements create difficulties for too many schools and in some cases fail to meet the core funding requirements of schools. We are also concerned that the protection factor adds complication to the formula and may have to be applied to a majority of schools overall, thus suggesting that the basic funding arrangements for teachers' salaries are not appropriate.

Evidence received suggested that 80% of all schools in the Belfast Board area, and 96% of primary schools in the Southern Board area, would need supplementary funding to cover teachers' salaries under the current proposals. The Committee's view is that teachers' salaries may be addressed more effectively through other arrangements. We recommend that the Department of Education undertake further investigations of alternative methods before a final decision is taken.

Such investigations should include consideration of the methods currently used by Scottish local authorities. For example, Angus Council in Scotland meets the costs of teachers' salaries in full for individual schools, enabling them to appoint the most qualified teachers irrespective of financial considerations and ensuring that the above- average salary costs do not generate budget deficits.

The Education Committee has also made several recommendations regarding targeting of social need (TSN). I emphasise at the outset that the Committee supports in principle the policy of targeting social need, and the recommendations that we have made are not intended to challenge that policy. Rather, they are intended to ensure that an appropriate level of money will be made available and that those most in need will be identified and receive adequate support.

The Committee has reservations about the amount of information currently available to inform decision- making about the most effective levels of TSN funding. The Department is proposing to increase total TSN funding from 5% to 5·5% of the total schools recurrent budget. However, the basis for this proposed increase is unclear. It is also unclear, despite the Committee's best efforts to obtain more information, what the proposed additional 0·5% - which equates to £4 million - is intended to achieve.

The Committee therefore recommends that a more informed discussion, based on additional information on current and anticipated outcomes, should be undertaken before any change to the current level of TSN funding is made. This would enable an appropriate level of funding to be identified and funding to be targeted more effectively. This is most important, as any increase in TSN funding will reduce the level of money available to schools.

The Committee also has concerns regarding the free school meals indicator currently used to identify pupils who are socially disadvantaged. These concerns include the fact that the indicator may not identify the whole range of such pupils and the fact that it appears that many families do not take up their free school meal entitlement.

Therefore we support the view that supplementary indictors should be identified to ensure that the whole range of socially disadvantaged children is identified. The Department also needs to take steps as soon as possible to assess and maximise the take-up rate of free school meals entitlement. In the area of special educational needs, the Committee recommends that levels of educational deprivation should be funded using an indicator or indicators derived from levels of educational attainment rather than double counting the free school meal indicator. In that way, both elements of TSN funding can be targeted to meet the needs that arise from either social deprivation or special educational needs, whether those overlap for some pupils or are distinct for others.

The Committee believes that the use of end of key stage attainment tests to identify educational need is not acceptable. Those tests were not designed for that purpose, and the use of Key Stage 2 results in primary schools is unsatisfactory. Therefore we recommend that further consideration be given to the use of more robust and appropriate indicators, such as standardised testing or baseline screening, and that an appropriate indicator that identifies levels of need as soon as possible after entry into primary school be established.

The Committee welcomes the proposals to provide additional support for early years education. We have consistently argued that investment in the early years is an investment in the future. However, it would be unsatisfactory for that additional support to come at the expense of the post-primary phase of education. We recommend that the proposed additional support at primary level should not lead to a reduction of support for any other phase of schooling.

The Committee is concerned about the possible detrimental impact that the proposals for the Southern Education and Library Board's units for children with moderate learning difficulties would have. Those proposals appear to run counter to current initiatives to include, as far as possible, such pupils in mainstream schooling. We recommend that the Department reconsider its proposals and establish whether current practice in the Southern Education and Library Board should be protected and, indeed, extended to other board areas.

Connected to landlord maintenance responsibilities, and administrative services specific to voluntary grammar and grant-maintained integrated schools, the Committee has made a number of recommendations to promote best value and funding transparency.

Thus far, I have presented the report on behalf of the Committee for Education. However, I wish to express my personal views regarding the issue of funding for Irish-medium schools and units. I do not agree with the proposal to give additional sums of money to Irish- medium schools and units within the funding formula. It is my view that all sectors must be treated equally within the formula; no sector should receive special treatment. I feel strongly that Irish-medium schools and units should be funded on exactly the same basis as all other schools - in other words, according to the number of pupils in the school, the size of the premises, the number of pupils receiving free school meals and special educational needs provision.

In considering those matters, the Committee grappled with their complexities. We were however, acutely aware that any decisions would directly affect all schools and pupils, and the services that they receive. I re-emphasise the importance of that. One witness pointed out to the Committee that equitable inputs, although laudable, do not mean equitable purchasing power for schools. The Committee, through the report's recommendations, has attempted to improve the situation. I trust that the report will contribute significantly to the decisions that will be made on the way forward. I look forward to contributions from other Members and from the Minister and invite them to support the motion.

The issue is extremely important for Members of the Assembly, including those who are not members of the Committee for Education. The effect of this will be felt at all levels in their constituencies when the proposals are put in place.

As the Chairperson said, the present system of funding is extremely complex, and it produces very unfair results. Let me illustrate the problem. One principal wrote to us about three schools of a similar nature in his area: a controlled school where the funding was £2,165 per pupil; an integrated school where the funding was £2,601 per pupil; and a maintained school where the funding was £2,481 per pupil. That is a difference of £500 per pupil between the lowest and highest amount. They were all average-sized schools with around 500 or 600 pupils. That amounted to over £300,000 on the school budget, which is a significant difference, and it is bound to have a big impact on the school.

The Department is trying to address that problem. It is important that it be addressed. However, if we divide the cake differently we have to accept - and this is where all Members will be affected - that some schools in every constituency will lose money from their budgets, which will cause problems, and some schools will gain money. The Chairperson has already said that it is a great pity that the Department was not prepared to fully spell out the consequences for schools. However, the Department gave some figures that showed that some schools could lose up to £350,000 and some could gain up to £85,000. That is bound to have an impact on schools, especially in the short term.

One proposal which has been made - and which I am sure the Department will take on board - is that there ought to be a lead-in time of at least three years to allow schools to make the adjustment. Schools must not be hit with such big increases or decreases in their budgets, as it would be unfair.

We are told, however, that the aim behind the proposals is to have a fairer allocation of money. One proposal that is transparently not about fairness is the political preference of the Minister and his party for Irish-medium schools. It is defended on the basis that the Belfast Agreement lays down a prerogative for the promotion of the Irish language. However, it does not lay down preferential treatment for youngsters who choose to go to Irish-medium schools.

If the proposals were endorsed in full, the funding for a 200-pupil school would be about £600 more per pupil, on average, in an Irish-medium school. That would be made up of £100 for each pupil for the development of curriculum materials, £200 for additional administrative costs and over £300 for extra teacher costs. That is what the proposals state. The argument is that there are special considerations. This is not the main language which youngsters are subjected to when they are out of school. It is a second language. Contrast that with a similar group of people - those who have English as a second language. The consultation document indicates there are nearly as many such youngsters - 1,400 - going to our schools. The proposal for such pupils is not to give £600 per pupil per year for the length of time that they attend school; it is to give an allowance of £750 for two years, after which it stops.

Leaving aside the comparison with ordinary controlled or maintained schools it is quite clear that the proposal for Irish-medium schools is not driven by fairness but by the political preferences of the Minister. That must not be allowed. It was the only issue that the Committee did not agree on, and, again, it shows that this is being politically driven. Cognisance must be given to the Committee's response and the consultation that the Minister himself carried out.

The proposal on Irish-medium education drew most criticism. Six questions were asked about extra funding for Irish-medium schools. Disagreement ranged between 34% and 52%. There are about 90 other proposals, and none of them drew anywhere near the same amount of criticism or disagreement. If the Minister and his Department are listening to the results of the consultation, and to the political voices of Unionists in the Assembly, then they must give cognisance to the opposition that there is to that proposal.

I want to look at the subject of targeting social need. The Committee made it clear that social disadvantage ought to be addressed through extra resources. However, one of the first recommendations made by the Committee was that the Department must prove, first, that the money is needed and; secondly, show what the money is to be used for and give some indication of how effective money already spent has been.

We received evidence that a House of Commons Select Committee carried out an investigation that indicated that while the money spent on targeting social need had raised standards for the people it was directed at, it had not narrowed the gap between youngsters, as standards had risen across the board. Therefore money spent on targeting social need did not seem to fulfil its purpose when the whole picture was taken into account.

We were talking about the Public Accounts Committee reports in the previous debate and the importance of looking at the effectiveness of Government spending. If more money is to go in that direction, then it must be justified. There must be some clear direction as to what will be achieved by it. If the Department cannot show that, and is simply plucking £4 million out of the air to put to this part of the Budget, then we must raise questions about that.

The Committee has made a recommendation - which is in the proposals, and I hope that the Minister will stick to it - that the money should be allocated on a per capita basis. At present it is not allocated in that way. The Belfast Education and Library Board, for example, takes the view that some youngsters who come from socially disadvantaged backgrounds should have extra money allocated to them and others should not. The result is that in the Belfast Board area those who get funding receive £525 per pupil, whereas in other board areas where money is allocated on a per capita basis - as the Department proposes - it works out at around £320, or £340, per pupil. If money is allocated because a youngster comes from a socially disadvantaged background, then all youngsters who come from such backgrounds should have access to that funding. The report makes it clear that money should be allocated on a per capita basis, and we are backing the Department on this.

There is a lobby against that proposal, but I trust that in the interests of fairness the Department will stick by it.

The Committee is unhappy that some of the money is to be allocated on the basis of the take-up of free school meals. Witnesses advised us almost unanimously that that is a poor indicator of disadvantage and, in particular, of educational need. The report details alternative ways in which funding allocations based on educational disadvantage should, and could, be determined.

I promised that I would limit my contribution to around 10 minutes. Members will take up other issues. I commend the report. Madam Deputy Speaker, I will repeat a point that you made earlier: I am sure that the Assembly accepts that, thanks to the work of our Clerks and advisers, we have presented a polished report.

Given the large number of Members who wish to take part in the debate, I must ask Members to restrict their contributions to six minutes.

I apologise that after I make my contribution I will have to leave to attend another Committee. I hope to return before the end of the debate.

The distribution of education funding has been the subject of concern for a long time, and for many years my party has been calling for a common funding formula. That principle arises out of a commitment to equality of opportunity for all children to enable them to develop their full potential regardless of background or ability. Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which details the duty of equality arising from the agreement, obliges the Department to check that those proposals will result in an equitable allocation of funding. I look forward to seeing an equality impact assessment of the proposals.

A key requirement of the new funding policy is to ensure that social disadvantage is addressed and that TSN funding is directed towards the schools that are most in need. It is, therefore, scarcely believable that the budget that was allocated for TSN is a mere 5%. The proposal to increase it to 5·5% is less than reassuring, because, as the Chairperson of the Education Committee said, that translates into only £4 million. As I asked before, what impact could that make?

The proposed formula to allocate 50% of TSN funds on the basis of social deprivation and 50% on the basis of educational need would result in a loss of funding by some schools with the highest level of need. That is unacceptable. Although I accept that educational need must be targeted, I am not persuaded that in doing so the use of pupils' Key Stage 2 results is appropriate; the tests were not designed for that purpose. Further work to produce more satisfactory proposals is required.

The criteria for identifying social disadvantage should be defined clearly and should include children from families with a low income. To ensure that all socially disadvantaged children are targeted, the Department, in its calculations, should reconsider its emphasis on pupils' entitlement to free school meals. Some children do not take up their entitlement to free school meals because of the stigma that is attached or for other reasons.

Allocation should be proportionate to social and educational factors. An open and transparent system of assessment is required that targets genuine educational need. An easy-to-administer formula is needed that is predictable in its outcome. Decisions about resources must also be based on other educational initiatives such as the curriculum review and the Burns report. Wider Government programmes are also relevant, for example, targeting social need and the forthcoming review of public administration.

There is insufficient funding for special needs children. With the development of LMS, specialised posts have disappeared and teaching for special needs children has been incorporated into the classroom. Funding is available only for children who have been statemented. The Chairperson of the Education Committee mentioned the issue of special units in the Southern Education and Library Board. That was a model of good practice, and I fear that it will be lost due to the proposals for the new LMS funding.

There is also the matter of how much reasonable adjustment has been made within the Budget to increase accessibility. For example, if mobile classrooms are in use in a school, they should be accessible to children with disabilities. I am not talking about access only through the front door but about access to the facilities and services in the classroom.

Regarding the need for equitable funding power, support for small schools is essential to promote security of funding and to enable delivery of the curriculum and effective management in those schools. The Government must recognise the degree to which this largely rural society requires and merits a distinct approach to policy. It is legitimate to expect a local Minister to move beyond the Whitehall model of Government that has failed us so dismally. For example, the British Government have a policy of giving extra funds to schools that achieve better results. Although I appreciate that it is intended to act as a motivating influence, it could have a detrimental effect on targeting social need in Northern Ireland. Consideration should also be given to the resource requirements of schools that teach children from traveller families. I advocate an additional allocation of funding for those schools.

Although I support the introduction of measures such as the premises factor, I would like to see them examined further. A major concern about LMS is that schools should not have to trade off staffing costs against school resources. The Committee is totally opposed to that. Teaching is a demanding and stressful job which is vital to our community and our children's futures. The provision for allocating salaries must be re-examined. Teachers are an intrinsic part of the education system and, as such, are entitled to equality. The Department of Education argues that it must maintain parity with teachers' pay in England and Wales, and I say that we should have financial parity. Give us the equivalent resources on a pro rata basis for teachers here.

The Member's time is up.

We have an opportunity to secure a more equitable distribution of funds in the education system. That in turn should target social needs and properly address the local needs of all children. I too thank the Committee Clerks and special advisers for all their work. I support the motion.

Go raibh maith agat. This is a comprehensive and polished report. I presume that we are supposed to say that at this point. There was not complete agreement in the Committee on the report - there would be something amiss if we all agreed. The Chairperson said that there was hand-to-hand fighting on occasion. We did not fight over LMS, because we had other things to fight about. However, even the witnesses had differing views on various issues. I welcome the report and pay tribute to the staff for the amount of work that they put into it and other reports.

The common funding formula will help to remove discrepancies and inequalities from the funding of grant- aided schools. The education system in the Six Counties carries the heavy baggage of division. The current selective system has contributed to the perpetuation of social inequalities. The Thatcher years inflicted on our schools the ideology of education as a market - pupils are clients, parents are customers and teachers are front-line service providers.

Some schools have had to endure chronic underfunding over several decades. Schools where two thirds of the pupils are entitled to free school meals, which is an indicator of low family income, struggle beside schools where fewer than 1% of pupils who are entitled to free school meals. Secondary schools, for example, have been severely penalised because of downward trends in demographic figures. The grammar schools take the cream of pupils, leaving the secondary schools to suffer detrimental funding.

Free school meals entitlement has been shown to be a robust indicator of socio-economic deprivation. It correlates strongly with other indicators of deprivation and is also a good indicator of educational performance. That should remain so. Teachers and managers in schools with high levels of social deprivation have told the Committee that the current 5% allocation of TSN funding does not begin to address the deficit created by the impact of poverty on their schools. Through the years there have been many demands that the TSN allocation to school budgets be increased from the original 5%. The Committee strongly agrees with that.

However, Sinn Féin disagrees with the Committee's recommendation that TSN funding should remain at 5% pending further informed discussion. How much more informed discussion is needed? Five per cent is patently insufficient. There are Members who have not read what the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights (SACHR) has written about TSN over the past number of years. They should do so. In the meantime, the TSN top slice should be substantially increased. To save time I will give an example from SACHR's report, 'Employment, Equality: Building for the Future', published in 1997, which states that the TSN allocation of 5% is merely old money with a new name.

Five per cent does not begin to address the disparity between the notional costs of students from the highest and lowest social classes. Expenditure is about 64% higher for the former than for their poorer counterparts. The ability of social deprivation funding to rectify disadvantage is hindered by three factors. First, there is inconsistency in the distribution of social deprivation funds. Secondly, all schools with pupils who are entitled to free school meals should receive social deprivation funds. Thirdly, additional money per pupil should be awarded on an incremental basis to schools that have a free school meals index of 10%, 20%, and so on.

Average spending on school premises and grounds is higher in Protestant schools than in Catholic schools. Such funding should be kept under review, particularly in the context of changes in pupil numbers and the relatively low amount of money involved in TSN. According to the SACHR report, more of the school budget should be devoted to targeting social need.

Too many of the North's schools suffer from the same poverty as the children who attend them. The Assembly must support a significant increase in TSN funding now. I support the Minister of Education and his Department in their intentions to increase TSN funding to well above 5%. The Irish National Teachers' Organisation suggested 10%. Perhaps that is something we will not get. The Education Committee report notes that some parents do not register their children's entitlement to free school meals, and others who live in poverty do not meet the criteria for free school meals. I support the broadening of those criteria to include low-wage families.

I direct the following remark to the Minister for Social Development: linear application of free school meals fails to reflect the impact of the group, and the neighbourhood, on a child's educational experience.

The Member's time is up.

That is one of the reasons why the Minister of Education is proposing the TSN increase.

Please draw your remarks to a close.

Go raibh maith agat. That is all I have to say.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>