Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement and detailed explanation of the spring Supplementary Estimates. At its meeting on 5 February, the Committee for Finance and Personnel considered the near final proof document of the spring Supplementary Estimates for 2001-02 and the Vote on Account for 2002-03. Department of Finance and Personnel officials appeared before the Committee to answer questions and to help it to navigate its way through those difficult issues. The documentation involved is dense.

The Committee acknowledges that the format of the Estimates is naturally detailed and that the Minister inherited the current versions. The Committee also accepts that the introduction of resource accounting and budgeting has added a layer of detail to what was already a complicated financial document. The Committee is concerned about the short period provided for Committees to scrutinise the Estimates. It is also essential that the format of the Estimates be user-friendly so that the Assembly and its Committees can do their job effectively. Appropriate guidance must be made available to enable Members to make sense of the Estimates, which they are expected to approve, and to inform the public. Department of Finance and Personnel officials share that concern and have undertaken to address it. The Committee is concerned that that matter be progressed urgently and that the improvements are in place before the Main Estimates in June.

The timing of the debate and the arrival only this morning of the final version of the Estimates and the Vote on Account leave much to be desired. The Committee must not be taken for granted. It will not continue simply to be a rubber stamp for accelerated passage of the Budget Bill unless the Executive provide sufficient opportunity for consultation and scrutiny. That is a crucial issue. Last week the Committee considered the matter in detail before it approved the Bill's accelerated passage.

The Assembly must find ways to help Committees. Departments must co-operate with them to ensure that that happens. The Committee welcomed the Minister's recent decision to review the effectiveness of the in-year monitoring procedure against the considerable quantum of reallocations. Departments already have problems in quantifying their budget needs. There is a danger that resources are being deployed and not spent. Those resources could be spent by other Departments and might have been more effectively allocated elsewhere in the first instance. The Assembly must examine budgeting and how it is followed up so that it targets the Departments that are most in need.

The Committee urges the Minister to complete his review in time for the first monitoring round of the new financial year. It will look carefully at any proposals that emerge. The Committee accepts that the Estimates documentation may remain dense and complicated. There may be some advantage in the Department of Finance and Personnel providing for Committees and Members a training and awareness seminar on the subject. I wrote to the Minister to highlight those issues on 7 February. I hope that he will be able to respond positively to the Committee's concerns. Although the Committee for Finance and Personnel accepted the accounting nature of the Supply Resolutions and has formally written to the Speaker to approve the accelerated passage of the Budget Bill under Standing Order 42, the Minister and the Executive must reflect on the concerns that were raised, and about which I spoke earlier. The process must be remedied in time so that the situation can be rectified before the Main Estimates in June.

Speaking as a Member from west of the Bann, not as a Committee Chairperson, I reiterate some issues. The Assembly must examine the lack of health facilities, poor infrastructure, poor school buildings and all the other issues that were targeted as priorities in the Programme for Government. Proper budgeting by Departments is necessary. It is noticeable that £198 million is reallocated in various ways by Committees under the monitoring rounds. That money is recycled several times. If, at the outset, that money had been allocated in Budget form to the Department that needed it most, the continuous monitoring rounds might involve less money. This is not new money - as the Minister said several times - it is money that has been regurgitated. We must examine this issue.

The Assembly has three priorities, health, education and infrastructure, and these are needed most west of the Bann. The money must be correctly allocated, and I am glad that the Minister agrees that there must be a review of that procedure. The Assembly must address the imbalance that exists between the areas east and west of the Bann. The west of the Bann has been neglected for years by Unionists in the old Stormont Parliament and by the British Government during direct rule. This situation must be changed if the Assembly is to signal new ways of moving forward. We must redress the balance.

We must ensure that New TSN is not just about the three letters "T", "S" and "N". We must ensure that we are targeting social need where it arises. Unfortunately, this approach was not followed during the allocations of European funding. Although that is not the Minister's direct responsibility in his present role, it is part of the Department of Finance and Personnel's remit. How is a situation dealt with whereby an area west of the Bann is depopulated over years and then population is used as an indicator for allocating European funds? The indicator has been a failure. Depopulation has caused the west to suffer in relation to jobs, housing, infrastructure and economic development. If budgets are to target social need, the Assembly must put itself in a position to address this problem. The present system is not doing that. We are simply doing what has been done in the past and following the same patterns.

Timescales are too short. Committees do not have enough time to scrutinise Budgets and develop their ideas. Departments do not have time to think through new policies. I had hoped that this could have happened with respect to the Executive programme funds, but it has not. Executive programme funds are being allocated in the same way as normal budgeting rounds.

I will return to the monitoring rounds. A total of £198 million is being recycled year after year. If health were to be prioritised, we could allocate that money to the Department at the beginning of the budgeting round to address the imbalance. Over time we could prioritise housing, education and infrastructure instead of simply recycling money. If the Assembly did that, it would start to redress the balance of the past. If it cannot do that, the Assembly will fail.

In the new rounds each Department and Committee must take this situation into account when they are in the bidding process, and not simply wait until this stage, which is merely a rubber-stamping exercise. We must look at departmental bids. Are they targeting social need? Is the money going where it should, or are Departments budgeting for things that they may want to implement but cannot deliver?

I ask Committee members to ensure that they are involved in the process and that they receive the information. I hear, through the Chairpersons Liaison Committee, that Members cannot get information from relevant Departments. Members are entitled to that information. I urge them to get the relevant information and become involved in the bidding process, so that the Assembly is not simply rubber-stamping the Budget at the end of the process. In that way, we can address the imbalance and make good progress for the future. Go raibh maith agat.

I want to place on record my sincere thanks to the Minister of Finance and Personnel for the detailed presentation of the spring Supplementary Estimates, and also for touching on the Budget for 2002-03.

One of the greatest problems in any Budget debate in Northern Ireland is that we are, as someone recently put it, seeking pieces of a pre-baked cake, in that we have very little or almost no ability to expand our revenue and hence to expand our expenditure. Quite correctly, there are, and will be, considerable tensions between Departments in seeking the maximum share of the cake.

I assume - and I hope that the Minister will confirm this - that it is the Executive's collective responsibility to determine the priorities to which the various sectors of the cake are allocated. In other words, is there corporate responsibility within the Executive for the budgets now being put before us? Added revenue resulting from each proposition made by any Department must, because of the finite cake, be taken from some other Department or cause. It is incumbent on any Minister or any Member who asks for additional resources to have the courage to indicate where those resources should come from. Otherwise it is a glib question, and we should not raise people's hopes on various financial matters that are not in the control of the Assembly or the Executive.

In that frame of mind, I assume that the Minister can confirm that the Minister for each Department agrees with the Budget, with the Supplementary Estimates for 2001-02 and the proposals for 2002-03.

Time and time again I am surprised when certain individual Ministers claim that in some way they have been deprived of resources to do x, y or z. I have always assumed - and if I am wrong I hope that the Minister will correct me - that each Minister agrees to his or her own budget and to the totality of the Budget. In that process there must be give and take, but that is the position, and we must therefore desist from passing the buck to other Departments or Ministers. Otherwise, the Minister should explain that our 10 Departments are independent and not related at all, but I do not believe that for a minute.

In general terms, however, we must question where we can expand the resources available to us. We should pursue possible alternative sources of revenue, either within or without our jurisdiction. I am not ashamed to admit that I would seek additional resources from other countries on the grounds that they understand our problems, that they have been sympathetic and that they have contributed in the past. Only now do we evaluate the huge shortfall in almost every Department as a result of the years of direct rule. Time and again the enormity of the lack of infrastructure and basic capital expenditure during that time comes to the fore. I note that the Minister in his introduction indicated at least an amber light in respect of the Barnett formula, although he advised us to weigh up the risk options when dealing with that problem. However, off the cuff it looks as if that is the only option we have at the moment - risks and all - whether we like it or not, in the hope that fair play and justice will win in the end.

On top of that, multimillion pounds of additional funding are announced from time to time for roads or health by the Exchequer in London. Does an appropriate part of that filter down to the Government and Departments in Northern Ireland? I am not very sure that it does.

Maximising parallel funding is another important area that we should engage in strenuously, not only at Executive administrative level but at local government level. Time and time again I hear rumours - although I seldom hear the facts - that European funding, which requires parallel funding from the Exchequer, cannot come into play either because of the absence of parallel funding or, sometimes, because of the lack of efficient administration and appropriate application. The Assembly has a duty to assist local authorities, of whatever nature, when they seek external funding. We must offer them expertise and advice, and open their lines of communication.

The Minister said that the amount indicated for 2002? is not the final allocation, and I am sure that we shall return to the various sectors during debates in the early summer and the autumn.

It would be inappropriate for a Member to speak in such a debate and to be completely global in his or her remarks. Therefore, it may be that I have an excuse to be slightly parochial for a moment, but I shall try to apply a general thesis. Will the Minister, or the appropriate Minister, confirm that, if a hospital construction is programmed to take place immediately after the Hayes review, it should be specific in the Estimates for 2002-03 at this stage? If not, I presume that any comment to the contrary would be false, especially in view of the fact that the money for Downe Hospital has, allegedly, been available for four years. However, as I am unaware of its being reallocated to another project, I presume that it was never there. That is another story.

There is also the question of the strong promises that were made for the Mourne health facility that was demolished six years ago and was to have been replaced. Again, that is not the Minister of Finance and Personnel's responsibility, but if after six years it is not in a funding programme, I wonder whether the project is capable of delivery in the allocated time frame.

Is there any scope to introduce free residential care for the elderly? The issue is twofold. First, there is the obvious benefit that residential care creates. Secondly, Members know that many beds that could serve other purposes are tied up locally because hospitals are unable to discharge the elderly into their communities.

Mr Molloy mentioned educational allocation. Is the concept of equality proofing and rural proofing fully applied to all the allocations across the sectors? Mr Molloy referred to some sectors; I refer to all sectors because it must be applied to all Departments.

Is the hon Gentleman clear about what rural proofing really means? We have been seeking a definition from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for many months, and we have not been given an answer.

I do not know whether to thank the Member for his intervention, because I cannot answer his question.

We have a concept of rural proofing. I know what I mean when I use the term "rural proofing". I am not aware of any departmental definition of the term, but it has been talked about a great deal in the Executive's Programme for Government and in relation to the concept of equality. The Noble indices have been introduced to show shortfalls in social resources, and my guess is that rural communities, in particular, are under-represented as regards allocations. It is easier to focus on the visible deprivation in urban areas, but deprivation is often not as apparent in rural communities. That is why I am anxious that this aspect of rural proofing be applied urgently to the allocations in all Departments.

Equality and rural proofing are also relevant to the Department for Regional Development. The Assembly has recently debated the Department's transport policy and other policies and, speaking as a representative of south-east Ulster, I think that it is becoming apparent that there is a shortfall in allocations to these programmes and intentions in that area. I cannot go into detail about that.

Fishing is often not mentioned, although it is the responsibility of the same Department as agriculture. Fishing is a major industry in my constituency. Will there be provision in the 2002-03 Estimates for a new policy for agricultural development? There is a vision group paper on the subject, which is at consultation stage and which will be addressed in detail in the next couple of months. However, in the aftermath of BSE, foot-and-mouth disease and the crisis with international exchange rates and the green pound, it is essential that we have a definitive policy, backed by finance, to allow those who wish to retire from farming to do so with dignity and a degree of financial and social security.

We must also have the ability to introduce new blood to the agriculture industry by providing, for example, a scheme similar to the Dutch one. Such a scheme would allow new entrants who are well trained, well versed in farming, modern technologies and trade techniques to be brought into the farming industry. Unless we have such a vision for agriculture, backed by finance, we will simply be treading water.

It is very tempting to speak about all Departments, Mr Speaker, but you will frown upon me if I speak for much longer. I hope that we have an opportunity to address some fundamental policy issues so that we can re-resource and reallocate funding for 2002-03. Aside from the urgent need to spend current Budget allocations within the current financial year, of which there are about five or six weeks remaining, there is not much that we can do about initiating and paying for new schemes.

Given the often-repeated announcements from the Blair/Brown axis that millions of pounds of additional resources are being put into roads, education and health, can we be assured that we will get a real and meaningful share of that money, backed up by compensation for the shortfall that we suffered under years of direct rule? That is my central concern.

Can we also look for alternative resources with which to build a bigger cake, so that Departments can be given a bigger slice to deal with their various requirements? The principles of the Barnett formula are difficult to grasp, but there is no point in dealing with that issue today. However, I hope that at the end of that we will have an outcome that will substantially enhance the resources available to Northern Ireland.

Will the Minister confirm that the spring Supplementary Estimates, and the Estimates for 2002-03, are the consequences of an agreed Budget, reflecting the input of every Minister who signs up to and agrees with it? Furthermore, does the Minister agree that, in principle, it is totally wrong for a Minister to say that they were not given x or y by another Minister? Responsibility for the Budget is either collegiate or it is not. If it is not, I would like to know that so that I can handle the matter differently. If responsibility is collegiate, Ministers making statements outside the House should show more honesty and integrity.

The House will know that we must interrupt the debate at 2.30 pm for Question Time. I am therefore hesitant to call the next Member on my list - the Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, Dr Paisley - because I suspect that he would barely be getting into his stride when I would have to interrupt him. Of course, he could resume his remarks after 4.00 pm, but I think that it would fairer to him, and to the House, if we were to make clear that he will be called at 4.00 pm. In the meantime, the House will take its leisure for a few minutes.

TOP

Oral Answers to Questions

I wish to advise Members that question 9, in the name of Mr John Kelly, has been transferred to the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure and will receive a written answer. I do not see Ms Lewsley in her place, so I call Mr Ken Robinson.

Question 1.

That takes cross-community co-operation a bit further than is legitimate in the Chamber.

2.

asked the Minister of Education what steps he is taking to ensure that salary differentials continue to exist for vice-principals and principals of schools following the introduction of threshold payments for teachers.

(AQO 790/01)

The agreement negotiated last year between management and teachers on the teachers' salaries and conditions of service committee recognises that there should be appropriate salary differentials. Under that agreement, a vice-principal's salary range starts at a point above the salary of the highest-paid teacher in the school. In turn, the first point on the principal's salary range must be higher than the top point of the vice-principal's salary range.

The problem lies in reaching agreement on appropriate differentials, given the differences between schools in management structures, job weights and existing pay differentials. The employing authorities and my Department have been working hard on guidance for boards of governors on the pay arrangements for principals and vice-principals. Although this has not been a straightforward task, it is expected that the guidance will issue very shortly. Any consequential pay changes for principals and vice-principals will be backdated to 1 September 2000.

Does the Minister agree that the people who have held our schools and community together over the past 30 years, when others were hell-bent on destruction, now deserve to see a tangible reward for their loyalty and dedication? Also, does the Minister consider it proper when a teacher at the top of her scale is promoted to the post of vice-principal and, as a consequence, is £500 less well off, or when two vice-principals now find themselves on a salary £1,500 lower than the highest-paid teacher in their school, or, indeed, when a teaching principal who worked in the evenings and over the weekends to ensure that his colleagues received their threshold increase has yet to be told when his differential will be restored?

When the pay agreement was reached last year, priority was given to putting in place the arrangements for assessing eligible teachers and paying salary increases to those assessed as meeting the standards. Principals, assessors and the employing authorities have done an excellent job in completing almost all the assessments, and some 70% of successful teachers have now been paid. The new arrangement for vice-principals has not yet been implemented because of the priority given to threshold assessments. When it is implemented shortly, all vice-principals will receive more than their teachers, and the awards will be backdated to the same date as that applying to teachers.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Will the Minister instigate an independent inquiry into teachers' pay and conditions?

I am still considering that matter. I have received further representations from teachers, and I expect to announce my decision soon.

3.

asked the Minister of Education to detail any discussions he has had with the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety regarding the care of young people leaving schools such as Hillcroft Special School, Newtownabbey, at the age of 19.

(AQO 783/01)

I personally have not had discussions with my Colleague, the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, on this issue. However, the procedures are as follows. The Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 requires education and library boards to refer pupils in special schools to the relevant health and social services trust at age 14 for an opinion as to whether they come within the scope of the Act and are, therefore, likely to require further care when they leave school. The special education legislation imposes certain duties on boards regarding transition planning. My Department's code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs provides further advice on the process. Boards are required to inform trusts about a young person leaving special school up to a year in advance.

I thank the Minister for his response on the procedures. The issue is clearly of major concern and another area was highlighted in the press at the weekend.

Before the Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1989, special schools under the control of health and social services boards appear to have had much greater co-ordination with sheltered workshops and adult centres than they have now. Is it acceptable that, because of difficulties with provision, young people are thrown out of the only available care for them in special schools before alternative care is provided?

Education and library boards are required to notify health and social services boards and trusts for an opinion on whether young people in special schools who reach the age of 14 are disabled according to the Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 and may, therefore, require further care on leaving school. That happens at least two years, but more commonly five years, before such young people leave school. I cannot see any merit in earlier notification, although we are all responsible for examining those issues.

Health and social services trusts may wish to approach the education and library boards about that specific problem to see if opportunities exist for the use of school facilities out of school hours. For example, special schools' assembly halls could be used for sports or drama activities, specialist rooms could be used for home economics, art, craft and technology, and it might be possible to use hydrotherapy pools, if they were available. That would, of course, be subject to agreement between the trust, the board and the school.

What measures are being taken to prepare young people in special schools for life after school at the age of 19?

The education and library boards are required to prepare a transition plan at the first annual review of the statement of special educational needs after a young person reaches the age of 14, and a transition plan is designed to facilitate a satisfactory transition from childhood to adulthood. It contains the arrangements that a board considers appropriate for a young person who is aged between 14 and 19, including special educational provision and any other necessary provision such as suitable accommodation, leisure activities and employment.

I do not see Mr Kennedy in his place, so I call Mr Mick Murphy.

TOP

5.

asked the Minister of Education what is the core issue in the current debate on post- primary provision; and to make a statement.

(AQO 814/01)

The core issue in the current debate is academic selection. The weaknesses of the current selective arrangements were evidenced by the research undertaken by Prof Gallagher, Prof Smith, Save the Children and Prof Gardiner. The submissions to the review body made it clear that the public supports change, and the Assembly endorsed the Committee for Education's conclusion that change is necessary and appropriate. The status quo is not an option.

There is widespread demand for the abolition of the 11-plus test, but it important to realise that that cannot take place unless academic selection is also abolished. I want to encourage debate on the issue, and for that reason I have extended the consultation period.

As the Minister knows, many children were traumatised over the weekend when the 11-plus results were issued, and I for one look forward to the end of this cruel scheme. Will the Minister comment on this year's transfer test results?

I am sure that all pupils who sat the tests did their best, and I offer my congratulations to all pupils who are in the final year of their primary education. After the test results, there will be rejoicing in many families, but it is important to remember that there will be great disappointment and a sense of failure in many more.

Academic selection and the transfer test mean that two thirds of our children are deemed to be failures, which puts undue pressure on pupils, parents and teachers. For that reason there is widespread demand for the abolition of the test. We now have an opportunity to consider new post-primary arrangements that will value and cherish all children equally. They will open up options rather than close them down, and they will avoid having the majority of our children regarded as failures at the age of 11. To do so, we must address the issue of academic selection.

Does the Minister accept that in any post-primary system of education there will always be extremely good schools that will be oversubscribed, and that selection in some form is therefore inevitable? Does the Minister really believe that selection by postcode, and the financial inequity that that would create, is a better system for the twenty-first century?

I understand that there are concerns about the admissions criteria proposed in the review body's report. My objective is to put in place arrangements that will provide excellence, equality and choice for all children. I do not want to disadvantage children in particular areas. The issue of proximity as the final criterion has raised particular concern, but it is important to remember that the majority of secondary schools and over half the grammar schools already use this criterion as a tie-breaker. However, as part of the consultation process, I would encourage people to consider and suggest alternatives.

Does the Minister recognise that when bleeding-heart liberals in England and Wales took us down the road of comprehensive education, it led to poorer results there than in Northern Ireland, where the selection system was retained? Would it not be better to refine the selection system rather than go down the road of social engineering, which will end in poorer results for the children of Northern Ireland in the future?

Much work has been done on this issue over some time. The work carried out by Prof Tony Gallagher and Prof Alan Smith at Queen's University Belfast and the University of Ulster made clear that the weaknesses of the current arrangements are unacceptable, and they must be addressed. Everybody, including the members of the Committee for Education, accepts that there is a need for change. Therefore, the status quo is not an option. The issue of academic selection must be addressed - that is at the heart of this debate.

There is a complacency about how well we perform compared with other countries. For example, the recent Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) study of reading, mathematics and science showed that we performed no better than England and Scotland. We were well behind other industrialised countries. The top performers - countries such as Finland and New Zealand - had non-selective systems.

Of the countries surveyed, we also have one of the widest ranges of performance. Within these islands, Scotland, which has a comprehensive system, has as many pupils gaining five GCSEs at grades A* to C and a similar proportion of young people entering higher education. England, which is often caricatured as having a failed comprehensive system, has a higher proportion of pupils achieving five GCSE passes at grades A to G than here in the North. Although we have more pupils who gain higher grade passes than in England, we also have more pupils who gain few passes at any grade. That highlights the wide range of achievement created by our academically selective system. We must face up to the fact that it is a system that does very well for some but poorly for many.

6.

asked the Minister of Education, pursuant to AQW 1444/01, to refrain from setting up working groups until such time as the consultation process on the Burns Report has been completed.

(AQO 789/01)

I will not be making any decisions about new arrangements until I have considered the comments received during the consultation period, which ends on 28 June. However, it is important that my officials consider and assess the implications of the Burns proposals across the full range of the Department of Education's responsibilities.

Is the Minister aware that a growing number of headmasters, boards of governors and teachers are of the belief that working groups, committees and subcommittees have been established, and that those groups are working towards an outcome that has already been decided?

Is the Minister also aware that there is growing concern in large sections of the teaching profession that the present consultation exercise is really little more than a sham and a deliberate effort to suppress the excellence already being achieved within the system via grammar schools, an excellence unparalleled in the United Kingdom and Ireland?

It is intended that working groups of officials will be established by the end of February. No decisions have been taken on any of the proposals in the Burns review, and no team has been set up to implement them. A small team comprising six officials, including support staff, has been established to manage the consultation, to receive and analyse comments and to introduce proposals for decisions in due course.

That consultation will be vital. I ask everybody with an interest in education to make a response to the consultation process by 28 June. It will be a real consultation. As an important aid to discussion, my Department intends to bring out a video which will be widely seen and will be followed by a pamphlet, which will be widely distributed, to give people an opportunity to respond on this important matter.

My Department is also looking at ways in which it can reach those who are less articulate and who might have difficulty responding. It intends to make the consultation process as easy as possible. The work is important and getting it right will be one of the most important tasks that the Assembly will have to face in its first term. Every Member has a responsibility to play his or her part. This is not about structures; it is about putting in place the best possible education system for children in a modern world. That is why I hope that there will be no politicking on the issue and that people will face up to the challenges and recognise that they can do a great service to society, teachers, pupils and parents by getting this right.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister's answers. It is obvious from the supplementary questions from the other side of the House that there are many who do not see the need for change or recognise that the academic selection system has been a failure, even with the amount of consultation that has taken place so far - and there has been much consultation. Does the Minister think that consensus can be achieved on this?

I do not underestimate the enormity and complexity of the task. I have been encouraged by an emerging consensus on the guiding principles that should be the basis of any new system, especially that of valuing all children equally. Those guiding principles centre round ending the transfer tests, the value of pupil profiles and the value of collaboration and co-operation between schools.

We have a common goal, which is to ensure that our education system is capable of providing young people with opportunities to fulfil their potential and play a full role in society. We must all work together to achieve that. I want to achieve maximum consensus, but, as Minister of Education, I will not shirk my responsibility to take firm decisions that are in the best interests of all the children.

TOP

7.

asked the Minister of Education to detail (a) how much funding will be available for the capital building programme in 2002-03; and (b) when he intends to announce the details; and to make a statement.

(AQO 788/01)

Details of the next capital programme, and the funding for it, are still under consideration. However, I intend to announce the programme in March after consultation with the Committee for Education.

The Minister has recently visited at least one school with pressing capital building needs. Will he assure the House that all the other schools that he has not visited, and which are also facing severe accommodation difficulties - for example, those in my constituency of Lagan Valley - will receive fair and equitable consideration when decisions are made? How will the Minister achieve this?

We are very careful about how we move forward in all these matters, and I understand the sensitivities. However, the criteria and methodology for determining the school capital building programme are applied to all contenders. It is important that the education and library boards, the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS) and other schools authorities ensure at an early stage that their work on economic appraisals is sufficiently advanced for schools in their sectors to be considered for inclusion in the programme. The Department can consider schools only at that stage so that they can be assessed on their merits as regards educational need. That takes into account such factors as deficiencies in accommodation, the extent and condition of temporary accommodation, the ability of the school to meet the requirements of the curriculum, health and safety concerns in relation to mechanical, electrical and other areas of provision and the cost of maintaining the existing building fabric. This has to reflect the fact that the cost has to be affordable and contained within the resources available.

I have visited schools with pressing accommodation requirements. Indeed, I have visited more than one school, and I am conscious of the backlog of work that has to be caught up on. Some £500 million would be required to even begin to examine all those issues. I am under no illusions about the great difficulties faced by all school sectors. However, I can assure the House that decisions about capital support for schools and the school capital building programme are made solely on the basis of educational need. The criteria that I have outlined are the way forward, and they have been arrived at in consultation with the schools' inspectorate, the education and library boards and the CCMS. I am also conscious of the situation in the Hillsborough area, and I am dealing with that as a matter of high importance.

I acknowledge the Minister's detailed listing of the criteria by which he will make a decision in March. He said that the bottom line is that decisions are made solely on the basis of educational need. Does that include the application of the Programme for Government's remit that it must also be rural and equality proofed? Does the Minister take that into consideration? If so, how will Johnny Citizen know that that has been taken on board, and in what way will it be open to discussion and constructive criticism? In other words, is there any meaning to rural proofing and the equality agenda in such decision-making?

The situation facing rural schools is particularly close to my heart. There is a responsibility on all of us to ensure that all schools are treated equally and that decisions are taken solely on the basis of educational need. Rurality of schools needs to be taken into account. I will be meeting the Committee for Education in the next couple of weeks, and we will discuss all those matters. It is important to be fair and to treat people with due respect. On my visits to schools, I have seen the great pressures that many boards of governors, schools authorities, principals, parents and teachers are under because of poor accommodation.

Accommodation is a high priority for my Department, and I have consistently fought the battle in the Executive for more resources. It is vital that we put in place proper accommodation so that we can offer the best possible environment for children to be educated in a sensible fashion. All those matters will be taken into account, but I must stress that the main criterion for the school capital building programme is educational need.

Will there be equity for schools in the controlled sector in the capital building programme for 2002-03? There is a perception in the Unionist community that it will always be second best when it comes to handing out money for schools. Will Comber High School be included in the new build, as it urgently needs repairs? However, those repairs will fill the gap only in the short term.

I shall write to the Member about Comber High School, as I do not have that information to hand. The first point is an old chestnut that comes from a minority of Members. The allegations about the distribution of the school capital building programme fund are totally untrue and unjustified - [Interruption].

It is three to one.

The school capital building programme is determined on the basis of educational need, whether that be at controlled schools, voluntary schools or in any other school sector. I heard the point being made about "three to one", so the Member who made that allegation should listen carefully. The make-up of this year's conventional school building programme was six Catholic maintained school projects costing £25·7 million, 10 controlled school projects costing £24·1 million - including two special schools that were the top capital priorities of two education and library boards - and one grant-maintained integrated school costing £12·5 million. People who make such allegations need to examine those figures, and they need to be fair. They must stop peddling the nonsense that we will give preferential treatment to one school sector when decisions are taken about allocations to schools in the capital building programme. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our decisions on funding schools are based solely on educational need.

TOP

8.

asked the Minister of Education if he has any plans to adopt the Noble indicators of multiple deprivation when assessing the needs of schools.

(AQO 781/01)

I am totally committed to the application of New TSN principles to address social deprivation wherever it is found. My Department's New TSN action plan includes an objective to improve the targeting and effectiveness of funding for schools in order to raise achievement levels. At present, I have no plans to adopt the Noble indicators when assessing schools' needs. The needs of schools with high levels of socially disadvantaged pupils were addressed as part of my Department's consideration of a common funding formula for schools. In that context, we examined the possibility of using Noble and other similar indicators as a means of allocating funds for social deprivation under the TSN factor in the proposed new common funding formula.

We need a robust and objective indicator, which is pupil oriented, to tackle social deprivation - principally because pupils do not always attend their nearest school. The Noble indicators are location based and, therefore, cannot be used to target resources in schools with socially deprived children in attendance. Entitlement to free school meals remains the most robust indicator of social deprivation, and that is a view widely supported by schools in the recent consultation. I have stated my willingness to keep the issue under review and to utilise more effective indicators should they become available.

I thank the Minister for his response, although I am somewhat disappointed. Does the Minister agree that every effort should be made to ensure that schoolchildren from all backgrounds receive nothing but the best, so that they can contribute positively as they move into adulthood?

I agree that every child should be given the best possible opportunity. We have formed the view that New TSN principles must be addressed through establishing free school meals entitlement in schools. However, I have not closed my mind to other ideas or suggestions, and I reiterate that I am willing to keep the issue under review and to utilise more effective indicators - [Interruption].

Order. I am afraid that the Minister's time is up, and time is up for questions to the Minister of Education.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>