I commend the Committee for Social Development, of which I am not a member. However, what I have seen of the report suggests that it is a solid production, and everyone involved should be commended.

This is a critical subject, and the report, like other sources, such as the Council for the Homeless Northern Ireland, communicates well the seriousness of the problem. As Members have pointed out, the number of homeless people has increased by about one quarter. The incidence of homelessness in Northern Ireland, despite traditional perceptions, is higher than in any other part of the United Kingdom. The true position may be worse than the official statistics indicate because the nature of the problem means that some cases of homelessness are concealed.

I agree with paragraph 1.6, which praises the efforts of the full range of concerned bodies and agencies, including, on the statutory side, the Housing Executive, the health and social services boards, trusts and agencies, and, on the voluntary and community side, a variety of charities and church organisations. I also agree with paragraph 1.6 that, given the seriousness of the problem, there should be a redoubling of efforts by the various players in that field.

Homelessness is one of the worst, if not the worst, form of social exclusion. In part, that is because it can be the root cause of other types of poverty and social exclusion, such as illness, unemployment, or the inability to progress with education.

I strongly agree with recommendation 18, which refers to the need for a preventative strategy. It is better for all concerned, and more cost effective in the long run, if we prevent persons from becoming homeless in the first place. Throughout the recommendations there is a correct emphasis on this strategy's being interdepartmental. Indeed, in the speeches so far we have heard evidence of that. This is not just a matter for the Committee for Social Development, as we heard from the Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety.

I also agree with recommendation 19, which is about building up the life skills of individuals who, sadly, are homeless. This will enable homeless people to make the transition to a settled form of independent life, which can be difficult, and provide a general improvement in their level of training, education, and qualifications. That touches on another interdepartmental aspect, as it brings the Department of Education and the Department for Employment and Learning into play.

Regarding the training and educational aspect of dealing with homelessness, I agree with my Colleague Sir John Gorman and commend the work of the Simon Community on the foyer initiative. There is one foyer in south Belfast and three in other locations across the Province. The south Belfast foyer is home to 42 persons in the 17- to 25-year-old age group. The interesting feature of the foyer arrangement is the combination of sheltered housing with a hands-on, on-site, personalised approach to training, which appears to ease the transition of people into the labour market. They can eventually stand on their own feet, hold down a job and, in turn, pay for accommodation and keep themselves, which is the ideal that we should be striving for. The foyer initiative is very successful in putting and keeping people in permanent, stable employment.

Another possibility, which is not included in the report's recommendations, is quite radical and also interdepartmental. It relates to the provision of an adequate degree of additional social housing. Sir John touched on this and on the reduction in the number of buildings available. To turn that around, we should consider introducing some sort of preference into the planning process in favour of property developers who agree to set aside some of the land, and, by implication, some of the housing, in new developments for housing-association type dwellings.

I strongly support the motion and commend this report.

At this stage of the debate most of the recommendations in the report have probably been touched on by most Members, and, therefore, I want to concentrate on only a couple of points.

First, the Committee for Social Development approached this subject in a balanced way. There are people who would love to make an industry out of the unfortunate circumstances that homeless people find themselves in. When looking at homelessness, we must ensure that we look at it in a way that is sympathetic to those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in the worst of all situations of not having a home, with all that is attached to that. Other Members have already spoken about the fact that losing or not having a home is not the sum total of disadvantage - it is the start of disadvantage because so many other things flow from it. Therefore, the Assembly must address genuine homelessness in Northern Ireland.

Much has been said about the number of homeless people. However, we must reinforce the distinction between those who are homeless and those who present themselves as such. The number of people who present themselves as homeless has increased a good deal; so has the number of those who are judged to be genuinely homeless. The situation is not unique to Northern Ireland; it applies across the United Kingdom.

A primary cause of homelessness must be considered: almost 2,000 people who present themselves as homeless do so because of acts of intimidation. The graph contained in the report shows that since the so-called end of the terrorist war, the number of people who have presented themselves as homeless has surged by almost 15%. Much of that increase is due to intimidation.

Members of Sinn Féin have spoken today about the plight of the homeless. This morning I spoke to a group of people who represent one street in Belfast. Half of the residents of that street now live with relatives, in hotels or in boarded-up houses. They want out because of intimidation organised by Sinn Féin. It is one thing for Members to complain about homelessness; it is another when their associates are actively involved each night in putting people - including families with young children and people in their 80s - out on the streets.

Two Sunday nights ago, I sat in the Salvation Army hall at the end of the Newtownards Road; it was full of people who had been put out of their houses. Six of those people were in their 80s. At 3.00 am they were waiting to find somewhere to put their heads for the night, because for the third night running their homes had come under a constant barrage. They finally had to leave, for their own safety, when petrol bombs and blast bombs were thrown at their homes and shooting started.

We have a duty to deal with the problems of the homeless. However, we must also ensure that we do not ally ourselves with those who are responsible, and that we are not ourselves responsible for such unfortunate circumstances. Mobs are orchestrated by Members who sit here today, including the Deputy Chairperson, who in her winding-up speech will probably condemn homelessness.

I was keen that recommendation 4 be included in the report. There was much pressure on us to include 16- to 18-year-olds in the homelessness legislation. I understand that many young people become homeless due to unfortunate circumstances. Nevertheless, the Assembly has a duty to ensure that it does not introduce social legislation that encourages or makes it easier for families to break up. We heard evidence that many youngsters fall out with their parents. I am sure that all Members have experienced such cases in their constituency advice centres. Youngsters often go through a rough patch with their parents, because of their age, et cetera.

We must not present an easy way of resolving family conflicts by taking on a statutory responsibility to rehouse those youngsters - many of them do not have the skills to live by themselves. Equally, we have an obligation to protect youngsters who are genuinely being put in danger because of circumstances at home. The recommendations get the balance right. Recommendation 4 states that

I am pleased that that recommendation is in the report. The balance to that recommendation comes when young people present themselves as homeless and there are allegations that they want to leave home because of abuse. Recommendation 5 states that there should be a customised approach for dealing with youngsters, including case conferences in which all of the interests can be discussed so that there is a full picture of the problems facing those young people.

The report is very useful, and it reflects much of what the Housing Executive has already accepted as the way forward for dealing with homelessness. I commend it to the Assembly.

I call Mrs Annie Courtney. You have about three minutes, Mrs Courtney.

I will be brief and cut out half of what I was going to say.

I welcome the report. As the Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety has said, the report is timely because of our Committee's involvement with the Children (Leaving Care) Bill. Such young people are not only young vulnerable adults; they are leaving care without any training in household or financial management.

Recommendations 5 to 8 are particularly important. Recommendation 5 states:

That is particularly relevant to members of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety who are considering the Children (Leaving Care) Bill.

Recommendations 11, 13, 16, 17 and 18 are also important. Recommendation 11 states that

Recommendation 13 states that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive should pursue high standards of training for those dealing with the homeless. Recommendations 16, 17 and 18 deal with the out-of-hours service and a speedy independent appeals system, and state that the overall goal should be to reduce the number of homeless people.

Members have highlighted recommendation 19 as being particularly significant to young people leaving care who will struggle to cope if they do not have the correct support in home economics and financial management.

The Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety said that clause 6 of the Children (Leaving Care) Bill was causing the Committee concern because it dealt with the exclusion of young people from benefits. We will be having further discussion on that as we have not come to a decision.

Members have already referred to the problems of people living in rural areas. I welcome recommendation 22, which highlights the need for transitional housing units to enable the Department for Social Development to respond positively. I agree with recommendation 23, which states that resources should be transferred to the Department for Social Development.

I welcome the Committee's continuing interest in housing matters. I commend the work that it and many others in the voluntary sector and the Housing Executive are engaged in to ensure that policies meet housing need and provide good housing services.

That is the thrust of the legislative proposals that form the backdrop to the Committee's report and tie in with what my Department has demonstrated is an urgent matter that requires urgent action.

Many individuals and organisations have a range of views on how best to deal with homelessness. That is healthy, and I welcome it; I am pleased that they took time and showed their interest by contributing to the consultation exercise. I welcome the fact that, generally, the review's principle recommendations are in line with our current policy and legislative proposals. Members will appreciate that in the short time available since the report was submitted to the Department, we have not been able to consider it fully and discuss the detail of the recommendations. That also applies to the comments of Members today, to which I have listened with interest. I shall give proper consideration to the report and the comments of Members in the debate, and I shall make my views known in due course.

In the meantime, I shall say a few words about the report's main recommendations. Although most of us enjoy a stable and comfortable living environment, that is not the experience of those who are homeless. Several Members have pointed out just how horrendous it is for individuals and families in that situation. The number of households presenting as homeless to the Housing Executive and voluntary sector organisations that deal with the problem is growing. Factors such as relationship breakdown continue to play a major part.

Sammy Wilson said that not everyone who presents as homeless is accepted under the legislation as such - as someone to whom full duty of priority rehousing is owed by the Housing Executive. Mr Wilson also made the point that 2,000 of the cases currently presented as homeless are due to intimidation, and, increasingly, the threat of intimidation is causing people to leave their homes. That is not something that housing providers can address effectively. The deplorable incidents of recent weeks, which continue albeit on a smaller scale, have put a tremendous burden on all the organisations that work to help the homeless, and they do nothing to build communities or help those who are homeless for other reasons. In fact, they do the opposite. They reduce the number of houses available for the others and increase the waiting time to be rehoused.

I am encouraged, however, by the willingness of those involved in the care of homeless people to meet the challenges that face them, as exemplified by their response to this review and to the recent comprehensive review of services to homeless people by the Housing Executive. Improvements will be made as implementation of the reviews' recommendations begins.

I also hope that the extent of the problem and the profile that it is rightly attracting will translate into the additional resources that the reviews suggest will be required to deal effectively with it. I welcome the comments from various parts of the House that show that Members are willing to support an allocation of extra resources to deal with housing in general and the problems associated with homelessness in particular. I hope that that will translate into action, as opposed to mere rhetoric, when it comes to votes on the Floor of the Assembly.

I do not have time to deal in detail with all 23 recommendations, as they cover a wide range of issues from funding to definitions and the need for multiagency and cross-departmental actions. To agree the definition of what constitutes homelessness is crucial to the success of any strategy to tackle the problem. I welcome the Committee's recommendations in that regard, and I hope that the Department will be able to achieve the necessary level of agreement.

The existing homelessness legislation, The Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, defines a homeless person as a person with "no accommodation". That legislation also provides that applicants are homeless if they have accommodation but it is not reasonable for them to continue to occupy it; if they cannot secure entry to it; or if occupation of that accommodation would lead to violence or threats of violence. The existing statutory definition of homelessness may already meet the Committee's requirements. When presenting evidence to the Committee for Social Development, Mr McIntyre, chief executive of the Housing Executive said:

That evidence should be borne in mind when considering legislative changes.

I am glad that the Committee recognises that the solution to homelessness does not solely lie in the provision of new houses, a point that several Members made. Although that is an important part of the solution, the Department must tackle the source causes of homelessness and, in the process, endeavour where possible to keep families together. Several Members, including Mr Sammy Wilson, mentioned that recommendation, which is contained in volume 1 of the report as recommendation 4. Some Members suggested that there should be automatic acceptance of homeless young people as having priority need. I agree with what the Committee says on that point in recommendation 4.

The breakdown of relationships continues to be one of the main causes of homelessness, and it is hoped that the recommendations put forward by the Committee for increased education, awareness and provision of life skills training, as well as better sharing of information, will help to reduce the problem.

The recommendations are not solely for the Department for Social Development to consider. They will draw into the debate others who are at the forefront of such issues, not only in Government but in the voluntary sector. Many of the recommendations call for the Housing Executive to undertake a range of actions. Many of those actions are being undertaken and others have been put forward as part of the Housing Executive's review of services. Members will be aware that in September 2001, the Housing Executive went out to consultation on developing a new approach to delivering homelessness services. That consultation period ended in December 2001. The main findings and recommendations of the Housing Executive's review have been published and are widely known.

The recommendations provide a foundation on which to build and improve what is happening and is being proposed. The Housing Executive will want to take on board the Committee's suggestions before it completes its implementation plan. That plan will be drawn up after the completion of its own review of services. The Housing Executive delayed the publication of that final implementation plan to allow time to take on board and consider what the Committee for Social Development had to say.

The Housing Executive has set targets to deal with homelessness. That is worthwhile, even if at times the targets are not met to the intended extent. Setting targets helps us to move forward, and by analysing why they are not met we can see where the problems lie. However, the targets must be achievable, and they should not be set simply because they look good - nor should we shy away from them because they may be hard to achieve. In considering the targets to be set, we must ensure that they are meaningful and that we have control over their achievement.

As part of the promoting social inclusion element of new targeting social need, my Department is taking the lead in a review of the difficulties faced by homeless people in getting access to services. The review will be cross-departmental and cross-sectoral. It will build on the review carried out by the Housing Executive and the review carried out by the Committee for Social Development. I will refer the report to a working group which will draw its members from a wide spectrum of interested parties and help to devise strategies for dealing with homelessness.

Experience and best practice elsewhere will be an aspect of the promoting social inclusion priority project on homelessness. As recognised by the last recommendation, the strategies that we devise must be properly funded. I will continue to try to attract the maximum resources that competing bids will allow.

Following the announcement of the reinvestment and reform initiative by the Chancellor during his recent visit to Belfast, I took the opportunity to bid for £10 million for 2003-04 for 150 additional units to accommodate homeless people. That bid, if successful, will materially assist in meeting a Programme for Government target that commits the Department for Social Development to ensure that everyone can get access to decent, affordable housing in the tenure of his choice. We will work with housing associations and enable them to assist the Housing Executive to meet its statutory obligation to deal with homelessness.

The bids are still being considered by the Department of Finance and Personnel, but when the Minister of Finance and Personnel reads the contributions from all sides about the great social problems that flow from this matter, and the priority which is attached to it across the Floor of the House and throughout Northern Ireland, I hope that the Department for Social Development will receive the additional funding necessary. Housing has an important part to play from New TSN and social inclusion perspectives in creating a stable home environment, better health and better employment opportunities.

Some Members, including Sir John Gorman, referred to providing more permanent homes as part of the solution. Some of the evidence that was given to the Committee said that providing someone with a permanent home is not the whole answer, and the Housing Executive also said that. Examples were given of people who left temporary accommodation for permanent accommodation only to re-present themselves as homeless later on. There are ways in which those issues must be tackled, not least through correct implementation of the Supporting People programme. It will affect single parents, young people, care leavers, people with mental illnesses or physical disabilities and victims of domestic violence. That should not be overlooked.

As I have said - and it is recognised by the Committee - providing a home is not always enough. An appropriate level of support must be given. The Supporting People arrangements will help to sustain and improve the existing support services for homeless people.

A major advantage of the proposed new arrangements is that they will combine the many disparate sources of funding into a single budget, and that will help to create a situation where the needs of the individual will be the most important factor.

I thank the Committee for taking the time to conduct the inquiry and for providing the recommendations. I also thank the organisations that provided evidence to the Committee to help it formulate its recommendations, and the Members who contributed to the debate. It has been pointed out, quite correctly, that this is not a matter for the Department for Social Development only; other Departments have a crucial role to play in preventing homelessness.

Several Members raised the issue of legislation, which, I hope, will soon be forthcoming. Several Members mentioned the housing Bill during the debate, and we will have an opportunity to discuss that soon during its Second Reading. The new Bill will impact on homelessness by redefining "homelessness" and "intentional homelessness" and will redefine the treatment of persons from abroad and those found guilty of antisocial behaviour. The proposals will not detract from the priority for rehousing that is currently given to homeless applicants who meet the statutory criteria for assistance under homelessness legislation.

Some Members had hoped that the new Bill would come before the House earlier and have mentioned delays - I share those concerns. As Minister for Social Development, I wish that the Bill had been before the House much earlier. It is not the fault of the Department for Social Development, my officials or myself that that has not been the case. Some Members, who are represented in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, might ask that particular Department some questions on how the process was conducted to get the draft Bill to this stage.

I am particularly concerned about housing and homelessness. That is why, as I have said, the Housing Executive's review and these recommendations will play an important role in the proposals and in the forthcoming implementation plan. I look forward to Members' continuing support as we seek the necessary resources to reduce the level of homelessness in Northern Ireland.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I have been a Member of the Committee for Social Development since its establishment in November 1999. I succeeded Michelle Gildernew as Deputy Chairperson just after the Committee had finished taking oral evidence from individuals and organisations in the second phase of the housing inquiry. I want to take the opportunity to say that the Chairperson, Fred Cobain, and the Deputy Chairperson at that time, Michelle Gildernew, have done a job that is second to none.

On 19 March, the Committee was instrumental in instigating a debate in the Assembly on the implications of introducing a new system for funding housing support costs. That debate is clearly connected to the present one.

I understand from the Minister that we will have an opportunity in the next few weeks to begin our examination of the long awaited housing Bill.

It is right that housing should feature on the political agenda and in the social conscience of the Assembly, but is that enough? Fred Cobain and others pointed out that the Executive should pay more attention to what the Committee says about the need to keep investment in housing at the correct levels. I was heartened and impressed by the candid and honest views expressed by many of the witnesses who gave evidence to the Committee. All of those bodies were closely involved in one way or another with the homeless.

I have listened with a great deal of interest to the contributions to the debate. I do not recall, either in the Committee or on the Floor of the House, anyone suggesting that it is not right to highlight the plight of the homeless and the extent of homelessness. No one disagrees that more should be done to prevent homelessness, and many Members recognise that it is not just a matter of bricks and mortar. However, the Assembly must back those fine words with actions.

The figures speak for themselves. Homelessness is on the increase. The conclusion to be drawn from that is that policies are flawed, and there is a need for proper resourcing. It is said that homelessness is not a major problem in Northern Ireland because people are not seen sleeping in doorways. In fact, the Lee Hestia Association's study reported that at least 80 people in Belfast sleep outdoors every night. While Belfast is not a cardboard city, the Assembly should be under no illusions. Unless we tackle the problem directly and urgently, it is inevitable that our failure to do so will manifest itself more sharply, and it will not be long before the number of people occupying those doorways increases.

During the course of the inquiry there was a tragic fire at the Morning Star Hostel on the night of 11 February 2002. The Committee expressed its condolences and sent messages of support to those who were most closely involved with the hostel, and who are now constantly reminded of the fire. The services provided by the hostel are crucial to those who rely on it. We must not fail them.

Both Mr ONeill and Sir John Gorman referred to the intentionality test, with specific reference to young people. They approached the issue from different angles. Perhaps both are right. While Sir John said that the Committee did not accept the granting of automatic priority to young people who present themselves as homeless, I do not think that that is what Mr ONeill was saying. After a long debate in the Committee, he went off and checked the legislative position, as he said he would. He outlined the six categories. I agree with him that many young people will fall through the net. The Assembly must consider extending the categories of priority need. Studying the Homelessness Act 2002 will help us.

The draft housing Bill states that

The term "reasonable" needs to be clarified.

Mr Sammy Wilson referred to recommendation 4:

I return to that because there was quite a long debate on it. Perhaps it is not worded in the way that it should be. The paramount priority is the right of the individual. The Committee is sensitive to the family unit. Dr Hendron supported recommendation 3, which refers to case conferencing. However, it is important to protect the individual, particularly in situations in which there is abuse.

I also want to make two political points. The case for funds and resources has a much better chance of being successful if the Minister who puts in the bids argues the case forcefully in the Executive, which makes the collective decisions. That is not in question. It is obvious.

Sammy Wilson came into the Chamber to make a bit of a rant. He referred to homelessness in east Belfast. Homelessness is not sectarian. If he and the Minister would show leadership and talk to those who are involved, perhaps progress would be made. [Interruption].

Order, order.

Sorry.

I am encouraged that at least as many Members who are not members of the Committee for Social Development contributed to the debate, as those who are. However, it also demonstrates the extent of the problem. Obvious themes emerged today. One was the shared concern about the increase in the number of young homeless people. There were clear calls for a proper and inclusive definition of homelessness, raised by the SDLP and by Mr ONeill in particular, and picked up by Eileen Bell of the Alliance Party, and others.

Mr ONeill reserved his position on the issue raised by the Children's Law Centre of 16- and 17-year-olds being given priority status, which I dealt with earlier. I hope that the forthcoming housing Bill will allow us to develop the debate on that matter.

Several Members reflected on the six main causes of homelessness, identified in paragraph 2.4 of the report. There is support across the House for a joined-up, interdepartmental, inter-agency approach, with the Housing Executive taking the lead. The need for a sustained commitment from other Ministers and their Departments is clearly stated in the Committee's report.

Many Members were critical of the inappropriate use of bed-and-breakfast facilities, which do not represent good value for money. There is also a lack of locally accessible temporary accommodation and a need for customised, small, intimate foyer-type units, which many Members from various parties highlighted. Cross-party support exists for greater investment in support services. Many Members have advocated life skills programmes, counselling and advice, with which suggestion the Committee cannot agree more.

There have been calls for a review of the policy of providing social housing, even from the Minister for Social Development's own party. The Committee is sympathetic to Mr Birnie's idea that people who are involved in developing social housing sites should be assisted in giving some sort of guarantee that a certain section of any development would be for social housing.

The message about socially affordable housing and the annual deficit brought about by a minimalist new-build programme, allied to what I accept is a person's right to buy, shows the need for capital investment. Some of Sir John Gorman's statistics were a stark reminder of the size of the problem that we face.

Around 50% of social housing stock has been sold off, but, despite a young and growing population, it is not being replaced. Mark Robinson said that

Homelessness is not a one-day wonder. Members across the Chamber recognise that homelessness requires continuous attention. I am sure that the Housing Executive accepts the need to adjust its working practices so that people leaving institutions - prisons, hospitals or care - can be assessed before they become homeless.

I am glad that there is broad support for the Committee's calls for the introduction of measures to prevent homelessness. John Tierney mentioned the cycle of homelessness and the deficiencies of the points system, as did Jim Shannon. I hope that the Minister acts on those comments.

I welcome Joe Hendron's remarks about pathway plans and personal advisers. I will welcome comments about clause 6 of the Children (Leaving Care) Bill from the Health Committee, once it has finalised its views. Esmond Birnie again hit the nail on the head when he mentioned homelessness as an example of social exclusion. I have already dealt with the principle of mixed housing developments.

I congratulate the Minister on making the £10 million bid for 150 units to accommodate homeless people.

I ask the Member to bring his remarks to a close.

I will be as brief as possible.

The right to a home is a civil and human right that directly affects every individual in society. It is a fundamental right: not tackling homelessness properly, therefore, is a fundamental failure. We must ensure that the Assembly cannot be accused, especially after the new housing Bill becomes law, of failing in that duty.

TSN Criteria

TOP

Mr Beggs:

I beg to move

I thank the Business Committee for allowing me to bring to the Assembly my concerns at the current use of free school meals as the sole means of determining a school's entitlement to TSN funding.

At the outset, I declare an interest. As a parent governor in a small rural primary school, I am directly aware of the financial pressures on our schools, particularly those in the North-Eastern Education and Library Board area, which result from inadequate funding arrangements. More than 100 teachers are being made redundant in the North-Eastern Education and Library Board area, and the inequality in the current TSN funding mechanism has contributed to that situation.

Although I am not a member of the Education Committee, I am concerned by the report compiled by the Northern Ireland Audit Office, 'Indicators of Educational Performance and Provision' (NIA 48/01), which has been examined by the Public Accounts Committee. Through my membership of that Committee, and my role as a primary school governor, I have taken a particular interest in the inequality of school funding in the area I represent and in which I live.

I draw Members' attention to the huge variation in funding per pupil between schools in different education and library board areas. Children in the North-Eastern Education and Library Board area receive the second-lowest funding per pupil in the controlled sector, as recorded in the answer to my question for written answer, AQW 2390/01. What most concerns me about that answer is the degree of variation between various sectors and boards. According to figures for 2000-01, there is a variation of approximately 15% in the funding for primary school pupils in different sectors. How can that be justified? In the secondary school sector the difference is 18%. Such inequality cannot be justified.

I am aware of the development of a new common funding formula; however, the manner of directing the policy of targeting social need itself creates huge variations and inequalities between schools. That is because only one criterion is being used in determining allocations of TSN funding - the entitlement to free school meals.

In the consultation document 'A Common Funding Formula for Grant-Aided Schools', the Department of Education points out that a post-primary school of approximately 700 pupils with a 60% entitlement to free school meals could receive up to £166,000 a year more in funding for social deprivation than a similar school with a low entitlement to free school meals of, say, 10%. Clearly, that could have a huge impact on a school's ability to address educational needs.

I support the concept of targeting social need. However, I question the appropriateness of using the free school meals criterion as the only measure when targeting TSN funds. I also question the degree of variation and inequality created by the current policy. I understand that approximately 5% of the education budget is top-sliced and distributed on the basis of entitlement to free school meals. That in turn is based on a family's entitlement to either jobseeker's allowance or income support. Is that an appropriate indicator of deprivation in education? Research by the Department of Education and Skills has shown that in England and Wales some 20% of parents do not take up their entitlement. I suspect that the figure may be even higher in Northern Ireland. This criterion is not picking up all the children in need.

Locally, according to the figures for 1997-98, some 26·1% of pupils were entitled to free school meals. However, that figure dropped to 21·9% in 2001-02. Therefore, although the educational budget has increased, the TSN budget is targeted at fewer children, and I suspect that as many as 20% of those who are entitled to support do not claim it. That reluctance to claim creates inequalities and fails to address educational need in many instances.

While researching for the debate, I read evidence heard by the Committee for Education. The principal of Ballynahinch High School said that

The principal of St Nicholas's Primary School said that

The principal of Loanends Primary School said that

Educational TSN funds could be distributed through, for example, the working families' tax credit. That would widen the distribution of funds and, according to recent figures from the Department for Social Development, lessen inequalities by making an additional 45,000 families eligible.

Will the Department of Education consider using different indicators of deprivation, such as those that are used by other Departments? The Noble index was introduced as a result of rigorous research and academic work to replace the Robson index. It has produced detailed work to show deprivation in housing, income, employment, health and disability, and educational skills and training. Educational indices are used to measure educational deprivation. However, could other more objective indicators, such as assessment of Key Stage 1 and 2 in primary schools, or absentee levels, be used in the education sector? I would like to hear the views of the Minister of Education and other Members.

In developing additional criteria, we must ensure that schools are neither rewarded for bad results nor penalised for good results. Perverse incentives, such as the removal of resources when improvements are made, would demoralise staff. I support the view of some members of the Education Committee that Key Stage 2 is not a suitable indicator for the allocation of special education funding to primary schools. Given that Key Stage 2 is assessed at the end of primary school, it is an inappropriate means by which to measure need. Therefore, if a judgement were made on the strength of Key Stage 2 performance, bad results may be rewarded, while good results may be penalised.

I await with interest the results of the needs and effectiveness analysis of the education sector. There is concern about the outcome of current TSN policy, and it is to be hoped that there will be detailed analysis of how the money is spent and the outcomes that are achieved. Could the money be better spent in other ways?

During my time as an MLA, I have become aware of the relatively poor take-up of state benefits and grants in my constituency of East Antrim. Many pensioners do not claim the minimum income guarantee to which they are entitled, and recent figures show that take-up for the warm homes scheme is lower than was expected.

That is the case, despite there being socially deprived wards and pockets in my constituency, which was indicated in the Noble indices. Historically, for whatever reason -

Order. Will the Member bring his remarks to a close.

For whatever reason, many people in my area have not embraced a claim culture and have been too proud or independent to claim state benefits. Children have been doubly deprived because their parents have not claimed benefits, and that means that those children have not gained the educational advantages that result from TSN. I ask the Minister to notice that I have not been prescriptive as to what are more appropriate criteria for determining future TSN funding. I shall listen to other Members' comments before I take a view on the amendment.

I have received one amendment to the motion, which is published on the Marshalled List.

I beg to move the following amendment: In line 1 delete all after "Education" and insert:

The motion deals with free school meals. Those meals have been used for some time as an indicator of social deprivation and, as such, the matter has gained international recognition.

The motion calls for the present system to be scrapped and for it to be replaced with an unspecified system that will direct funding to the most socially disadvantaged children in our community. Any inequalities that exist in the present system are unacceptable. However, the introduction of untried indicators will not improve the circumstances of those who experience social deprivation.

Targeting social need is crucial in education. The link between underachievement and social deprivation is well known and well researched. Schools in socially deprived areas need extra funding to improve literacy and numeracy, and to help children overcome disadvantages that arise from poverty.

As we know, the Department of Education and the boards allocate their funding for social deprivation to schools on the basis of the numbers who receive free school meals. The criterion used to determine who is eligible for free school meals is whether a child's parents are on jobseeker's allowance or income support. Those entitlements have long been recognised as good indicators of social deprivation. Although questions have been asked, no one as yet has been able to devise a better system.

The Committee for Education held an inquiry into the Department of Education's proposals for a new common funding formula for all schools. Some submissions raised the TSN element of the Department's proposed new formula. Teachers in some schools pointed out that not all the children who were eligible for free school meals availed themselves of that entitlement. Staff from those particular schools said that although they provided additional support for socially disadvantaged children, the schools did not benefit from any extra money. Consequently, they faced increased financial pressures.

At least one other submission questioned whether the free school meals entitlement took account of all the children from low-income backgrounds. Those comments suggest that the free school meals indicator could work better than it does.

Therefore, the logical step is to examine how the free school meals indicator can be improved. As I have said, targeting social need is a crucial element in the funding of our schools, and, indeed, many educationalists believe that the overall level of money for TSN purposes that the Department provides is less than what is required.

Where resources are scarce, the impact of any changes to the method of funding under TSN guidelines must be given careful consideration. We must work towards a situation in which all children from socially deprived backgrounds benefit under TSN arrangements, and in which schools with the highest levels of social deprivation derive the most benefit.

Much research, discussion and debate are required in order to deliver TSN money to the most deserving children. Under the terms of the motion, that will not happen. The SDLP believes that the issue is central and that the Department of Education and the Education Committee should revisit it for more detailed discussion.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>