Committee for Education

OFFICIAL REPORT (Hansard)

School Budgets and Contingency Plans: Mr Peter Weir MLA (Minister of Education) and Department of Education Officials

25 January 2017 ASSEMBLY

Committee for Education

School Budgets and Contingency Plans: Mr Peter Weir MLA (Minister of Education) and Department of Education Officials

25 January 2017

Members present for all or part of the proceedings: Mr Chris Lyttle (Deputy Chairperson) Mrs Rosemary Barton Ms Carla Lockhart Mr Phillip Logan Mr Colin McGrath Lord Morrow Mrs Sandra Overend

Witnesses: Mr Weir Minister of Education Mr Gary Fair Department of Education Ms Julie Thompson Department of Education

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): Minister, you are very welcome. We invited the Education Authority (EA) to attend, given the wide range of issues that we want to address. In fairness to you, many of those have no small degree of relevance to the Education Authority (EA) as well. In a two- sentence letter, they have kindly stated that they understand that the Minister will be able to answer all our questions.

Mr Weir (The Minister of Education): I am glad that the Education Authority has built up such faith in me.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): There you are. Light-heartedness aside, it is extremely regrettable that the Education Authority did not accept our invitation. A number of extremely serious issues pertain to the Education Authority, and, if members are content, I will make that regret known to it in the strongest possible terms.

We will move on. Minister, can I check your timings for today?

Mr Weir: I cannot really go beyond 10.45 am.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): OK, we will proceed promptly then.

Mr Weir: Sorry, 11.45 am.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): No problem. Minister, thanks very much indeed —

1 Mr Weir: I know that we are sometimes accused of living in the past, but that might be slightly —

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): No problem. I also welcome Gary Fair, the director of finance in the Department of Education (DE) and Julie Thompson, a deputy secretary in the Department of Education.

Members, the Committee appreciates the Minister taking the time to be here. I do not intend to make extensive commentary on political matters, and I hope that members will use the session to ask questions to gain clarity on issues affecting schools and stakeholders. Minister, do you want to make any short opening comments?

Mr Weir: Not to any great extent. I just thank the Committee for inviting me, and I will be happy to take whatever questions members have.

We are living with a certain level of uncertainty, and I want to be as accurate and as open and transparent as possible. On that basis, I will try to answer anything. My officials are here, and, as we delve into finance issues, they can help with certain technical aspects. I want to provide as much assurance to people as possible, but, by the same token, I do not want to give any false or misleading information. I am also conscious of the fact that, particularly in a period of uncertainty — that applies whether it is education or other areas — there is a risk that 50 rumours could be floating about, either through genuine concerns or a bit of scaremongering — I am not accusing anybody in the room of that. It is important, given the sensitivities of some of the issues, particularly for our schools, that no one creates a false prospectus. Beyond that, I am happy to give answers.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): OK. We will start with school budgets. Over Christmas, there were media reports about on-the-record exchanges in the Assembly on school budgets. There were reports that the Education Authority had rejected all school budget spending plans for next year and, indeed, that school budgets would face a deficit of £33 million by March this year. Is that accurate, and, if so, what is being done to address that deficit?

Mr Weir: The school budgets situation is complex. I will try to be precise about this. People may not see that there is an enormous distinction, but I think that it is significant. It is not accurate to say that the Education Authority has "rejected" the budgets: it has not approved the budgets. Those are two separate things. It has not approved the budgets because, even if we were not having the election, with the impact that that will have on the budgets, they would be a movable feast. Money was to be injected in-year into school budgets, but the wider position for 2017-18 was going to be dependent on what the overall budgetary situation was. There would have been no point in signing off on budgets at that stage when the position would have moved in a month or so had we simply got an overall budget.

There should be a note of caution on the overall position as regards deficits, although the general direction of travel is correct. When it comes to school budgets, a number of schools are in surplus while others are in deficit. Given the broader financial situation in education and in schools, the position is that some schools in deficit are, generally speaking, moving into bigger deficits and, for the most part, the schools that are in surplus are moving into decreasing levels of surplus.

The projected budget figures have always been a prediction of where schools will find themselves. In the past, the problem has been that what was predicted was often very wide of the mark. Sometimes you would expect a drop in deficits, and sometimes you would expect increases. I appreciate that I am going into some detail, but it is important that people understand it. The actual behaviour of schools has not necessarily matched the predicted behaviour. Effectively, if you have over 1,000 schools in the system faced with not dissimilar circumstances, they will react differently in exactly the same circumstances. One school may take the view that things are not that bad this year, so it will make reasonable cuts because it believes that there will be a rainy day over the horizon. Other schools will say that they are in financial difficulties and that they will keep on spending. Those are the reactions. Effectively, it is an aggregation of the situation.

I should say that the goalposts will have shifted a little because the prediction of £33 million in deficits, for instance, would have been the position, effectively, at the start of the year in terms of predicted budgets going into 2016-17. That would not take into account, for instance, the £14 million that was reallocated directly to schools.

I appreciate that teachers' pay is a controversial subject. While there has been a lot of focus on the 2015-16 position, the impact of there not being a 1% uplift is that the baselines of the cost to schools

2 have reduced as well, which would also have an impact on the deficit situation. I will give members an idea of the overall global picture. If you compare the situation in 2015-16 and project three years ahead, you will see that, for schools to remain without making any changes, if you assume wage rises and the National Insurance changes in particular, which are really hitting schools hard, over a three- year period you would need roughly £240 million extra to stand still — without any changes. Now, injecting money in-year will start to alter matters. Any alterations, as happened with pay, will have an impact. I have indicated that what I wanted to see in the budget — this will be important for the marginal cost — is a reasonable additional amount injected into education, and I think that it would principally be directed at the schools situation. Other factors are moving ahead as part of that that would then have an impact. If Investing in the Teaching Workforce rolls forward, that will have an impact on budgets as well. There is no doubt that we are in a difficult situation, and a considerable amount of additional money coming into the schools budget directly is needed. I appreciate that that is a reasonably lengthy answer. Put it this way: some of the stuff is not a million miles off the mark, but it is not just as clear-cut as that.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): OK. It is almost February 2017, and it is accurate to say that no school in Northern Ireland has had its budget for 2017-18 approved and that there is a projected deficit of at least £33 million as of March 2017.

Mr Weir: I am not sure that £33 million is accurate. That was a previous figure.

Mr Gary Fair (Department of Education): It is likely to be less than that.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): What is it likely to be?

Mr Fair: The Education Authority is looking at all the data, so I cannot quote a figure at this stage. It is likely to be less. As I mentioned last week, that is one of the issues with the forecast surplus position as well. What has come through as a forecast has not always materialised. It is a complex area, and the Education Authority is looking at the detail.

Mr Weir: You are depending not just on the wider context but on schools meeting that and taking the same decisions. What you will see at times is that schools take contradictory decisions in the same circumstances or move in different directions.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): What is the impact on schools of not having had their plans approved when they are trying to plan their budget for the start of the 2017-18 financial year? When will they have their plans approved?

Mr Weir: We are in a different situation with the budget, but the intention is to write to schools in February about the broader financial —

Mr Fair: For next year.

Mr Weir: For 2017-18 on that basis. Again, the problem has been that the budget, had it been there, could have adjusted those by a considerable amount. It would have shifted that. We are now in the position where a Budget will clearly not be set by this Executive, and I share the frustration of others, shall we say.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): Does that move us to the 75% of budget that can be allocated, and does it further increase that deficit and those pressures?

Mr Weir: No. The position is that there is an intention to ensure that all Departments behave and are treated in the same way. They can spend up to 75% of cash for a period. That will then be rolled forward at a later stage to 95%. That will happen if those conditions simply permeated throughout. If we move to a situation in which either — this is probably the less likely of the options — relatively shortly after the election a new Executive is formed or there is some form of suspension and, therefore, we have direct rule Ministers, the money for 2017-18, within the overall global situation, will be at least what is there in 2016-17. The 100% will ultimately get spent, it is just that there will be a different mechanism for spending it. The wider context is that the 2017-18 Budget, across what is available to Northern Ireland, is likely to be a little bit up on 2016-17. It probably will not be of a nature to meet inflationary pressures.

3 There will then be the issue of how much of any additional money goes to education. Those decisions will be taken by a Minister, on the basis that, if necessary in the short term, the Department of Finance (DOF) permanent secretary will take what cash is there in its entirety and roll it forward. There is no reason to suggest that, ultimately, the figures for schools will go down. I cannot set the 2017-18 budget, but I have left advice to the Department, in a memo to the permanent secretary, that some of the money that could be found in-year to go to schools should continue to go to them. On that basis, the baseline of schools would go up. As I will not be in office and will have no control over the 2017- 18 budget, I have set advice for the future clearly on the record, rather than something that I personally can implement.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): Why are the deficits so big, Minister?

Mr Weir: That makes the assumption that there is no change. Look at the current budgetary situation: a reduction in the overall education budget was inherited from 2016-17. I will be fair to my predecessor: he tried to protect a certain amount of the schools budget, but the overall starting position in 2016-17 was down by £8 million on last year. There is then a range of pay pressures that will increase that in real terms.

There has been relatively little talk about something that has hit the public sector and has had a particular impact on schools. A national decision was taken on the level of employer National Insurance. The estimate, directly on schools, is to add an extra £22 million to the schools budgetary position, compared with the 2015-16 position. That cost will carry on annually. Over that three-year period, that is an additional cost of £66 million. You can estimate that, on top of that, there are additional pay pressures in total of, say, £25 million. You essentially have a situation where you are injecting roughly an extra £50 million of pressures into the system without any additional money coming in because of the stark budgetary position, unless schools make changes through redundancies and savings. That is where, I suspect, there will be a certain amount of movement on the end-year position. It is a simple balancing exercise, but, obviously, there are major implications. If you have the same amount of money but your costs have gone up considerably, your deficit position will worsen. For those with a surplus, it will decrease as well.

Mrs Overend: Chris has covered most of the questions. Has there been any change on schools having to give the Department a three-year plan? We hear about that time and again. Schools get a budget for one year but are required to provide a three-year plan.

Mr Weir: Strictly speaking, the plan is submitted to the EA rather than the Department.

Mrs Overend: OK.

Mr Fair: That is still a requirement. It is really good financial management for schools to plan ahead for a period. It is also wrapped up with the deficit position. If a school is forecasting a deficit, it should also be forecasting how it will get out of that deficit in due course.

Let me go back to a point that was made earlier about the deficit position and the fact that Education Authority has not approved plans for this year. Part of that is wrapped up in the fact that, in the past, as I understand it, the Education Authority approved plans that forecast deficits. I cannot speak for the Education Authority about schools that were forecasting a balanced budget, but, for those that were forecasting a deficit, it is probably a positive sign that the Education Authority sees it as more of an issue. Over this financial year, it has been looking at it on a more detailed, school-by-school basis. Three-year financial plans are still required.

Mrs Overend: Minister, you referred to leaving direction for when you are not in post.

Mr Weir: I am sorry: I said "advice" rather than direction. Direction would be compellable. I felt that it was important. I have spoken with the permanent secretary about what we would like to see in the budgetary position; that is on the record. Whether it is a permanent secretary or, more likely, someone else taking that decision, particularly if it is a direct rule Minister, in those circumstances, I am happy to offer whatever advice I can. I felt that it was important. Technically speaking, we will be in a position in which, effectively, the current position will roll forward. In-year changes were made within the confines of the pre-existing budget to identify what could be found to divert directly into schools. A sum of £14 million was given, of which £6·6 million was, effectively, a quasi-accrual. I think that there is a bit of a technical issue. That arose from money that was set aside for the pay

4 issue. There was £7·4 million that came through other changes in the Department; in many cases, it was through savings in the Department or other bodies. That money was, if you like, squeezed to go directly to schools. I think that everyone agreed that that was where the principal issue was.

Before we reached the point of initial examinations of a budget, if we were looking to do as much as we could for the schools budget, how much of that £7·4 million could be directly baselined in budgets, irrespective of what was received additionally? It was found that just under £6 million of that could go directly in. The bulk of the £7·4 million was savings, which could, on a semi-permanent basis, be directed into schools. Some of that £7·4 million was for things that we were not doing in 2016-17 that we would have had to do and put in place in 2017-18. From that point of view, it is important that whoever takes the decision in 2017-18 is aware of that, sees the intention of it and realises the importance of the broader situation directly as regards the schools budget. That memo would also give indications of what is needed as a minimum in the system as a whole to be brought in as new money, and, whatever opportunities there are in whatever additional cash there is to the Executive as a whole or, indeed, through monitoring rounds, what needs to be sought to provide a boost, particularly — overwhelmingly — to the schools budgets.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): We are asking schools to make three-year plans, and we cannot even tell them what the budget is for next year.

Mr Weir: At the moment, nobody knows what the budget is. It is important that people at least project ahead, but that, to some extent, has pretty much always been the case because —

Mrs Overend: It has always been the case, but you have the prerogative to change it.

Mr Weir: It is right, irrespective of the landscape, for schools to look ahead. That is important; it is good financial planning. The problem is that changes will be subject to what the budget is for that year. We are in a particular situation as regards 2017-18 because the plug has been pulled and no budget has been provided at all. With the best will in the world, I cannot give any certainty — it is beyond my control — to schools. They can project ahead for three years. I have been striving and I hope that whoever is in my place will strive to increase the overall budget for education as a whole and for the school system. For education to be able to cope with the pressures, a range of things can happen and probably need to happen, so that, on a broader level, there will be better levels of efficiency. However, efficiencies in and of themselves will not be enough to avoid the pain that there will be if there is no new money at all. An injection of new money is needed. I suspect that there is consensus on that. Even if we were in a situation in which government was simply continuing, it is not, unfortunately, the case that I could just ask for new money and get it. It is important that there is, at least, consensus among all of us involved in education that there is a need for the education budget to move up, albeit in difficult financial circumstances.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): I still have Rosemary, Carla and Colin on this issue alone, so I want to keep us moving on, folks. We have a wide range of issues to get through.

Mrs Barton: Sorry, I was moving on to other issues.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): OK. Carla or Colin, do you want to come in on school budgets?

Ms Lockhart: Very quickly. Thank you, Minister, for your comprehensive overview. Some schools struggle with their budget because of not being able to avail themselves of the free school meals entitlement. I am thinking of schools that I have visited in my constituency that are deemed to be in affluent areas yet have children with very specific needs. Is there any ongoing work to deal with that?

Mr Weir: A lot of the money will come through the common funding formula. Internally, officials have kicked that off and have started to look at it. That is a pretty comprehensive job and will probably continue, but it could be 18 months before you reach a result. The issue is that you want to have something — people will have different views about what the end goal or end result is — with as fair a distribution as possible. I am not going to say what fairness is in that regard. What has tended to happen in the past when any formula has been looked at is that, unsurprisingly, those who have gained from it have quietly celebrated, while schools that have lost out through any change have protested loudly. That is the nature of the beast. The problem is that, if you make any change to the system, there will be winners and losers. We need, in a comprehensive way, to ensure that whatever

5 is there is as fair as possible. That is why, to be honest, you cannot just look at the figures and say, "Right, we are making a 5% change here and a 10% change there" and do that in an afternoon. It is a serious piece of work. That has been started, and it is ongoing.

Ms Lockhart: I just want, again, to highlight the fact that the schools that, I believe, are really struggling out there in terms of their budget —

Mr Weir: I think —

Ms Lockhart: — are the schools that —

Mr Weir: In other contexts, there is sometimes talk about the "squeezed middle", the "just about managing" or whatever. There will be schools that, shall we say, are not in areas with massively high levels of social deprivation and social need, but they will still have needs. By the same token, however, it is not as though the mummies and daddies are dropping their children off at those schools in BMWs. Whatever way you do the thing, a certain number will fall into that category. Sometimes those are the schools that lose the most. There is an issue of fairness. The issue, to some extent, is that the overall quantum going to schools needs to be higher. Whatever way it is resolved, there will be some level of argument about whether that money is distributed fairly.

Mr McGrath: Thank you, Minister, for coming along this morning. There is the old saying about making hay while the sun shines. Some schools will have a surplus because they have been preparing to do some work and have been saving on a rolling basis to do bits and pieces. Is there any assurance that any surpluses that schools have will be protected for them to use in the school? Some principals, despite prudence and good management, are fearful that they will be robbed of —.

Mr Weir: No, I have never supported any degree of robbing on that basis. One of the other issues is that there is no doubt that there are genuine pressures out there and a genuine push on that side of things. There will be different levels of response to that from schools. A small number of schools at one end of the scale are arguably overspending to the extent that they should behave more prudently. Some schools will take the view, "If we get into bigger and bigger deficit, what are they going to do?". That is why Gary made the point that the EA, which is supposed to effectively be the police officer for that side of things, has not signed off automatically on some of the schools that are getting into bigger and bigger debt. In many cases, the bigger and bigger deficits are because of the model. You could have the best economic model in the world, but, with the best will in the world, it would not solve the problem for those schools. There are also some schools that have acted irresponsibly. There are other schools that, as you say, have been very prudent.

I am conscious of the fact that there is obviously a need to spend the money in schools directly on children, but I have also seen a situation in which there was, effectively, a target that you should realistically be within about 5% of a surplus. There is a danger — I have seen it in other Departments — of people saying, "We are coming near to the end of the financial year. We've a bit too much money. Let's spend it". Money needs to be spent sensibly in that regard. There is no desire to punish schools on that basis.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): Folks, try to keep questions and ministerial responses as short as possible because time is tight. Minister, before we move on, did you answer the question about when you expected us to progress from no school spending plans being approved to spending plans being approved?

Mr Weir: The approval is with the EA, but we are looking to get more information out directly by way of letters to schools in February.

Mr Fair: Are you talking about this year or next year?

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): As it stands, this year.

Mr Fair: For this year, effectively, schools have been spending to those budgets, although they have not been formally approved. We are now late in the year for the formality of approving those.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): OK. It is our understanding that the Education Authority has indicated it needs to make £50 million of savings in 2017-18: is that accurate?

6 Mr Weir: No, it is not necessarily accurate. The case is that the Education Authority has been doing what might be described as a certain level of scenario planning. One of the things that concerned me when I came into office was that the Education Authority had a budget — to be fair, it was a budget that had got a reasonable level of cut — in 2016-17 and there was a considerable period of time to get it to effectively finalise a budget to live within in 2016-17 until a reasonable bit into this year. That is not particularly good financial planning, so we have told the EA that it needs to think through a range of scenarios to be ahead of the game.

For example, within 2016-17, while no cuts are particularly welcome, there are things that are less painful and are reasonably sensible, but initially they had not been thought through and were only discussed during the summer and, maybe, implemented from October. That means you get a few months of savings rather than a full year of savings. The idea was to say to the EA, "Look, we do not know what the precise financial landscape is, but you need to think about levels of savings and work them out. For example, if you have £50 million of savings to make, how would you start doing that?". It is about identifying what options are there. I would guess, given the pressures, that that would not be a net figure for savings, because part of it would be used to finance certain areas where there are additional pressures moving forward, be it pay or special needs. They are doing a bit of scenario planning, I suppose.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): We have had access to some scenario planning via minutes, which is scenario planning a 5p to 10p increase in school meals, a 10% increase in music service charges, a 10% cost reduction in music service, a standardisation of new home-to-school transport charges and a change to the common funding scheme. Have those scenarios been presented to you, and do you have any reaction to them?

Mr Weir: We have not got any proposals back directly at this stage. To be fair, if we are asking people to think through what budgetary options there are, it should be relatively open-ended. We should not start off with a predetermined outcome and say, "Take everything off the table; here are the only things we can have". There are things there that would probably not be acceptable if they came forward as proposals. There are also things that, even if they were suggestions and proposals from the Education Authority, are not necessarily for the Education Authority to directly deliver. I am not going to prejudge something, so I will maybe talk about the process rather than the end result —

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): Minister, we need to be as concise as possible.

Mr Weir: Take the issue of charging for transport. At the moment, there is legislation that basically says it is free. If you were to make a change to that, it would require regulations, which means it is not simply for the EA to say, "Here is our plan. We are doing this". It would require not only consultation but legislation through the House and therefore the approval of DE.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): That provides some reassurance about the processes that might be followed.

Mr Weir: That is fair enough. They are thinking about a wide range of things. Ideas were put forward by the EA about how to deal with the 2016-17 budget. Some of those were implemented, and others were not practical or doable, leaving aside their desirability. At this stage, we are trying to say, "Have a bit of forward thinking about where you will be for 2017-18 and come up with whatever options you have". To be fair, on some of those, it is not necessarily the EA putting forward those proposals. Those have not come forward as proposals.

Mr Fair: It has been helpful to have options on the table for informal discussion with the Education Authority as early as possible. As the Minister says, some consultation or changes to regulations may be required for some of the options.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): That alone is one reason why it is disappointing that the Education Authority declined the invitation to be here this morning, given the level of scenario planning that is going on on a wide range of issues that affect families across Northern Ireland.

Before I bring other members in, given that we are on the topic of the Education Authority, can we ensure that we have addressed the protective notices that the Education Authority has required of our youth services, I think primarily in at this stage? I know that you have issued two statements, Minister — one yesterday and one today — to provide some reassurance that decisions have not

7 been taken. The clear response that I and, I am sure, other members are getting from youth workers in our community is that they do not want an assurance that no decisions have been taken; they want an assurance that a decision has been taken to provide the funding that they need to continue to perform the vital work that they do.

Mr Weir: I will bring in officials on this as well. The position is that I cannot set the 2017-18 budget. All I can say is that not only has no decision been taken but there has not even been a proposal. I think that the letter that was sent out was, quite frankly, probably quite clumsily written and went beyond what should be the case. The wording and the position is no different from what has happened on a number of occasions in previous years, particularly where a budget is not set. The way that the letter was written probably led to people drawing inferences that should not have been drawn, but it is understandable that people drew those inferences.

Let me put it this way: not only has no decision been taken but no proposal has been put to cut that. It is an earmarked fund, and, as we move ahead with the cash spend allocation, the position, I think, will be that the permanent secretaries will effectively allocate cash on the basis on which it was spent in the previous year. If you are looking to make a change to an earmarked position, it will require the approval of the Department, so, again, the EA could not act unilaterally in that regard. I suppose that the only issue, from the point of view of being able to say that I am allocating this cash for 2017-18, is that I do not have the power to do that directly. What needs to happen is not something that can happen overnight, and the process had already started.

One of the other restrictions on this was that this was set up on the basis of it being an annual amount. I do not think that that is particularly good practice to give people certainty, so there has been the start of work between the Education Authority and the Department to see how this can be more mainstreamed as a longer-term approach that would require policy changes, which we will not be in a position to immediately put in place. It is not good practice, when you get a crisis, to have to, effectively, follow the procedure of sending out protective notices. There needs to be a degree of change. I cannot give any absolute guarantees regarding the 2017-18 budget, other than the fact that you will be in a situation with the cash requirements where the year keeps on extending.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): Do any members want to come in briefly on the youth services budget?

Mr McGrath: It is the process that is important in this. There is definitely an effort from you and the Department to explain the process, and that is possibly differing from the information that is being supplied by EA. It is that difference that may be causing the worry on the ground. Also, because this was introduced a number of years ago and was literally, on the ground, called "the Minister's fund", it almost feels that it belongs to the Minister, yet it is an allocation of money that is given to the Education Authority or the boards to deliver. That has created confusion. Can you confirm that you are saying that there is no attempt at all to change the budget line, you will not be in charge of the delivery of that budget and you expect that it will just roll, as it has done previously?

Mr Weir: I confirm all of those expectations. Any change to an earmarked fund would, by definition, require the Department to give the green light, and there is no intention of doing that.

Mr McGrath: If the Education Authority wished to change that fund, it would need to come back and ask the Department for approval.

Mr Weir: That is correct. It cannot be a situation where, for the sake of argument, they say, "We have £500 million for next year and have pressures so, I'll tell you what, we will cut x, y and z out of the earmarked fund". Any changes to an earmarked fund would have to be approved by the Department.

Mr McGrath: Can I push for one further bit? I might be pushing it a bit far. Can we go as far as saying that the jobs of the youth workers who are working under that funding stream are as safe as anybody else's in so far as budgets going forward are concerned? Nobody knows at this stage the changes that there might be in one month or two months, so they are just in the same position as everybody else. They are not unique.

Mr Weir: Yes, that is the case. Their jobs are safer than mine, put it that way, Colin. [Laughter.] I doubt if anybody would draw a great deal of reassurance from that.

8 The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): Minister, why then have protective notices been issued?

Mr Weir: Because that is the standard practice when there is no Budget; it is a precautionary legal move. The same thing happened in 2015-16, when there was a large delay to the Budget and a question mark over whether one would be set due to the issue of welfare reform. That has happened on other occasions and will probably be happening to other workers. This is probably the highest- profile case.

Ms Julie Thompson (Department of Education): It is an annual practice within the voluntary and community sector generally, not just in education. Given the current circumstances, it has received a degree of attention.

Mr Weir: Put it this way, the thing that did not help, having seen the letter —

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): A letter from the Education Authority?

Mr Weir: There was, I think, a letter on protective notice that went from the Education Authority to staff, the wording of which contained a bit of extra spin of a negative nature on that and made a level of presumption that, because of the wording, was not —

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): Have you raised that with the Education Authority?

Mr Weir: It has been raised with them. It said, not only are you being put on protective notice, there is no expectation of any money, and this will probably get cut —

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): Is the Education Authority offering any clarification by way of a public statement? They have snubbed our Committee today, regrettably, but have they offered any clarification of this, given the concern that it has caused?

Ms Thompson: There is a conversation with the EA on the difficulties. Obviously, the Minister's statement is clarifying where things are at the moment.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): So, to be clear, cutting the extended hours detached outreach funding would require your approval, and you have no intention of doing that.

Mr Weir: No, I do not. Potentially, a successor in title could do it, but that would require approval; it is not something that can be done unilaterally.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): That is helpful,

I have a number of other EA-related issues, not least special educational needs. Rosemary and Sandra, do you want to come in briefly on other issues, or are you content for me to cover the Education Authority issues before I bring you in?

Mrs Overend: OK.

Mrs Barton: Go on.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): Minister, obviously, the Committee has done a lot of work to bring openness and transparency to the proposal by the Education Authority to reduce special educational needs nursery provision from full-time to part-time in at least six schools this year. The clear grounds on which the Education Authority argued that that needed to take place was an increase in demand from approximately 300 enrolments to 360. The Education Authority has provided us with information that actual enrolments number approximately 300: are you aware of that? Can you provide any more clarity on why the EA reduced those hours when there has been no significant increase in enrolment?

Mr Weir: I thought you said it had increased by 300.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): Last year's enrolment was around 300 as well.

9 Mr Weir: OK, sorry; I thought you said it had increased by 300.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): No, it has stayed more or less the same, as far as we aware. Getting access to the data has been extremely difficult.

Mr Weir: I understand that. Julie, do you want to deal with that question?

Ms Thompson: We have ongoing liaison with the EA on the special educational needs nursery side of things. Obviously, as you will understand, the position is moving, as children come along and require placement.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): As far as I am aware, it has not moved, and we are in February.

Ms Thompson: Yes, I guess the issues are geographical, such as where the schools are and the provision across the Province. You cannot just look at the whole of Northern Ireland; we have to have the right provision in the right area. It is a combination of that as well.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): A review was undertaken, and the consultation stage of that has been completed. The intention was to publish a report for full and open consultation in January, but that has not happened. It is my understanding that that cannot happen during purdah: is that correct, Minister?

Mr Weir: More or less. The protocol — I have faced this with an internal issue as well — is such that public consultations cannot be done by either a Department or an arm's-length body during an election period and during purdah. I do not think that the report has even passed though the Education Authority to be green-lighted. The likelihood is that it would have kicked-off in February, but, because of the election, I think, it will be delayed by a month. I understand that the EA has advised us that that should not create a major problem. However, if there is any danger of that impacting on the referral requests for the September 2017 intake, it has an internal planning group that is specifically trying to deal with the issue if any interim measure needs to be taken. Unfortunately, as happens elsewhere, the guidance is that you do not do consultations during purdah. It is an important position, and I hope that the EA will plan the consultation for as soon after the election as it can.

As you know, one of the other issues is the report. That is more directly within my remit. I have made sure that the start of that will be as soon after the election as possible; that is, it will launch 15 minutes before the polls close, which is the earliest that I can legally do it.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): OK. Will the special educational needs nursery provision review be completed in time for its recommendations to take effect in September 2017?

Ms Thompson: It has to go through its final clearance in the EA. It has yet to get its internal clearance in the EA. It then needs to come out to consultation post the election period, and we will need to see where we get to at that stage and how quickly that can happen at that time, depending on the circumstances. That consultation will proceed.

No final decisions can be taken on models and all of that until that consultation has been worked through and the responses evaluated. As the Minister has already indicated, the EA will look at what it needs to do for September. It will look internally at the needs of the children and the provision in the special schools and trying to match those, but there can be no final decisions on final models until the consultation is worked through and responses evaluated. That will be post the election.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): I suggest that that raises serious concerns over whether that can be implemented by September 2017.

In closing, before I bring anybody else in on this, I will say that there are a significant number of families and principals who want to see a reversion to full-time provision in September 2017. I am sure that they will make it known that they are concerned that that may not be the case.

Do any other members want to come in on this issue or related special educational needs issues?

10 Mr McGrath: Is there any way of improving the connections between the health service and the education service for specialist treatment that needs to be delivered to young people in special schools. I understand that we have an example of a school having 45 pupils when it opened and one speech therapist, one occupational therapist and one physio. The numbers at that school have since doubled, but we are looking at the same level of input from those specialists. That means that there is a direct reduction in the number of hours and the number of times that they get the treatment —

Mr Weir: There is ongoing liaison, particularly from the practitioners' point of view, arising out of the Children's Services Co-operation Act 2015, and the Committee in the previous Assembly put a new review in that. One of the slightly frustrating things is that, even for special needs, we have regulations that are effectively ready to go but cannot proceed at the moment. They would put some meat on the bones of special educational needs provision.

It is a valid enough point that we need to keep on pushing on that. Sometimes, people have a snapshot of what special needs is. It is a massively wide spectrum. It is also a massively widely changing spectrum, and the state of play with special needs now compared with what it was 10 or 20 years ago and what it will be in 10 years' time will have impacts on what is needed in particular schools, irrespective of —

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): I have a brief supplementary question, Minister. I will not go into individual details, because time does not allow us, but there are significant concerns that therapy sessions are not taking place to the statutory standard that they need to in a number of locations. It is adequately serious for me to ask you today to commit to meeting a small group of parents who are affected by this before the election, if that is possible.

Mr Weir: I would be happy to do that, but the issue is that, with the best will in the world, it might be best if you set that meeting up with senior officials. Once it gets to midnight tonight, my scope to do something and my ability to have new initiatives or actions is severely limited. It is an important issue that needs to be progressed.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): The issue is primarily with the Belfast Trust, from my point of view, and I could offer Mencap as an umbrella body to provide administrative and organisational assistance.

Mr Weir: We can certainly get a meeting set up, Chris.

Mr McGrath: Chair, would it be possible to ask the officials whether they know of anybody in the health service on an equal level who could join them in that? A lot of the issues that will be raised will filter down to the health service.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): We will action that.

Minister, very briefly, the Committee has informally met the Buddy Bear Trust as well. Can you provide an update on your efforts to improve communication between the Education Authority and the Buddy Bear Trust?

Mr Weir: There was a situation where, for whatever reason, there was a breakdown in communication; in particular, information arising out of an Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) report in 2013-14 was sent on, but it is clear from talking to Brendan McConville that he never received it. That points to a potential reasonable way forward. The EA suggested a cooperation scheme between Buddy Bear and another nearby special school. What may well be the case is that a pilot will be developed involving Buddy Bear and a couple of other schools. A large part of the problem with the breakdown in communication is that those who are doing the placement in the EA, who are professionals, seem to take a view that they have some doubt over whether Buddy Bear is the right place in which to do that. If we get something that can operate as a pilot scheme and evaluate conductive education, particularly in the Buddy Bear setting, and do a comparison with schools that provide different services, that would be a productive way forward. That is something that Buddy Bear and other schools will need to develop, but it is very much in line with what the ETI is asking for, and that is a sensible way forward.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): Are you bringing whatever influence you have to bear on the Education Authority to progress that in a timely fashion?

11 Mr Weir: The issue, Chris, is that the report suggested Buddy Bear working with a special needs school. I would be fairly flexible on whether that would be the individual local school. It is about putting together a business case and a proposal that is robust and then saying, "This is in line with what the ETI is suggesting, so give it some support to allow it to go forward". The first step has to come from Buddy Bear and a couple of other schools.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): Is anyone providing any assistance or support to them for that?

Mr Weir: I know that different parties have spoken about that, and that is the advice that has been given. The key barrier, particularly for Buddy Bear, is that they would probably need to find a willing partner — one or more other schools — to bring it into line with what the ETI wants. The more this goes down the line of what the ETI suggested, the more difficult it is for anybody, at whatever stage, to resist it.

Mrs Barton: Thank you, Minister. As you will be very aware, we are in the middle of strike action in many of the schools. Can you give an update on discussions?

Mr Weir: There are ongoing discussions, and they met yesterday, I think. I do not want to break the confidentiality of the discussions, but it is fair to say that there is probably a reasonable gap between management side and the unions. Management side has put in a paper, and trade union side has also put in a paper. Looking ahead to what should be on the agenda, I can say that the next step — this possibly happened yesterday — is tasking the two sides to get together to work out a common agenda at least. There are issues that have been ongoing for many years. To interpret that in a different way, you could say that there are legacy issues. There are ongoing discussions. There is quite a distance to go to close the gap on the issues, and it is important that, in those discussions, people are realistic. I do not want to get into the detail directly, however, because that might prejudice whatever happens.

Mrs Barton: I have just one more question. I will localise it now, Minister. I learned through the press that you were in during the week. Your visit was to do with announcing that there would be a new build for the new school, Enniskillen Royal Grammar School. Can you give an idea of when you hope to have that completed or when it could be completed by?

Mr Weir: That is the preferred site. I think that we anticipate that it will be 18 months before people are on-site. There are still some statutory processes — some planning issues — to be gone through, but, given the fact that there is a school there already, you would think that those should not be impossible. We are talking about 18 months to get on-site and then another 18 months to build. That is the time frame.

Mrs Barton: OK. Is still on course to start in 2017?

Mr Weir: I do not think that there has been any change to that timescale. I do not have the details in front of me, but I am not aware of any issues there.

Mr Fair: May I pick up on a general budgetary point? I am not commenting on a particular capital scheme, but the progress of capital schemes will depend on budgets being agreed. Where contractual commitments have already been made, the likelihood is that they will continue, but I add that caveat.

Mr Weir: In the broader sphere of things, while there is that general level of uncertainty, there still will be capital money. One of the things that I am keen on seeing is that there are no delays with capital money. That is why we tried to get some other things sorted out with the Northern Ireland Office (NIO), which, ultimately, we were not able to bring over the line in time. The written ministerial statement on the school enhancement programme (SEP) is out there, making a new call. That will be for others to pick up at a later stage. However, if that were simply long-fingered, it could have implications for our flow of money. With capital, it is about not just the amount but the level of flows in- year.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): Sandra, you wanted to come in on capital spend in and around the school enhancement programme and the Fresh Start shared and integrated education budgets.

12 Mrs Overend: Thanks. Minister, the issue has been raised before, but seemingly there is £50 million this year that really has not been spent. You were expecting to have spent £3 million before the end of the financial year. You were seeking to carry the money over. What is the latest?

Mr Weir: I have written twice now. There was an initial approach made to the Secretary of State. The blockage so far on a range of things has probably been through Treasury. I was then trying, in a spirit of comradeship, to go with the Finance Minister to meet the Secretary of State — the Finance Minister had a few other interesting ideas for Fresh Start money — to see where we could widen the pool. We have not had a positive response as yet. One of the problems is the wider context. I suspect that anybody in the NIO has probably been preoccupied with other things.

I still think that it makes sense for changes to be made to widen what the money can be spent on. In particular, on a couple of grounds, the timing of end-year flexibility is important, but we require the terms and conditions to be changed by Treasury. As an argument, that has not been successful so far, but there are issues with in-year inflexibility and with where the money can be spent. Hopefully, we will be looking at super-mixed schools to see whether something can be done there. For the integrated sector, Fresh Start does not apply to SEPs. Certain integrated schools are in a good position and do not want a new build but could benefit from an SEP. They are not excluded from that, but, again, if we can lever in additional money, those are the kinds of areas that we have been pressing with government. Treasury approval is required, and we have not got that, but that is not to say that the issue is completely dead. It is an issue that the Department will continue to pursue, because it is critical that Northern Ireland gets the maximum out of Fresh Start. The big problem with capital money is that we cannot, as we could with a lot of the revenue stuff, simply sign a cheque and spend it in that year. That was always going to be a problem, but we have been pressing that issue, Sandra.

Mrs Overend: Thanks for that, Minister. We had £50 million in this financial year, and we have spent only £3 million. Can you tell me what that £3 million was spent on?

Mr Weir: Not off the top of my head, Sandra. There has been a new build. The one that was on track first was Drumlins Integrated Primary School. I was there, and it is certainly in the process of being built. I think it will open very shortly, but I do not have the figures to hand on at what stage that is at.

Capital will be a problem automatically. The advantage of school enhancement is that, as well as anything else, it is money that can be spent more quickly, because traditionally a school enhancement programme tends to be done in 18 months to two years. If you are talking about a new capital build, you are talking about a process of three to five years minimum.

Mrs Overend: Will you clarify who set the condition of lack of flexibility on what you can spend the money on?

Mr Weir: That was basically the deal that was there from —

Mrs Overend: That was part of 'A Fresh Start'.

Mr Weir: Let me put it this way: as in all things with terms and conditions, Treasury would ideally not spend money on anything in that regard, so a wrestle has to happen on every aspect. Whatever commitment there was at a broader level for £50 million a year, Treasury has kind of dug its heels in and set fairly tight conditions. It is about trying to make those conditions more flexible to allow spend. Treasury has set the conditions at this stage, so it is a question of persuading it, whether at a political level or whatever else, to relax those conditions.

Mrs Overend: How long have you been trying to do that?

Mr Weir: What kicked this off was that we were looking at a SEP announcement, probably in late autumn. There were initial discussions before that about whether there could be a Fresh Start element to it. Some good work happened at official level, but we needed to get buy-in from the NIO and the Treasury. I met the Secretary of State and raised the matter with him in the late autumn. To be fair, at that stage, I think that the block was coming from Treasury. We then renewed it, and, rather than simply jumping into an SEP at that point, we had another go in a fairly lengthy letter. There was to be a joint meeting in December with me, the Secretary of State and the Finance Minister. The date did not suit the Finance Minister, and we tried to rearrange it.

13 An extensive letter has been written to the Secretary of State to highlight the strong case for how making the changes would benefit the aims of Fresh Start. I am not aware whether there has been a direct reply as such. Certainly, nothing in the positive has been received. I suspect that attention has been elsewhere. To be fair, I do not think that the blockage came from within Northern Ireland. Any reluctance has been at Treasury level.

Mrs Overend: OK, so —

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): Sorry, do you have a last question?

Mrs Overend: You do not expect to have an answer before the election and before the end of the financial year, so it will be in the mix for the future.

Mr Weir: Irrespective of that, it is an issue that is worth pursuing. We want to get the maximum benefit out of it.

Mrs Overend: Absolutely. Otherwise, that money will just stay with Treasury and will be lost to Northern Ireland.

Mr Weir: I understand that. From our end, everything that humanly can be done is being done to make sure that it is spent. That is where some of the more inventive thinking, shall we say, about how that can be spent is being done. It is not just in our position to sign off on that, however.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): Minister, I know that you have to go, but Lord Morrow and Carla were hoping to ask you a brief question before you do, if that is OK.

Lord Morrow: Will the Minister update us on the shared schools programme?

Mr Weir: Another call has gone out, and we are waiting for the evaluation of that.

Ms Thompson: The call went out, and schools are being evaluated on an ongoing basis. We have 349 schools working on shared education at the moment. That call is an open call, so any more partnerships that want to come forward can do so and feed into it.

Mr Weir: I have been in schools where those partnerships are happening, and a lot of good work is happening on the ground. We all probably naturally focus on the problems, but, let us face it, there are a lot of good things happening within schools, between schools and between communities. There are positives to be taken for the future on that side of things as well.

Lord Morrow: I think that six were nominated.

Mr Weir: To be fair, you are probably talking about two slightly separate things. Julie was talking about the shared education programme. On the shared campus side, there is a call out, which —

Ms Thompson: I was talking about Delivering Social Change (DSC) shared education programme on the primary side.

Lord Morrow: I was wondering how you got to three hundred and something. I am thinking not least of Moy. There is a scheme there that has been in the offing now for four or five years.

Mr Weir: That is progressing. I was in Moy at both the schools involved. They have drawings, and, as far as I know, that is progressing. The schools seem fairly happy, and there is good spirit between them.

Ms Lockhart: Thank you for coming to our final Committee meeting, Minister. I have two quick questions. Can you give us an update on where we are with the outdoor centres? There has been quite a bit of unrest out there, so that would be useful.

Mr Weir: The outdoor centres issue is still at consultation stage with the EA, and I cannot directly jump into that consultation. A lot of genuine concerns have been raised. I have written to all members of

14 the EA to say that they need to take a precautionary approach to this and heavily evaluate all the responses that are in. I think that other models can be provided. Things are happening elsewhere in the world — for instance, in England — that demonstrate that there can be a plan B. I also indicated to them that they need not simply to evaluate the responses but, where people are coming forward with alternatives, to sit down and engage with them. The key driver has to be what is in the best interests of children. It also has to be the case that those who are putting forward alternatives put forward relatively concrete ones. It is not a question of them just saying, "This should not happen". There are models that can be put out.

Ms Lockhart: I appreciate that. The EA officials have gone gung-ho at this, and that has caused a lot of ripples on the ground.

Very quickly, the other thing I want to ask about is special needs. You have been a real advocate. I just want to impress on you the need for more joined-up government. While we have a working group in which the Department of Health and the Department Education work together, I would really appreciate it if you could assure us —

Mr Weir: It is important that we do all that is there, but there is another thing that we really need to crack. Good work happens between the respective officials, but what is delivered on the ground by individuals may be more patchy. That is the bit that we need to look at. Then, again, we are up against it, as we have a moving position.

Ms Lockhart: We have a very frustrated group of mummies and daddies out there who feel that their children are missing out on therapies and early intervention. I know that you have been an advocate. I just want you to assure us that you will continue to be one.

Mr Weir: Absolutely.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): Minister, I will ask one final question. It is about the status of the EA board. There are political appointments to the EA board. Post the election —

Mr Weir: Post the election, the procedure is that the, if you like, quasi-d'Hondt mechanism is run, and that will determine a number of posts. There are then eight working days for the nominating officers to nominate and for people to take up positions. That is something that we pressed the EA on as well.

Ms Thompson: Seven working days.

Mr Weir: Sorry, it is seven working days. I do not want to see a situation in which the EA uses the cover of trying to put it on the long finger. To be fair, I do not think that it has indicated any intention of doing that. It is important that, whatever political representatives come forward, it is not a question of them being sidelined.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): Does that happen whether there is an Assembly in existence or not?

Mr Weir: It should. The nominations certainly will happen. Think of the time frame. As I understand it, the election will take place, and there is then a seven-day period to have an initial meeting. Then the 14-day period kicks in. Irrespective of whether there is any intervention in that 14-day period, the initial bit of the nominations will take place before you have reached the potential crisis point. The issue with appointments will be if there are new ones. They can be signed off ultimately by a permanent secretary in the Department. You might have to do checks on the individuals.

Ms Thompson: The d'Hondt mechanism will get the numbers OK, but there may be a link to the Assembly meeting on some of those key dates through the process as well. We need to look at that one.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): Maybe you can provide somebody with some clarification of that, be it the Clerk or members. I say that, Minister, because there have been significant concerns around openness and transparency and about certain approaches taken by the Education Authority leadership. It is essential that that be monitored.

15 Mr Weir: We will send you today any information that we have on the appointment process.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): OK. You can see that there is a wide range of issues there.

Mr Weir: I understand that.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): Do you want to make any closing statement to people involved in education in Northern Ireland?

Mr Weir: We want to have people who are as accountable as possible, and, consequently, if a decision were taken by a shell Education Authority — one that was denuded of any political representation — people would not think that there was the same potential buy-in to decisions. There is also a need to move on quickly. We will email you the information ASAP.

Mr Fair: Let me pick up on that point. Last year, when the election was being run, the board of the Education Authority agreed not to make any significant decisions in that interim period. Obviously, depending on how long things might go on for, it would have that the same intention, without holding up ongoing business as usual.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): It has it pros and cons, I suppose. OK. Hopefully, we can work together to get back to business as soon as possible. Thank you very much indeed, Minister.

16