NORTHERN IRELAND FORUM

_____________

EDUCATION COMMITTEE

Thursday 19 September 1996

____________

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

on

EDUCATION ADMINISTRATION

___________

Witnesses:

Mr P Carvill and Mr D Hill

(Department of Education)

The Chairman: Good morning, Gentlemen. First of all, may I bid you a warm welcome to the Education Committee. This is a unique, perhaps historic, occasion. This is the first Committee formed by the Forum, and today’s is the first meeting to hear evidence on the administration of education. We decided to start with people who can speak with authority on the subject — the Department itself. I hope you will feel comfortable and happy. I believe that you are prepared to make a presentation to begin with. Members will then ask questions, and I know that you will be perfectly capable of answering them all.

We are sorry for the late start, but because of the traffic in Belfast and around the suburbs there were considerable delays. I apologize for Mrs Bell, who has not been able to make it yet.

Mr Carvill: Thank you very much for those words of welcome. May I, in turn, say that I much welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues with the Committee. You have asked me to explain the background to the administration review, to explain the conclusions that the Minister has reached and to set out the reasons and the process by which those conclusions were reached. If you agree I will take 20 minutes or so to do that, and then I would be very happy to try to answer any questions. You each have a copy of the notes to which I will be speaking. If we simply take it a page at a time I would be happy to talk through it.

The first page shows where we start from. It shows the present education and library board areas. It need not detain us long. It is just a factual statement of the position that we have had since 1973. You can see that the five existing boards serve populations of 260,000 to 360,000. There are two where the population is mainly Catholic and three where it is mainly Protestant. The board membership itself is cross-community and involves district councils, churches and ministerial nominees.

There are just two points on that page I would draw your attention to. The first is that, as you can see, the Belfast Education and Library Board coincides in territory with the Belfast City Council. It does not take in the areas around Belfast, which in many ways nowadays are part of Greater Belfast.

“FSM” stands for “free school meals”. What that shows is the percentage of the school population in each of the board areas who qualify for free meals. I draw attention to the figure because it is used as an indicator of social need in the areas served by the boards. You will see that there is quite a range in the level of free school meals entitlement in the board areas. There are two areas where it runs around 20%, and there are two where it runs around 35%. I draw attention to that because it has considerable implications for the nature of the community served by the boards. There are implications also for funding and for the policy of targeting social need. I shall come back to that later. I simply want to log the point at the moment.

The second page attempts to summarize the reasons for the review. There are three main factors highlighted as having prompted it.

One is education reform and the implications of the 1989 Education Reform Order, which introduced very major shifts in the roles and responsibilities of everyone concerned with education — the boards, the Department and the schools and colleges themselves. As far as the impact of that Order on the area boards is concerned, one major change was that an increasing amount of the boards' work required to be done within the province-wide frameworks — frameworks which were uniform for the province as a whole in things like LMS and curriculum assessment. The ground rules in those areas were no longer a matter for discretion. I could add things like open enrolment. Whereas previously we had a plan system of catchment areas and of controls on school intakes, we moved to more open and market grading system. Alongside that there was an emphasis on independent tribunals with decision-making powers to deal with things like appeals against exclusions or expulsions and appeals on transfer to secondary school. The point there is that, again, functions that were previously directly administered by the education and library boards themselves moved to a different arena, and the general effect of all these changes was a change from direct management and decision-making for schools by boards to one of support. On our boards are facilitators and enablers who provide structures and systems and support within which schools and colleges do their own work.

Then there is the question of efficiency and effectiveness. The question arose as to whether the administrative system which had been in place for over 20 years was still fit for the purpose in this new situation. There had been changes in the respective roles of the Department, the boards and other NDPBs. Those have certainly evolved since 1973. For example, the delegation limits within which the Department’s relationship with boards were conducted have significantly increased. A concern was that under a five-board system there was duplication of effort between boards to address common issues — a tendency to do similar things five times over. I want to come back to that later. Another element under efficiency and effectiveness was a consciousness that the Greater Belfast boundaries, which we said a moment ago did not coincide with the boundaries of the Belfast Education and Library Board, required consideration. I say that because, certainly from South Antrim, from Belfast, from North Down, there is a singleness of population. We have large numbers of pupils from those places going into the Belfast Education and

Library Board area to attend grammar schools. There is also a significant move in the other direction of pupils going to secondary schools on the fringes of the Belfast board area, which complicates things like transport and planning.

The third factor was economy. Concern over the financial outworkings of this system showed itself in concern about equity. I described it as responsiveness versus consistency. Yet responsiveness to local needs is the essence of local administration and the key reason for having more than one board. Alongside that, there is also a desire for consistency and equity of treatment between similar schools in different geographical areas, and, in practice, local discretion meant that in some cases differences of up to 10% in the funding of very similar schools in different geographical areas could be found. The question arose: is that reasonable? particularly against the background of the uniform Northern Ireland curriculum which I referred to a moment ago which, in effect, requires all schools to do the same job. The question was asked: should they not have the same funding? There was also concern about the annual administrative costs of the five-board system which amounted to about £36 million. The perception that Northern Ireland’s education sector was over-administered against a background of pressure on public expenditure meant that if there was an opportunity for savings, it was very desirable to take it.

The next page shows the recurrent budgets of the boards in 1995-96. It illustrates the areas for which boards are responsible and the relative importance of the different funding sectors within that. I want to draw attention to the very large area of delegated schools and FE expenditure. That amounts to over £600 million — over two-thirds of the boards’ total expenditure — and that is delegated to schools and colleges. Before the 1989 Order, about £400 million of that was controlled and managed directly by the boards. Post LMS that function went to the schools themselves, and that is a measure of the impact of LMS and the extent to which budgetary and other responsibility has passed to schools and colleges themselves. It is true, of course, that the Education Reform Order introduced some new responsibilities for boards. In particular, it gave them the curriculum, advisory and support service responsibility — you can see it in purple on that slide — which represents expenditure of about £21 million. So they did get some additional functions but these were not nearly as large in expenditure terms as the functions that were delegated.

The next page shows a breakdown of board staffing, perhaps a more complicated table than we need spend time on at the moment. It may be useful to you to have as a reference. The two figures of 8,500 and 20,900 represent the full-time and part-time staff on the boards, and that simply makes the point that the boards are very large employers. There are some 29,000 staff employed across Northern Ireland, at local level mainly, by the boards as school caretakers, school administrative staff, school meals staff and school transport staff. Over 25,000 of those 29,000 staff are directly involved at local level in the delivery of local services, and I make that point because the administration review, I think it is important to realize, is not actually directly concerned with that great bulk of board staff. Whatever the outcome of the review, it will have very little impact on the great majority of board staff. The focus of the changes is on the top layer of management, and the real question being addressed in the review is whether, in the present situation, we actually need that number of people in the separate layer of senior management.

As the Committee will know, there has been an extensive consultation process on these issues going back to March 1992 when Lord Belsted announced the review and gave an invitation to all concerned to submit views. That was followed by a consultation document that was issued in February 1993 and, after a long period of discussion and consultation, Michael Ancram published his proposals for change in April 1995, the proposal which was summarized there was the four-board model. I want to come back to that in a moment.

You have the documents which were issued for consultation, and it may be helpful if I were just to summarize some of the main points that were made in the response to those documents. First of all, there was very strong support for the concept of an area board intermediate tier with cross-community involvement at board level. A lot of commentators stressed the value of boards in bringing together all sections of the community for common purpose. There were concerns about the idea of change. There were concerns about accountability — would that be lessened? There were concerns about accessibility — would that be made more difficult? There were concerns about jobs — would they be reduced? Many of those who responded to the consultation exercise, therefore, argued for no change, particularly in advance of the establishment of any local assembly which might wish to consider these issues — an argument for leaving decisions to another day. And it is fair to say that even some of those who in principle said, in response to the consultations, that they favoured change, would have preferred that change to be deferred.

Another strand that came out in the responses was strong loyalty to individual boards, a natural response and pleasing that people felt that the boards were doing a good job. It did mean though that many of the responses were references to essentially local concerns and local issues, and not many of them addressed the matter of the overall structure of the system as we might have wished. Alongside those comments were also some which expressed support for a variety of changes, some of them minor, some of them quite radical, and there was support from teachers' unions, among others, for any measure which would transfer expenditure from administration into the classroom. The sort of changes that some people envisaged were a common administrative system for all schools; three boards; a single board; a central school support agency; a funding agency; a controlled schools body; a transferors' council; and regional structures to manage specific services like FE or youth or libraries. The bulk of the comments showed that people were certainly uneasy about the implications of change, but some of them showed a willingness to look at other models. Against those consultations and those responses the Government produced, in April 1995, some initial proposals for change which were put out for further comment and discussion. They represented the Government’s first indication of the conclusions that they were drawing from the consultative process to date.

There were four main elements, in those proposals. The first was to reduce the number of education and library boards from five to four — that was quite specifically described as a compromise. Why was that compromise advanced? Well one reason was that the Government were convinced that the status quo was not justified. They did perceive the system to be over administered. They felt that some change was necessary. There was an attempt to respond to the comments which had been made, and the compromise proposal was influenced by those comments. The concerns in particular which most of the commentators had expressed were about the dangers of radical change. There was also a desire to minimize disruption while still reducing the total number of boards, moving in what the Government believed was the right direction.

The second element in the proposals was to evaluate the practicalities of regionalizing some services where, there was reason to believe, there could be useful savings by merging some functions, even if those functions remained the responsibility of separate boards. Thirdly, there was a proposal to establish further education colleges as free-standing corporate bodies, bodies which would be funded by the Department as a single funding source on a province-wide basis rather than by the four boards. We have 17 colleges and why was it necessary, why was it appropriate, to have four or five different funding sources for such a small number of colleges?

Fourthly, there was the proposal to transfer the recurrent funding of voluntary grammar and grant maintained, integrated schools (which has been a function of the Department for many years in the case of voluntary grammar schools, more recently in the integrated schools) to the boards, thus removing some of the present duplication of functions between the Department and the boards in those areas and reducing the number of separate local management of schools schemes from seven to four. For some other bodies like the Curriculum Council, CCMS, the Youth Council and the Staff Commission there were no proposals for change at that time.

To elaborate a little bit on those proposals, the next page has a map which shows the four-authority model, the four boards that were contemplated in that April proposal. You can see that that involved no change for the Western and North Eastern Boards. The Southern Board was not greatly affected, other than by the addition to its area of Down District Council. The remainder of the South Eastern Board and the Belfast Board would have come together to form a single unit, and that was the most striking change there. What reactions were there to those proposals? It is fair to say that they were very hostile from all quarters, for different reasons. Some people argued that this was simply tinkering with the problem, that the savings generated were going to be very modest and that it did not adequately address the Belfast situation because, although the Southern Belfast area became one, the northern fringes of Belfast were still in a separate board area. There was, therefore, an argument that the changes were not worth the candle. A hostile reaction was also perceived from the South Eastern Board area as regards the abolition of the South Eastern Education and Library Board. This could equally well have been perceived as the abolition of the Belfast Education and Library Board because in fact it was a merger of the two. There is no doubt that, especially in the South Eastern Board area, people expressed fears concerning local services and expressed the strongest feeling of loyalty to the existing board.

I would like to highlight a major concern that came out in the comments. It was a concern about accountability, particularly with reference to a reduction that was implicit in these proposals — the reduction of the number of district council representatives who would in future be involved in boards. If we turn to page 8 you can see what the implications for district council representation on the education and library boards would have been in that four board model.

There are two points I would draw your attention to — if you would look at the last line — the total number of district councillors who would be involved in education and library boards (which at present under the five boards is 69) would have been reduced on that model to 55.

Secondly, you will see that the Northern and Western Boards are unaffected. It is the Greater Belfast Board and, to a slightly lesser extent, the Southern Education and Library Board where the total number of district council representatives would have been reduced. That reduction was the product of an assumption that the size of the board remained constant, that the proportions of the members coming from district councils would remain the same and, therefore, the total numbers would reduce.

In the light of the hostile reaction, the Minister gave this further consideration. If you turn to page 9, you will see that in September 1995 — following those further comments — he announced his views at that stage. Firstly, he confirmed the decision on further education. That is now planned to be implemented in September next year. Legislation to give effect to it will be published quite soon.

Secondly, he proposed the establishment of working groups to address the practical implementation of regionalization. His conclusion was that there were possibilities which were worth pursuing, and he invited the boards to join the Department in setting up working groups to address what would actually be involved in practice.

Thirdly, he withdrew the proposal to transfer GMI and voluntary grammar schools’ funding to boards. That was a proposal which was badly received by the schools themselves. This was not because they felt that they were necessarily better off financially with the Department but because they saw this as a safeguard of their independence and had a concern that their particular ethos as grammar schools, or as integrated schools, would potentially be jeopardized if they did not relate directly to the Department but were lumped in with other schools under the education and library boards.

The view the Minister took was that to have made that change would have been a sensible and logical development. It would have reduced some duplication. It would have tied things up a bit — but it was not in itself a large change. It would not lead to any large savings of staff-time or of cost, and, since it was unwelcome to the schools, he did not think it was worthwhile imposing it upon them. He therefore withdrew it.

Most importantly, in that September 1995 statement, he said that he wanted to think again about the number of boards, and wanted to discuss that issue with the political parties. He made it clear that some change was needed but he wanted to give parties a chance to make constructive suggestions rather than persist with his original proposal which, as I said, had been heavily criticized.

So we now come to the process by which we move from that situation to a decision to have three boards rather than five. I have set out on page 10 the key factors which he took into account. I want to take a little time to talk about each of those key factors.

The first one which I have indicated is considerations of efficiency and effectiveness. You will recall, as I said earlier, that in terms of equity and LMS formulae — equity as between schools — I referred to the differences which exist between the levels of funding of identical schools in different board areas at the moment. There was a feeling that three boards would reduce the likelihood of such variations. The targeting of LMS formulae comes back to the point I flagged up at the beginning — about free school meals and the relevance of the social composition of an area to an area board’s funding, and to the task that it is required to do.

If you look at the bottom of page 10, that is just a reminder of the free school meals proportions in each of the existing boards. You can see it is quite a disparate grouping. If you look higher up the page under the heading of New Boards you can see that in the proposed boundaries of them the proportion of pupils entitled to free school meals would in one case be 26%, in the other 27% and the other 30%. So we would have three boards which are much more alike in their social make up and which would therefore be more alike in the funding that they would receive.

A second factor under this heading was the desire to reduce duplication of school and teacher support. For example, in the areas of curriculum support, special education and needs, I already said that curriculum support became a major area for the boards after the 1989 Order. It is fair to say that the boards have done a good job with that new responsibility. There has been some genuine high-quality provision developed. It is also fair to say that there has been some collaboration between boards in seeking to make that provision, in particular in the regional training unit for management education. But having said that, it is also fair to say that it still remains the case that there is duplication and overlap in what the boards provide in this area — which does result in some waste of resources. Examples of duplication and of doubling up can be seen, for example, in the inspectorate reports on aspects of the Curriculum Advisory Service. This can also be seen in the Raising School Standards Initiative — an initiative launched by the Department about two years ago and strongly supported by the boards, which have a key role to play in it. Again there are signs of boards seeking to collaborate in making that provision, but there is also clear evidence that in practice that is not working as effectively as one would wish it to. Separate provision is, in many cases, being developed in separate boards.

The conclusion that the Minister came to in this area was that that sort of overlap and duplication was a product of the fact that we have five separate boards. It reflects the structure of the existing system and requires a structural solution. Another dimension of effectiveness is the type and quality of staff who can be attracted. I do not wish to detract in any way from the quality, or the work, of the staff of the existing boards but in an area the size of Northern Ireland it is reasonable to ask how many separate support, advisory and administrative services we can support, and how long and well we would be able to attract high-quality staff to those. There is certainly reason to think that bigger posts would concentrate talent in them, and would enable higher-quality services to be provided across Northern Ireland as a whole.

The final factor is improved collaboration on common issues. I have previously mentioned that and illustrated it particularly with CAS. It could also be seen in other areas like LMS. There is room here for more consistency.

The second key-factor is on page 11 — which is the area of accountability — and you will recall that one of the main criticisms made of the earlier proposal was the implications of reducing district councillor representation on boards. Now the dilemma is that if you have fewer boards you will have fewer members — unless you either increase the total membership or in some way change the constitution. What the Minister decided to do — and this page shows it — was in fact to do both.

You can see that, under the current composition of boards, there are a total of 172 members; 40% of them are district councillors, 22% are church representatives and the balance of 38% are ministerial nominees. What the Minister proposed, in moving to three boards, was to make each larger, reflecting the larger geographical area that it served and to have three boards — each of 50 members, giving a total of 150. Within that total it was proposed to increase the proportion of places allocated to district councillors from 40% to 48%. Also to hold steady the proportion allocated to the transfer and maintained schools authorities — in fact arithmetically it rises slightly from 22% to 23%. The consequent reduction falls on the ministerial nominees — which reduce from 38% to 29%. The objective was therefore to provide a more democratic elected input — especially in the new northern and southern boards — both in terms of proportions and total numbers, rising from 69 to 72. Also a slight increase in church representation and a reduction in the ministerial numbers. So that was quite a significant proposed shift in the constitution of the education and library boards.

It is worth looking briefly at how that is likely to operate in practice in each council area. I have set out on page 12 the likely outworking. I say likely because it would not be determined until the boards were actually established, legislation passed, and we had regard for the current population in each district council area. That page shows what it is likely to work out as. The two key comments I would draw your attention to are the ones headed Population for District Council Representative — which is just showing the ratio of population in each district council area to the number of district councillor representatives on each education and library board. Obviously that varies because the size and nature of district councils vary, but you can see that under the existing scheme — the fourth column across — there is a wide variation in the ratios. As it happens Magherafelt and Moyle — out in the middle of the page side by side — illustrate the maximum divergence from 14,789 to 36,293.

Under the three-board model — which is shown in the final column in that page — there is still a similarly wide range at the extremes, but the number of district council areas with high ratios reduces considerably. I will leave that page with you to study, but the easiest way to see the point which I have just made is in fact shown on the next page. Page number 13 shows, in bar chart form, the outworkings of the table we have just been looking at. It shows the number of councils which fall into each of three categories. The categories are grouped by reference to the ratio of population to district councillor representative on education and library boards. You can see at the top end of the range a high figure of 30,000 plus. It is not a big change because under the current position, which is in blue, there there are about four such councils. Under the proposed system, which is in brown, there are about six. But if you look at the other end of the spectrum the number of district councils ratio is much better — under 20,000. At present there are only six such councils whereas under the new board system there would be 17.

So the conclusion those calculations point to is that there would not only be, under the new system, more district councillors on education and library boards in total, but they would, in a sense, also be more evenly spread. That is especially the case in the Northern and Southern Boards. I stress that point because it was a major concern of the Minister to respond as fully as he could to the concerns that have been expressed about the loss of accountability and of local democratic input.

Another key factor in the decision to move to three boards was considerations of economy, and I have summarized some of those on page 14. Economy was always an important consideration in this exercise. It was not the predominant consideration — this was the issue of effectiveness which we talked about earlier.

How were the economy considerations calculated? Well, estimating savings from administrative changes is by no means an exact science and at this stage, due to the nature of things, it can only be a desk exercise. It is not possible to predict precisely and accurately the staffing complements of boards which do not yet exist. That would be done through detailed working, on an individual board level, with new chief executives when appointed. It is possible to make a reasonable assessment of the likely order of the magnitude. How was that done? Well, it was done essentially by the Department with the aid of consultants — the consultancy firm of Capita — who were familiar with the education and library boards, having done a lot of work with them.

It is fair to say that we would have preferred to have done that exercise with the active involvement of area board staff. That was impossible because the area boards took the view that they would not allow their staff to participate in the exercise in a direct way. What they did instead was to supply data on request and that was raw data. All boards supplied data. One board did in fact participate in discussions of the analysis, and that was very helpful.

As well as the analysis of the local situation we also undertook some local education authority benchmarking for comparisons both of the present operations of the boards and the prospective staffing in future. The savings that we identified really came from three sources — and I have listed them there as three separate components in the estimated savings. The first was revised staffing complements for specific executive services. This covered things like awards, accounts, audit, transport and wages. Based on existing good practice in Northern Ireland and, using actual levels of LEA costings as benchmarks for comparison (as a cross-check), our estimate was that savings of about £1.6 million could be achieved. That is roughly equivalent to 10%.

Secondly — reductions in senior management staffing. Obviously if you move from five to three boards you lose two sets of management overheads — and the savings estimated there were about £0.5 million.

There were other core areas of administration, finance, personnel and support, where it was difficult to predict specifically what the staffing complement would be. We therefore took what we considered to be a modest efficiency saving estimate of 4% as reflecting economies of scale. That produces about £0.5 million. Those three figures add up to about £2.6 million. We did, as I say, regard that as a conservative estimate. For comparison the benchmark that we ran on existing local education authority funding in England showed a potential saving of about £3.4 million here — so again we felt confident that we were not being over-ambitious or overstating the savings. Nonetheless, we got it right through rounding down from £2.6 million to an approximate £2 million because we were very concerned not to overstate the case throughout this exercise.

We left out of account the possibility of further potential savings on overheads such as premises, travel, heat, light and rates. These run at about 20% of the staffing equivalence. It is fair to say at the same time that we did not make any specific assumption in relation to transitional costs — such as redundancy or extra travel — that would fall into the other side of the balance. Redundancy costs would be the largest element. The normal rule of thumb is that a redundancy is worth making if it pays back within two years, and our assumption was that it would only be in such cases that there would be redundancies. However, no specific provision was made in that case.

Finally, the fourth area which remained to be considered was regionalization of services, and it was seen that working groups had already been established between the Department and the boards to address that issue. The areas identified as having the potential to be discharged on a regional basis are shown on the page. Working groups involving staff and the boards, together with the Department and other bodies, were established to consider and report on this. The conclusion reached by the Minister was that a three-board structure would reduce duplication and effect economies in all these areas. It makes it easier to keep some of them in the boards. The balance of advantage shifts a bit.

The regionalization is still worth examining further in areas of architectural services, grants and awards, and purchasing; and further work is being carried out in these three areas. The other regionalization suggestions will not be pursued at this time. So having reached, against that background, a conclusion that three boards was the appropriate way forward, the next question obviously was what should the boundaries of those three boards be.

We had, in the earlier consultation papers, suggested three board boundaries and the next page is a map which shows what those originally proposed boundaries were. Those are the boundaries implicit in the 1992 consultation paper as a possible three-board model. You will see that it included Belfast, which was the urban area, and its immediate hinterland. Perhaps the most striking feature of that map is the large yellow cap, which is essentially an expanded Western Board taking in large parts of the North Eastern Board. Correspondingly the blue section which is the much expanded Southern Education and Library Board. It is true that when that option was first published it was very heavily criticized particularly by the Western Board which felt that the area encompassed — which I remember being described as running from Roslea to Rathlin — was unmanageably large. Against the background of those criticisms of those original boundaries, we proposed rather different boundaries which are set out on the next page.

What we were looking for in proposing these particular boundaries was first of all a reasonable geographical spread. To take account of the comment that had been made earlier about excessively large geographical areas, we were looking for reasonably compact areas. We were also looking for a reasonably homogenous population mix — bearing in mind the emphasis on boards being cross-community bodies. Also a reasonable social mix referred to when we talked before about the free school meals area. Again you can see that in the three boards — which are proposed on that page — the free school meal proportion is helpfully very similar.

The third point I would emphasize about that map is that it represents changes which affect all the boards. New entities are being created. These changes are most dramatic in the north, south and west. These, as you remember, are the areas where the local representation is in fact being strengthened, which we felt should help. Those boundaries therefore seemed the most logical and cohesive structures.

To conclude, Mr Chairman, could I just bring the story, as it were, up-to-date by reflecting briefly on some of the comments which we have received to date on these proposals. A number of criticisms have been made of them. In particular there has been a strong view in the west of the province — where the perception is that the Western Education and Library Board is disappearing. Of course, as I said, all the existing boards are being recast, and there are concerns in each board area about the impact of that on local services. But it is very strongly expressed in the Western Board area that the proposed north-south dividing line runs right through the middle of what the Western Board would regard as having become a natural unit. The difficulty there is that if we are going to tackle the problem of the Belfast urban area so that that natural unit is treated as one entity, then to try to keep anything like the territory of the present Western Board in one area board area could only be done in one of two ways. Either we go back to the original three-board proposal — which was the Roslea to Rathlin model — which as I say was heavily criticized, or else one is forced to squeeze one of the other boards, the Northern or Southern, into a small board. You then end up with two large boards and one small one. So balancing those factors the conclusion was that the current proposal — the map which concludes that presentation — was the best balanced one.

A second concern being expressed is that the new boards in the new areas may not gel together properly, and that they may not relate properly to the needs of their areas. That we would see as an unnecessarily pessimistic view. We can, after all, expect many of the same people to be involved both at board and officer level — and people are the key factors in any relationship. We would also have strengthened local elected representatives’ representation on boards. We would expect district councillors to want to ensure that boards are responsive to the areas for which they themselves are accountable. The new areas are, as I pointed out, reasonably well matched in terms of social composition and in respect of such things as free school meals.

The third concern expressed is the fear that local services will suffer. That is simply a misapprehension. I say that because, as I have explained to the Committee earlier, nothing that has been proposed in these changes will directly affect local executive services. The vast bulk of the 29,000 staff currently employed by the boards will continue to be employed to do the same jobs in the same areas for the same schools as they do at the moment. We certainly accept that accessibility of local services is an important dimension. It is our concern to ensure that that accessibility is preserved — and we believe it would be. So, the concerns about impact on local services perhaps represent unnecessary alarm — and I am anxious to give people reassurance when I can on that.

This is very much the last point I want to make in this opening presentation and that is to refer to the concerns that have been expressed about jobs, the economic impact, and about the headquarter locations of the new board areas. It is entirely understandable that those concerns should be expressed. It is entirely right that the Department should take them into account. At the same time it would be wrong to exaggerate the effect. Headquarter locations are of course an important and sensitive issue and no decisions have yet been taken on where the headquarters of each board should be.

It is also important to be realistic about what is actually involved. If we look at the monetary impact of these changes we have an estimated savings of around £2 million. Calculate that into job numbers and it is equivalent to about 100 jobs — that is across Northern Ireland as a whole. That is out of a total of 29,000 employees, and even as a percentage of the headquarters staff it is only about 6%. Those savings produce very useful economies at a time of constraints on public expenditure — but it is important not to get this out of proportion. In terms of the impact this would have on particular localities and on particular groups of staff, that is obviously harder to be definitive about. In fact that detail will depend to a large extent on the detailed planning work which still has to be done for the operation of the new boards.

We would wish to be getting on with that detailed planning. Unfortunately it has not been possible for us to do so because one board has declined to participate in those discussions — and that has somewhat blocked progress. So any comments I make cannot be fully informed in a detailed discussion about the boards and about the practicalities — but we can see some clear realities. One is that the existing buildings the boards own and operate in are a valuable asset. We certainly want to see the best use made of them. We have made no provision for new office blocks, nor do we have any desire to see groups of staff moved around unnecessarily. To do that would be both inconvenient and expensive to them, so we are not going to have more change than is necessary. So, Mr Chairman, in conclusion as regards jobs and the economic impact, the exact position is impossible to be definitive about. There is likely to be more continuity than some people have suggested. I understand the concerns which staff naturally feel at a time of uncertainty, but it would be wrong to assume that there is going to be any sort of wholesale change. That does not seem to me to be either likely or necessary.

Mr Chairman, I am grateful to you and your colleagues for listening so patiently. I have tried as clearly and fully as I can to explain the nature of the consideration which has been given to this issue, the nature of the conclusion that the Government has reached and the reasons for it. My colleague, Mr Hill, and I would be happy to try to answer any questions that you may wish to put to us.

The Chairman: Thank you for your very succinct, lucid and able presentation. To state the policy of any organisation of such major standing in an hour is a singular achievement.

Naturally you have mentioned apprehensions and fears that are caused by words like “over-administration”. My Committee has a fairly clinical objective. They are the kind of people who will set about seeing if a policy will stand normal, scrupulous examination. I am not going to ask any questions at this stage. However, my colleagues are keen — I was watching their body language. We are determined to keep going until we have heard good honest answers to the questions.

The only observation I want to make is that I have no vested interest in this at all. I went to a man engaged in administration, and he said that in church administration they had never found it necessary to change the boundaries. They change things that happen inside the boundaries. He said “I have 1500 years to prove that this is successful”.

Mr McFarland: In 1973 we had something like eight local education authorities. Then we moved to five. The 1993 document stated that your preferred option was a three-board, or one-board system.

Mr Carvill: I recall that document very well. I am not sure that I would have summarized it in that way. However, they were the two options highlighted in that document.

Mr McFarland: Indeed, but they seem to be the options that the Department was striving for. We then got ourselves confused in 1995 over the four-board option — which caused a fair degree of chaos. You could argue, I suppose, that if there was going to be change that gave people quite a lot of encouragement and built up a head of steam against what is happening now. It was an effective dry run.

Many of the submissions that we received have suggested that it is the wrong time for such a change and that — given the prospect of some sort of settlement here and accountability to some degree coming back — it would make more sense if this was left until things were clearer and democracy had returned. Is that not a valid criticism of this process?

Mr Carvill: Can I make two points on that? One is that there is a political dimension to the topic raised which I am not sure it would be right for me as a civil servant to follow too far. It is a matter of political judgement as to what is appropriate in the particular circumstances, and you are aware of the judgement that the Minister has reached on the point which I explained to you.

In terms of the length of time that would be involved, a factor in the Minister’s considerations was that there has already been a long period of uncertainty — going back to 1992/1993 — during which all of these issues have been on the table. He received strong messages from the staff and from members of boards that the continuing uncertainty was having a damaging affect on board morale, and on the effectiveness of their operations. Therefore he concluded that it was better to bring that uncertainty to an end. You could, of course, argue that the entire exercise should be deferred. The disadvantages of that course would be that we defer what seem to be sensible changes, and sensible and achievable savings, and we also perhaps prolong uncertainty. Those were the kind of considerations that were in his mind.

Mr McFarland: This document states quite clearly that the board’s role is one of hands-off, devolved responsibility, rather than day-to-day management.

Mr Carvill: It is a more strategic role. It is one of facilitating, enabling and assisting, rather than direct hands-on management — not taking decisions for other people.

Mr McFarland: So they are moving in that direction. One of the things that I find interesting is that in England and Wales at the moment they are going the other way. I happen to have here some figures which were taken last year from a Parliamentary Question. At that stage our boards were well up — into the top third. Of course, the measurement they use is not one of free school meals — it is to do with the number of pupils that each board is administering. These changes take us up into perhaps the top 10. It seems amazing that we in Northern Ireland are rocketing up alongside boards administering an enormous number of children. We are talking here of about 152,000 children — that is number five in the whole United Kingdom — and all these other authorities in England are trying to downscale. I do not quite understand why we are rapidly upscaling at a time when everyone else has decided that the wisdom is to downscale. It makes little sense.

Mr Carvill: First of all, the size of education authorities here and in Great Britain has always varied considerably, and we can produce examples from both ends of the spectrum — some are very small and some are very large indeed. We need to be cautious in reading-across experiences of different countries in local authority arrangements. For example in the English context to which you have referred many or perhaps all — I am not sufficiently familiar with them to be sure about them all — are multi-purpose authorities and the determination of the appropriate boundary for those authorities, is not necessarily driven primarily, or exclusively, by education. There are other services to take into account. Frankly the main point I would make to your question is that we have not sought to devise proposals by read-across from other places. We have tried to devise proposals which seem appropriate to our own particular circumstances and, for the reasons that I explained to the Committee, we think that those proposals stand up and make sense in our own circumstances. They have not been derived by read-across from elsewhere.

Mr Hill: There are also important differences between here and England in terms of the respective role here and there. The growth of the Funding Council for Schools means that decisions which are being taken here by the middle tier (and which will continue to be taken by the middle tier) are not the same as those taken in England. The other factor, which much of what we have said about efficiency and effectiveness relates to, is the key role of support for schools in terms of curricular and teacher support. In Northern Ireland we have retained that as a central initiative for local structures, and in doing that, it is important to get that process right. In England the key area determined for support is actually the school itself, and therefore the structural problem of getting the best arrangement to meet the needs of the school is quite different.

Mr McFarland: Could I move on to the economic appraisal? I have been an internal consultant with the Ministry of Defence — so I know a bit about this sort of thing. I admire your courage in producing some of those background data. It is amazing to claim that three extra councillors is a monumental step forward in accountable democracy.

I particularly liked the idea of having the number of people in each area and matching the number of district councillors with the population of the area — but I am not convinced it is a particularly important figure. Which board was used as the bench-mark for the appraisal?

Mr Carvill: Can I first comment on one of the points you made when you said that three extra district councillors on boards is not a great step forward for local democracy, and I can understand that point. The dimension that the Minister would wish me to emphasize is the increase from 40% in district councils membership in the present boards to 48% in the proposed boards — so the proportion and therefore the influence of district councillors in each of the new boards would be increased. That is really the basis of the claim that the democratic input is being increased — because the proportionate influence is rising. In respect of the question you asked about the economic appraisal, the comparison that was made was actually a two-stage exercise.

First of all we ran comparisons using CIPFA and Audit Commission data on all English LEAs in aggregated form, and then selected from within the typical range of performers — not the best or the worst, but the typical range. What seemed an appropriate comparator in terms of size and circumstances with Northern Ireland was in fact Bedfordshire.

Mr McFarland: I find it strange that you can just go part way down the road in terms of effectiveness and efficiency. One possibility to explain this seems to be an unwillingness to produce detail. Certainly I would never have been allowed to produce a report that did not have a detailed analysis of the downstream effect of what I was trying to do. You have told us that you are not sure of the exact cost of redundancies. Are you genuinely telling us that there has been no detailed analysis of the effects of this — and exactly what it is going to cost? Any cost appraisal has to have that detail for it to have validity. Otherwise you are completing half the job and pretending that the other half is not going to matter.

Mr Carvill: I am not sure that was quite what I was saying. The point that I was making is that estimating savings from changes in administrative structures which are going to take place perhaps some two years away cannot be an exact science — it can only be a desk exercise. The product, and you will know this I am sure from your own experience, that you come up with is only as good as the assumptions you feed into it. The assumptions are therefore very important. I do not think the downstream implications at a level of detail are capable of being predicted in advance. You can make reasonable estimates which give you an order of magnitude. However, I would feel very uncomfortable if I was sitting here pretending to you that I could predict with accuracy how many staff are going to be needed to run student awards in the new Northern Board. That would be an unreasonable statement for me to make.

Mr McFarland: Having been involved on the periphery of the 1995 South Eastern Board amalgamation I talked to people who knew about these things. The staff redundancies, as I understood it, were going to wipe the saving out, but nobody was admitting that. They were saying “No, it is not the case. We are not quite sure what the effect is going to be.” If you amalgamate the South Eastern Board with the Belfast Board there are bound to be redundancies — the same as there would have been last year. Redundancies and refurbishment could well wipe the saving of £2 million out.

Mr Carvill: There are always fictional costs in a change of this sort. The fictional costs, of course, you incur once; the annual savings accrue indefinitely. I referred to the rule of thumb that is derived from Treasury guidelines: that redundancies are only worth making if they pay for themselves within a two-year period. That is the sort of criteria that I would expect to apply in respect of any particular redundancies which might actually be necessary.

Mr McFarland: Where is the detail? I cannot find it here. I do not think other boards which have looked into it have seen the planning details that state “this is going to be effective, and here is the long-term saving.”

Mr Carvill: We have explained earlier why we think that an annual saving of about £2 million is a conservative estimate. We have accepted that there is bound to be some fictional costs in moving towards that. My position is that as a desk exercise the fictional costs are impossible to quantify so far in advance.

Mr Hill: We may have gone too far in explaining the realities of that sort of calculation at this stage — because it is simply impossible to be firm about figures until the detailed exercise is done by a planning and implementation group. The point still remains — and Mr McFarland your experience with the MOD will stand you in good stead — that we have actually carried out the best possible quantification of these factors in the circumstances pertaining. A number of people have asked for more information on the make up of those figures and we will be circulating that shortly. The key point I wish to make is that it is the best estimate we can make — and it is in line with Treasury guidelines.

The Chairman: Has there been a full financial analysis and a full assessment of performance?

Mr Carvill: The figures I have given to the Committee are a summary of more detailed work on the costings of the exercise. As Mr Hill has said, a number of people have asked for more information and we have agreed to provide it. I will finish on the last point which the Chairman raised. The short answer is yes — we have done a PAFT appraisal of the proposals up to the stage they have reached.

Mr Neeson: The whole question of PAFT has to be dealt with thoroughly. My colleague Mr Billy Snoddy the mayor of Newtownabbey, and myself in Carrickfergus, have not been subject to a PAFT analysis at all. Ours are only two of a number of such councils, which include Omagh, Fermanagh, Strabane, Limavady and Derry. We have not had the same opportunity as the South Eastern Board area and the Belfast area. The Government are committed to PAFT. Why, on this important issue, did the Department not follow PAFT guidelines?

Mr Carvill: I am not sure that I follow the gist of your comments about different opportunities for different areas to have a PAFT analysis. The PAFT guidelines are indications of the factors which should be taken into account to consider whether a differential impact is justifiable or not. We have considered the impact of the structural proposals — which is the only proposal on the table — in those terms and the Government’s view is that they do not represent any unacceptable or unjustifiable differential impact. There is always some differential impact — the question is whether it is justifiable or not.

Mr Neeson: It is about fair treatment. The South Eastern Board and the Belfast Board were given the opportunity for a critical analysis of the changes which were put forward. NIPSA, who have a deep interest in this, have recognized that the areas I mentioned have not been given the same treatment.

Mr Carvill: Well, it is certainly true that detailed comments were received from the South Eastern Board on the proposals which were published earlier, and I have referred to that. I would suggest that we have accorded the same opportunity to every board and council to make comments. It has been an extensive consultative process. I am not sure that I would accept there has been lack of equity in that regard.

Mr McFarland: May I ask you about regionalization and the costs of that process? We have made calculations based on some of the working parties material and it appears that it is going to cost over £500,000 to implement. We are not looking at savings in this particular area; we are looking at £500,000 operating costs.

Mr Carvill: Can I explain briefly the position there? I explained earlier that some of the areas identified as potential regionalized services are not being proceeded with. The three which are still under consideration, and with no final decision taken, are architectural services, grants and awards and purchasing. On purchasing, the existing boards have actually accepted the logic of collaboration on this and there is action already underway in those boards to produce a more collaborative approach. Grants and awards: in the time available to the working party which examined this, it was not possible for them to do as detailed an examination of costing as we would have wished. In particular, it was not possible for them to address what are actually quite surprising variations in the average cost in the existing education and library boards. The different levels of costs in each board and the variation between these boards — and typical experiences in England and Wales where comparable activities are being carried out — is quite surprising. A further exercise has been commissioned to bench-mark those comparisons as a basis for future decisions.

The figure that you refer to probably related to architectural services. It has been suggested that to regionalize this would, on the face of it, cost more than carrying them out separately. The important point there is to get a like-for-like comparison. The issue that is currently being addressed in the architectural context is whether a regionalized service should confine itself simply to area board business or whether it should also cater for voluntary maintained and integrated schools. If it were to cater for that wider constituency it would need enhanced staffing, thus it would, on the face of it, cost more. But it would be doing a different and larger job and there would be off-setting savings in the expenditure of those other bodies. That is the origin of the figure that you referred to.

Mr Hill: The additional factor on architectural services is the introduction of a system of project management, so the work that that Committee is costing is actually quite different to that relating to the simple regionalization of board architectural services. It is a major — or potentially a major — change in how school development is carried out, involving Department, board and potentially CCMS staff, so it is quite a different exercise.

Mr Stoker: May I take you back to the consultation process? The consultative document was launched — and there were over 350 written replies. The vast majority of those wanted to remain with the five boards. Were those replies not taken into consideration during this consultation process? That is leaving aside the 17,000 replies with regard to the South Eastern Board being abolished. On that point alone local consultation was not taken into consideration.

Mr Carvill: I made no secret of the fact that the majority of comments, as you have said, were in favour of no change. You can see the impact those comments made in the Minister’s first proposals for change. I referred to those specifically and explicitly as a compromise. They were a compromise between more radical change which, on the face of it, could be readily justified, and a desire to take account of and respond to the concerns which had been expressed. So, yes, I would say that they were taken into account. If your point is that the final outcome — as we now have on the table — is not one that was supported by the majority of those who commented, then you are absolutely right. That is factually correct.

Mr Stoker: Moving back to year 1995, one of the options then was the three-board structure. Michael Ancram came out against that at that time because it was going to create an imbalance — one of the boards with a 150,000 school population, and the two others with less than 100,000. What has changed since 1995 and 1996?

Mr Carvill: I do not recall the specific comments that you quoted but my belief is that that would have been in the context of explaining the reasons for a compromise model of four boards. Is that the context?

Mr Stoker: One of the reasons he came out against the three boards was simply that there would be an imbalance — the Eastern Education Board having a school population of over 150,00, and the other two below 100,000. What has changed since October 1995? As far as I can see, nothing has changed — except the Minister’s position.

Mr Carvill: I think it wrong to take one factor and isolate that as the key, or critical, or predominant one. Any of these proposals you have to see as a package, as a combination. You can find reasons to criticize any particular package of proposals. Some of them will score better in some respects than others. I do not think that is an argument in favour of no change because the present no-change model perhaps scores not very well on a number of factors.

Mr Hill: I think that it is also fair to say, Mr Stoker, that in 1995 Michael Ancram did not come out against something; what he proposed in 1995 was a compromise proposal which sought to balance a number of conflicting issues. He made the point that if he were concerned solely about economy, about saving resources, then that would have driven him to a one-board solution. On the other hand if he was concerned about accountability, he had to move in the opposite direction. That is why he himself described the 1995 proposal as a compromise proposal in an attempt to find a way forward. The 1996 decisions he has taken are very much decisions which reflect the specific concerns of accountability which were raised in 1995. There is a natural progression of thinking towards a solution rather than, at any stage, a decision against a particular solution.

Mr Stoker: I cannot see how there can be a compromise when 92% of those people who replied and all those who have been questioned want the five-board structure to remain. It cannot be a compromise if 92% want the status quo, and only 8% want a one-board structure. It is not really a compromise when a vast majority of people and institutions want the structure to remain. It cannot be a compromise.

Mr Carvill: I think the point we are describing there is a compromise. It was a compromise between conflicting considerations. One set of considerations pulling, if you like, in the direction of further reductions in the number of boards and another set of considerations — the comments that you just referred to — pulling in the opposite direction. In that sense it was described as a compromise.

Mr Stoker: On the matter of accountability, much has been made of the increase in local representation from 60 councillors to 72. The Eastern Board has 16% local representation — that represents a population of 740,000. Yet you have 16% councillors on the other two boards to represent a population of approximately 400,000. How can genuine democratic accountability be maintained when there is such a disparity?

Mr Carvill: It is certainly correct that there is that disparity that you have identified. There has always been disparity in the population ratios of district councillors for education and library boards. I think the key point that I was making on the democratic input was the shift in the proportions of board members where district councillor representation rises from 40% to 48%. So within each of the three new boards the district councillor element would be 48% rather than 40%. That is the key point I was trying to make in terms of accountability and democratic input.

Mr Stoker: One of the main problems for education administration has been pinpointed in Belfast because of the shift in population. One of the reasons given for this whole review was that it would make the planning of education administration much easier, with the Belfast region expanded into a natural unit. But, given the location and make up of the new Eastern Board, I do not see how anyone could say that mixing Belfast with Newtownabbey, Carrickfergus, North Down, Ards and Down could produce a natural unit. Places in Down will be very inaccessible in comparison to places in the Antrim area, which is only a few miles outside of Belfast.

Mr Carvill: I can understand that comment. The point that was being made was that within the proposed Belfast regional board there would be contained the entire natural unit of the greater Belfast area with the hinterland of the city itself. You are quite right to say that it also contains other areas which are further from Belfast itself, but those other areas are in fact within the present area of the South Eastern Education and Library Board. It is the case that the South Eastern Education and Library Board has always been headquartered in Belfast anyway, so it is not in that sense making things worse. I think it is, in a number of respects, actually making them better.

Mr Stoker: In 1995 it was considered that a change to three boards would be more disruptive than any other system in doing away with some of the boundaries. How has that changed?

Mr Carvill: The point still applies. Again I would say that you have to look at each of these sets of proposals as packages which score better in some regards than others inevitably.

Mr Bolton: Much of the bulk of the early criticism, as you have said, has come from the western area. That would be mainly geographical. When I look at this model, the geographical spread in the northern area is no less: it is a long way from Larne to Castlederg. What assumptions were made about the location of headquarters? I am not really content with how it was covered. To suggest such a large block and not even give us a hint where the headquarters might be is a bit remiss — maybe even glib. Allied to that, there is the cost of the redundancies that will inevitably be involved in any major shift of headquarters and the implications for fair treatment — maybe even discrimination against certain sections — of the work-force.

Mr Carvill: On geography, which was your first point, the comments I quoted about the size of the geographical spread were really referenced to the 1992 three-board model which is on page 16. It is indeed a very large spread of territory. On headquarters, I am sorry that you did not find it was dealt with adequately. I cannot actually improve upon it or expand upon it. Decisions on the formally designated headquarter locations of each board are for the Minister. The Minister has not reached a decision on these matters and I cannot anticipate or pre-empt what his conclusion might be.

Sorry, you had a third point on fair treatment?

Mr Bolton: I am thinking of the employees who will be discriminated against by the ultimate change.

Mr Carvill: Yes, I have talked to Mr McFarland about the difficulties of being precise about the impact on particular blocks of staff in particular localities. I am not in a position to say to the Committee that I can tell exactly what is going to happen to the grants and awards staff of the North Eastern Board or the school meal staff of the Southern Board. What I can point to is the fact that the existing buildings are a valuable asset which you would expect to see maintained and in use, that there are great disadvantages in unnecessarily moving blocks of staff around. It is inconvenient, it is disruptive and it is also expensive, so from the Department’s point of view there is certainly no desire to see any greater movement of staff or any greater impact on staff than is absolutely necessary, so I think we have a common objective there. I cannot take it the further step that you are inviting me to take it and tell you exactly how it is going to be done.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: On the area of consultation, there is a phrase that comes out of one of your documents: any structures must allow for the expression of local opinion. With regard to the statement just mentioned by my colleague about the number of responses when the vast majority of responses were against any change and in the light of the new decision to opt for the three-board option, how many responses have you received in favour of it? How many responses are against it? In the original proposal you mentioned that there were some who favoured a reduction to three boards. What percentage of responses favoured that originally?

Mr Carvill: I think the Committee would agree that I have made no bones about the fact that the vast bulk of comment that we received on these proposals was unenthusiastic in different degrees. I cannot quite quantify it in the way Rev Kirkland has asked, but if I can pick up the point about the structure having to allow for local input as a key consideration, it is a key consideration. That was, of course, referenced to structures. It was referring to the nature of the composition and make up of whatever new system was put in place. I do not want to weary the Committee by going over it again, but that takes us back into the area of local democratic input and district council representation which we talked about before. That was the point of that reference.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: Is it logical to say “Nearly everybody is against it, but we are going to do it anyway, and just to keep you pacified we are going to give you some more local input”? Where is the rationale and logic behind that?

Mr Carvill: I think that the decision on what it is right to do has to be taken by the Minister in the light, not just of reactions which he receives, but also of his own assessment of what is the right way forward. Yes, you are certainly correct that the great majority of comments were hostile, although by no means all of them. For example, teacher unions have welcomed proposals for shifting resources from administration into the classroom, so it is not an absolutely one-sided debate. But that is the situation.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: What guarantee is there that the money saved will go back into education? Is there any guarantee?

Mr Carvill: The only guarantee there can be is in the nature of the funding of the education system. Essentially, what happens is that once the Northern Ireland public expenditure round is concluded each year, the Secretary of State has to determine the allocation of the Northern Ireland block between various services. Once he has determined the share that goes to education then the education budget has got to bear the cost of administration. To the extent that the costs of administration are reduced, the education budget will be able to do more in other areas. That is the only guarantee.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: This is a very important point. If the Government decide that the budget allocation to education will be reduced, the savings will go towards that, so it will not return to education at all. It is a paper exercise that has no concrete reality.

Mr Carvill: No, I think there are two different exercises here which we must not confuse. One is the exercise by which the Secretary of State decides how much in total he is going to spend on education as compared to health, law and order, whatever, and it is a zero-sum game because if more is spent on health, less is spent on something else and vice versa. That is the macro level. Once that budget has been determined — and it is not within my gift or competence to determine that budget for the education service — we then have to meet the various demands that are put upon us. Those include schools and administration. Within whatever total budget is available to the Department, the administrative costs will have to be met.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: So the driving force is ultimately finance.

Mr Carvill: No, the possibility of savings is certainly attractive, useful and worthwhile. We have consistently made the point throughout this exercise that economy is not the predominant factor. If economy was the predominant factor, then we would not have needed four years to debate it because it would have been very clear that the least-cost option is one board.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: In reply to Mr McFarland, you rejected his comparison with the LEAs in England. He gave you some comparative figures, you said you could not do that, and you gave some reasons. Yet you said that one of the things you did was to use Bedfordshire. Could you explain the logic? You can say to Mr McFarland you cannot do that, yet that is precisely what you did.

Mr Carvill: The point I was making was that decisions which may have been taken in Great Britain about local authority boundaries are driven, I presume, by a consideration of the appropriateness of boundaries and the sizes of units to the range of services that those local authorities are responsible for. In saying that Bedfordshire was a comparator, I was saying that it was a comparator on the cost of services in a given area, that Bedfordshire was selected after an examination of the overall performance of administrative expenditure in LEAs in England and Wales as a whole. I think there are actually two separate points which are being made there.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: Your position is illogical. It is irrational. You say “Well, we have selected this after careful examination of a number of factors” and yet when your opponents come along and say “Okay, let us use some comparators” you say “No, it is totally wrong”. Your argumentation is flawed because it is irrational.

Mr Carvill: No, I do not think so. Let me try to express it more rationally. What we are comparing, in the Bedfordshire case, is the cost of operating services. We know that certain services like grants and awards, like school transport, like school meals are common to different areas. We look at the cost of administering them in one area. We look at the cost of administering in another. We do our comparisons. We attempt, as the modern jargon has it, to benchmark the performance of the services. I think that is a reasonable comparison to make. If you shift the discussion to the question of board boundaries and the appropriate size of local authorities, I think that is a different issue entirely.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: Yes, but you accept that you do use benchmarks outside Northern Ireland — LEAs in England.

Mr Carvill: It is right to use benchmarks in areas where you can be clear that you are comparing like with like for the same reasons. In looking at administrative structures, the point I was making to Mr McFarland was that we did not proceed by reading across from anywhere else. We did not adopt a pre-determined ideal model. We tried to devise a solution which was appropriate to our own circumstances.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: You mentioned in your submission that there were a number of responsibilities transferred to schools from boards, and you quoted LMS. Could you be more precise about the responsibilities that have been taken away from the boards? How many responsibilities do the schools now have that were never responsibilities of the boards but of DENI?

Mr Carvill: Well, perhaps the largest and best example is the area of school budgets and perhaps the best way to illustrate that is on teaching posts. Historically — and I go back now 20 years or so — I can recall that when I first entered the Department of Education, it was actually the Department of Education itself sitting in Rathgael which determined the number of teaching posts that were to be allocated each year to each individual school. It seems slightly absurd now to look back on it, but we sat down and we conscientiously assessed the needs of each individual school which had made an application for additional teachers. After a while it became clear that that was not a very sensible way to do business and the responsibility was devolved for controlled schools to the education and library boards, each of which was given a block allocation of teaching posts for their area. It was left to them to determine what each individual school should receive within that allocation.

Then in the wake of the 1989 Education Reform Order, that responsibility was, in fact, delegated to schools themselves because school funding came to be determined on a per capita basis. It was funding per pupil. The funding followed the pupils — reflected the pupil numbers essentially. Each school was given its own budget and it was left to decide for itself whether it wanted to spend that budget on books or on teachers or on materials. That is the sort of shift of responsibility that I was referring to.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: So that is the only major, significant area. I am not being derogatory when I say so. You will accept that, in doing this, boards have had to take on new responsibilities.

Mr Carvill: Yes. I referred in particular to the responsibilities they were given for curriculum advisory support services. That was certainly an additional responsibility for the boards.

Mr Smyth: It has already been demonstrated by some of the questions and certainly some of the answers on consultation that you did not take into consideration the views of those people who were consulted. The vast majority — 90-odd% — of those people rejected the idea of three boards. If that is true — and if we follow it to its logical conclusion — the only other reasons you have for introducing change is financial. In a presentation document of 18 or 19 pages, you used 64 words about finance. That is what you used to try to tell me that, at the end of the day, there is going to be a saving of £2 million. You made a presentation of almost an hour in the full knowledge that your decision was made for financial reasons. To give us a document with 64 words in it, and no proof whatsoever of any financial savings, is not acceptable to us or the public.

We should be asking you, Mr Chairman, to tell the Minister that we want no decision implemented until such time as we get the full details of any economic appraisal carried out before the decision was made and that that is absolutely vital. We need to know how the savings are being made and what are the various costs on both sides of the financial equation. We also need full details of the cost/benefit analysis in the form of an economic appraisal. We are entitled not only to ask for those but to demand them.

Statements here to me today clearly indicate that these decisions were made for one reason and one reason only — finance. During your cross-examination, you failed in any way to convince me that there is going to be a savings of £2 million. I do not think that the Minister — and I will personally tell him — should accept the words of someone who has not produced any evidence whatsoever. If it were solely on finance — even if it were £2 million — I would suggest that the boards themselves could save £2 million. Already one board — I think it is the Southern Board — has voluntarily cut its budget by over 3%. The whole case based on finance has failed miserably to be proven.

The Chairman: With regard to what was promised to members, I would like a lot of details on when this started, how it was appraised and what were the effects in years one, two and three.

Mr Curran: Mr Carvill talked about buildings being a very valuable asset and about having no desire to move staff around. In the context of any information that he is going to supply, I would like some indication whether it is intended to have split location for headquarters staff. I would want to look very closely, if that were the case, at the full financial implications. Is it intended to retain existing locations?

Mr Carvill: The Committee will realize that Mr Curran’s question takes me beyond the boundaries of my present knowledge.

Mr Curran: It should be addressed to the Minister because it is crucial.

The Chairman: Several more people would like to come in with questions, and we have asked for further information. It is obvious that we are going to have to meet again. It is also obvious that we are going to have to get information sent to us in advance. Is there any other information that we should be asking Mr Carvill and his team to present?

Mr Curran: Can we clarify the situation on PAFT? A PAFT appraisal — at least, an initial appraisal — has been done. Is there a report that can be made available to us?

Mr Carvill: Yes, it deals with the proposals that are presently on the table. It does not deal with the detailed outworking of those proposals for the reasons which we have —

The Chairman: We do not want a one-pager.

Mr Carvill: It is quite a bit longer than that — certainly more than 64 words.

Mr Neeson: I was in the teaching profession, and Mr Hussey is in the teaching profession. There are a number of relevant issues that need to be raised. The other thing I would like information on is the whole question of possible redundancies and their cost.

The Chairman: A full cost-benefit analysis.

Mr Carvill: I assume, Mr Chairman, that Mr Neeson’s question is referenced to administrative staff.

Mr Hussey: You told us that the rethink on reducing the number of boards was to involve discussion with political parties. I would like to have identified the points from the political parties which favoured the three boards. You can go back to your minutes and give us the points from the political parties which favoured the three boards — which was the eventual decision.

Mr McMichael: I would rather have more time to deal with questions the next time. Mr Neeson asked for figures concerning redundancies. Can it be assumed that there will be figures to show how that compares with the previous proposals for four boards?

Mr Carvill: Mr Chairman, I tried to explain to the Committee that there are limitations on the amount of detailed information that it is possible to produce on the impact of changes on particular localities, on particular groups of staff, until that has been addressed at local level. I will supply the Committee with the fullest information that is available to me but that may, or may not, coincide with what members are asking for.

The Chairman: I think that Mr McMichael is saying that since, at some time or other, somebody made the decision to float the five to four board argument, a full cost-benefit analysis must have been done. Somewhere down that line, before somebody said stop, and we went from four to three, statistics and advice would have been provided. Mr McMichael is, quite rightly, asking for a copy of that so that he can do a bit of benchmarking.

Mr Fowler: I was employed in a government department, and we went through this 1972 rehash. We were paid disturbance allowance for six months and then it was extended in six-month stages to three and a half years before it stopped. The cost of shifting employees from place to place is going to pile up in view of the fact that we are not hearing where the new headquarters is going to be. We can only assume that it is going to move as we have not been told otherwise.

The Chairman: I think you have got the gist of what is being requested. We have written to the Minister asking for another month. We would certainly appreciate a fortnight. We are not taking it lightly. We do not want jargon answers but hard facts. Thank you for attending and for the efforts you have made to answer our questions. You have been very courteous. It is essential that we meet again.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: What regional balance is there between Castlederg and Carnlough? If it was difficult to get one from Roslea to Rathlin can you honestly persuade us that there is some?

The Chairman: I admire Mr Kirkland’s alliteration. He is obviously well-skilled at producing such slogans.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: I hope they are not slogans.

The Chairman: That question could keep repeating itself. The host of people who have made suggestions gives some idea of the importance that Northern Ireland people place on education.

Witnesses:

Canon S M J Dickson, Mr R Small, Mr T Nolan, Mr C E Brown and Mr J Fitzsimons

(South Eastern Education and Library Board)

The Chairman: I welcome you. This is probably a very historic occasion. The Education Committee was the first to be set up by the Forum, and yours is the first Board to give evidence on education administration.

You have an hour. We would like some time to ask questions. It is up to you how you use that time. You have made a submission and if you wish to elaborate on that, please help us by stating your name.

Mr Dickson: My name is Mervyn Dickson; I am the Vice-Chairman of the South Eastern Education and Library Board. Our Chairman, Alderman Benson, is away at the moment and as Vice-Chairman I am leading this delegation this afternoon. On my far left is Mr Fitzsimons, who is our Chief Administrative Officer. On my immediate left is Mr Small, who is former Headmaster of Largymore School. He was chairman of the board for two years and is now the immediate past chairman. On my immediate right, Mr Nolan, who has been our Chief Executive for the last 13 years and on my far right Mr C E Brown, our Deputy Chief Executive for the past 12 years. Each Member of our delegation will speak about a different aspect of our submission.

First of all, thank you very much for the opportunity of speaking to you and presenting our case. I know that there is going to be a well-worn path to your door, and I am quite sure that you will appreciate that the number of delegations that you receive will show that there is a great deal of concern over the Minister’s proposal to, as it were, disband the five boards and to reorganize education with three education and library boards. We welcome this opportunity of putting before you our perspective of the education system as we see it today — what I feel to be the weaknesses in the Minister’s proposal to reduce our boards from five to three. You will have our response to both ideas — the four-board proposal which has now been abandoned and the three-board scenario, and you will also have our total response to the proposals for change. So I am going to ask the past chairman of the board, Mr Small, if he will introduce the first topic with regard to this important subject.

Mr Small: Good afternoon, Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen.

I shall start on a general and a positive note and that is that education in Northern Ireland has been a success story; it has been a success story in our troubled community; it has very often provided a haven for our young people. We have all been partners in that success story — the schools, the education and library boards and the Government. In our board and in all the boards there is an excellent example of cross-community participation and that has contributed a great deal to cross-community interaction. We have worked together in notable harmony. It just seems a bit wanton, a bit odd to be disregarding that and to be disrupting relationships which have worked successfully. May I say too that education and library boards are an extension of local Government. There are local Government representatives on it and there are nominated members on education and library boards. We could argue about what the proportions should be but it is now the case that everyone on the education and library board has his or her own constituency; they are answerable to someone locally. I am a nominated member, and I am answerable to schools and to teachers and, in that respect, in a big way to pupils. So every one of us has our own constituency and education and library boards provide local accountability and local accessibility. In that sense they are an extension of local democracy. We have heard about democratic deficits in Northern Ireland so it is a very serious thing to interfere with the local democracy which exists in the education and library boards.

I know that it has been argued that in the North of Ireland we are over-administered as far as education and library boards are concerned but I think that that should be challenged and nailed right away. I am sure that you have seen the figures that were provided in 1992 in the House of Commons. These figures pointed out that the average size of a local education authority in England, in terms of pupil numbers, was 55,249. The average size of a local authority in Northern Ireland is 66,657. Once and for all we should nail this business about us having too many administrative bodies in education. It looks as if we would be talking about a population of between 120,000 to 130,000 pupils and the new Eastern Board would be serving a population of something like 780,000. Surely that would mean a loss of local accessibility and local accountability.

The ironic thing is that in England and in Scotland the modus operandi is to increase the number of local education authorities. In Scotland they have been increased from 12 to 32 and the process is now similarly under way, on a phased basis, in England, so I would challenge this idea that somehow we are over-administered. Of course, we would all be happy to see a reduction in bureaucracy. We would all be happy to see that. The only way to reduce bureaucracy is to reduce bureaucratic functions and, over the years, bureaucratic functions have increased. Indeed, many would argue that education is now becoming totally trapped in a bureaucracy. Reducing the number of middle-tier bodies does not reduce the number of bureaucratic functions — the number of tasks which have to be carried out — and it does not reduce the bureaucracy.

In the early 1970s, for example, there used to be eight local education authorities in Northern Ireland; that has now been reduced to five and there is no way that it can be argued that that has reduced bureaucracy because it has not.

We would argue that any reorganization should have a sound democratic basis. Our education and library service should be delivered to the community by bodies which are accountable to that community. It should be delivered by bodies which are open, and subject to public scrutiny. Any reorganization should be the result of a complete and holistic study, taking into account all the providers and, in turn, making all the providers democratically accountable. That should bring into the reckoning the current widely-desired aim of an Assembly being brought back to our province, because that Assembly should have responsibility for the education service. As such, it would be very much part of the equation in any proposed reorganization of educational administration. That would be an area of great substance for an Assembly to handle and, indeed, our experience suggests that it has a unifying and beneficial influence. We are saying that, at this time in particular, it is very untimely to be tinkering, to be disrupting an education service that is working well. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Brown: In his statements the Minister has made much of the ability of the service, through reorganization, to make savings which would be of benefit to schools and there are perhaps three major points that we want to make about that.

First of all, throughout the whole preparation period for these proposals and the two consultative phases which have taken place we, as a board, despite repeated requests, have been unable to get any information on how these savings are generated so that we could test their realism and be able to be satisfied that there was a valid argument in this respect. We are very aware that when we, as a board, wish to change things — build a new school, radically change the way we do things or look at the service and, perhaps, reorganize it — we are obliged by Government to put in place a very rigorous investment appraisal of the options. We have to look at the cost of each of those options, compare that with the benefits that might be generated by each and then compare them all with the status quo as a base line comparator. That is quite a structured and rigorous programme that is imposed upon us. These proposals, as far as we are aware, have never been subjected to that kind of proper analysis. In particular, at the end of it, whatever conclusions that might have been reached have never been subjected to an analysis as to how robust they are. Will they stand up to the fact that perhaps the assumptions on which they are based were wrong, or have changed over time, and so forth?

I am conscious, for example, that in the last phase of looking at the totality of a review of administration a number of groups in the boards were asked to look at the possible regionalization of services. They were asked, in each case, to undertake that kind of very detailed and very disciplined business case analysis of the proposals. This document is one of those reports. It is the group that I chaired on grants and awards in the last phase. The conclusion, for example, that that group came to was that it was much cheaper and much more beneficial to keep grants and awards where they are located at present — accessible to the public in local boards. The Minister has ignored that business case and has announced that he is regionalizing the service. We are concerned that he is doing the same with regard to the financial aspects of these proposals. He has not tested them; he certainly has not given us an opportunity to see the process by which he has tested them and we doubt that those savings are likely to be made. We are not negative about savings; we are very aware that in our board, over the last four years since education reform and delegation of budgets to schools came in, we have made very significant savings in our administration costs and the other boards have done the same. We have done that by internal reorganization with the intention of getting more money out to schools.

The Northern Ireland Audit Office analysed the output of that kind of process in the five boards and concluded, two years ago, that boards had saved 8%. That is a very significant sum. In fact, Roy Beggs, when he subsequently asked a Parliamentary Question about it, established some nine months ago that that figure had increased to 12% of the administrative costs. All the boards are pretty lean mean machines when it comes to administrative costs. The total percentage of our budget that is spent on administration is down to the 2% or 2·5%. The kind of organizational changes that we have put into place and are continuing to put into place have much more potential to generate money for schools, and have demonstrably already done so, than the kind of disruptive and disturbing changes involved in the Minister’s decision. Frankly, we do not see a great deal of potential for savings in the Minster’s proposal, given the transitional costs that are likely to feature in it.

Some of us recently went to a conference run by the Council for Local Education Authorities in England on the topic of “Forming New Authorities”. In changing the former County Council of Avon in England from one authority to four new ones, the cost of transition was £l million alone. Our latest evidence suggests that it could be five to seven years before the costs of transitions in Northern Ireland could produce any savings at all. Those estimates are, I suppose, a guess and a best guess but, nevertheless, it seems to us that internal organizational changes of the sort that we are continuously implementing in consultation with the heads of schools and in consultation with youth users and library users have much more potential for savings than this kind of a radical solution where it has not been demonstrated that there would be any savings at all.

The real direction in which reviews should be going to produce a more efficient and effective service would be to take the five boards as the corner-stones of educational administration and look at the way in which their role could be widened to bring in a more holistic, a more coherent approach to administration at local level rather than the fragmented situation we have at the moment. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Fitzsimons is our Chief Administrative Officer. He has a great interest in resources, particularly in human resources and in the resources of the board in relation to the classroom and the schools. I shall now ask him to speak.

Mr Fitzsimons: Mr Chairman, Members, may I deal with two issues? One is the whole question of resources and the second is the role of the board as advocate.

The Minister makes the point that this rationalization is being put in place to ensure that the funds which are used for administration will actually end up in the classroom. No one could disagree with the need to target resources to improve the education of children and I want to talk about the whole question of not just resources, but the targeting and the use of resources. We recognize that there is a scarcity of resources and we also recognize that we have to use those resources to the best effect and in making a case for the retention of any board we have to look and see what added value a board makes to children’s education. As some of the speakers have said before we are very fortunate in the quality of education and schools that we have. Obviously there are schools that go through difficulties from time to time, and it is important that those schools are supported but the real strength of an education and library board is in the whole question of its ability to target resources and make sure that resources are put to best effect.

Resulting from education reform there has been delegation to the local management of budgets and resources for schools. People say that is good; it is better to delegate the resources nearer to the point of spend. But if you delegate those resources a large administrative burden is placed upon the headmaster, the teachers and also the board of governors. One of the things that I have learnt from my experience in the board is that teachers are saying that they wish that they were allowed to get on with their teaching and not have to be involved in administration. They would be more effective. All of us now accept that teachers and headmasters were never trained to be administrators; they were not trained to be managers and their real interest is in the teaching and development of children. So they are feeling frustrated. I frequently come across headmasters who want to retire on grounds of stress. They cannot cope and the reason for that is that they have got into budgetary problems. They have difficulty balancing their budgets, spend their time worrying about that and they do not have the time to devote to the education of their children.

As a board we have put boards of governors in place and we are dependent upon voluntary input from some very good people in the community — people that are often very busy. Along with the headmaster they have to address the management of those resources. In our community we have put great store on preserving small schools. Our schools are smaller than those in England and Wales. Over 100 of our primary schools have less than 158 pupils. Primary schools in England mostly have 500 pupils and secondary schools there mostly have over 1,000.

When you take area boards out of administration and say “Okay, the administration has to be done by schools” you remove accessibility of support and you delegate other administrative tasks to schools. What happens then is that small schools cannot afford to employ clerical staff or administrative staff, therefore the teachers and the headmaster have to do the administration and that is not a good use of resources. If you employ teachers to teach it is important that they spend most of their time doing that.

The other issue I would like to make is about advocacy. It is in this area that this change will be most detrimental in terms of local accountability and ownership of education. We have been very fortunate, over the years, in having local people represented on boards — people from local political parties, local councils, churches and local communities who have advocated to the board and to the Government that the education which they want for their children is specific to their needs. If Government were allowed free range they would close small schools which is what has happened to small hospitals in the health service. They look at it purely in terms of numbers, and yet you and I know that the school is very often the centre of the community.

We also know that education is not like health. Education demands active partnership and co-operation from everybody, from parents, families, the church and the local community to develop the education system in their community which is best suited to their children. What we have found over the years is that the board has tried to cushion the effects of Government policy, and tried to customize this to suit our schools. If we had not done that a lot of our small schools would have closed. If we had not done that the statutory curriculum and the assessment of testing which the Government want to impose on us would have destroyed our education system. We find now that teachers are saying that too much attention has been given to the statutory curriculum and content. Let us concentrate on the quality of teaching and learning. If a teacher can teach it does not matter what subjects he teaches. If he cannot communicate knowledge to children and motivate in terms of learning, then he is failing. If the teacher himself is under pressure then he becomes demoralized. So those are the two functions that we, as a board and area boards generally, need to be careful to guard. The rationalization of boards will mean greater centralization. It means removal of that support mechanism which is so important for maintaining and raising the standard of education of which all of us should be very proud.

Canon Dickson: We have been talking about the structures of education and of the boards. Mr Nolan has wide responsibility for the whole of the education service in our area so he is going to tell us something about the general aims and objectives of education — a kind of a mission statement. In spite of all this talk and all this reorganization, the most important aspect is children in the schools.

Mr Nolan: Mr Chairman, before I address that I want to let you know that this is a very significant meeting for us, because when we talk to you we are aware that we are talking to people who have been put where you are by the Northern Ireland electorate. When we go to see the Minister, Michael Ancram, we are aware that we are talking to a Minister who does not really have an electoral mandate in Northern Ireland. I am a firm believer in Northern Ireland issues being discussed, and hopefully sorted out, by Northern Ireland people. That is why it is a tremendous privilege for us to be here and to speak with you this afternoon on an issue which is very dear to the hearts of our people.

Education is a top priority for Northern Ireland people and that is evident in the support that parents give schools; and it is evident in the support that parents give their children throughout their education. It is also evident in the sacrifices that parents make for their children, so Northern Ireland is unique in the United Kingdom in relation to the tremendous interest that there is in education — even in the administration of education.

The Minister’s first proposal related to more or less the east of the province, where he suggested that there should be an amalgamation of an inner-city board and a largely rural board — Belfast and the South East. Based on advice from his officials, he was clear that that was useful and a good proposition, but once the people in the South Eastern Board had finished with the Minister and his officials he was not just quite so sure so he decided to think again. The great advantage that we had in the South East was that we were dealing with a proposal which was out for consultation. I cannot remember the present decision ever having been out for consultation. I cannot ever remember a three-board option being put before the people of Northern Ireland for consultation. If you can say otherwise I shall be delighted to hear it. It is important that when Ministers make decisions, and these decisions are not to the liking of our people, they are challenged.

The Western Board is in the difficult position of having to challenge a governmental decision. We in the South East had the advantage of being in a consultative process, so the Western Board has a much more difficult task in that it is challenging the decision of the Minister but that, really, is just by way of background or introduction, to give you some idea as to how we feel.

I have worked in an education and library board for the past 23 years and those of us who have lived in Northern Ireland and brought up families here in the last 23 years know a great deal more about the situation than people who drift in and out. We have to live here. We have to make sure that our children are educated here, so I have a tremendous regard and respect for the education and library board service which worked through, I suppose, 25 years of turbulence. Before the Department of Education began this discourse on the reorganization of education administration I never heard anybody complaining about it. I did not hear our local politicians, who are well represented on our boards, complaining about how education was being administered. We also have representatives from all aspects of the community and they seem to be quite happy with the administration of education.

People will always say, and we accept it, that you should spend as little as possible on bureaucracy. We have been working on that for the past 23 years and we have cut our administration costs to the bone. Where did the Department of Education and the Minister get the idea that they should reorganize the administration of education? Well I do not know. They certainly did not get it from within Northern Ireland. It may have been linked in with general Government policy to reduce the influence of local education authorities in England and Wales and that, somehow or other, it came across the sea to here.

I remember that when Jeremy Hanley was here we were talking about the administration of education. He said that one of his colleagues coming out of the House of Commons that morning said “Northern Ireland is no bigger than Yorkshire and you have all these education authorities there.” At that time I happened to be President of the Society of Education Officers which is a United Kingdom-based professional organization for education officers, and I knew Yorkshire very well; I knew that Yorkshire had nine education authorities and I told the Minister that Northern Ireland would settle for nine and asked him why he was trying to reduce it from five. I never heard Yorkshire mentioned again. Hampshire and Kent were mentioned when we were at the Northern Ireland Select Committee in Westminster. When I heard politicians talking about Kent and Hampshire I said “I do not live in Kent. I do not live in Hampshire. I live in Northern Ireland. You cannot compare Northern Ireland with Hampshire in any respect.”

So I am proposing that the Minister thinks again about the administration of education in Northern Ireland. I think that the present balance is right for the type of population and people that we have here. The idea of linking an inner-city board with a rural board is going against any trend in the United Kingdom. I told the Minister that the Inner London Education Authority, which was one authority for London, broke up into a great number of small authorities to get closer to people and to make education a public service that was more accessible.

I will finish on something which is very dear to me and that is Northern Ireland trying to live as a community — as a Northern Ireland community. Whatever their politics, whatever their religion they should be working together for the good of Northern Ireland.

Now I have seen an example of people from different backgrounds — religious and political — sitting round a table, month after month, for the past 23 years working together for the good of the children of Northern Ireland. Now that cannot be a bad example to follow and if I were a Minister I would be trying, with all the power that I had, to hold on to something like that as an example for everybody to try to work together for the advancement of our people. Thank you very much, Chairman.

Canon Dickson: Thank you, Mr Chairman. That is our submission and I should like to thank you very much indeed for your courtesy in listening to us. We are at your disposal now.

The Chairman: I thank all five of you again. We have heard the words “over-administered” all morning. We have heard information provided by Mr Carvill and Mr Hill. We shall give you a copy because you should see some of the statistics. One member summed it up when he said that there were 64 words concerning financial affairs. That maybe explains the matter.

Mr Curran: You heard that Mr Carvill was here this morning. There are going to be more questions asked of him when he comes back next week. On the matter of over-administration and size, there is the question of comparability with the English LEAs. Mr Carvill said that we were not really comparing like with like. Can you confirm that we are comparing like with like? Are the LEAs and the boards carrying out similar functions and duties?

Mr Nolan: Mr Chairman, may I say at the very start that the education and library boards in legislation are the local education authorities for Northern Ireland. If you want to get into arguments about comparing like with like we can run down the various obligations and responsibilities which we have in law and you will see that there is a parallel between those obligations and those of local authorities in England, Wales and Scotland.

Mr Curran: That is all I want to ask. I know that there are quite a number of questions to be asked.

The second question refers to equitable treatment — the spend per head on pupils and comparing one board with another. This is one of the things that Mr Carvill put forward in his argument in justification of the reorganization. He said that there could be up to a 10% difference in spend per pupil. Is that the case? If so, can it be addressed in the context of consideration of what we are doing? Or is it no argument in relation to what we are talking about?

Mr Nolan: May I very quickly make a general point and then Mr Brown can deal with the specific question. That is a very insidious kind of argument to use. What are you doing when you use an argument like that? Why can Westminster not say that all the schools in the United Kingdom will have a common formula? Why can the Government not say that? It cannot say that because Yorkshire is not like County Fermanagh, and neither is County Down like Strathclyde.

We could do without local assemblies and without local Government if we were going to go down the road of just having a broad-brush approach. It is a very dangerous way to argue but that is just a general statement, Mr Curran. Mr Brown can be more specific.

Mr Brown: I have two specific points. The amount of money which boards can attach to the per pupil formula is a very significant factor and that depends on the amount of money that each of them gets from central Government. The South Eastern Board has spent some 10 years discussing with central Government how that process can be fairly achieved in relation to our area. We have not quite got it right yet although we have made major strides in that area and overall the amount of money that pupils in our area gets is the same as that in other areas.

There are, however, differences between the individual levels — primary, secondary, nursery — and between the age groups. The Board negotiates with our principals and with our boards of governors as to how the local management scheme can best be adjusted to fit the nature of our area and the particular needs of the schools in it. So we may agree to keep some moneys back in the centre, that another board gives out to schools, because that is what our schools want or we may decide to put a bigger weighting on primary or secondary than another board because that is what our schools want. That is what local Government, local sensitivity and local accessibility is all about. We do not have to apologize if there are differences in detail in the amount of money that individual children in individual schools have attached to them because that is the proper way to do it.

Mr Nolan: Mr Carvill cannot have it both ways. He cannot prescribe local management of schools and then, all of a sudden, decide that this local thing is not quite right and that there should be a common approach. He cannot have it both ways.

Mr Curran: My third question refers to the potential for savings. From personal involvement with the Board I know of the tremendous savings that it effected over the years. Can you see any further potential for savings, possibly through inter-board co-operation, if we were to retain the existing five-board structure?

Mr Brown: On the question of savings, our Board continuously searches for savings. Each year we have been reducing the amount of money we spend on administration; however, the amount that goes into schools from these savings has been undermined by other aspects of Government policy especially in relation to open enrolment and the associated transport costs which have risen radically.

As much money as we are saving from administration, to give out to schools, is vanishing down other black holes in the education system. I could not comment as to whether that process would be improved or not by inter-board co-operation, except to say, in relation to a range of services, that there is now the machinery available from this review to look for consortia and co-operative models that would take that forward and could produce savings. For example, in scholarships and awards, when the working group came to a conclusion that we should keep it dispersed as it is at the moment, it also made a number of suggestions which had the potential to save through co-operation and through transferring some functions from the Department to the boards. That is certainly an area where the boards co-operatively working with the Department could make quite a few savings in respect of duplication of effort, for example.

Mr McMichael: It would appear that there are leanings towards the savings aspect of the proposals, although the amount is very small. In another area where there has been restructuring it is estimated that it will take some time to recoup the costs. Outside financial terms, is any consideration being given by the board to the cost, in human terms and in service terms, of the upheaval?

Mr Nolan: Well, there is a human element in all change and we all know what it is like to live with change and through change.

Mr Fitzsimons: There are a number of issues here. It is a number of years now since the first notice of review of education and library boards began and during that time all of the staff in education and library boards have felt under threat. That has been exacerbated by the Minister’s decision to rationalize into three boards.

Obviously people are concerned about their jobs. Will they have a job? What will they be doing? Where will they be working? It also has an impact in terms of schools. The schools in our area are asking “Will the new Board have a Belfast-type culture or a South Eastern-type of culture?” The cultures are different. I think that the Chief Executive alluded to the fact that the problems are different with an inner-city board.

It is a fact that schools and boards of governors are looking for support but that support is at its weakest in a merger situation. People who know about mergers which have taken place in industry — and we have examples of mergers in schools — know that when you bring two different schools or organizations together you have two different cultures, and for those to merge and change takes years.

We have situations where schools have come together and staff from each school have sat in different staff rooms. They do not come together as a cohesive unit. To merge two organizations is very difficult and people, certainly in my organisation, are fearful. They are not against change; they are not against making savings. They are concerned that the work that they do is valued and seen to be valued by schools. They do not want to be in a job if they are not adding value to what happens in the classroom and I can honestly say that in terms of the people with whom I work, they want to help schools to provide education for children. This period has demoralized staff and they are very fearful about the future. They are fearful of whether they will have a job, fearful of where that job will be and more fearful, I would think, of how they will be able to operate in a new organization with a new culture.

Mr Curran: The staff of the South Eastern Board have had two years of uncertainty. I pay tribute to them that they have been able to overcome that, in a sense, and continue their service and support for the schools. The attitude of the whole staff has been admirable.

Mr Weir: As someone who received his entire education under the South Eastern Board, I have a great deal of sympathy with the case for retaining the board. The question I am about to ask may be one for the Department of Education to answer rather than the board.

In the Department’s submission this morning it made a number of general points about reducing the number from five to three and the reasons. The one specific point it made about the creation of the new Eastern Board was that a large number of pupils in the greater Belfast area go to school in Belfast itself. It strikes me that the numbers are not that significant. I wonder if the South Eastern Board is able to provide any figures for pupils within its area who attend school in the Belfast area.

Mr Nolan: Those figures can be provided.

Canon Dickson: Well the figures which were provided on 19 March 1993 in answer to a question from Mr Roy Beggs MP were that the Belfast Board pupil numbers are 64,500 and the South Eastern Board pupil numbers are 64,322, and I do not think there has been any drop in the population since then.

Mr Weir: I would not expect you to be in a position to answer my question today.

Canon Dickson: The point you are making is that it is perceived that a significant number of children who live in the South Eastern Board area are actually educated in Belfast, and you would like the figure for that.

Mr Nolan: I wonder what point the Department of Education was making about this issue.

Mr Weir: I appreciate that there are very different cultures in the South Eastern area and the Belfast area, but presumably the Department would suggest that a large number of pupils who live within the South Eastern Board area are educated in Belfast. This does happen to a very limited extent. The numbers — even if you were able to obtain them — are relatively low so that argument is fairly weak.

Canon Dickson: Yes, I take your point. This really applies to grammar schools by and large.

Mr Weir. Yes.

Canon Dickson: It refers to the voluntary grammar schools in Belfast, and, of course, there is travel the other way. Children travel from Belfast to schools like Sullivan and even to secondary schools in Ballynahinch in the maintained sector. We have figures for transfer; yesterday at pupil/student services we looked at the figures in the report on the transfer procedure this year, and we can give you exact figures at some time.

Mr Brown: I could not give exact figures, but I could give rounded figures for it, if that would be useful. I would like to emphasize that there are very significant flows across the boundaries of all the boards and, particularly, in and out of Belfast. The only very significant outflow of ours is to grammar schools in Belfast which, because of the rundown in populations, have significant numbers of spare places and so act as a sort of vacuum cleaner for the area around taking in children from Lisburn and so forth who may not have got grades ‘A’ or ‘B’ in the transfer procedure but grades lower down. Something like 3,000 of those children go out of our area in any year into grammar schools, but other children come into our area to balance that, so the net outflow would be very much smaller.

Mr Weir: You made reference to the fact that this happens across the boundaries of other boards too.

Canon Dickson: It largely relates to voluntary grammar schools.

Mr Weir: I appreciate that.

Mr Brown: That, by the way, is not 3,000 every year, it is 3,000 in total.

Mr Weir: I appreciate that as well. The argument that has been put forward by the Department of Education is quite weak. You made reference to the fact that across the boundaries of other boards something similar happens. I do not suppose that you have comparative figures to show that this natural-unit argument is a very serious one.

Canon Dickson: We could provide figures for you and any other figures which you might require.

Mr Hussey: Mr Brown, you said that you chaired one of the committees on regionalization.

Mr Brown: That is correct, on grants and awards.

Mr Hussey: Was your submission to the Minister or to the board?

Mr Brown: It was to the Permanent Secretary of the Department and the group reported to him through a steering committee.

Mr Hussey: Is it possible for us to have a copy of that? We could find that very useful.

Mr Brown: I can certainly let you have a copy.

Mr Nolan: I think, Mr Chairman, that you should be entitled to see whatever papers and documents you want to. That particular document is in the ownership of the Department of Education. We acted on its behalf to do the work, to draw it together and to make certain recommendations, but it moved from us to the Department of Education.

Mr Hussey: So it is with the Department. It was very interesting to hear that savings were actually being turned down by the Department. Savings of up to 12% were mentioned — over what period?

Mr Brown: From the 1991-92 to the 1994-95 financial years, from the time education reform was introduced through to 1994-95. The Northern Ireland Audit Office’s report related to a year earlier than that, and referred to 8%. The parliamentary answer updated that by one year to 12%.

Mr Hussey: Totally on administration?

Mr Brown: Yes, on headquarters administration of the boards.

Mr Hussey: The savings that are mentioned are expressed in various statistics. A saving of £2 million has been put out as a quarter of 1% of budget. The Minister, on 13 August, told the delegation I was with that that represents 8% of the administrative budget and 0·25% of the total education budget. You talked in terms of administration costs of between 2% and 2·5% of your board’s budget. Your administration costs are 2% to 2·5% of your total budget?

Mr Brown: Approximately, of our total block grant.

Mr Hussey: A point was made about the breakdown of services provided by the board — youth service, libraries, et cetera. Would it be possible at some time to have a breakdown of the administrative costs relative to each service?

Mr Brown: We would need to see whether we can apportion in that way.

Mr Hussey: That sort of evidence would show absolutely what is not going directly to schools. Mr Fitzsimons, I totally agree with you, as a practitioner, that headmasters are not trained in this field. It is passing the administrative function on to people who want to get on with teaching. You suggest that the correct way of dealing with that is through the centralized services provided by the boards. What does it matter whether three boards provide that centralized service, or five?

Mr Fitzsimons: The service needs to be geared to local needs and based upon a knowledge of the school. Someone talked originally about the holistic approach to the support of a school, and that involves supporting the boards of governors and the teachers. It also needs to be localized to meet the needs of that school. Accessibility is very important. If you have three centralized boards, decisions are made well away from the community, and if they are going to be accessible, you are talking about localized offices which will end up more expensive in the long term.

Mr Hussey: That was the answer we wanted.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: In your opening remarks you made comments about accountability. Is it not the case that the ELBs are quangos? How much accountability is there when the vast majority of people who sit on the boards are appointees? Government rationale for this is free school meals. How valid is it to have three boards that are equal in terms of free school meals?

Mr Nolan: Could I take the first one. I am a local Government person because I want local services in the control of local people. Now, historically here, local Government did lose a lot of its influence and control for whatever reason. I want to work towards the restoration of that, I would want to see education administered here in the way it is administered in England by a local education authority on which the majority of people there are elected — elected politicians with co-options from interested groups, that is the way it should be done. Now I hope we can work towards that. You are quite right: an education and library board is a quango, but at least it is a forum of influence for local politicians.

Forty per cent of the members are elected, and the Minister intends to increase that to 48%, but in doing that he is spreading the representation over three boards not five. He could have increased the local political input without reducing the number of education and library boards, hence giving more control and influence to the local politicians. I would like us to work as quickly as we can towards local Government having powers in Northern Ireland. Until that time, we have to hold on to the best of what we have.

Could you clarify your second point?

Rev Trevor Kirkland: Social deprivation.

Mr Nolan: We have a lot to say about social deprivation. The North Eastern and South Eastern Boards have lost millions of pounds to Belfast, the Southern Board and the Western Board. This is a bit parochial and I apologise for that, but when people think of the South Eastern Board, they think of the golden belt from Holywood to Bangor, but we have areas in Lisburn that are as socially deprived as other areas anywhere in Northern Ireland. We also have areas of need around Bangor and other places. I know very bright people who are on free school meals and do not need a lot of extra education. The way to do it is to determine where the actual education need is and put the money there to meet that need.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: Will you remember to send a table showing the responsibilities of LEAs as compared with those of ELBs? A paragraph on challenging the rationale for free school meals would be helpful too.

Mr Stoker: The South Eastern Board model proposed that much of the administration be taken away from the Department and transferred to the boards.

Mr Small: It really links up with the question about quangos. There are quangos in education and that is one of the reasons we have asked for it to be looked at on an holistic basis. In the boards there is a line of local accountability: there are the local councillors and the nominated members who, I say again, have their own local constituencies to whom they are responsible. It may be schools or teachers, it may be youth clubs or churches, but there is at least a line of responsibility in the education and library boards. But they are quangos and I would ask where is the line of local accountability from the Department of Education, and the line of local accessibility? I wonder if that could be the biggest quango of all.

Mr Nolan: This is a very insidious matter. Decision making in Northern Ireland now is a matter between the Government official and the appointed Minister from Westminster. We had, in the South Eastern Board, a letter signed by the four party Leaders, Dr Alderdice, the Rev Ian Paisley, Mr Jim Molyneaux, he was the Leader at that time, and Mr John Hume, and what did those four politicians say to Michael Ancram? They said “Please leave the administration of education to local politicians.” Now that is still our view and we believe that the best solution will be found by our own people answerable to an electorate, because once you move people away from the electorate, they can do what they want.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for your submissions. We have made some specific requests. Each of you spoke very carefully and very lucidly and made a series of important points. Could you put those points on paper, along with the other information requested?

We appreciate your coming here, and we appreciate the effort that went into your preparation for this presentation. It was a breath of fresh air. You are succinct and clear, and obviously men of conviction.

Mr Dickson: Mr Chairman, may I just take a moment to say thank you. You may have gathered during the question time that you were pushing a few sore points which caused the responses to be rather heated, but we will try to provide a breakdown of the figures which you require. We are very grateful to you for seeing us and for being so kind to us. We appreciate it very much.

The Chairman: We were delighted to have you.

Witnesses:

Mr J Martin, Mrs S C Hogg and Mrs B B McIvor

(Western Education and Library Board)

The Chairman: Thank you very much indeed for coming along. We bid you welcome.

You have approximately an hour. You can use a portion of that to make a submission, and then the Committee members may want to elicit information. As with the Department of Education and the South Eastern Board, we may request further information.

Mrs Hogg: Thank you very much indeed Mr Chairman. I will introduce us for your benefit. On my left is Mrs Berna McIvor, vice chairman of the board, on my right is Mr Joe Martin, chief executive. My name is Sue Hogg and I am the chairman of the board.

Thank you very much for inviting us to come and see you. At our last meeting with the Minister he said he would not progress with the draft Order until he had had a report from the Forum, so you can understand that this is a very critical meeting for us with you this afternoon.

As a delegation we represent the views of and speak for the Western Board. It is our board which, if the Minister’s proposals do go through, is scheduled to disappear and be split between the Northern and the Southern Board. The Omagh and Fermanagh District Councils areas are to go into the Southern Board, and the Strabane, Derry City and Limavady areas are to go into the Northern Board.

Despite the announcement being made at the very end of last term when most people were poised to go on holiday, our board was enormously humbled and heartened by the huge wave of support that it received from every quarter, initially from within our own board area, but now on a much wider basis. All our contributing district councils, all the chambers of commerce, (both bodies which would deal specifically with and would have concerns about employment in the area), the leaders of all the churches and many, many boards of governors and principals have taken the time to express to the Minister and to us their support for the work that we as a board now do and have done over the past 23 years, and this has been work that has been tailored to the specific needs of the Western Board area. We are a distinct area and we have rural problems and other problems that are specific to our area, and the work that our board has done has been tailored to those needs.

This enormous consensus — and this consensus goes right across both traditions and all areas in the Western Board area — has been unanimous in asking the Minister not to proceed with the implementation of the proposals. Interestingly, many of the schools have placed more value on the continuing informed support of the board than on an extra amount of money, set at £2 million, but we are not so sure about that, in the classroom.

Just to bring you totally up to date with what is going on in our area, a petition mounted by the Save the West Campaign has now collected over 108,000 signatures, and this afternoon we are asking you to give us your support as well.

I would like to continue by making comment upon your resolution of July 19th on the contribution of educational services and structures to the promotion of dialogue and understanding within Northern Ireland. The Western Board has worked very hard to become recognized as a model of cross-community co-operation at every level. It continues to foster harmonious relationships, not only through what it does in the curriculum, youth and library services, but also in the way in which the board itself works. The chairmanship of the board and of all its committees alternates between members of both traditions. Close working relationships are effective between the board and the boards of governors of controlled, maintained, voluntary, voluntary grammar and integrated schools.

The board’s advice and support is much sought after by all of these bodies and the board is viewed very much as a model of good practice in a divided society. I would like to quote to you from a letter that went to the Minister from the Bishop of Derry and Raphoe, the Rt Rev Dr Mehaffey, which encapsulates this, and it is part of the paperwork that we have given you this afternoon.

“My predecessor spoke about the deep divisions in our society and how the Western Board and the schools in the board’s area have done so much during the troubled years to be a stabilizing and reconciling influence in our society. The divisions are now deeper and the anger in both communities stronger since the Drumcree affair. Educational decisions cannot be taken in isolation from but with reference to the total situation. We in this region need, more than ever before, the powerful influence of the Western Board in building trust and mutual respect between the two main traditions.

In any situation it is not what you do that is so very important but how you do it, and how we effectively manage education in the west is through the relationships which have taken years to build, relationships which are now based on trust and mutual respect for individuals carrying out the work of the board. I have been a member of the Western Board for 12 years and I can well remember earlier times when that level of co-operation simply did not exist, and I do not think anyone, least of all a Minister of Education, should demean the importance of relationships. It takes years for sound, working partnerships, working together for a common purpose, to build and to be effective, and the common purpose which we are looking after is in fact that very valuable commodity — the young people of the western area, and the future of this province.

We are, yet again, living through a very difficult period, and cross-community relations in Northern Ireland are at an all-time low. Yet, our board still sits down together to discuss the common problems facing the young people in our areas. I am sure you must agree it is simply madness, and not in the interests of education or our children, to be discussing the dismantling of a body which patently works in favour of something new and untried, which at this very sensitive time will have to start all over again to rebuild and to reconstruct and which will take some considerable time to have the same effectiveness in the society in which we live.”

I shall just finish this part of the presentation with a quotation from the present Secretary of State for Education which sums up the board’s attitude and the attitude of all those people right across our area who support the retention of the Western Board “When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change.”

I now ask Mr Martin to take over.

Mr Martin: Mrs Hogg has talked about the level of cross-community support for the retention of the present system and the contribution that the Western Board has made to cross-community relationships. I would like to deal with section 2 of the written presentation and focus on some of the arguments that the Minister has put forward for the change from five boards to three. In particular, I would like to look very briefly at the areas of over-administration, the role of boards, the need for stability and lack of disruption, alleged savings and the issue of consultation.

Now these are set out in detail in this submission and I hope that this submission will actually be read into the record. I want to highlight some of the points that we have set out here, and the first one is about over-administration. We have looked very carefully at the situation in England, Scotland and Wales, and we have set out figures which show very clearly that Northern Ireland is certainly not over-administered. The figure you have for Scotland is 160,000 per LEA, and in Wales it is 132,000, compared with our figure of 250,000. That shows that, in comparison with the present situation in Wales and Scotland, there is certainly not over-administration, and the trend in those two areas has been very much towards smaller authorities. We shall show later on that there is a huge difference in the size of authorities in England from 90,000 to 1·5 million, but there is an interesting quotation which is contained half-way down our submission on page 2, from Andrew Collier, secretary to the Society of Education Officers.

His contribution is set out in full as an appendix, but I will quote a sentence “It does seem strange that in Northern Ireland alone education administration will be moved away from the local communities it serves when changes in the rest of the United Kingdom are all in the other direction.”

Now we believe that that is very significant indeed.

On the role of boards, and again this is very important because in the submission which the Minister made to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee he pointed to the fact that the same kind of changes were taking place in Northern Ireland as were taking place in the rest of the United Kingdom. In particular, he referred to the introduction of LMS and the common curriculum. Exactly the same factors are operating in the rest of the United Kingdom as are operating here in Northern Ireland, so we cannot understand why the change which is taking place in Northern Ireland is totally at variance with what is happening elsewhere, but he has argued very strongly over and over again about the transfer of a wide range of board functions to schools and colleges.

Now, in our submission we are saying very clearly that the functions that boards of governors now have are not functions which were transferred from boards. Some were transferred largely from the Department of Education, in particular the determination of teacher numbers in schools and the budget that is associated with that, and some are new functions entirely, for example control of the preparation of the annual report, financial management at individual school level and curriculum policy. Those are issues in which boards were not involved in day-to-day administration, and any of you who has been involved in schools, either as teachers or on boards of governors, will be aware that, even in the controlled schools, boards did not have any day-to-day interference in the running of those schools — much less so in the case of maintained schools and voluntary grammar schools to whom we now provide a support service. So we say very strongly that we were never involved in the day-to-day routine decisions which the Minister keeps on talking about. In fact, the role of boards has not decreased, but has significantly increased, particularly because of the new responsibilities to provide curriculum support and advice.

There is a particular reference in the Minister’s document to the role of the Council for Curriculum and Evaluation Assessment, and that really puzzles us greatly. We certainly never had any involvement in that role so how could that have led to a decrease in the function of boards? This is something that does surprise us, and maybe the Minister could answer that.

The Minister, when he spoke to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in connection with the four-board model, talked about the need to avoid too radical a structural change at a time of pressure on schools, and he said again that the provision of services by three boards would involve considerable changes to the boundaries of all boards which would be disruptive. Now we find it difficult to understand how that disruption has all of a sudden disappeared. If there was disruption on 25 October 1995, there is certainly disruption now. This is one of the points that our schools have been putting to us very strongly, and this very week I have attended meetings of principals. We have them at the start of each school year. What they are saying to us is — and it is interesting that this is what our customers, the clients, are saying — that they value the services of the board and we need these services desperately. They want them to continue and they certainly do not want the disruption that is being caused now or ever because they need our services so badly.

On the matter of the £2 million savings, I know the Minister has said that it is not just a matter of money, but, having read the report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee of October last year, I am amazed at the number of references that occur time and time again to the proposed savings. Now we have looked at this very carefully. We have been unable to get access to the economic appraisal and, therefore, it is very difficult to attack the figures, but we have had access to the reports of the six groups that looked at the regionalization of services. Originally, the Minister said, on 25 October, that there would be savings of £1 million. Now the estimate that has been brought forward by those six working groups of the lowest cost, not necessarily the cost of an option that would actually work but the lowest cost, is that it would cost at least £0·5 million extra. That is without involving any capital cost, but the running costs would cost at least £0·5 million extra. So we believe that the figures there have been changed. Clearly, what the Minister originally said does not stand up now, and that is why he has changed his proposals, but we believe that if we could get access to the assumptions and the costings that have been done on those assumptions — on the changed proposal to reduce the boards from five to three — we could undermine that in the same way.

I want to move on to a number of other aspects, in particular consultation. Now the Minister has said there has been widespread consultation. We believe that there has not been widespread consultation on the three-board option, and certainly not on the three-board option that has been put forward now. We have consistently taken the stance that there should be five boards. That has been our position right from the beginning when we made our initial submission, when the four-board model was put forward, and it is our position still today. While we have concentrated in

particular on issues regarding the Western Board, that has been our stance all along. But there has been no consultation about this particular issue, and that is why we refute very strongly what the Minister is saying. This is the first opportunity we have had and that is why we have got to make the case as strongly as we can in every possible way and why we welcome the opportunity now.

May I finally reinforce the point that was made, in conclusion, about change. We have no objection in principle to change. We have been changing all the time. We even now have a new structure that we have introduced at senior management level within the last six months, aimed at efficiency and greater effectiveness. So we are not opposed to change. We are changing constantly in the method of delivery of our services, in the structures that are needed to do that and we would not want to have one penny, or one pound, more in our budget to spend on administration than is necessary. We share the objective of the Minister that that money should go into the schools and that is what we are working towards. But we believe that we can do it within the existing structure and that is why we believe it is not necessary to turn the whole system on its head. First of all, it will not produce a better system at the same cost. We believe it will not even produce as good a system at a reduced cost. On those two counts we believe that the proposals should not go forward.

Mr Chairman, those are the points I want to make now, but I would be very happy to elaborate on any of the aspects after Mrs McIvor has had the opportunity to conclude.

The Chairman: Thank you very much indeed, Mr Martin.

Would you like to proceed now, Mrs McIvor?

Mrs McIvor: Thank you, Mr Chairman and members, for this opportunity.

I would like to focus on the unanimity of opposition and the consensus that there is on the reactions to the Minister’s proposals. The opposition of district councils, church leaders, the business community, the schools and the general public has already been mentioned and there is clear evidence that all of these are opposed to the Minister’s proposals. There is a widespread, deep-rooted feeling and belief in the west that this is a further easternization of essential public services. This would reinforce what is already felt in the west: a sense of isolation and alienation. A cross-party deputation from the five councils met the Minister on 13 August and they reminded him that in the west there is one acute hospital; we have the worst roads network in Northern Ireland; the west is almost devoid of a rail network; industrial development in the west is almost totally neglected. We also reminded him of the high unemployment rate in the west — we have the highest rates of unemployment in Western Europe.

We also have some of the areas of greatest deprivation in Northern Ireland and the councillors said that the decision to axe the Western Education and Library Board reinforces the feelings that the lifeblood is slowly but surely being drained out of the west. Now those were the local councillors. The chamber of commerce agrees with that and it is and has been opposed to centralization policies of the Government. With mainline ministries in the east it and we would like to see in the west a redistribution of services which would help employment and bring economic benefits to our area. The chamber of commerce asked for greater investment in the infrastructure in the west — inward investment. All of this would alleviate the above-average unemployment figures in the west.

Now in the west all we are asking for is a more fair and equitable share of the economic wealth of Northern Ireland. We do not want to be treated differently from anywhere else. We just want a fair share of what I could call the goodies of Northern Ireland. The chamber of commerce has described the Minister’s decision as a further rejection of the west. It says that such radical changes for so little incurs the wrath of the people of the west and that is not logical or creditable.

When moderate people speak out will attention be paid to them? If it is not what message is being given to the voice of moderation in our community? I say that because recently the Secretary of State urged moderate people to speak out. We are speaking out in the west and we expect to be listened to. We expect an answer or a reason for the Minister’s proposals. We have not got a credible reason so far.

I will conclude, Mr Chairman, by quoting Mr Ancram’s predecessor Jeremy Hanley who said in February 1993 “Responsibility for Education is to be transferred to locally elected representatives accountable to local political institutions established on a basis which commands widespread acceptance throughout the community”. That is indeed commendable and we agree with that. The retention of the Western Board does command widespread acceptance. Indeed we are very happy to see that increasing numbers outside the Western Board area agree with us. All five boards agree our opposition to the Minister’s proposals.

Now I will quote the Secretary of State from the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ dated 3 September when he said

“Home-grown is the only label which will sell. Solutions imposed from outside do not work.”.

I would like his views to be applied to Mr Ancram’s proposals. My colleague has already referred to Bishop Mehaffey’s letter to the Minister. Indeed it was his second letter to the Minister. Direct rule from Westminster may have obvious shortcomings but it should take account of local needs and sensitivities.

Mr Chairman, I refer to something the Prime Minister said in Manchester lately “We need proper government. No Irish politicians for several generations have taken any decisions, not even local Government decisions”. Mr Major said that is appalling and indeed it is. Mr Major made a major speech last night talking about small governments, not Government encroaching, so I think Mr Major should take account of what his Minister is doing in Northern Ireland.

There is a common thread running through all of these statements. It is a recognition that to be acceptable and effective, decision-making cannot ignore councillors, church leaders, members of chambers of commerce and the general public. This is what Mr Ancram appears to be doing: ignoring the views of the people. Personally I feel extreme anger and frustration about all of this. It is very difficult to know the reason why he is making this proposal. We have not been convinced yet.

Mr Chairman, I would ask you and your Committee to support the retention of the Western Education and Library Board.

The Chairman: Thank you very much indeed, Mrs McIvor.

And I thank you, Mrs Hogg, and all your board members for their submission and the obvious thoughtfulness and care they have put into its preparation and the presentation.

Mrs Hogg: Thank you very much.

Mr Smyth: I congratulate you all on a wonderful presentation. The one thing that we can certainly say is that the presentations today have been first class.

You all have developed an argument that is unbeatable. I assure you of my personal support. Even though I am a Belfast man, I certainly understand the problems that face you. We will be doing our bit, as individuals and as a Committee. It is our duty to work together for the benefit of all the people of Northern Ireland.

Mrs Hogg: Thank you very much indeed, Mr Smyth. It is very much appreciated. I was once a Belfast girl.

Ms Bell: I would like to thank you for your presentation. I did not expect any wonderful new things to come out, but they are really very comprehensive and focused. The Western Board has served us very well once again.

You quoted a number of times the present Minister and other Ministers talking about boundary changes being disruptive. As you know, under the initial review the board that was going to be more directly hit was the South Eastern Board. To a certain extent he changed his mind, though not for the better. One of the things we have been asking is why, in all these proposals, the Minister and his civil servants did not include the Department of Education itself. You have outlined very clearly all the different changes that have been made recently. Those changes have had an effect on the Department, as well as boards, schools, libraries and so on. Every facet of the functions of the boards has been hit. Therefore I imagine that this will also hit the Department of Education. Did you put it forward to him in any meeting? Certainly we did.

Mr Martin: When we made our initial submission in 1993, we did refer to that point. But on the two occasions when we made presentations to him via our deputations we did not focus on that particular point because what we wanted to do was really to try to put the case very strongly for the west. At that stage we tried to pick the points where we thought we would make an impact and that was one we thought he might not be as receptive to as to certain others, so we did not do that. But that might be something that we should look into.

Ms Bell: We as local representatives would certainly be making that point. If you have any comments on it, I would be particularly grateful. Easternization will be one of the direct repercussions if these proposals are put into effect. It will ruin something that has been very well tested and used over the years. All the campaigns that you had and the results of those campaigns have all been very localized. Have you had good support from outside the western area? Do you feel that it might be good if all the boards were to come together in one campaign that might be more effective?

Mrs Hogg: I think, Mr Chairman, this is something that is beginning to happen. When the announcement was first made at the end of June the Western Board felt extremely isolated because we, on the face of it, were the only board that was actually going to have a radical change. I mean we just did not exist anymore. There was a Northern, a Southern and an Eastern and we just were not on the map any longer. Certainly in the initial few weeks there was a strong feeling that we were very much on our own and the support was very much from within our board. But as time has gone on the other boards have begun to realize that they will not be as they are now, that they too will be facing considerable changes. They have begun to realize that we were right to fight our own corner and they see merit in coming alongside us. That is being manifest more and more and the Association of Education and Library Boards, which represents all the education and library boards, has now put forward a motion which will be debated at the education and library board conference at the beginning of October which the Minister will be present at.

Ms Bell: Like Mr Smyth and, I am sure, other members, you have my full support. Hopefully, we might be able to change the Minister’s mind to a certain extent.

Mrs Hogg: Thank you very much indeed.

Mr Curran: First, let me say that, regardless of where we come from, we would all share the concerns that you have expressed about the extent of social deprivation and the lack of investment in the western part of Northern Ireland. In that context, I understand the importance to the west of retention of the Western Board, particularly in relation to employment. My wife’s people come from west Tyrone, and I could not say anything else!

I would like to address to Mr Martin a question that I put to the South Eastern Board in the context of the potential for savings. I was a member of the South Eastern Board and was very conscious of the work that it had done over several years in effecting very real savings, particularly on administration costs. Do you see any potential for savings through inter-board co-operation, if we were to retain the five-board model? Would we be able to demonstrate to the Minister that there is a possibility, through co-operation, of achieving any further savings?

Mr Martin: I think there are a number of questions really in that. There is significant inter-board co-operation already on many issues, but inter-board co-operation is not going to reduce the need for the support that is provided to schools in particular. So while Boards will co-operate very carefully, particularly through their advisory staff, on their approaches to helping schools, what we find is that we need personnel on the ground to support our schools. In fact that has been one of the strengths of our service and particular attention has been drawn to it in the Department’s report on the curricular service. While co-operation is important, you still need personnel and the need for those personnel would not be reduced.

There is potential for savings probably in every organisation and that is why we have addressed this issue very carefully. We have to make savings over the next three years. We will not be allowed inflation costs so we have to live within the existing budget that we have. We have made savings for the last two years and we will make them over the next couple of years. If the Department reduces the amount of money available to us, by whatever percentage, we will have to live within that budget. What the effects of those savings are going to be is entirely a different matter. It may result in the reduction in the quality, or the level, or the number of services, but we will have to live within whatever amount of money is given to us. We will look at every possible way forward. I would not want to offer savings now because what I would be saying is that we do not need the money that we have. We do need it. If it is reduced, we will do our utmost to live within that budget without reducing the quality of services. But if that comes down to a certain point, services will definitely be affected. There is no question about that.

Mr Weir: I would like to echo what has been said. I congratulate you on your presentation and express my support for your view.

Mr Fowler: Financial management and administration has been moved back into the school. Is it your experience that educational standards have suffered as a consequence?

Mr Martin: No, we would say that educational standards have improved. We would fully support the concept of local management of schools. We would support very strongly the notion that each school is responsible for its own financial management. We are entirely at one with the Government on this and our schools also think very strongly along those lines. What has happened is that the schools are looking more and more to us for advice and guidance on how they do their business. The advice and guidance given to schools on those issues about the effective use of resources, coupled with the advice and support and guidance that we have given on curricular matters has, we believe, resulted in a better use of existing resources within schools.

Mr Fowler: So you think LMS was a good move?

Mr Martin: Undoubtedly.

Mr Fowler: If the Minister or the Department suddenly said “Five boards, but we require a £2 million saving this year” would you be able to deal with that?

Mr Martin: Well, the straight answer to it is, you have to deal with that, you are bound by law to do it and you cannot exceed your financial scheme. That does not mean that there is fat in the system that will yield that kind of savings. For example, if my personal income is reduced by 10%, 50% or whatever it is, I must live within that but it is going to affect the kind of things that I do as an individual. Apply that to an organisation, we would not be able as a board to do the same kind of things that we are doing at the moment if that level of savings were imposed upon us.

Mr Fowler. So it was not really necessary to take a stick to crack an egg?

Mr Martin: Absolutely not.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: Your written submission is excellent in taking the arguments and answering them. When we questioned the first submission this morning our attention was drawn to the fact that with LMS the budget was delegated to the schools. That accounted, according to their chart, for over half the responsibility of the boards, therefore it was right and proper to reduce the number from five to three. Of all the functions and duties and responsibilities given to the schools, how many were the domain of the boards and how many of the Department of Education? I want to take you back over this ground because it is a crucial area. They are arguing in their document that because this has been delegated the boards are duplicating services.

Mr Martin: The biggest delegation of money to schools in financial terms was in connection with teachers' salaries. Boards did not ever have that money. It now comes through the global allocation but that money was held within the Department of Education. The boards did not lose it because they never had it.

The biggest element of spending is on teachers' salaries and that follows on logically from the number of teachers you have in a school. Again that was never determined by boards. It was determined by the Department of Education in accordance with a formula worked out by the Department of Education and applied to each local school. It was processed in the case of controlled schools almost as a post-box through the education and library board for controlled schools only, but never for maintained schools or voluntary grammar schools. For a brief period of a couple of years, prior to the introduction of education reform, a global allocation was made to each board for the global allocation of teachers. In other words a board for the controlled sector would have, say, a thousand teachers. But again those were allocated out to schools on the basis of the formula which was determined by the

Department of Education. So that is the 2% where I was slightly off in the first answer.

That is the biggest single function. The area that I would see in particular where there has been a change is on tenant maintenance. That was a function of the boards. The boards were responsible for tenant functions — fixing the doors, minor repairs and so on. That has been transferred to schools. I would say that is the biggest one that comes to mind, and probably the one that they notice most.

Fifteen years ago boards and the old education authorities used to be responsible for the requisitions. The requisitions used to come in and the board put the red pen through them. But people have even forgotten about that because it is such a long time ago. So that function disappeared long before education reform. Our system had already changed to take account of that and purchasing departments have been restructured. Those are the only things I can think of, but I would love to see the list that the Minister would come up with of functions that have been delegated from boards. I cannot think of any others.

The Chairman: Mr Martin, can you provide us with a list of functions that the board has lost, functions that the Department of Education has given to somebody else. This was bandied about this morning. We need a piece of paper explaining things in great detail.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: Mrs McIvor, in your submission you were talking about a fair share of the economic wealth.

Mrs McIvor: Yes.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: According to the Government’s chart they are going to give everyone a fair share of economic wealth on the basis of free school meals. They have roughly quantified that it is going to be about 30% for each board. What would the Western Board’s answer be to having to use that type of formula? Would it be deprivation in other words?

Mrs McIvor: Deprivation and targeting social need. You have information which I have not got. I cannot comment on this.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: You are going to get it?

Mrs McIvor: This appears to me to be new information from the department. Mr Martin will look into it, but it certainly is new to me. I have not heard of this before and this is the difficulty with this proposal. It is hard to argue against something when we do not have the evidence. You mean, Mr Chairman, that if there are three boards there will be an equal number for each? I find that difficult to follow.

The Chairman: An equal number of people in each board area receiving free meals.

Mrs McIvor: Well, I wonder is this why they did this? It is new to you, Mr Chairman, I am sure. But is that why they drew up the boundaries?

Mr McFarland: This is one of the reasons they gave this morning as part of their statistics package. They were saying “Look, these three boards have an equal level of deprivation.”

The Chairman: It had also to do with the formulas for funding. This is probably what was in their thinking, which we did not get time to unearth.

Mrs Hogg: To be honest we would also need time to do a bit of digging on this. We would need to look at that question and send the information to you.

The Chairman: They did not leave any extra copies, but we will provide at least one per board.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: When you are sending your response in respect of deprivation would it be possible to give us some graphs or maps to relate to what we have before us?

Mrs McIvor: I wonder why Mr Kirkland put that question to me. The fact is economic growth, wealth and prosperity is highly unlikely as a consequence of the Minister abolishing the Western Board.

Mr Bolton: I would like to thank you for your submission and for the way in which you presented your case.

Mr Stoker: Would it be feasible for the boards to take over more of the administration, and to downgrade the Department of Education?

Mrs McIvor: Yes.

Mr Stoker: I do not expect you to give a full answer now, but at some future stage.

Mrs Hogg: May I say right from the beginning — and correct me if I am wrong — that the Department has never been involved in looking at itself as an educational organization. It has always stood apart and everybody else has had to change.

Ms Bell: I appreciate the answer that has been given, and I agree with it. I am not sure whether Mr Ancram would have decided on three boards so quickly if he had had other proposals in front of him.

The Chairman: Mr Hussey, I was excusing you because of your vested interest.

Mr Hussey: No, Mr Chairman. I am employed by the Department of Education, but I want to ask a few questions. The answers can be furnished in written form.

With regard to employment, are there any projections so far available as to the likely affect of the disappearance of the Western Board? Do you have a breakdown of the administration costs of the areas of responsibility which the education board would carry? I have asked for the same information from the South Eastern Board. Obviously a lot of the savings are being described as being available to be directly passed on to schools. That is good PR. But, of course, the administration costs that a board will incur will include costs for more than schools. There will also be youth work, libraries, and so on. May we have a breakdown of that? In the presentation we have a linking of the Western Board with the Scottish and Welsh boards. Part of the argument we are getting back from departments is that those boards do not have the same responsibilities. May we have a comparison?

The Chairman: Particularly with Bedfordshire.

Mr Hussey: You have said that there is very little fat left in the system. Over the last couple of years have there been savings on administration?

Mr Martin: Our savings were 2½ to 3% last year. I think they were 2% the year before that and 1% the previous year. What we were doing was meeting the Government’s target at that time. Projected savings over the next three years are in the range of 2½ to 3% — whatever inflation is, we have to live within it. Do you mind Mr Chairman if I give a brief response to some of the questions that Mr Hussey raised, or are they to be responded to in writing?

The Chairman: We should have them in writing. We have to get something onto paper. We want to see exactly what is being said — or implied — which is not actually the case.

Mr Hussey: With regard to whether LMS is affecting the education of children — as you have rightly said, it is not. If it was not for the support given by boards to the teachers there would certainly be a greater effect on teachers’ health. All teachers are grateful for the work that the boards are doing.

Mrs Hogg: If I might comment on that. In fact I am Chairperson of some boards of governors and I am very involved in the practical side of education administration out in the schools. One of the effects of LMS is that our head teachers and principals have had to become managers — they have come through the teaching system as teachers and not as administrators. So one of the things that the boards have been most effective in is supporting head teachers and principals in doing the job effectively, so that the standards and quality of education are still there for the children.

The Chairman: Thank you very much indeed for coming along. We appreciate the presentation you gave.

Mrs Hogg: Thank you very much for the considerate way we have been received. I nearly enjoyed it, though not quite.

Witnesses:

Mr R Sloan, Rev Derek Poots, Mr G Topping and Mr D Cargo

(North Eastern Education and Library Board)

The Chairman: Good afternoon. You are very welcome to the Northern Ireland Forum. This is a rather historic occasion because this is a meeting of the first Committee set up by the Forum. We are delighted that you wish to make a submission. Today we have heard from the Department of Education and from two other education and library boards. Thank you for coming and I would ask whoever is going to lead off to act as the co-ordinator and identify the group. If you would like to present your case as you wish and then we shall put some questions to you.

Rev Derek Poots: Mr Chairman, we count this a great privilege and thank you for receiving the delegation and for taking such an interest in the important issue of how the education service in Northern Ireland is administered. We would hold — and I certainly would — very strongly that the Forum is to be warmly commended for the interest it is taking in this field so early in its life.

I am Derek Poots, chairman of the board. On my left is Mr Sloan a board member who is chairman of one of the key committees of the board and is also principal of Dunclug High School in Ballymena. He is therefore a person who can see the issues from two sides — he is involved with the board in the creation of policy and he also receives the services of the board. To my right is the chief executive, Mr Gordon Topping, and to my far right is the chief administrative officer, Mr David Cargo.

We come to you because we have three great concerns. We are concerned about the education service in our area, we are deeply concerned about the affects of the proposed changes on staff, and we are no less concerned about the affects of the proposed changes on society itself. I will give a fairly brief introduction and background and I will try to describe the feelings in our area and then I will hand over to others to bring some details and facts before you.

You are aware that after four and a half years of deliberation the Minister has announced his decision in relation to the boards and the proposed reduction from five to three. How does this affect the North Eastern Board? The effect would be that the North Eastern Board, which consists of nine council areas, would lose Newtownabbey and Carrickfergus to the new Eastern Board, and the seven remaining council areas would form a new Northern Board with Limavady, Derry and Strabane councils being brought in. If the proposals go through, services are to be considered further for regionalization: architectural services, purchasing, and scholarships and awards. I could not overemphasize to you what has been taking place since the Minister made his announcement. Over the past few months there has been an almost unbelievable spontaneous ground swell of opinion in the board area that the North Eastern Board should be maintained. This is especially true amongst those who have responded to the various consultation exercises over the past four and a half years. The political representatives in particular consider that their representations, along with others during the consultation phase, have at best been discounted and at worst ignored. But I want to emphasize that concern and say that feelings are deep and sincere.

All the councils in our area have passed resolutions in support of the maintenance of the board — and the nine councils have come together to use their political influence in order to maintain the board. All major political parties support the maintenance of the five-board structure. The churches, business and commerce and our schools all want to see the boards maintained. I can also say that we have the support of our Members of Parliament and many Members of the Forum as well as leaders of the political parties.

There is a feeling in the community — and the board is utterly convinced — that there is no sound educational, financial or social argument for this change. We are concerned that it will dilute the standard of service to which the general public, schools and colleges have become accustomed, and that it will seriously undermine the quality of our education service.

For four and a half years staff have suffered because of the uncertainty created by the review and I refer primarily to headquarters staff. It has been due to their professionalism and commitment that they have maintained the quality of our service to such a high level. This announcement has further increased their concerns and there is great uncertainty. This concern is expressed in many questions: will I have a job in two years time? where will that job be if I have a job? or indeed what will the job be if I have one? I need not emphasize to you that such a period of concern is not conducive to creating an atmosphere in which to continue to manage an effective education service. The board is pledged to maintain an effective and efficient education service in the interests of children — and also in the interests of staff — and we will be seeking to continue to do that to the best of our ability.

One of the big issues which has arisen is the possible location of the headquarters office for the proposed new Northern Board. We are hampered by the fact that we are tenants in County Hall and therefore do not have a headquarters of our own. This great concern as I see it, has taken on, an enormous political dimension as well as everything else, and we are concerned that it will tend to divide our society. Indeed in a debate on the location of the headquarters you would find different views even in our own board, this is what I meant by the concern for the welfare of society in our northern area. You will undoubtedly have heard about fears of easternization of services; but there are also fears of westernization of services. The last thing we want is anything to take place which tends to be divisive rather than bringing together the differing views and opinions of education. There is nothing more that I want to say and I now want to call on our different representatives to explain the boards views in greater detail.

Mr Topping: Could I echo the words of our own chairman in saying thank you for receiving us and for paying significant attention to what I think is a crucial issue for Northern Ireland. What Mr Cargo and I want to do is expand on certain aspects of the submission and, in particular, we want to draw your attention to some of the details which you have in the tabled paper.

The first point I would like to highlight is some of the fallacies — and what we consider to be spurious arguments — that have been made about educational administration in Northern Ireland. In a sense we want to get behind the propaganda and alert you to some of what we believe to be the real facts. Secondly, we want to examine the principles which underpin the structure of education administration, and thirdly we want to highlight what we believe is a positive and constructive way forward. This is a line that I can say we have held the whole way through this debate.

If I can refer you to paper 1. There is a misunderstanding about what education administration actually is. It is portrayed quite often as a bureaucracy and something which is self-perpetuating and as a system which simply pushes paper around. In reality it is concerned with planning and making educational provision. It is concerned with providing services to schools and to the general public. It is concerned with supporting, advising and guiding our schools and colleges. It is concerned with local people making decisions about local services and therefore it is about local democracy. Ultimately, in a real sense, education administration is about creating the most conducive conditions in which our young people and adults can be educated so that they can achieve their potential and thereby our society can be enhanced. Much of this rests on personal relationships which have been built-up over the last 20 years or so.

Our position is that we are not resistant to change. In fact we are on the record as saying that after 20 years of operation any kind of system needs to be reviewed. In fact we welcomed the review. But the reality was that the review turned out to be a review of the boards; in other words a partial review. It did not take into account the Department of Education, the NICIE (the Integrated Council) the CCMS (the Catholic Council), nor did it take into account many of the other bodies which are on the fringes of education administration. I believe this partial review has therefore given a false premise to the kind of discussions that have gone on.

I referred you to paper 1 and I just want to alert you to the functions that the boards actually carry out and who they carry them out for. We have simply restricted this particular paper to looking at some of the services we provide to schools. Again, for the want of time, I will not go through them all. But you will see that the vast majority of our services are provided to all the schools. There are other services that some of the other authorities provide — mainly to the voluntary grammar schools and to the catholic maintained schools. But the reality is that the boards are already in a position whereby they are providing a wide range of services right across the system to all the schools.

Now we would argue that a number of issues could have been addressed if the review had been carried out properly, including the totality of education administration. For example, we are the only area in the United Kingdom that has a separate Education Department and Economic Development Department. As you may know, in England last summer the Department of Education and the Department of Employment were amalgamated to form the DFEE. The same happened in Scotland. There now seems to be a rationale for bringing education together with economic development. But that was not even on the agenda here because it has been a partial review.

The second issue I want to draw your attention to is about over-administration, if I could refer you to the papers in the next few pages. I have heard the argument from different sources that Northern Ireland is over-administered in terms of education administration. If that was true then the size of the boards here would be too small. If you compare these with the figures that were given in response to a parliamentary question asked by Mr Beggs MP you will see the list of the authorities in England and you can see that the North Eastern Board — which at that time had the largest number of pupils in Northern Ireland — was in the top third of authorities in England.

Furthermore, under this heading about over-administration we are often compared to Yorkshire. The allegation made is that you would not have five boards in Yorkshire, and that is quite right. In fact, if you look at the next page you will see there are actually thirteen local education authorities in Yorkshire. So if there is over-administration we would contend that it certainly is not related to boards as the local education authorities. We would accept that other bodies have been formed through the 1989 Order, which we would allege are on the fringes of administration — for example CCEA, the CCMS and the Youth Council. If you actually total the costs of administering those bodies since they were established it has been £20 million plus. As far as the boards are concerned the evidence supports the fact that there is no over-administration compared to Great Britain.

The third issue, and Mr Cargo will maybe take this on, is that the boards are not efficient enough. I will hand over to him.

Mr Cargo: If I could draw members' attention to paper 3 which we have tabled for you today. You may well be aware that when the department issued its last set of proposals in relation to the four boards one of the issues raised was that there could be economies of scale obtained by regionalizing a number of services. At that stage the Minister estimated that there could be up to £1 million of savings obtained from the regionalization of certain services.

Paper 3 attempts to do two things. First of all it attempts to attribute savings to those areas where the savings could be achieved. Accordingly those figures in the left-hand column come from departmental papers that were produced by working groups comprising department and board officials. At the initial meetings of each of those groups papers were presented which highlighted the estimated savings.

In the left-hand column you will see those estimated savings for each of the services. The asterisk along the bottom highlights the fact that no paper was produced for the architectural services group. Down the right-hand column are the outcomes of the deliberations of the working groups. As you can see, for example, in the legal and insurance service rather than achieving an estimated saving of £120,000 as a result of regionalization there would actually be additional costs of £17,000 incurred. Different results are achieved depending on how one would regionalize services. For example, in the internal audit service if you had a lead board arrangement that would cost an additional £90,000. If you went for a full-blown agency that would cost an additional £120,000. Rather than the whole exercise saving £1 million (as had been suggested by the Minister) the working groups showed that the exercise would actually cost between £1 million and £1.2 million.

The architect’s Group, which was chaired by the department, was not presented with an initial figure for saving. When the report was produced it showed that it would cost an additional £380,000 to centralize architectural services. When the scholarships and awards group looked at the Next Steps Agency in Scotland they discovered that, for example, to produce an award cost the agency £38·70 whereas in the boards in Northern Ireland it costs £32·60 per award. Therefore as a bench-marking exercise against the Scottish Agency — which was being held up as a very good regional model — the boards currently out-perform that model.

In terms of the regionalization of services the estimated savings did not actually appear to be there. If you refer back one page — to the third section of paper 2 — one of the problems we have had in this exercise was to have a sound financial basis whereby we could compare like with like. Now, thanks again to Mr R Beggs MP — who has obviously been busy asking parliamentary questions — we were able to get some figures relating to the departmental and board costs at the start of the review and also for the period 1994/95. They make interesting reading because board costs have reduced from £32 million in 1992 to £27 million in 1994/95, whereas departmental costs have increased from £12.8 million to £15·2 million in 1994/95. If you take the total number of staff which each body has and divide that total into the total costs you will again obtain interesting statistics. The boards during the period were becoming more efficient and the average cost of an officer in the board is falling whereas in the department it is rising. I think they are both very telling in terms of efficiency.

The second thing I would highlight is that since 1989 significant elements of the work which the boards previously undertook have been delegated to schools. I have asked a number of officials about this and it seems to be difficult to get anyone to illustrate what work has been lost in the boards. The main area which tends to be trotted out relates to teaching staff. The reality is that up until 1988 the Department of Education was responsible for the allocation of teaching staff. That was transferred to the boards in 1988 as part of the preparation for delegation through the Local Management of Schools Scheme. Before that local management could actually operate the formula needed to get all the staffing costs within the global budget.

What in fact has happened is that there has been a whole series of additional responsibilities laid on schools — such as responsibility for having a curriculum policy, which previously rested with the department. There is also the whole issue of financial management where the board has had to take its budget and put it into three hundred blocks rather than administer one block, and the preparation of an annual report which had never been done previously. Rather than a decrease in work, the board has had to change and amend its services, and actually provide more officer support to its schools. Those members who may be involved, for example, in boards of governors know that once a school obtains its budget at the beginning of a financial year there commences a major exercise between board and school staff to ensure that schools live within the budget and understand fully what the budget means. We would contend that rather than reducing work in the boards the 1989 Order has actually, in many ways, increased the work. It has resulted in a different type of work which is much more labour intensive and in the board being forced quite rightly to take a more strategic view of its services provision.

The third thing I would like to touch on are the actual reasons for this latest set of proposals. It is extremely difficult to find a rationale as to why we are going ahead with these proposals, but it seems to us that there are two possible reasons.

First of all — to save money. We have been told that the proposals which the Minister announced would actually save £2 million — which is 0.2% of the education budget. Now having shown you the figures in relation to regionalization I am sure, like me, members may be sceptical about the £2 million savings, because part of the problem is that there has been no economic appraisal. There has been no clear financial information produced and no cost benefit analysis has been produced whereby people can say “Yes, we have looked at the arguments, we have looked at the figures and we can clearly see where the £2 million savings are.” It is difficult to understand the Minister’s assumptions.

The Chairman made a reference to the board headquarters and we have made some assumptions in paper 4 which we have tabled today. We have made the assumption that the new Northern Board headquarters base would be Londonderry. We have undertaken a brief initial costing exercise in terms of relocation expenses for our staff in these circumstances.

Under the scheme agreed with the trade unions, staff who are relocated get excess travel expenses for four years. So for this period if all our staff simply continue to live in Ballymena, or wherever, and travel to Londonderry our costings show that that would cost an additional £2 million — just to relocate the existing North Eastern Board staff. It does not show anything about what would happen to the Western Board staff. We have also done some quick calculations in relation to additional mileage. A board which stretches from the Irish Sea to the Donegal border is obviously much larger than the current board which we operate. For our Headquarters' staff (not those staff who are in schools, such as EWOs or psychologists) we have estimated the additional costing on the extra mileage to cover the new area. We would be suggesting that we would be paying an extra £113,000 for additional travelling expenses. Perhaps the department, in arriving at the £2 million savings figure, have taken this into account. The problem for us as a board is that we have seen no evidence of that and it makes it difficult for us to make comment.

Finally, I would suggest that if we do not have a central headquarters situation we are likely to have split sites. I would draw members attention to the fact of what happened in the health boards scenario — where we had units of management being amalgamated. Rather than a reduction in middle-management what actually occurred was an explosion there. When you have people in Omagh, Derry, Coleraine and Ballymena you need more staff to manage them and you actually end up with a situation whereby officers informally meet at the Castledawson roundabout each morning to decide in which direction to go. Perhaps I should stop at that stage and hand back to the chief executive.

Mr Topping: I would like to underline a number of key principles which we think are significant, and then perhaps Mr Sloan could be permitted a few minutes to comment from the schools point of view.

You will notice, in our submission in paragraph 3.1 that we highlighted the key principles and those were the ones that the department also drew our attention to. We are conscious that it depends what balance you actually give to these principles and what weight you give to particular elements of those principles. For example, if you go for efficiency then you are talking about one board, but if you go for accessibility you might be talking about 10, 12 or even 15 boards. We have looked at many of those principles and tried to draw some conclusions and to make some judgements on them. I just want to mention three of them.

The first one is that one of the principles is creating a unified structure. Now I would say that government policy at the moment has done anything but that. It has deliberately attempted to divide and disunite the education service. I will just give you the latest example, where incorporation of further education is being planned. Seventeen colleges are being created — 17 extra administrative units. Originally, because of our economy of scale, we provided the financial services to all those colleges. Now, in our board area alone, we have appointed four financial managers to FE Colleges at a cost of £120,000. My understanding is that across the province that would total £500,000. We, in our board, want to create a unified structure — not fragment the structure.

The second point is political consensus. It is ironic that the Minister who, wearing another hat, is here to create political consensus actually has a political consensus on this topic and will not accept it. It is crucial that the Minister takes account of the political consensus that already exists on this particular matter.

Thirdly, I want to highlight the role of the board in creating peace and reconciliation. One of the most satisfying things in working in a board is to see a variety of people coming together from right across the community to talk and discuss issues of common concern and to work together to help our young people to mature, develop and become properly educated. In the boards that I have worked, that kind of co-operation — cross-community co-operation — has been outstanding. If we are talking about integrating the schools and education then we should also be integrating our education administration structures.

Finally, our proposal has been, right throughout the debate, to create education councils based on the five boards. Those education councils would cater for the total ambit of education in a particular area. They would involve everybody who is involved in education and would help to take forward strategic planning in that area but, at the same time, legislation could protect the rights and ethos of all the interests. We already have a model for that in the boards where, for example, the Teaching Appointments Committee is a statutory committee with a set statutory composition to protect the interests of the controlled sector when they are appointing to prescribed posts.

Mr Sloan: I will not obviously go back over ground that has already been gone over. However I want to refer to the position of the teacher/member on the board of governors and how the suggested changes may well impact on the schools. Because, at the end of the day, education is about young people and about the impact on their education.

I came onto the North Eastern Board as a teacher representative and, because of the cohesiveness of the board, all the secondary heads know me and feed information to me which can then be passed through to the board. It can be used in the formation of strategic policy decisions — and that is an excellent sounding board for ideas and so on. There is no doubt if we move towards much bigger structures that cohesiveness and intimate knowledge will go. The same can be said for the people who represent the primary and the FE sector. We all know our constituent bodies personally and we know how they feel. Sometimes you have to listen to the complaints when the board has taken a decision that they are not happy with. But that is a sounding board and is a useful feature.

But, more importantly, a relationship has been built-up over the last number of years and you have got to remember that since 1989 the schools have gone through a period of turmoil with massive changes. We have had a statutory curriculum and LMS introduced. We have been asked to take on more and more responsibility. The help we have had from the Department of Education in all of these has been nil. The assistance we have had from the boards has immensely helped schools to get through this period of turmoil. I would not like the Committee to be in any doubt that the schools could not have survived over the last period without the help that they have received from the Curriculum Advice and Support Service, the LMS and all the other bodies that are represented in the board. It just could not have been done.

To destroy that relationship now is, first of all, very poor thanks to organizations that have put so much into education. But even more worryingly we are going into a further period of stress in schools. Again I would assume that everyone in this room knows that with the reduction in funding, schools are facing very difficult times. If that relationship is to be destroyed I think the education service in Northern Ireland is going to suffer very badly. I think you need to be aware of other things. You need to be aware that the Department, more and more, is taking decisions but is absolving itself of responsibility for those decisions. That responsibility has been devolved down to boards of governors, to schools and to the education and library boards.

I will give you an example. The SEN code of practice is being introduced in September 1997. That code of practice, welcome as it is, will demand that schools produce resources so that children with special needs can be looked after properly in mainstream education. It will mean removing teachers from actual teaching to carry out administrative duties, to make sure that these personal education plans, et cetera are prepared.

I represent another body in education and we went to the Department to ask what costing it had done for this introduction. No costings have been done. The training for that will have to be provided by the board. The production on the ground floor will have to done by the schools. The Department seems to introduce these things willy-nilly and then walk away and say that it is the boards' and the schools' responsibility. Remove the boards and the relationship that has been built up at this time and I think you are going to go a long way to really doing damage to our education system.

If I may just conclude by saying that my own board of governors has debated this very fully and has instructed me to write to the Minister because they felt so strongly about it. They concluded by saying that the education boards have served the community well during a time of political, as well as educational, turmoil and they should not be dismantled in so cavalier a fashion. That is the feeling of people on the ground who are administering education. We have total confidence in our boards. We have total confidence in the services that they are offering us. Importantly, these are built on personal relationships — we know the people we are working with. I do not know the people in Western Board who look after education. Therefore I cannot pick up the phone and make that personal contact. It is that personal contact that is going to be lost if this decision goes through.

The Chairman: Mr Poots, I thank you and your team for your very eloquent case. Many Committee members are burning with zeal to elicit information.

This morning the Department gave us a whole series of arguments. Our purpose is to tease out the truth of all this. You have given us a very helpful set of facts and figures, and I am sure you will be keen to discuss those.

Ms Bell: I will be very brief because Mr Sloan has just answered the question I was going to ask about the relationship between boards and communities in schools. On a very practical level the boards have provided the back-up for the schools and communities. To what extent would that be undermined?

Mr Sloan: It would be destroyed.

Ms Bell: Thank you for all the facts and figures. Mr Cargo’s outline of the financial figures was horrifying, to say the least — especially against this anticipated £2 million. Have you given the Department these figures? Are you giving them to us just to help us with our report?

Mr Cargo: No. At this moment in time we have brought the figures to you. Part of the difficulty, as I said, has been to get a stable financial base upon which to consider financial arguments regarding the situation.

The Chairman: This morning the Department very willingly offered to bring all the financial assessments, the economic appraisal and the PAFT report — indeed, all the available statistics. It has been acknowledged that it is a grey area. We cannot honestly come to terms with it without the information that has now been offered. Hopefully we will have it by this weekend.

Ms Bell: I am very pleased to hear that because I know that all the boards, over the last two years, have been asking for this economic appraisal. What I was asking was whether you had actually given these figures to the Department as well . They are quite illuminating.

Mr Cargo: The second point I was going to make was that most of the figures are already in the public domain. For example Papers 2 and 3 are taken from responses that the Department has given to MPs, or in terms of regionalization, received in reports. The left-hand set of figures were the Department’s own figures and the right-hand set of figures were the figures which came as a result of the working group’s reports. The Department is aware of all the figures. The only figures that they will not be aware of, to the best of our knowledge, will be those included in Paper 4 which are based on our assumptions if certain things happen.

Mr Curran: Could Mr Cargo develop a little bit more the implications of the split-site method of delivering the service? When he was making that point he spoke about the important assets of the buildings we already have. His chairman said they did not have a building of their own. Allowing that there is a split-site location, could he develop a little the implications for the education service in the context of reductions of staff?

Mr Topping: The first thing is that if you have the Northern Board that stretches from the Donegal Border to the Irish Sea, there is no way you can deliver services from one central site on that scale of area. So what you are talking about, I think, at some stage is looking at how the services can be delivered at local level.

I would guess that you are talking about at least two Headquarters Offices and you might be talking, for example, about our present Headquarters Offices in Omagh and in Ballymena. Now if that is the case there are major decisions for a new Northern Board to make. Are we going to have two salaries offices, one for the west and one for the east? Are we going to have two accounts offices, one for the west and one for the east? Are we going to have managers over those offices? If you have two salaries offices you have doubled the number of your middle managers. So there are all kinds of issues of that nature that a new board is going to have to address as to how the services are actually delivered and how they are managed. I think there are major implications in terms of staffing in those particular issues.

If you are talking about one salaries office, where is it going to be placed? Is it going to be in Omagh? Is there going to be a new office in Derry or is it going to be in Coleraine or is it going to be in Ballymena? Either way you are creating costs because you are moving staff either from Omagh to somewhere or from Ballymena to somewhere and there are major cost implications in that. What we have done is just to give you a taste of some of the implications. But there are regional management implications as well as to how to actually manage the service and the kind of structure you have to manage the service if there are split sites.

Mr Curran: Has there been any discussion with the Department about the implications? When we see the economic appraisal, obviously we will get the answers. Or will we? Has there been any involvement with the board in trying to arrive at any position?

Mr Topping: No, there has been no discussion that I have been involved in that would have got as far down the line as that. But obviously some of us who are maybe more concerned about the situation are actually thinking ahead as to what needs to be done.

The Chairman: The Minister was careful not to make it known that he would not make any decision, in the hope that everybody in Northern Ireland would start fighting about headquarters.

Mr Weir: I want to pick up on document 3 — the regionalization of board services. You are saying that, in these areas that were looked at, regionalization could lead to an increase in spending of £1 million to £1.2 million. As the Chairman said, this morning we got a promise that all the documentation would be provided by the Department. It would be very useful if you were able to give us the working party documentation. I found this area particularly interesting. When we were given documents from the Department of Education this morning there was a page that dealt specifically with the regionalization of services.

They could easily, from the working party figures, have provided figures to show the level of savings or otherwise. They did draw the conclusion that the regionalization in three of these areas in particular could lead to significant financial improvements. According to the working party documentation, this heavily suggests the reverse.

Mr McFarland: May I check up on the figures that you have given in paper 3 to confirm that the ones on the right-hand side are the amended ones from you, looking at Strathclyde or some other Scottish region.

Mr Topping: Are we talking about awards here?

Mr McFarland: Yes. We are talking about regionalization of board services.

Mr Cargo: I realized that I skipped through the figures fairly quickly. What we actually did was focus at one point in our presentation on the awards figures. I was fortunate to have served on the working party for awards. When the working party met, the Department suggested that we should look at the agency which had been established as a Next Steps agency in Scotland. We obtained figures from the Scottish agency. We accept that the figures may not be comparing like with like but, as far as the working party could determine, we looked at how much it cost to produce an award in the Scottish agency and then we looked at the average cost of producing an award in the five area boards.

The figure that we arrived at is in the working group’s report. That was the figure I mentioned during my presentation. What you have there on the right-hand column is the amount of additional money it would cost to regionalize the service.

Mr McFarland: But, for example on awards, does that mean that it would cost in addition between £622,000 and £674,000?

Mr Cargo: Yes, the £622,000 was the additional cost if you move to a regionalized scenario under a lead board. In other words if you put all the student awards staff, for example, in the Belfast Board, the figures arrived at when the costings were completed was that it would cost an additional £622,000. If, for example, you move to a full blown independent agency separate from the board, it would cost an additional £674,000.

You can see from the paper that the one service which actually did compare with the Department’s savings was information systems where there were savings of between £30,000 and £70,000. This is slightly less than the Department’s estimated savings. But at least there were savings.

Mr McFarland: We have a document that we understood was from the reports of the working party. If you look at the figures I think you will find that under architects, purchasing and information services, the amounts are the same.

Mr Cargo: Yes.

Mr McFarland: The awards figure that we have — and the total with which Mr Carvill agreed this morning — is nearly £0.5 million. But that includes grants and awards. The working party’s grants and awards figure of £126,000 is slightly different from £622,000 — in fact, £0.5 million worth of difference. That is quite a discrepancy. Similarly, the other internal audit and legal figures are different, but not to the same degree. Why should there be a £0.5 million difference in what purports to be the same document?

The Chairman: Could these have been done at different times?

Mr McFarland: I am confused. We need to be sure that what we were using as our base was correct.

Rev Derek Poots: Maybe we could throw a bit of light on it.

Ms Bell: What is the source of this paper?

Mr McFarland: It is from our own sources. We understood that it was fairly independent.

Rev Derek Poots: I was under the impression that it was a Department of Education document.

The Chairman: I was informed that these were bona fide figures, and I have no reason to doubt them. That is why I have circulated them . They were the basis of a question this morning placed by Mr McFarland.

Mr McFarland: Mr Carvill agreed.

The Chairman: Mr Carvill agreed. I am now recirculating them to have the thing verified. If we are working on the wrong premise, we are going to reach the wrong conclusions.

Mr Topping: I think that is very reasonable, Mr Chairman. Maybe the way we could deal with this is to give you our copies of the reports and we could give you a written response explaining the difference you have identified.

The Chairman: A written response — brief and succinct.

Mr Topping: We are known for that in North Eastern Board, Mr Chairman.

Mr McFarland: You made some play of the delay and uncertainty threatening morale. Would you support the view that if the Department were going ahead with this, the logic is that they should implement it as soon as possible?

Rev Derek Poots: I think the answer would be, as soon as possible consistent with good practice. If you look back to the time when the present board system was constituted — I am talking from what I have heard others say — I believe it is true that some staff went home on Friday night not knowing if they would have a job, or where they were to go, on Monday morning. We most certainly would not want to encourage a similar practice when this happens. We are deeply concerned with the children within our board area but the staff are employees. Therefore, yes, I would like the Minister, if he is intent on going ahead, to remove uncertainty as soon as possible so that there could be at least consistent planning and people could have an opportunity to think ahead. But the implementation, yes, as fast as is consistent with good practice.

Mr McFarland: It is refreshing. Sometimes people will use morale just as an argument.

Mr Topping: May I elaborate on what the Chairman said because obviously morale is an issue. I think there is another issue and that is that those of us who work and serve in the education service have a great desire to see our education service maintained to the highest possible level. That is why we are so concerned about this decision because we do not think it is the best decision for the education service in the province. So I would add to what our Chairman has said in that not only do we want to get on with it — if that is the decision — but we also want to make sure that the decision is right in the first place.

Mr Stoker: Is your vision for education that the councils in each board area should accept more responsibility, with a downgraded role for the Department of Education?

Mr Topping: No, I do not think that necessarily follows. We would see the Department playing a different role from the role it is playing now. We would like to see a Department that is much more strategically focused. What is happening at the moment is that it is very much a hands-on Department unlike the Departments in England, Wales and Scotland. We would like to see a Department that delegates to local people the responsibility for that local service within a strategic framework so that we know exactly where we are and how to handle things. But that would be left to local people then to adapt the general strategy for the local needs of that area.

Rev Derek Poots: May I add, without being unduly critical, that in recent years I think the Department has probably shown that it is not particularly expert in local management. A number of big schemes came from the Department, boards were not consulted until the tail-end of it all and the result was that a number of those schemes had to be gone back on or at least rethought.

Mr Stoker: That is what I am getting at. You feel that the boards can probably take on more of an administration role, thus saving money in the Department?

Rev Derek Poots: I have no doubt at all that the boards have the expertise in the delivery at local level in a way that a more remote department does not have.

The Chairman: This is something that we have discussed. The Department has indicated the things that have moved this way or that. Of course, this is part of the diminution of responsibilities.

Could you put on an A4 sheet your responsibilities and the Department’s responsibilities, where they come from and where they have gone, so that we may see through all this cloud. We have been told that the boards are now doing a massive amount less than they used to do. Or maybe that is how it was meant to sound. I could be wrong in my interpretation. We want to make our decisions on the basis of good practice — not on the basis of somebody’s report.

Mr Sloan: If I could just reiterate what I said, the Department seems to be very good at taking decisions, telling people to do things and then walking away and leaving it to the boards and schools to actually implement decisions which far too often have been poorly thought out.

Rev Derek Poots: Mr Chairman, I am sure it is implicit in what you are asking us to do and we will be delighted to comply. We will show not only what has moved and in what direction but also the increased responsibility that has devolved to boards as a result of delegation to schools.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: A counterargument that I would like to put to you is that a number of the boards are suggesting argumentation about job losses. But the ELBs do not exist to give employment so you cannot use job losses, or the threat of them, as an argument for keeping boards.

Mr Topping: If I could maybe answer that. I do not think that we used that argument. Maybe it came across in that way but we certainly did not mean it to. The whole purpose of education administration — and that is why I started off by trying to explain what education administration is — is to plan and deliver services to the schools; in other words the children are our first priority even though we are maybe one step removed from them. Nevertheless we see our functions as being essential to ensure that those children get the best possible education. I used this term before — to create a conducive atmosphere in which the education process can take place.

In order to do that you need well motivated staff whose eyes are not off the ball in terms of a review or of the future of their employment. You need staff who are concentrating on their work. I would pay tribute to our staff who have consistently maintained high quality services at a difficult time. That is what we meant about low morale and about the argument for keeping morale up so that we can provide services to the schools and ultimately to the children.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: Given the duplication that we are constantly reminded of is there is not an argument for having one board to administer everything?

Mr Topping: Yes there is; I accepted in what I said that there was an argument. If you take the criteria, or the principles, and argue that the major principle is going to be finance then the best way to do it is probably through one board. But if you say we want local people involved and democracy as far as possible in our service. If you say we want local people deciding on local needs and the involvement of all the community then you could be arguing for ten boards. So it is where that balance lies between those two extremes on the continuum. We believe, perhaps for pragmatic reasons if nothing else, that the structure of the five boards at the moment is a very good structure on which to base our services. As a scale it is large enough to reap the economy but small enough not to lose the individuality and the personal relationships.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: The comparable LEA in England which was used was Bedfordshire. What do you know of Bedfordshire? What information would allow the department to say that there should be three boards in Northern Ireland?

The Chairman: It is not quite used like that but to achieve bench-marking, as it was seen as being approximate to ourselves. But I am not too sure, if I wanted to bench-mark something I would go to the people who are doing it.

Mr Fowler: I worked in public service and have been involved in nationalization, privatization, nationalization again and privatization again. Each time I got an increase in salary and everyone around me seemed to receive the same.

If you look at the health service, the same thing has happened there. In last week’s ‘Belfast Telegraph’ there was a comment about a gentleman who had received in the region of £300,000 by way of a retirement present. Is that kind of thing not also on the minds of some of your colleagues who may be knocking on the retirement door?

The Chairman: Can you rephrase the question, Mr Fowler? How many people are going to get £300,000?

Mr Sloan: Mr Chairman, if that happened there would be such an outcry from the schools here which are at the moment being seriously deprived of money.

Mr Sloan: Maybe the health service might not be as vociferous as some of the teacher trade unions.

Mr Cargo: There is an underlying point in relation to Mr Fowler’s statements. If the officers of the boards were interested in pursuing this or “feathering their own nests” many of them would, or could, be promoting a three or one-board model. I am sure you have not had officers here today promoting those options, but saying that from a community point of view — and it is reinforcing the point the chief executive made — that the area boards operate successfully at two levels. We are one of the few bodies left in Northern Ireland at this moment in time which demonstrates both political and local accountability in all that it does. As an officer I work in an environment where each month I have to give account of my stewardship and how I performed in my job to an elected body at a public meeting.

As officers we are saying five boards work. We are comfortable with them and are not supporting a reconstructed three-boards scenario simply to achieve what Mr Fowler has suggested.

Mr Fowler: I was interested in page 4 of your submission where you refer to the disturbance allowance. I drew this for four years. It looks like the four year period is now the standard. This is an expense that DENI does not seem to have considered at all as £2 million will have disappeared in a few months.

Mr Hussey: You seem to be suggesting that there are thoughts in your minds of forward planning. One of the things that has been said to DENI is that the Western Board will cease to exist. Their argument back to us is that all five boards will cease to exist.

Is it your view that if all boards cease it will be a clean sheet all round with regard to officer positions?

Mr Topping: The way I understand it is that five boards are being wiped out and three boards are being created. However officers have certain rights and some of those rights are related to what is called TUPE - Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment Regulations. As I understand it many of the those employees would therefore transfer because their jobs transfer to the new authorities. One of the issues that has not been discussed in any detail is how that transfer will take place and what exactly are their rights. There seems to be a fair amount of discussion that needs to go on in that respect. I would have thought that if this happens then the unions would have to be closely involved because many of their members will be affected by this. If it is to be successful then there would need to be some kind of agreement with the unions before anything happens. In response to the question that I was asked by Mr Weir, I said that we had been doing a bit of thinking about the implications of this, if it happened, and they are quite serious in terms of finance and jobs for individuals, and where they might actually be working.

Mr Hussey: Are you implying that you have done some costings on transfers?

Mr Topping: No, we have done no costings other than what you have seen.

Mr Hussey: As a practitioner I am situated in the left-hand side of what might become the Northern Board area. Are you suggesting that the new Northern Board will require a two-site headquarters?

Mr Topping: The only thing I would say is that a new Northern Board of that size will need at least two local offices; but that would be a matter for the new Northern Board to decide. That is just my personal opinion. If you are going to deliver services effectively they would need to be organized on a more local base than from say Magherafelt, which is right in the centre.

Rev Derek Poots: Even from the point of view of schools two sites at the very minimum are required and possibly more. Because if a principal needs advice for an architectural service it is going to dissipate even more of their time and take them out of school for longer periods if they have to travel long distances to get answers to questions.

Mr Hussey: I am inclined to agree. It would be quite a drive from Castlederg to wherever. I speak as one who actually works there.

A final question on the administration costs of your various areas of responsibility. Obviously the board has areas of responsibility other than schools, for example the library and youth services. DENI are putting forward the benefits of the £2 million savings and suggesting that these will have an effect on schools. They mentioned 88 extra primary schoolteachers. Given the administrative costs that would be involved in other areas of responsibility do you agree that even if there was a £2 million saving there is no way this would be a direct benefit to schools?

Mr Sloan: Even if there was a £2 million saving — which is highly unlikely — the direct impact on an individual school would be negligible.

Rev Derek Poots: Across the board.

Mr Sloan: It may buy an extra exercise book — that may be the height of it.

Mr Hussey: Would it be possible for your board to give us the administrative costs for the various functions?

Mr Sloan: In the board area?

Mr Topping: Do you mean under certain headings?

Mr Hussey: Under the main headings — schools, libraries, et cetera.

Mr Topping: The main areas.

The Chairman: The list that you have already produced — the areas of responsibility.

Mr Topping: This is not a problem. In fact it is in our annual report which we publish every year.

Mr Cargo: I am conscious of time. If I could just make one quick point to follow up on something Mr Hussey said. I think it is important to remember that, while the Department may be taking the decisions on reorganisation, each of the education and library boards are currently independent employers and all staff will be affected by the decision. Under the TUPE regulations and under the rights that employees have, if they are moving from a current employer, which for example may be the North Eastern Board into a Northern Board, there is a whole process which needs to be gone through. Even though your school may be in the Ballymena area and you are still remaining in that school, your actual employer changes, so every employee in education in the five boards is affected and subject to TUPE. If the boards do not handle this correctly there is obviously the possibility of a European Court case against one of the existing employers. That is one of the concerns we have in relation to the whole staffing area.

Mr McFarland: I am curious about the level of communication between yourselves and the Department. If I were working in a company I would normally expect, as a department head or whatever, to see my managing director at regular intervals. He and I would talk over problems, as I would with other department heads. How often do you get together for a meeting with the Department of Education? It has surprised me right throughout that there does not seem to be close communication and a warm relationship between the education and library boards and the Department. You depend on each other. You service them and they service you. There should be toing and froing of ideas. The one thing that seems to be coming to me is that there is virtually no discussion of any of these things before they actually happen. It is as if the organization sits on high and every so often flings a tablet of wisdom at you. Is this a wrong assessment?

Rev Derek Poots: I would only debate the word “wisdom” in certain cases.

Mr Sloan: Certainly from the schools point of view that is very much the case. There is no consultation — or very little — and quite often any consultation that there is is a sham.

Mr McFarland: Is that between you and the boards?

Mr Sloan: No, between the schools and the Department.

Mr McFarland: I am thinking in terms of the chain of command between the school and the board and between the board and the Department.

Mr Topping: I think a number of significant things have actually happened over the last few years. There has always been a healthy tension between the Department and the boards. I think in the past, prior to 1989, that tension was, on the whole, constructive. Since 1989 a number of things have happened which have made that tension rather less constructive. For example, at times decisions have been made and then they have had to be reversed. I could cite to you many of those but I will not waste your time doing it. However, these, I think, needed much closer working between the Department, the boards and the schools.

The other thing that has happened is that since that the announcement was made — and I will say a bit about the announcement in a minute — there have been, I think, four or five meetings on this. I am not sure that they have been all that productive but certainly meetings on this with officers of the Department have taken place.

I think you are quite right that many of the things that happen, happen suddenly and without any warning. For example, the Chairman and I were called to a dinner on the 24th to be told that the announcement was being made the next morning and that there would be three boards instead of five. The Minister had been invited on two occasions to launch our strategic plan and a new corporate logo on the same day. The strategic plan was to take us into the next century. So while we were launching a five-year plan, an announcement was being made to say we no longer existed. I think that is indicative of the relations.

Rev Derek Poots: May I simply add that it is one of the things about which I have considerably strong feelings. I have now served on the Northern Eastern Board for some fifteen years with approximately ten or so in the Chair.I think it is true to say that there has been an increasing tendency to deliver directives and plans without any great consultation. It seemed to me that there was a much closer working relationship though, as the Chief Executive has said, sometimes in tension but in a much healthier tension.

We have also sometimes laughed at the fact that policy documents that require consultation seem to come down about the last week in June when everything is slowing down and schools are going off. First of all, it is not a good time of year for consultation but secondly, the period that is allowed for constructive consultation is very short. So I think, Mr Chairman, that Mr McFarland’s comment is very perceptive.

The Chairman: I do not want to add anything to what has been said. We appreciate the sincerity and frankness with which you put across your case.

Thank you for your time and for your efforts.

Rev Derek Poots: Mr Chairman, may I thank you for the integrity of your comments and to say that as a board we will pledge ourselves either as officers or board members to assist the Forum in every way we can as it deliberates this very difficult issue.

NORTHERN IRELAND FORUM

__________

EDUCATION COMMITTEE

Tuesday 24 September 1996

_____________

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

on

EDUCATION ADMINISTRATION

_____________

Witnesses:

Mr A McKelvey, Mr G Kelly, Ms M Alexander and Sister Olive McConville

(Southern Education and Library Board)

The Chairman: Good afternoon, Ladies and Gentlemen. You are very welcome to the Northern Ireland Forum and its Education Committee. We suggested you might want to make a short presentation and then allow time for some questions. I am in your hands.

Mr McKelvey: Thank you very much for receiving us this afternoon. I shall introduce the panel. At the end is Sister Olive McConville, a teacher, and Vice-Chairman of the board. Then we have Ms Maura Alexander, chairman of the education committee and also principal of Canal Primary School, and Gerry Kelly, the Chief Executive. My name is Archie McKelvey. I am the Chairman of the board, and my background is further education. Each of us will make a short presentation, and we will do our best to answer any questions. I am aware that other delegations have been with you, so perhaps you have heard quite a lot of this previously.

Now, at the Southern Education and Library Board meeting held on 18 July the members unanimously reaffirmed support for the five-board model administration. It it was unanimous, there was no question about that. Now we challenge the assertion that the education service in Northern Ireland is over administered. I think the work done by Roy Beggs, MP established that this was not the case. In the league table we were about 75% up, so that particular argument can be dispensed with.

Think about how the health service is administered in Northern Ireland — at least the boards have a democratic basis and provide a service which is accessible. There is widespread support for the retention of the current system. I was at a seminar in preparation for the local government conference which will be held on Thursday, and we had officials from the various Departments there. An official from the Department of the Environment was preaching to us that if the district councils were to get together and make a solid case to the Department, perhaps they would get powers back. I pointed out to them that all the Churches, all 26 district councils and almost all the political parties supported the five-board model, yet it looked as if the Minister was going to ignore them all. I did not get any answer from the gentleman. The claim that £2 million will be saved has not been substantiated — no business case backed by an appraisal has been presented, and we have been unable to obtain information to support that claim. When we went on a delegation to the Minister this was raised, but we could get no support for the claim about £2 million.

We very much doubt whether it is realistic to think of claiming savings, if we could say a few words about this. Now we know that savings must be made by the administration and our board has been making savings. Over the past three years we have made a total saving of £440,000 in administration ourselves. We can continue to work for even greater efficiency, but the proposed reorganization will only disrupt our efficiency programme and lead to additional unproductive spending.

So, consider what would happen with the amalgamation of the three boards: the only way that we really could save money is by jobs — there is no question about it. So there will be redundancies, but it is a known fact that no savings are made with redundancies for at least two years. That is a well established fact. There will also probably be an enhancement for early retirement and relocation expenses. It could be four to five years before any savings are made. Our board’s budget is £200 million, and we are talking about saving £2 million in total from all over Northern Ireland. It is totally unrealistic to cause disruption to the service for that amount, and there will be total disruption to the service, there is no question about it.

For the first year or two, if the Minister goes ahead with the three-board proposal, there will be disruption. This is what the education service does not need — disruption is the enemy of efficient service.

Mr Kelly: Mr Chairman, in our written submission to you we referred to the fact that the Minister bases his case on the reduced role of boards following education reform, and this has been the constant argument that has been used since this process of review was initiated by Jeremy Hanley. In fact, in his document ‘Educational Administration in Northern Ireland’ it states on page 6

“the crucial factor in promoting the review and defining the context for it is the transfer of responsibilities brought about by education reforms.”

Now, one point I want to make very strongly is that there has been no real advance in thinking from that statement to the minister’s final paper in which he announced his decision because he simply says on page 2 of his document ‘Review of Administration’

“I do not believe that any convincing educational or administrative reasons have been put forward which would rule out a reduction in the number of boards.”

He goes on to say that the administrative structure is over elaborate, but in between those two documents there is no evidence of any attempt by the Department to ask radical questions about what the role of an intermediate tier of administration might be and what value it might add. All we have is the repeated assertion that the present system is over elaborate, that money can be saved. These are unsupported assertions, as the Chairman has pointed out.

Secondly, our board believes that there is a change in its role, and Mrs Alexander will go into some detail on that from the point of view of the schools. But while the role has certainly changed, and changes each year, it is a change but not a reduction, and we find that in practice the schools and the general public, as a result of education reform, demand more from the local board not less in terms of special education, grants and awards, the many ancillary services and also the training, support and advice that schools look to us for.

Education reform and other legislation have made life a great deal more complex for people and for institutions, and we need more and closer and better support, not less.

Our board did recognize that its changed role created an opportunity to re-examine radically this intermediate tier, and in our first submission in 1993 we put forward what we believed was a radical restructuring of that tier which was intended to make it more inclusive to bring in all the different types of schools and styles of management, while respecting their distinctive ethos.

We highlighted the need for an independent advocate within our education system between the Department and an individual school. There is definitely a need for a strong voice to express and articulate the needs of the school and its corporate concerns.

Members, I am sure, will remember the distress of so many teachers when education reform was first brought in. It was obviously far too burdensome and the curriculum far too heavy at that time. It was to the boards that many teachers looked for advocacy and support, and there is still a need for an independent voice close to the chalk face, but sufficiently organized to be strong, to act for the schools.

The Chairman has referred to the risk of disruption to the service. As an employee of the board, that looms very large in my mind. If the Minister goes ahead with his proposals, we will look forward to a period of years, certainly three years, perhaps longer, when there will be absolutely unprecedented disruption and when it will be extremely difficult to maintain the service to the public and to the schools.

Board officers are, understandably, preoccupied about their own futures, about where they are going to be working and what job they will have — will they have a job? — and, it is impossible to expect people to maintain the existing level of service, to participate in the planning of totally new structures, and to do all that at the same time as many other changes, information systems and new legislation are being imposed. I would be very apprehensive about the difficulty of maintaining the quality of service.

I would like to leave with you copies of that part of our board’s original submission which put forward an alternative model. If you have time to read it, you will find that it is radical, that it does try to bring about a real enhancement of the contribution that boards do make. There are many things in it which may not commend themselves to individual members, but it was an attempt which nobody else, I believe, made to look radically at the new situation. That is all I would like to say.

Ms Alexander: Mr Chairman, I would like to take up Mr Kelly's point about Mr Hanley's document. It was envisaged at that time that, when LMS and LMC became fully implemented there would be a large move of administration from the boards to the schools. Indeed, that has been the case to some extent, but not to the extent that was envisaged.

In the Southern Board we have many small schools whose budget and finance were only partly delegated, and they have only recently become fully delegated. Those schools need a lot of support from the board. They know the officers involved, and if they think they are running into problems, they can ring those people up and have direct access to them.

They can, at the moment, say to the board officer concerned with the running of their school “Look, if you see I am running into difficulties, will you throw me out a red flag so that I know to look at my budget again and make economies?” If the board becomes larger, that personal service will not be available and many of our schools, but especially our small schools, will suffer from that lack of support.

In the current education system we have a lack of adequate finance, and from what we are hearing that is going to become worse. Principals, therefore, need to be well trained in redundancy procedures and employment law, because mistakes made in those areas are very, very costly to the boards concerned.

The transfer appeal tribunals are not diminishing as the new transfer test settles in. In fact, in some areas they are increasing and our own board spends a considerable amount of time during the summer-holiday period dealing with those transfer appeals. Schools are not trained to do that. We need the board officers and we need a board officer whom we can relate to and say exactly why we made our decisions.

The suspension and expulsion of pupils is an ever increasing problem and I cannot see that easing off in any way. It is a matter that everybody has to have his paperwork right about, and if you are involved in any of the committees that deal with this, you will see the large amount of paperwork that schools and the board officers produce to support us at those tribunals.

The Children's Order, comes into effect on the 4 November. It is impossible for schools to deal with everything that the Children's Order requires of us. I, for example, will not be able to guarantee that the list of people with parental responsibility is correct. I will try to get it correct, but I will not know if it is correct. I do not know how to write a report that will be required in the court for that particular time and will be required within the very short period of something like three weeks. So I am depending on my board officers to show me what I need, and I am only one principal. There is constant ongoing training — every new initiative has training.

Quickly following the Children's Order we are going to be landed with the code of practice for children with special educational needs. Now, the schools manage the first two stages on their own, but once we come to stage three, the boards automatically become involved. Open enrolment, curriculum appeals — all these things require officer input.

The demands upon school principals has increased dramatically, and especially upon teaching principals who have an almost total full class commitment. What makes it possible for me to fulfil this role is the knowledge that I can lift the phone, ask for a specific officer if I have a specific problem and immediately my burden is shared. Without this immediate help, situations can get out of control. I need to know the officer that I want to contact. I need to have direct and immediate access to him because my problems are immediate. My parents’ problems are immediate; they cannot wait until next week, I have to deal with them today.

I was trained to teach. I have acquired certain administrative skills over the years, but I shall never be able to acquire all the legal knowledge that I need to support the decisions I have made and to give advice to my board of governors in dealing with all these new initiatives. I need the support of my board officers, and not only do I need their knowledge of the proper procedures for each of these areas but I need their understanding — just knowing that I do not stand alone sometimes helps. I need a personal relationship with these board officers.

I fear that an enlarged board will mean that I am either denied this direct access to the officers because they will have so many more schools to deal with, or that the only person I will get immediate access to is their personal assistant, and that is no good to me. I need another professional to give me advice.

Sister McConville: When we come to talk about the changes that the Minister has proposed I am reminded of a statement by the 16th Century writer Montaigne who said that “In public affairs there is no system so bad, provided it has age and stability on its side, that is not preferable to disturbance.” It is the aspect of stability that I would like to focus on this afternoon with regard to the five boards.

As my colleagues have already pointed out, the boards have been in existence for nearly a quarter of a century and during that time they have been a forum for local democracy. They have been responsive to local needs and local opinion and have been characterized by accessibility. And it is in this particular context that we value most the influence that the boards have had because we have lived through more than a quarter of a century of conflict and civil unrest in this province, and I do not need to remind the members of the Forum about that. And what is more, we have experienced at least a decade of upheaval and change in the education system with the reforms, the changes in the curriculum and the various other changes in the administration of our schools.

The boards have been the single most stable and stabilizing factor in Northern Ireland throughout this long period of unrest and change. This is due in no small measure to the cross-community dimension of the boards and to the great and significant contribution they have made to good community relationships and to the cause of reconciliation and peace. I know that the Forum’s particular concern is to promote peace and reconciliation, and it is in that particular context that I would like to say something about how the boards have managed to do this.

The boards have been a leaven in our society. In meetings and committees they have created forums where people with diverse views have been able to work together to pursue common interests in causes. They have developed acquaintances and an understanding of one another and respect for one another

which could not have been achieved in any other way. I speak as a member of a religious congregation, probably the first and maybe still the only nun who has served in an education and library board in the North of Ireland, and I have always found it a very worthwhile and enriching experience. As a nun I have shared platforms with people of every shade of religious and political persuasion and worked together with them in every sort of working party and every kind of committee and panel. So much understanding has been achieved in that particular way, and we must remember that contribution.

Moreover, as employers the boards have been more successful than any other part of the public service in creating integrated and balanced work-forces in their work with schools, youth groups and different kinds of groups. They have multiplied opportunities for people from different backgrounds and different sectors of society to work together and to get to know one another, and the value of all of this in creating social stability can never actually be estimated. The Minister’s proposals are going to be very disruptive of this particular role. They are calculated to set communities at odds with one another and to create conflict and struggles for power. Already tensions are rising, and there are arguments about boundaries and territories, about locations for headquarters and locations for various services. There are the fears that Mr Kelly has already spoken of about jobs, and all of that is contributing to massive unrest and great insecurity among the work-forces of the boards and also among principals and managers in schools because they have valued the accessibility of the boards. As Mrs Alexander has said, they have been able to rely on their local board officers for assistance, guidance and support. The

Western Board principals and managers in particular feel that they are going to. be very isolated and very alienated from the centre of things, so I ask: is it really prudent or fair to subject Northern Ireland to further upheaval and further disruption having lived for over a quarter of a century with so much disruption? Having been a member of an education and library board now for almost twelve years and a teacher for over 25 years, I can see no educational or economic advantage in trading a sound and valued five-board system for a potentially less effective, less stable and much less acceptable three-board model.

Mr McKelvey: Should the Minister go ahead with the three-board model, according to his plan, Omagh and Fermanagh District Council areas would be joining the Southern Board. This would double the land mass of the present Southern Board. As Mrs Alexander has pointed out, good administration demands a support service that is readily available and not remote. This land mass would mean that we would have to have local offices, and that would mean additional costs, again reducing the savings that the Minister would like.

The Chairman: May I ask you to give us on an A4 page just the headings that each of you dealt with. I want you to put on that A4 page when this whole thing started rumbling around, what were the Boards doing? What have you given away? What have you taken on? Things are always changing.

Mr Kelly, I am delighted to hear that you have something fairly radical to offer by way of a suggested model.

Mr Fowler: The panel made reference to the £2 million that they would expect to save. Do you think that that is the purpose behind the change — saving money?

Mr McKelvey: Well, the Minister keeps on emphasizing this possible saving of £2 million. He talks about reducing administration. Well, reducing the administration would be an attempt to save money, but he has produced no argument that the three-board scenario would be any more efficient than the five-board scenario. The saving of £2 million is the only point he has emphasized. And we told him at a deputation that we are quite sure that the boards could save £2 million without all the disruption of going to the three-board model. Our board has saved £440,000 in the last three years on administration costs alone.

The Chairman: In other words, it does not matter how many boards you have. You still prefer the five-board model?

Mr McKelvey: Yes.

The Chairman: This whole financial thing — has the Department ever given you figures?

Mr McKelvey: But even if the Minister did produce figures that would show a saving of £2 million, that is such a small percentage of the total education budget that we would argue against the disruption it would cause in the service.

Mr Fowler: I too worked in a public service, and I was disrupted. It cost my employers four years' disturbance allowance, which I understand would be repeated in this case. So the £2 million is a weak argument. The Southern Education and Library Board is not going to be reduced; it is going to be expanded. Does the Southern Board really have very much to worry about?

Mr McKelvey: Even with that our staff are worried, as Mr Kelly said. There are going to be fewer senior officers. With five boards you have five sets of senior officers and with three boards they will have to be reduced. Perhaps further down the scale there will not be the same problems, but there will be at a senior level. Our concern is the quality of administration. As I pointed out, the addition of Omagh and Fermanagh will double the land mass of the Southern Board. That has got to make it more remote and much more difficult to administer. The ready accessibility of the service is important to the schools as Mrs Alexander has said. Someone in Fermanagh does not want to wait for a week for someone to come and talk from the headquarters in Armagh. You need people on the ground locally to support the service. As Mrs Alexander said, the parents and teachers want answers today, not in a week's time.

Mr Kelly: The present Southern Board is going to be abolished under the Minister's proposals just as much as any other board.

The Chairman: In other words, there are three new boards.

Mr Kelly: Three new boards, and whoever is to be responsible for operating a new board will have to be absolutely impartial with regard to the various parts of former boards that were amalgamated to form it, so the people who presently work for the Southern Board have no particular sense of security or feeling that they are intact. They are just as much at risk as the people who work for the present Western Board.

Mr Fowler: I wasn't thinking so much of the individual as of the concept of the board. The board would still be there, managing education in that area.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: You accept that there is an overlap between the five Boards? If there is an overlap, does it not make sense to rationalize?

Mr Kelly: I am not sure that I accept the word “overlap”. Each board discharges similar functions for its area, but there is not, in any true sense of the word, an overlap.

The Chairman: Mr Kirkland is probably meaning duplication rather than overlap.

Mr Kelly: There is room in some areas of administration for a bit of streamlining. For example, we could develop further the use of common contracts for supplies and materials; we could streamline the formulae, by which money is allocated to schools. I find it difficult to argue that you need five absolutely distinct formulae, because I do not think there is such a wide range of diversity within Northern Ireland. There is room for some streamlining which could be and ought to be pursued within our existing structure.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: Does that not actually argue against having five boards? If there is room for streamlining in some areas, is it not possible to streamline all of it? I would take you back to Mrs Alexander's argument — that it is not just a question of the policies and the processes and procedures that you have; it is a question of the actual operation of administration that she has so vividly described. How many small schools are there in the southern area. You mentioned a couple of times that they have a large number of small schools. How many small schools do you have in comparison to other boards?

Ms Alexander: If we incorporate Fermanagh for example, we are going to be increasing the number of small schools that we have because the Western and Southern Boards combined have the greatest number of small schools in Northern Ireland. We would actually be increasing the burden of small schools and that has training implications and everything else, given the distance that trainers are going to have to travel. If this system is going to work, it is not going to do to duplicate — and this is what you are talking about — services in Armagh and Omagh or elsewhere.

There is going to have to be one centre where trainers are accommodated. Trainers are going to have to go out from that centre, and that is going to be costly because of the distance and travelling time involved. Before I joined the board I used to think that the officers had a great time on the board and that maybe I would like to be a board officer. But, having been a member of the board and seen the workload those officers have — they cannot cope with any more work, and if more work is piled upon them, the service to the schools is going to be very poor. That is why I said in my submission that I am very worried that I will not have access to these officers, and my job demands that I do have access to them.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: Would it be possible for you, when replying to us, to write down any small schools you have?

Ms Alexander: Yes.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: What effect would they have? How many new small schools would you get in this new proposal?

This whole area about community relations — is it not a red herring? This is just a side issue thrown in in order to defend this whole five-board system.

Sister McConville: No, I do not accept that. Whatever form the boards take in the future, I hope that the people on them will do their best to work together for the good of all the young people and the people of Northern Ireland generally. I do think that tensions are very evident because what is likely to happen is that the whole administration of education is going to become much more politicized. That will result from the increased number of representatives from district councils, and you are going to have the usual struggles for chairmanships et cetera. If we are going to preserve the degree of stability that we have in the education system, I really think it would be desirable to keep the five-board system rather than have all the struggle for territory that there is going to be, whether a headquarters is located in Armagh or Omagh, or whether there is to be a centre in Downpatrick, or whatever. That will certainly not help our community relations.

Mr Bolton: My questions are, in the same vein as those of my colleagues. You do own your headquarters in Armagh?

Mr McKelvey: Yes, we do.

Mr Bolton: You are not a tenant in any other place?

Mr McKelvey: No.

Mr Bolton: You feel that from there you could not adequately administer the proposed area?

Mr Kelly: Think of the distance. It would stretch practically from Newcastle, certainly from beyond Kilkeel, away down the Clogher Valley almost to the Atlantic Ocean, within a mile or two of the Atlantic. I cannot conceive that you could meet the needs of the schools, particularly in Fermanagh, and give them the kind of immediacy of support that Mrs Alexander has said they need, operating from Armagh. If that were attempted, you would have an administration which would undoubtedly be remote and bureaucratic and from which schools would feel alienated.

Mr Bolton: The question on small schools — which criteria will you be using when you reply to Mr Kirkland? As you know the primary number was raised from about 32 to 60 pupils in the Department's estimation. Secondary is now 300. Are those acceptable to you in your area?

Mr Kelly: Our reply will probably identify schools with an enrolment below 56. In practice we find that schools with enrolments below that number are not financially viable and require special financial support. One of our current problems is that the larger schools, coming under financial pressure. themselves, are increasingly impatient about what they see as their subsidy to. small schools, so we definitely have statistics to answer Mr Kirkland's question, based on schools with an enrolment below 56.

Mr McFarland: It sounds as if we are all having a go at you. We are not. It is just that we need to be absolutely sure that the arguments being used are valid. We will only win this argument, whichever one is right, through hard facts and reality. I am slightly worried about two particular areas that you have based your reasoning on.

One is this business that the level of advice and support you get will suffer because we have a few more schools. I can understand you need this advice, and it is obviously critical. You had to build up rapport with the people you are dealing with on the boards. But it could be argued that, for example, anyone coming on to a board is going to have to do it with the heads. If the head changes, the head is going to have do that with the board. That re-establishment of relationship is going to have to take place. I find it difficult to believe that this suddenly is going to leave you and you are not going to be able to pick up a phone and talk to somebody. I do not think the Boards will allow that to happen. Certainly they would not want it to happen, and I should not think the heads will want it to happen. If your people want a relationship to go on, it will go on very well indeed.

Mr McKelvey: You can provide a total level of service provided that you have the finance. But by enlarging the area you are making it more difficult for those officers to give that service.

Mr McFarland: I was talking about advice — the question you brought up.

Mr McKelvey: It is not just a question of lifting the phone.

Sister McConville: No.

Mr McKelvey: You lift the phone to get the officer, but the officer may have to come along and deal with the teachers. A principal may not want help just for herself, she may want support for some of her teachers.

Sister McConville: Or governors.

Mr McKelvey: Or governors, and it is not just a question of phoning.

Mr Kelly: The present Western Board has developed a very successful and highly valued system of pastoral care, which I must say we look at not with any envy but with admiration, and I imagine that a new board covering that area would want to extend that system throughout its boundaries. Now that depends on having officers who are personally known to a group of schools, who have a responsibility to maintain this rapport, and our point reallyis that yes, of course we can do as you have suggested. And a new board would want to do it. But the costs of doing it would wipe away any promised savings.

Mr McFarland: But in terms of distance, you mean?

Mr Kelly: Yes, you can overcome the problems of distance in various ways. But if you are locating people away from the board headquarters, you are increasing the costs of travelling and accommodation et cetera.

Mr McFarland: But, as I understand it, this business of a dual headquarters has not yet been promulgated.

Ms Alexander: It is a fact that the number of education officers will be reduced for an increasing number of schools because we are not going to take on board all the education officers of the Southern Board and all the education officers of the Western Board. So there is going to be a reduction in the number of education officers to deal with the same problems but in a larger number of schools. That is the point I was trying to make to you. That is where the difficulty will arise. We are in a position now where we are finding it difficult at certain times of the year, like transfer procedure time, like open enrolment time, and there are other problem times. We are finding it difficult at the moment to get the officers, and I am really concerned for my own school and my own colleagues that if a smaller number of education officers are serving a larger number of schools, it will become more difficult.

Mr McFarland: It is obviously something we can check with DENI when they come back to us. Presumably they will have done some study into this to indicate that there is a degree of fat in the system, that if they do take out an entire board or part of a board, the remaining staff in the new boards will be able to cope with the level of requirement and support.

Mr McKelvey: What they will probably tell you is that LMS will devolve more power to the schools, so the board will have less input, but that is not the case. The input has changed, the requirements of the schools have changed. And now, because of the legislation, as Mrs Alexander said, when a principal or vice principal is to be appointed, the board of governors want a board officer there to guide them through the appointment, because it can be a very costly minefield if you make a mistake.

Sister McConville: There will not be the same continuity, they will not necessarily be the same board officers. It will be new for everybody.

Mr McFarland: Yes, I appreciate that. I am a bit worried about the distance issue. This is the present board structure. The headquarters of the Western Board, for example, is in Omagh. If I were principal in Bellarena Primary I would feel that that was far indeed. Anybody up in this whole northern sector is quite far away. Take the new model. You could argue that from Ballymena to anywhere in this northern area is not as far as that. If you are travelling from Armagh to Roslea, for example, or if you are trying to go down the Clogher Valley, it is longer. I would argue Warrenpoint to you is further away than Roslea and Newtownbutler. We need to be slightly circumspect. If we are going to win the battle we need hard facts. There is a danger that we are bringing factors in that can be easily dismissed. That worries me slightly, emphasizing the fact that it is further away, when in fact most of the work is done on the phone anyway, and those who do go out to visit will not be much more disadvantaged than under the five-board system.

Mr McKelvey: Could we get back to the phone again. What sort of work is not done on the phone?

Sister McConville: The initial contact is by phone.

Mr McFarland: In terms of distance, I am saying it is not as big a change as perhaps was suggested.

Ms Alexander: Well I think it is a big change. If I am going to release a teacher to go for training, or if I am going to go for training myself, I am going to travel at the moment for an hour or less to any of the teacher centres in my area. The people delivering the course have a similar distance to travel. Now, if because of finance everybody is tightening the budget, I am going to have to send a teacher to travel a long distance in the morning. The courses start at nine and finish at 3.30 or 4 o'clock. Teachers are going to be starting very early in the morning to go to a course. Trainers are going to be on the road for a long time. They are going to be sitting all day at a course and then they are going to have a good distance, an hour and a half, two hours, to travel home again if this is centralized. This is a factor that we do not know about, and training is an important part of the argument. Where is the centre of training going to be? That is another thing I worry about, because training is important, and if teachers are spending time travelling, that is costly time to the school, to the board or to whomever is paying for the travelling time. Courses will also become less beneficial because teachers will be tired, and the courses do not happen on a Friday, when you have the weekend to recover — they can happen on a Monday or a Tuesday, and then you have to go home, prepare for your class that evening and be in school teaching the children the next day. It is all these human factors that are not taken into consideration apart from the finance.

Mr McFarland: But is that a board decision as to where they hold their teacher-training days?

Mr Kelly: Yes.

Mr McFarland: Maybe, then, they are flexible. You could actually accommodate all the teachers by holding them in a particular place.

Mr Kelly: Again, we have to have very great regard to economy. Some courses are specialist courses. For example, a specialist maths course would be for a small number.

Ms Bell: In a way, Mr McFarland has taken up the point that I made. I would be concerned about making arguments for accessibility. The human factors in a lot of things do not tally. The arguments you are putting forward are straightforward. But do you really feel that they would be listened to by the Department of Education. Do you have facts to back those up? You heard, for instance, that they are reducing the number of education officers. Have you any facts to say that they will be reducing the ability to have more training sessions? Did you get any feedback from the report that you are talking about? We as a Committee need to know more.

Mr Kelly: I have had some preliminary discussions with, for example, board advisors on specialist curriculum areas. Now we cannot really get to grips with these issues without involving colleagues in the present Western Board, and, as you know, we cannot do that at the moment. But, in a very preliminary way, having had a look at problems in the music service, in, let us say, mathematics courses, which tend to be highly specialized, and in other curriculum areas, I could document to you the logistical problems that will arise and which can, of course, be addressed at a cost.

Ms Bell: Yes, that would be useful.

Ms Alexander: Each board has an Inset budget. In the Southern board this year we have started allocating an Inset budget to primary schools. Now, that will necessarily reduce the amount of days on which a principal can release a teacher to go to a training session, and that means that more courses will have to be run, from something like two to five or three to five or four to six. Again this is where timing comes in, because you cannot release that teacher. Certainly you can manage for a short time in the afternoon, but if you are taking teachers out at lunch-time to send them to a course, the parents are going to object. So because of the tightening of Inset timing — Saturdays are really a no-go area for teachers, because they need their weekends to prepare the work for Monday morning — and the problem with afternoon sessions, and because fewer people are going to be allowed to go to training during the day because of the budgeting, it is going to become more important that training centres are accessible.

Mr McAlister: I want to emphasize something. Part of what I do is restructuring of companies and management, and this is always a big problem — how to manage fear of change. None of us like change for change's sake, whether in personal circumstances or in work circumstances. Your submission has been very good, but it is going to have to be supported by facts and figures. If the Minister is going to be won over, it is going to have to be that type of argument. He is not going to worry about the general things — how people feel about change. Your arguments are very sound, but if they can be backed up with some facts and figures, that will be helpful.

Mr Kelly: If members have time to read this they will see that the Southern Board's approach was not inspired by an opposition to change. The changes that we envisaged are far more radical than anything the Minister is putting forward. The difference is that they were intended to enhance the quality of the service.

Ms Bell: Our concern is that through all the presentations we have had, there are similar arguments. They would say “What you are looking for is a perfect world, and you are not going to get that.”

Ms Alexander: There is also the legal situation in schools now. I hope none of you is a solicitor, but some solicitors are really out touting for school business, they are advertising for school business.

The Chairman: Everyone round this table is probably very well aware of what the legal world can do to people. And we are very sympathetic.

Mr Kelly, you were saying that there was a very dramatic change or role within boards over the last number of years. What is the leadership from within the Department to encourage you to remodel and modify and evolve your board to accommodate changes?

Mr Kelly: I am not in the business of saying that colleagues in the Department have not got a very valuable and distinct contribution to make. Their strengths are in drafting legislation, advising Ministers and operating at that level, and they would probably be the first to admit that when it comes to actual implementation, dealing with concrete problems on the ground, their expertise and their experience is less relevant. That is where the strength of boards lie. The boards are able, with their knowledge and their experience, and particularly with their close contact with schools, to take the new legislation, the changes, and make them work. Nobody else can do it.

The Chairman: You are convinced that the five-board model, with internal vamping and modification, would be much superior to the three-board system? No one knows how it is going to be administered. We do not know how much it will cost, or anything else. Probably if I were someone in the Department I would park it and hope that someone else would run with it at a later stage. Are you convinced this is a good model to run with for future administration?

Mr Kelly: Absolutely, because what we are essentially saying is that, yes, there have been changes and there will be changes and there is need for change but that those changes can be accommodated very adequately within the existing structure without our having to pay the cost of the disruption that we have talked about.

The Chairman: My immediate concern is not one about change or proposed change, but children. I am not too worried who the Minister of Education is; I am not worried about the Department of Education; I am not worried about the boards. Will my child benefit? We had an old county system, and we had regional committees before that. In your professional opinion, is my child going to benefit? Which is going to be the best model?

Mr Kelly: Under the present legislation, your child is an ordinary child at an ordinary school. The board will not have very much direct contact with him until he comes looking for a grant to go to university. But if your child has special needs, for example, then you will be seeking an individual relationship within an individual board officer, and that is when closeness becomes very important.

The Chairman: I want a standard of education delivered to the chalk-face, enhanced in every way. The administration — does it matter at all?

Ms Alexander: If I have, and I have had, a very disruptive child in a class, that child is disrupting the education of all the children in that class, and any of those parents would be quite within their rights to take me to a curriculum tribunal. Now I can go to my board officer and say “Look, I have this problem. We have tried to deal with it, but I cannot deal with it, and it is now disrupting the other children in the class. Before the parents come to me with complaints, can you come out and give me advice and give my board of governors advice.” We have ways of dealing with disruptive pupils. In this way that child's education will be saved and the education for the other 28 children in the class will be better.

Mr Kelly: Mr Chairman, it is a question of quality and quantity. By far the most important thing is the quality of the teachers your child will have, and that is not affected by the number of boards. The number of teachers in the school is important. Now if significant amounts of money could be saved, not £2 million but maybe £10 million, so that there was a significant improvement in pupil-teacher ratios, that would be better. But not even the Minister is claiming to save anything really significant, and the kernel of our argument is that over a period of at least four or five, maybe even six years, the quality of education will not be improved because there will be no additional resources, and it may well deteriorate because of disruption.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. I appreciate your coming. We are trying to see why the Minister wants to proceed and what are his reasons, which we will try and elicit tomorrow. At the same time, we want to see what the boards' arguments are. I look forward to receiving your submission.

Witnesses:

Mr M McAteer, Mrs K Turnbull

Mrs D Kincaid and Mrs G Boyd

(Western Special Schools)

The Chairman: Good afternoon. We are delighted to have you. If you want to make a short presentation each, Committee members will then want to ask some questions.

Mr McAteer: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I would like to thank, through the chair, the members of the Committee for giving us the opportunity to say our piece here.

I will just begin by introducing the four members of the delegation. We represent the Special Schools Sector of the Western Education and Library Board. I am Hugh McAteer, Principal of Heatherbank Special School in Omagh. The others are Mrs Turnbull, Principal of the Erne Special School in Enniskillen, Mrs McCabe, Principal of Glenside Special School in Strabane and Mrs Boyd, Principal of Foyleview Special School for Severe Learning Difficulties in Londonderry.

We are here because we want to put our view across which is that we believe that the Western Education and Library Board should be retained. We speak as principals, we do not speak, obviously, as board officers. We are speaking as a group of principals who are users of the service provided by the Western Education and Library Board. There are ten special schools in the Western Area, and we would like to state initially that we are opposed to the aspects of the plan which involve the abolition of the Western Board.

As principals of the special schools in the west, we have come to appreciate over the years the support that the Western Board has always given to special education, and we appreciate that while we are numerically a small sector of the service, we believe we have an importance, because all our children are at schools for special needs. Mrs Turnbull will deal in more detail with that specific aspect of the situation, but I would like to emphasize that we have all experienced the great commitment of the Western Education and Library Board to the special needs of the children in our schools.

The Western Board has guided us effectively over the years through the many changes imposed by the Government, and we recognize that, and we want that recorded by the members of the Committee.

We know from contact with colleagues across the province of the support that the Western Board gives to special education, and indeed to all schools, but we are focusing on special need provision that is second to none in the province. DENI's own inspectorate last year inspected the support and advisory services of the Western Board and found the board to be providing an excellent service for schools. We experience the back-up and support of the advisory service very much in our day-to-day work, and yet we are angry that all this appears about to be lost. The Minister's plan, if it is implemented, appears to be going to dismember these services in the name of an increase in administrative efficiency. Now we do not see where the saving will come from and, speaking as consumers who use the services of the board on a daily basis, we do not see where the improvement will be. In fact, we believe the opposite may take place.

We would like to mention too that there are other aspects of the decision which have evoked deep feelings of resentment, which are shared not only in educational circles but across the community in the western area. The opposition actually crosses all divides of religion and politics because it is a universal reaction in the west that this proposal for the abolition of the Western Board should not go ahead.

I would like to mention to members that the Department of Education's own strategic plan for education up to the year 2000 was launched in May of this year by Michael Ancram. One of the main principles that this booklet lays down is that the education service will be responsively based in the years ahead and I quote

“Services will be responsive to the needs and aspirations of the community” that is section 1, paragraph 7.

Throughout the summer, which is not normally a time for people to be meeting and getting together, there has been an increase and a build-up of opposition from all parts of the community in the west to these proposals. You might consider that if the Minister is going to follow one of the basic guiding principles in the Department’s own document, he should listen, through you as elected Members, to the voice of the western community, because it has been very strongly expressed and is right across the board.

We believe the Western Board is a natural entity with its own concerns and perspectives, and we would like it to be retained. The Western Education Board is a real success story in the local administration of Northern Ireland not only in education but in a broader social and economic way as well. The Western Education and Library Board is a model of how people from different communities can get together in common cause. This harmony and partnership within the board permeates to the schools which is the section that we represent.

We know that many others will put a certain perspective, they will give more detail maybe from the point of view of administration, but we are speaking as people who use the service on a day-and-day basis, and on that basis we ask you to consider that if the Government are going to be responsive to people, then they really should go back to the drawing-board and look again, because most of us have never experienced such unanimity right across the board, and this shines at the moment like a kind of a beacon or guiding light. We suggest that good government, which is responsive to its citizens, would actually respond to this and go back to the drawing-board. It would be a bad government, we believe, which would cling to this view regardless of what both experts and non-experts are saying. We want to add our voices to theirs.

Now we know we have experienced great changes in the education system over the last six or seven years, and it is not that we as a group of principals are opposed to change. If change is for the good of our children, then we welcome it, and we have implemented plenty of change over the last seven years. All kinds of changes have happened in schools, and the special sector has been involved in all that, so it is not that we are afraid of change or that we feel that the cosy present status should continue. If things need to be changed, we believe they should be changed, and if it is for the good of children, which is what we are all about, we would support them. We do not see in these proposals anything which would improve the situation for children, and we speak as people who are working with children and teachers everyday of the week.

The Minister did promise us a period of stability in the curriculum and we were told, not that many years ago, that the stable situation would continue, yet here we are now being presented with what would be an enormous change in the environment in which we work. All the support services will be changed, people will be changed and relocated, and this is bound to have an impact on the schools, so we oppose it for that reason as well. We need a continuation of stability, and we ask for it. If we thought that the changes would be for the benefit of our children, we would welcome them. We are used to change, but we do not believe that changes will improve things.

I would just like to ask Members to consider these things, consider what my fellow principals say and unite in asking the Minister to think again. I would like to ask Mrs Turnbull to speak.

Mrs Turnbull: There are 10 special schools in the Western Board, four for children with moderate learning difficulties, five for children with severe learning difficulties, and one as a hospital school. All the pupils at these schools have an educational statement and the schools are charged with meeting the needs on those statements. Children have varying needs from minor handicaps to more major sensory or auditory impairment. All these children deserve the very best education that can possibly be achieved for them. Each child has unique needs and unique circumstances, and this means that each child has to be dealt with individually by an educational statement.

In order to do this, we need a very responsive and very flexible service, and we in the west have been lucky enough to have that. Many of our children are actually known in the education offices, so that if you ring special education and speak about Joe Bloggs, the chances are that the officers will be able to recall who Joe Bloggs is.

There is only one education officer and one assistant education officer in the Western Board, and they deal with 1200 statemented children. Now that is certainly a very efficient, very effective service considering what a statement involves. A statement has to be drawn up for each child. It has to be reviewed annually, and there is a major review at thirteen-plus. So, a great deal is being done by very few people.

The parents of children with special needs need a very accessible service. These are often very vulnerable parents with vulnerable children. They need a lot of personal contact with the schools and board officers, and I feel that this would be impossible in a bigger board covering a wider geographical area.

My own school is in Enniskillen. We have children from as far away as Belleek and we feel strongly that the Western area of the province is being bled. We have a very poor road network, poor public transport, and the removal of the Western Board would seem to be making the area more inaccessible and more cut off. For example, to go from Belleek to the proposed headquarters in Armagh involves leaving Belleek at 7.55 am and returning at 6.30 pm, quite a day’s journey for the parent of a handicapped child.

Another thing we would like to bring to your attention is that over Northern Ireland the different boards have different policies on special education. In fact, the current Southern Education and Library Board does not have any schools for children with modern learning difficulties. They have a different policy, a different ethos completely, so we wonder what the future of the MLD schools is. We have already built up a network of relationships with the other special schools, with special school principals and with the services supporting those schools, and the support we have had from the Western Board has been second to none.

You are well aware of the huge opposition that there has been to this change and you know it does no harm to stand back and ask why is there so much opposition. Why are people so opposed to the change? We feel that the Western Board is working well and our only thought is that if something is not broken, there is no need to fix it. We, as principals, are primarily concerned with providing the very best education for the children in our schools, and we would only support the abolition of the Western Board if so doing would improve the education of the children.

The whole education service is based on providing the best possible education for all children, but there is nothing in the proposals which suggests that this will improve the provision. We, as principals, do not believe that one single child will benefit from the proposed change, and we must not lose sight of the fact that education is about the children.

I have with me two colleagues from special schools and I think each one would like to add something.

Mrs Kincaid: I would like to speak about the transfer of education in 1987 from the Western Health and Social Services Board to the Western Education and Library Board.

There were only five schools involved in the Western Education and Library Board, mine being one of them, and what I want to say is that at that time in order to have a smooth transition, the Western Education and Library Board actually moved into our schools a year prior to the transfer taking place so that everything would run very smoothly. Now I am talking about staff from the accounts department and the personnel department right up to the Chief Officer who actually visited the schools and got to know the children.

That is the sort of relationship we have with the Western Education and Library

Board. We are constantly looking to the board for support and if we ring any

department of the board, but especially our board officer, the officers do not have to go and get a file — they know each child personally.

I would hate to see that personal touch going which we feel it will do if we move to having three boards. So I join with my colleagues in asking you to consider this change carefully.

Mrs Boyd: Foyleview is a new purpose-built school for children with severe learning difficulties. We have 108 at the moment on the roll. All of them have severe learning disabilities, and a lot of them also have severe difficulties physically, socially and sensory. Each child has learning problems particular to himself. You could not put together one group of children and say that they can be taught together or that they need a certain type of equipment. Everything has to be very, very specialized.

The Western Education and Library Board spent £2 million on our school, and I say that that money was extremely well spent, and it was well spent because the board officers knew our youngsters so well. As Mrs Kincaid said, they know each youngster personally, and when you phone up, they do notneed to get out the files.

When the authority is spending so much money, and it is committed to that spending, obviously that school is going to be in existence for a long time. It is very important that you get value for money, and without the expertise of locally based offices we feel very strongly that you would not get that. The expertise at the WLB really is second to none, especially when it comes to learning difficulties. Our special education officer has been in the post for so long he has built up that expertise himself. We do not think that this kind of support would be possible within such a large geographical area as is being proposed. We also have board advisers who have come in and actually worked in the classroom with the children. This does not happen under any other board. It is unique to WELB and has been commended by the inspectorate.

Teachers, as we have heard, have had a lot to contend with lately with changes in the curriculum. The advisers have been there to give support to the teachers so that when the new instructions came out, they were very well trained. They have given in-service days, but added to that the WELB has gone one step further and advisers have actually come into the classroom to help teachers on-site. Again that has been very valuable for our children as well as for the teaching staff.

So I add my voice to the others asking the Minister to reconsider his proposals carefully.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr McFarland): Thank you very very much indeed for coming. It has been very interesting to hear your views. Obviously we will take on board what you have said.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: Could you send details of the services that you provide? You mentioned that they are not provided in the Southern Board. Could you give us an outline of the differences?

Mrs Turnbull: Sorry, you mean that the fact there are no MLD schools in the Southern Board?

Rev Trevor Kirkland: Yes

Mrs Turnbull: Yes

Rev Trevor Kirkland: And the report of the Government inspectors -- could you send us a copy of that?

Mrs Turnbull: The Western Board report? Yes

Rev Trevor Kirkland: You also said that the board advisers came into the school. Could you put that in writing for us, please?

Mrs Boyd: Yes.

Mr Trevor Kirkland: Thank you.

Mr Hussey: You mentioned the 1,200 statemented kids in the Western Education and Library Board area. How many of those are dealt with in the 10 special schools?

Mrs Turnbull: The majority of them.

Mr Hussey: Is there still a working relationship with the Health Service?

Mrs Turnbull: Yes.

Mr Hussey: Is it not true to say that the proposals would realign the education boards and the health boards in a closer geographical way?

Mrs Turnbull: Since 1988 there has not been the same close alignment with the Health Service because Education took over all the schools at that stage, and although some services, for instance speech and physio, are provided by the Health Board, that is a small fraction of the whole provision.

Mr Hussey: So it is negligible?

Mrs Turnbull: Yes

Mr McAlister: I was glad to hear that you are not opposed to change, because I think we are going to have to argue that people are not frightened of change. If you could back up your synopsis to us with any facts and figures, I think that would be important.

The Vice-Chairman: Thank you very much.

Witnesses:

Cllrs Currie, Crilly, Black, McCamley, McConaghy, McKee, Graham, Dickson

(North Eastern Councils)

The Vice-Chairman: Ladies and Gentlemen, I welcome you to the Education Committee of the Forum. I understand that you all wish to speak. Could I ask you to keep it as brief as you can, which then gives us a chance to come back with questions and discuss various aspects with you.

Mr Currie: Thank you Mr Chairman. I am James Currie, Mayor of Ballymena. First of all, thank you very much for having us here, and may I apologize for the absence of Ballymoney and Magherafelt Councils — it is unavoidable I assure you. We have copies of our ‘Review of Education Administration’ if the Committee wants to see it. Each person is taking a particular area in it and as time is very short we also have Mr Rankin, the Town Clerk and Chief Executive of Ballymena Borough Council. I will ask the people who are going to speak to start immediately.

We are, of course, totally opposed to the change from five boards to three that is being proposed by the Minister for some very good reasons, not just for the sake of being against it. Many of us on this delegation have been in the teaching profession, have suffered many changes and have some knowledge of what it will be like. I now call on Mr McConaghy to put our first point forward. I would also like to emphasize the political, economic and social dimensions of the points we are putting forward, and I would like the Members of the Forum to take them into consideration.

Mr McConaghy: On page 2 of our submission, under political dimension, is item 2.2 that I would like to refer to. The political and educational debate on the review of education administration, which has continued since Lord Belstead commenced it in January 1992, has shown a remarkable degree of consensus amongst all the political parties regarding the outcome. As a result of that consensus, the Leaders of the four main constitutional political parties, namely Alliance, DUP, SDLP and UUP, met the Prime Minister in Downing Street in 1995 and highlighted the need to retain the current five-Board structure in place until the outcome of a political settlement

in Northern Ireland. Included in the documents is appendix 1. Following the announcement of the Minister's decision, an Early Day motion was tabled by Mr Roy Beggs, MP — at appendix 2 — criticizing the Minister's decision. This was supported by the major constitutional parties represented at Westminster as well as a number of Opposition MPs. Currently other constitutional parties not represented at Westminster are being offered the opportunity to express support for the motion.

Mr Currie: The next person who wants to make a submission is Mrs Black, a former teacher.

Mrs Black: I am from Coleraine Council. This deputation reflects all the political parties and all sections of the community within the North Eastern Area Board, and that highlights in itself the remarkable degree of consensus that there is amongst the politicians in the area. The Forum's primary duty, we believe, is to promote dialogue and understanding within Northern Ireland, and the issue of the retention of the current five-board structure has fulfilled this objective and achieved such a degree of consensus and unanimity — and that is unusual in the wider Northern Ireland community — that it is felt that the Minister really must no longer continue with the policy which flies in the face of everything that he has been told over the last four and a half years.

Mr Currie: I think the part in item 2.5 — from 69 to 72 councillors — has not impressed any council in Northern Ireland. We know that is a mere drop in the ocean. I now call on Mr Crilly, Deputy Mayor of Newtownabbey and himself a former headmaster, to speak on point 2.6 and then Mr McCamley who is also the Mayor of Carrickfergus.

Mr Crilly: Point 2.6 on page 3 — the deputation is particularly concerned at the manner in which Newtownabbey and Carrickfergus Councils have been treated. In the last set of proposals outlining a four-board option issued by the Minister in April 1995, the Newtownabbey and Carrickfergus Council areas were seen as an integral part of the North Eastern Board, in other words there was to be no change. This proposal was defended by the Minister and Department of Education officials at a Parliamentary Select Committee at Westminster in October 1995 as rational and reasonable. Now the Minister has decided, for reasons best known to himself and without any consultation with the two councils concerned, the people of these areas or even the area board, to remove them from what they have considered their natural geographical entity for educational as well as other community issues such as health. Large areas of Newtownabbey are in close proximity to the adjacent councils of Antrim and Larne — I am thinking particularly of the Ballyclare area — and have always co-operated very closely with those councils, schools and the people of those areas, and because of that, this high-handed act of seizing two council areas out of the North Eastern Board comes completely out of the blue. The thing has no support whatsoever in the councils of Newtownabbey or Carrick and there is no support either for the totally unacceptable way in which this was done.

In 1993 an official of the Department of Education at Rathgael House, Mr Peover , came to visit the council to present the document that the Department had. I asked at that meeting why the Department was proposing to change the five-board system. His answer was quite simply “Well, don't you think its about time, you have been going for 20 years?” I said that was no reason for

any change at a time when there was massive upheaval in schools because of the national curriculum and for various other reasons which I will not reiterate. Because of his visit, Newtownabbey Council set up a small sub-committee to make a response, which we did. At that time there was no possibility of Newtownabbey being removed from the North Eastern Education and Library Board but we did consider the overall picture and we submitted in our response that there should be no change to the five-board system because there was no educational reason for it and that any change should wait until the setting up of a Northern Ireland Assembly when local people would have an input into local education. So when the Department turns round this year and says that five are down to three, it is completely out of the blue and we do not accept it.

Mr McCamley: I totally agree with my friend from Newtownabbey. As it says in the last part of this, large areas of Newtownabbey have close community links with Antrim, Ballymena, Carrickfergus and Larne, and these proposals are totally unacceptable to Carrickfergus Borough Council. We would like further consideration to be given before any decision is taken.

Mr Currie: On page 4, paragraph 2.8, it says that the five boards were already among the largest within the United Kingdom prior to reorganization and in appendix 3 it says that the five boards in Northern Ireland vary from 64,000 to 74,000 while the average for the United Kingdom is 39,000; that is tabled at the back. That was contained in a Parliamentary Answer, so there is no doubt about its factual correctness, and I would like you to take that into consideration.

Mrs Black: The social dimension is that our board, the North Eastern Education and Library Board, has worked closely with all the councils represented here. Strong trust has been built up between the board and its staff and community leaders, and this trust took many years to foster and has been recognized by everyone, including Government Ministers, as a positive force in Northern Ireland. The current proposal would damage these relationships and in the field of education would result in a significant period of upheaval whilst new boards were formed, policies formulated, new networks developed and trust rebuilt at a time when our community requires a clear, strategic focus. As we try to encourage more jobs into the province, upheaval in such a key area is unwelcome and unnecessary and I, as a former teacher, remember quite clearly not so long ago when a Minister reassured the boards — I think at a conference — that we all needed a time of no further change, a consolidating period. Having come through the new curriculum and all this upheaval and change, this is a most inopportune time to be changing the structure of the boards.

Mr Currie: The headquarters of the North Eastern Education and Library Board are situated in County Hall, Ballymena. Now that is a very important place of employment for the people in and around Ballymena. There is dismay, uncertainty and fear in case they are going to lose their jobs or their jobs are going to be transferred. And that involves their families and schools et cetera. Now let me tell you, it does link the people of Ballymena.

Mr Dickson: My name is Mervyn Dickson, I am the Vice-Chairman of the South Eastern Education and Library Board. In Ballymena we are losing jobs because of the BSE crisis. The BSE crisis is going to wreck Northern Ireland. I hope I am wrong, but at the minute it looks that way, and we in Ballymena are already suffering. Now wecan do without a double dose. We do not need BSE and this uncertainty in the boards’ headquarters. I would like to emphasize that it is very unfair to people who have given — and I know a lot of employees have done this — time and time again to evening work and community work, going to school prize nights which they had no need to go to, and all for nothing. I emphasize that this will create hardship to the people of that area and the surrounding area. I now call on Mr Graham, past Mayor of Antrim, to speak.

Mr Graham: Councillors have no faith in the Minister's assertion that the proposals will save £2 million. No evidence such as an economic appraisal has been produced to substantiate this, and councillors are already aware that the Department has incurred additional expenditure estimated at £150,000 by appointing an additional Assistant Secretary, together with support staff, to oversee the planning of the decision. Indeed, Mr Chairman, the deputation would be interested to discover from the Minister the cost to date of his review.

Mr Crilly: Concern has been expressed in this review of education administration because it is only the boards that are being reviewed. In financial terms that is untenable because the boards are only part of the picture. An examination of the figures in appendix 4 is quite revealing. There are replies which Mr Roy Beggs, the Member of Parliament for East Antrim, obtained through Parliament. The first block of figures shows that the Department of Education’s admin costs for 1991/92 were £12.8 million. By 1994/95 those had risen to £15.02 million, a rise of 17%. During the same period the costings for administration in the education and library boards went down from £32.39 million to £27.6 million, a drop of 14.8%. I will leave the other figures with you.

You will see, therefore, that the boards have been making a real effort to reduce their costs but that was not the case with the Department. But they are not under review. The second group of figures shows the individual costs of a member of staff. The Department's costs rose between the two years by 25% while those of the education and library boards dropped by 14%. Again that shows what the education and library boards were prepared to pay for their employees and that they were being cost-effective. The major mover in administration costs is the Department and it was the only party that was not reviewed, and those figures may show why. Since 1989 the Department has incurred an estimated additional expenditure of £35 million by establishing

additional administrative bodies such as the CCMS, NICE, NICCEA and the Youth Council of Northern Ireland. This is a fragmentation of the service, and it is both expensive and inefficient.

The Department is now adding to that by the further proposal to incorporate further education colleges. Until now boards have provided financial information, expertise and services to the colleges at minimal cost. However, in the past number of months in excess of £500,000 has been released to establish 17 additional administrative units to do the same task after the incorporation of the colleges of higher and further education, and that, of course, is costing extra money. The Department seems to be able to spend money when it likes on what it likes. NICCEA, for instance, presided recently over a couple of difficult points in the running of the 11+ — I think some people referred to it in the press as a fiasco. The Department is presently presiding over a debate on home-to-school transport which last year it had to drop like a hot potato. Thirdly, this year the Department, under the LMS funding did not fund the pay rises which were awarded to teachers which I think were of the order of 2.9%.

Some information I received today shows the effect of the LMS funding for 1996/97 on the North Eastern Education and Library Board. This resulted in primary education losing 33 teachers, secondary education losing 26 teachers, the grammar schools losing seven and further education losing 19, a total of 85 redundancies in the North Eastern Education and Library Board.

This is because of lack of funding by the Department and, as you can see from the figures, the Department does have money to spend on what it chooses. Obviously it does not choose to spend money on the schools where the money should be spent.

Mr McKee: There are three points which I should emphasize. The first is that this deputation is convinced that there is no merit in the decision of the Minister to go forward with this decision and that the Minister should listen to the vast bulk of the population and not to a few unrepresentative civil servants. Secondly, we as a deputation are not averse to change though we feel strongly that any change should be built round a bedrock that has been established over the last 20 years. Finally, we as a deputation ask for support from the Northern Ireland Forum to advise the Minister of the strong points that we have made.

Mr Currie: In conclusion, there is one great fear and you will hear it expressed by many people across all the education sectors of Northern Ireland: no one can see an obvious reason for this. If there were some glaring economic reason, yes, it could be accepted, but no one can see any obvious reason and everyone is asking if there is something behind this, if this is a hidden agenda, and that is leaving terrible fear and suspicion in the community. What is being said is that the Department of Education for Northern Ireland is accountable, apparently, to no one. No one can find out even the bands of salaries of the officials in it. We are not asking about individuals, we are asking for the bands of salaries which are available from councils for their officers. They do seem to be empire-building and everyone has a very cynical and sceptical attitude about the Department. This is something that should be taken on board: no one will have any trust or faith in this change from five to three. No one can see any logical reason for it, and the one about economic savings is very, very difficult to swallow.

The Vice-Chairman: Thank you very much indeed Mr Currie. May I ask if you would be happy to provide a copy of your latest document on the LMS?

Mr Currie: Yes. It is actually a submission made by the North Eastern Education and Library Board to the Minister when it was complaining about the lack of funding.

The Vice-Chairman: Thank you all very much indeed for coming. This document seems to encapsulate all the key areas. One of the problems we have is the pile of paper we have got so far.

We had the same problem when the Department appeared last week. We said to them could they produce the financial appraisal. No Government Department can get away with producing this thing without the detail. They very kindly agreed and are appearing in front of us tomorrow again, with some facts and figures. The other area which a number of boards have raised is this question of the Department. If you are going to do an education review it seems slightly peculiar that the whole system wasn't looked at. They keep having a go, and have done since 1992, at the boards, rather than doing all the other satellite organizations and headquarters itself. So there is a number of areas that we need to look at during the Committee's deliberations.

Mr Hussey: You are putting up a very strong argument. I possibly know Carrickfergus better than I know Newtownabbey. Would Newtownabbey and Carrickfergus not be part of the Belfast conurbation?

Mr Crilly: In the summary Mr Currie mentioned the possible hidden agenda. We in Newtownabbey, a borough of about 80,000 people, have three MPs. We are partly in South Antrim and partly in East Antrim and partly in North Belfast. So in a way we have no-one to speak for us. We are looked upon as on the outskirts of Belfast and we suspect that the Department may be putting its toe in the water to find out if it would be possible to set up some super intermediate local government system whereby there would be three regional groups of councils, one in the greater Belfast area covering the eastern region, one in the north and one in the south. If they could ease educational administration into that system, maybe other Government bodies could do the same until finally they had a skeleton or framework whereby they could reorganize local government and put an intermediate level between the local councils, that is the regional groups of councils, and a Northern Ireland Assembly. That is the reason we resist being embodied into Belfast, although many people in Newtownabbey came originally from Belfast.

Mr Hussey: What is the percentage unemployment in Ballymena borough at the moment?

Mr Currie: We have the lowest in Northern Ireland. It is 7.6%.

Mr Hussey: When you expressed concern with reference to unemployment I presume you were thinking of Londonderry or perhaps Coleraine.

Mr Currie: No we were not Mr Chairman. That is not our thinking at the moment, and I do not want to go any further on that now.

Mr Fowler: I saw a booklet last week which was published in 1972. This young man was saying that the ideal administration set-up for Northern Ireland was three large areas. Is it your view that that could be on the cards?

The Vice-Chairman: We are talking about education, and I think we are into a political area here. You have made the point, which we have taken on board, that this looks slightly as if it might be the case.

Mr Crilly: I think that answer is quite possible.

The Vice-Chairman: Are you suggesting that that is what was happening?

Mr Crilly: Well, try to unearth some reason for this change of administration. There has to be a reason somewhere, and it is not educational and it is not economic, so what is it?

The Vice-Chairman: And that ties in with what you were saying.

Mr Crilly: It has to be political rather than any other.

Ms Bell: I would like to thank you for the report. I think it is a very good example of local accountability and the value of it. In the rest of the United Kingdom the Department of Education is being amalgamated with the Department for Employment. It is suggested that this is much more effective. Would there be any possibility of getting something further on that?

Mr Crilly: We can certainly go away and find out some facts and information and put them together and send them to you if that would be acceptable.

The Vice-Chairman: We have got to produce a report in the next week or so. If you are feeding information to us, the sooner we can get it the better.

Mr Bolton: Would it be of any merit, even after the legislation was announced, if it were put to each of the nine councils as a resolution?

The Vice-Chairman: Presumably the councils can do that.

Ms Bell: Yes send it out to the other Councils.

Mr Crilly: Yes, we can do it.

Mr Currie: With the councils in unity, they should know that we are resolute.

The Vice-Chairman: Thank you very much.

Witness:

Mr D Allen

(Ulster Teachers' Union)

Mr Allen: The Ulster Teachers' Union welcomes the opportunity of presenting its view on the statement by the Education Minister of June on the Government's review of educational administration in Northern Ireland.

The union also commends the initiative taken by the Northern Ireland Forum, culminating in its resolution of the 19th July 1996, which requested the Education Minister to

“put the directive on hold until the views of the Forum are presented in the form of an advisory report.”

While the union can support that view, it respectfully suggests that any review of education administration should be deferred pending agreement within the Forum on the structure and format of a system of devolved administration in Northern Ireland, whatever form such a devolved administration will take. The union further suggests that it is premature to consider any review of educational administration in the absence of democratic structures, accountable to the people of Northern Ireland.

Furthermore, the union's experiences of the formulation of educational policies for Northern Ireland demonstrates conclusively that since the imposition of direct rule educational policy has been determined by the Government to meet the needs of England and Wales and has then been applied to Northern Ireland, without taking account of the unique circumstances in the province. On many occasions, this has resulted in an English solution being imposed and applied to a non-existent educational problem in Northern Ireland.

The union need not remind any member of this Committee that this is achieved through the undemocratic mechanism by which legislation is enacted for Northern Ireland — Order in Council. Such a mechanism is a negation of democracy and accountability and is anathema to those of us who believe in the democratic process, the major characteristic of which is accountability. It is the union's view that Northern Ireland's seventeen Members of Parliament at Westminster must oppose any Draft Order in Council to change the status quo in educational administration. It is also the union's view that it is incumbent on them to lobby all minority groupings at Westminster to do likewise, assuming, of course, that such an Order in Council is opposed by the Official Opposition.

In the introduction to its presentation, the union has addressed what it perceives to be the crux of the matter at this particular time. This is primarily a political issue which must be addressed in a political context and the union is of the opinion that a successful outcome can only be achieved through a determined effort by the seventeen Members of Parliament at Westminster to be present and to unite in block to defeat the Government's intent to amend present legislation to change the existing education and library board boundaries and the membership of the boards. The union reiterates this view and I regret to say that we are pessimistic that the retention of the five-board structure can be achieved through logical and rational argument and debate.

The resolution of the Forum last July invites comments

“on the contribution of educational services and structures to the promotion of dialogue and understanding within Northern Ireland”

The present administration of education based on five education and library boards came into existence with the 1972 Order, and at that time many reservations were expressed, particularly by some district councils, about the inequitable representation accorded to councils on the five boards. I can speak from personal experience, because as a teacher member of an education and library board from 1973-1977 and a member of a borough council during the same period, though I was not the council representative on the board, I was only too aware of the concern of some district councils that elected public representatives constituted only 40% of the membership of a board.

These reservations were eventually dispelled and gradually the five education and library boards gained the confidence of elected representatives and the public at large, due to the impartial, efficient and professional manner in which they administered the education system of this province.

The union would emphasize, as you are aware, that this was achieved against a background of civil and political unrest unparalleled anywhere in Western Europe and was a shining example of how representatives from a divided community could work in harmony, mutually respecting each other's politics, religion, culture and traditions, to enhance the quality of educational provision for the public in general and the pupils of this province in particular.

This partnership based on mutual understanding was recognized by a former Education Minister, Jeremy Hanley, MP when he stated in his foreword to the original consultative document on educational administration

“There are a few, if any, other areas of day to day life in Northern Ireland where Churchmen and laymen from both the main traditions meet so regularly and work together so constructively”.

Those are Mr Hanley's words, with apologies to Cllr Bell.

The union respectfully suggests to the Committee that it is the height of folly to dismantle something that has served the interests of Northern Ireland so well over the past 23 years, and all the more so since the education system of this province has been inundated with change and desperately requires a period of stability and consolidation.

In his statement on the 25 June, the Education Minister said that he remains convinced that the present administrative structure of education is over elaborate for the needs of the education service in Northern Ireland. It is a view of the union that to reduce the number of boards from five to three, which is effectively a degree of centralization, is to run contrary to the decentralization of education administration in other parts of the United Kingdom.

For example, the recent reorganization of education administration in Scotland has increased the number of local authorities from 12 regional councils to 32 local councils, more democracy and localized accountability for the Scots, but less for Northern Ireland, for which the Education Minister is responsible, but obviously not accountable.

The premise on which the Education Minister based the need for the reduction to three boards in Northern Ireland proves false when a comparison is made on the basis of pupil number between the five education and library boards and the local education authorities in England. The five education and library boards came within the range 32nd to 40th in the league table of 106 local education authorities in England at that time. These figures were part of the South Eastern Board's original response in April 1993 on the then consultative document on education administration in Northern Ireland and were obtained in response to a question in the House of Commons by Roy Beggs, MP.

The union accepts that these comparative figures may be slightly outdated though they may still be reasonably valid for comparative purposes — the union also accepts that there has been an ongoing reorganization of local government in England since January 1995, whereby some of the existing two-tier structures of county and shire district councils in some areas have been replaced by unitary authorities.

The union respectfully suggests to the Committee that it might be appropriate to obtain an update of the figures supplied to Mr Beggs for comparative purposes, based on developments in England since January 1995.

Finally, the union accepts that a review of education administration may be necessary when a devolved administration becomes a reality in Northern Ireland. However, I would emphasize that such a review must be an all embracing one and should include all the existing employing authorities involved in education within Northern Ireland including the Department of Education and the inspectorate. It is the view of the UTU that any review of education administration in Northern Ireland, is invalid without taking account of all those other providers and components.

The Vice-Chairman: Thank you very much indeed. We have heard many of the arguments you have made, but not in quite so clear a way.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: How many teachers are in the Ulster Teachers' Union?

Mr Allen: About 6,000, embracing all sectors. We recruit predominantly in the controlled sector of education. That is not to say, of course — and I do not like to use the term, because it smacks of sectarianism — that we are 100% Protestant. We have members from the other community, particularly in our special schools. But we are the only independent union of teachers operating in Northern Ireland and we have found, sometimes to our cost, that the teachers of Northern Ireland are sometimes regrettably sold short if there is a dilemma of conscience facing national unions.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: I presume the position outlined here has already been debated in conference at the Ulster Teachers' Union.

Mr Allen: The union took the view expressed. You may well be alluding to the fact that I am here on my own as General Secretary. It would be usual for me to be accompanied by some member of the executive. My statement has not been endorsed by my Central Executive Committee — that is the answer to the question you are asking — but I am absolutely confident after 19 years as General Secretary of the union and 10 years on the Central Executive Committee of the Union, and with a background embracing education administration, local government and indeed elected status in 1995-96, that that is the view of my members. Indeed, I may have gone towards the political dimension more so than I may have a right to do under the terms of my contract.

But I believe that one has to stand up and say what has to be said and what needs to be said, and I am the kind of General Secretary who does not sit back and let the members lead me. I believe in leading my members, provided I know that what I am doing is right. A lot of reservations have been expressed by teachers, particularly from the western part of the province. There has been a silence, I hope not a silence of acquiescence from other areas but, nevertheless, there is a genuine concern in certain areas, concerns over accessibility and over the type of service they are going to get as teachers. They also feel that these proposals will distance them completely from educational administration, and they are concerned.

The Vice-Chairman: This submission -- is it yours or is it the UTU's?

Mr Allen: I am speaking on behalf of my 6,000 members.

The Vice-Chairman: So it's an official Ulster Teachers' Union submission.

Mr Hussey: To ask a question would be to gild the lily. I think it was an excellent presentation.

The Vice-Chairman: Thank you very much indeed for such a very good presentation.

Mr Allen: Thank you very much.

NORTHERN IRELAND FORUM

_____________

EDUCATION COMMITTEE

Wednesday 25 September 1996

____________

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

on

EDUCATION ADMINISTRATION

___________

Witness: Mr H Park

(Ballymena Chamber of Commerce and Industry)

The Chairman: Good morning, Mr Park. May I formally welcome you to the Forum. We are delighted to have you, and we look forward to hearing your presentation. The Education Committee was formed following a debate relating to the statement of the Minister of June this year indicating thathe was going to go for three boards, instead of the original proposal for four. We asked for time so that the Committee could deliberate.

We have heard from most of the education boards, we have heard from teachers' groups and we still have to hear from other interested groups today and tomorrow. This afternoon we hear from the Department again. Your letter has five key paragraphs.

Mr Park: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I have a statement here for you to copy and hand out to the others in due course so that all receive it. It is not a long statement.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. Let the record note that we have received a submission from Ballymena Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

Mr Park: I wish to thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you about the proposals for a three-board set up rather than a five-board set up which were announced by Michael Ancram some time ago.

I am Secretary of the Chamber of Commerce in Ballymena. I have 15 years of experience in central Government, 10 years in local government and I was very much involved in the reorganization of local government in 1973. So I think I can speak with some experience on what happened at that time and all the promises that were made to the effect that reorganization was going to save the country a lot of money. I believe that quite the contrary happened because a great administrative bureaucracy was created within central Government in Stormont and other places. In fact this swallowed up a lot of the so-called savings, and I do not think that we ever really recovered from that situation. Therefore, I have a lot of experience based on that. I also served a term of two years as President of the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance while in central Government, so I have obviously experience of the trade union side, and I know that NIPSA has made a presentation to the Committee on Michael Ancram’s statements.

I am also aware of the other statements that have been made from the joint deputation from the district councils of Antrim, Ballymena, Ballymoney, Carrickfergus, Coleraine, Larne, Magherafelt and Newtownabbey and of the statements coming from the board itself. The Board has done a fantastic job setting out all the details, so I really want to give a broader picture from the point of view of the businessman, the man in the street and the natural concerns of people, not just in Ballymena but far beyond Ballymena.

Michael Ancram has proposed reducing the five-area board structure to a three-board one, and I am aware of the map that was released that showed where these would be. This proposal from the Minister has so far left unanswered many questions concerning the details of his reorganization proposals, and the concern expressed in my statement to the Forum in mid-August was justified. This statement briefly gave our position at that time and followed closely the legitimate fears of the staff in the North Eastern Education and Library Board, mainly based in County Hall, Ballymena, that their board was to disappear in the reorganization proposals. It also took account of the support within the Ballymena area at that time, in particular the very strong support from the staff and Ballymena Borough Council and their complete opposition to any change to the five-board system at this time and before the consultative processes had been completed.

I want to re-emphasize the point that we in the Chamber are not just trying to protect jobs in Ballymena: we see this as being totally wrong at this time. We believe that the Forum, and your Committee, should be allowed to pronounce on what you consider to be the issues and the details of the education set-up in Northern Ireland. What we are saying is this: complete your job and submit your reports, but do not exclude the Department of Education. I will come back to that point later.

I will very briefly repeat the points made in that statement and then update you on the situation. Regarding point 1, it appears to me that the Minister is setting aside his previous promises in the consultation document and now proposes, without proper consultation, to set in motion the legislation to create the new board structures. I therefore ask you as the Education Committee to do all you can to challenge him on these points and in particular to seek reasons for the Forum’s being by-passed and not being given an opportunity to report on its findings as should be the case. I interject at this point to say that my statement was sent to Rev Ian Paisley who sent me a copy of the reply from the Minister. I have to ask, Mr Chairman, whether you have seen this reply. It is very unsatisfactory. It says

“Firstly there is a concern about the potential loss of local accountability and second a preference for awaiting the creation of new local political structures before making any changes for administrative arrangements.”

So will he accept these points? But then he says

“A decision on the future of the Boards could and should not be deferred any longer.”

This is what I am taking issue with. Why does he have to impose this now when the Forum is meeting to look at the whole education set-up in Northern Ireland and not just the area boards? The Department of Education has also got to be looked at. It cannot be excluded. How can you do a cost exercise if you leave out the main constituent part?

Anyway Michael Ancram goes on to say

“Like all the parties I look forward to the establishment of new political structures which can take responsibility for decision-making in key areas such as education. In the meantime however it is my duty as the Minister responsible for education to ensure that the resources devoted to administration are used as efficiently and effectively as possible.”

Now we all agree with that but why does he press on with legislation, why does he want to do this now when the consultative process has not been properly addressed? The cost exercise that has been done is an incomplete one. It is all right to say that you can make savings of £2 million but you could probably make savings of far more than £2 million if the Department of Education were brought into the review.

In a sense you cannot make a complete assessment without knowing where the new board headquarters are going to be. What about movement of staff from the five-boards into the three-board system — has that all been costed? From my own experience, it is likely that the cost of this reorganization will be much in excess of £2 million rather than provide so-called savings. Based on my own experiences, I feel it is totally wrong at this stage to force this on the province now. It is not happening in Britain where they are actually going the other way. The set-up over there has far more boards for smaller numbers of population, so this statement from Michael Ancram to Dr Paisley is very unsatisfactory. I do not know if you have a copy of that letter or not, but if you have you will have seen for yourself what he said.

Regarding the second point of my statement, the support referred to has grown substantially, linked with the petition “United to Win”, so in a sense this petition is showing that the support is there on the ground from businesses and the public, and this is something which should be taken account of. The support referred to has grown substantially and the petition will in due course prove how solid the support for the staff in the board is, not only in Ballymena but also in other areas. The Western Board, I understand, is also totally opposed to the Minister’s proposals. We support the Western Board, and we want to make that quite clear.

We support in principle and in detail the retention of the five-board set-up, until such times as somebody proves to us that there is a better set-up and the Department of Education has been brought into the review as well. That is what we are requesting. This relates to the whole province. As far as we are concerned, the Minister’s exercise, the statements and what has come from the Department of Education are all too vague. There is no back-up and no justification for what they are proposing. They have not proved their case, in my opinion.

I refer now to the third point in my statement. All of us involved in this united stand against the proposed changes do not accept that anyone can predict savings of around £2 million when the cost exercise has not been completed to include all the relevant costs of the relocation of staff. Also, because the Minister is claiming that no decision has been made as to the location of the headquarters of the three boards, I query how anyone can undertake a major re-organizational review, such as this is, without assessing all the operational costs of the exercise. I have personal experience of the reorganization of local government in 1973 and I know how the calculated savings in practice became substantially higher costs owing to the creation of administrative bureaucracy within central Government. If a full review were done, there could be substantial savings provided that there was a delegation of some central authority powers to the present area boards and unnecessary duplication and bureaucracy were eliminated. In studying the documents that you have received from others, it is quite clear to me that there could be

substantial savings.

There is far too much authority vested in the Department of Education. Its costs are rising each year and the boards are then being asked to make savings, which they are doing. There is a lot of duplication in the administrative set-up in the province, and I believe there is a need for devolving some of that administrative power to the area boards. Cut out unnecessary bureaucracy cut out duplication — that is the only way you will ever make real savings that are based on the realities of life and take account of everything that matters, and that does not just mean the management of staff. But what is the education system addressing and what is it trying to achieve? You really have to ask this question: what is the way forward for education in Northern Ireland and how best can that be achieved at the lowest cost? To exclude the Department of Education from such a review would be totally nonsensical.

Moving on then to my fourth point, it would be totally wrong and irresponsible of the Minister to introduce new proposals at this time when the situation in the province is particularly fragile. Everybody should understand that within the education board structures at present there is great harmony among all those who serve there. If you had been at some of the meetings that I attended in Ballymena you would have seen cross-board and cross-religion representation, with everybody working in harmony. Even the Minister accepted that. In his consultative document that was launched on 17 February 1993 he stated.

“(i) that there were three objectives, in reviewing the existing system of administration: it was important to ensure that it remained fair, effective, efficient and appropriate to the changing needs of education in Northern Ireland.”

We agree with that.

“(ii) that all parts of the education service help to heal community divisions and promote co-operation and better understanding.”

We agree, and that is what is happening at the moment, so why change it?

“(iii) that we preserve and build on the co-operation which already exists and seek to extend and strengthen these links, not weaken them.”

What he is doing at the moment, in fact, is weakening links as he is introducing change for the sake of change, and not because it has been shown to be right.

Further on, it states

“The Minister in highlighting these aspects commented specifically on the success of the current arrangements for administration, particularly in relation to the role of the Education and Library Boards where he stated that there are few if any other areas of day-to-day life in Northern Ireland where churchmen and laymen work together so constructively.”

Why change that, supposedly for £2 million savings? I do not accept that, because where these savings will come from has not been shown. So, these are the important points that the Minister made, yet he wants to do something completely different now.

To summarize point 4, education is one of the successes within the province, and yet the Minister is prepared to jeopardize this for unproven theoretical savings of £2 million that will probably never materialize. Even more importantly, a great loss of confidence will occur within the education field and in the ability of the Department of Education and the Minister to be seen to act in a fair and rational manner towards the management and staff within the boards and, indeed, towards the whole community. If he were to impose this on the community and set in motion all these changes, it might be years before it settled down within the new set-up. That would then affect the whole morale and confidence of those people who are doing their best to

administer the situation at the moment.

Regarding point 5, the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and all the affiliated Chambers of Commerce within the province were sent copies of our statement, and this will be the subject of discussions at meetings during the whole of October. I can give you an update on that as well. However, it is clear that there is already general support for the points put and the chambers will in due course add their weight in opposition to the Minister’s proposals. This is something worth noting. This is not just Ballymena Chamber of Commerce speaking. Through our actions and what we have done we have endeavoured to give a lead to others. We have now brought in all the chambers and the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce, which is the parent body for the whole of the Belfast area. We are getting general support from them.

The affiliated chambers are all the other chambers throughout the province that will be having a meeting during October. This matter will be on the agenda. They will probably not get a reply to you in time, but clearly this is not just Ballymena making a case. There is broad support for what we are doing throughout the province. I ask you to look at the whole situation, including the

Department, and in due course come to the proper conclusions about what should be done about education administration in Northern Ireland.

In conclusion, you may well ask why Ballymena Chamber seeks to be involved in matters outside the maintaining and improving of the businesses and the economy of the town. The answer is that any change in the present set-up would undoubtedly affect the local economy not just in Ballymena, but in other locations as well. This is a very important point and that is why we believe the whole scenario needs to be looked at. The chamber believes it has a right to speak on such matters and to support those who share our views. In so doing we also believe we are acting in the best interests of all our members and their families who will be affected by the education situation. I am thinking of the future, and the business people I represent are concerned about the situation. They want the best possible education set-up for the province and changes only if you can prove that they are justified and will bring genuine savings. We are acting in support of all those folk and the communities at large throughout the Province.

Thank you for this opportunity to put forward our views so that we can add our support to the statements of the board and the council, who share our concerns at the proposals of the Minister.

The Chairman: You mentioned a letter from Michael Ancram to Dr Paisley. Perhaps you could leave that for photocopying. We will want to look at it to see is there anything different said in it from other correspondence.

You are talking not just about the Ballymena Chamber but about the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce. What measure of support have you had?

Mr Park: The Northern Ireland Chamber did have a meeting. This has been confirmed by John Stringer, Director of the Northern Ireland Chamber. I spoke to him a few days ago about that meeting at which this matter was tabled. It has now been referred to a sub-committee that will meet in October to consider it in more detail rather than have the whole Northern Ireland Chamber considering this very broad and important issue. Mr Stringer and the members decided it was worth having a sub-committee to look at the whole situation of education administration and its effect on the economy. The sub-committee will meet in October and present its views in due course to the full committee.

The Chairman: They are going to try to assess the impact of educational change?

Mr Park: Yes.

The Chairman: You made a point about what this reform would achieve for education. What do you think it should achieve?

Mr Park: Would you clarify the question?

The Chairman: Yes. If you were changing the models of education administration what do you think should be the priority?

Mr Park: The priority should obviously be to get the best possible administration set up here that suits our province and the size of our province. The location of a headquarters for the proposed Northern Board is very important to the administration of education for that area. Therefore, having a headquarters in Strabane to cover an area including Ballymena and Larne would not work. Nor do I think that if you had the headquarters remaining in Ballymena you could administer Strabane or Londonderry. I believe the way the five-board set-up is arranged at present best suits us in the province and ensures that schools and colleges are satisfactorily administered.

I believe the five-board set-up is the ideal. It has been in existence now since 1973 and has proved itself. If it has been asked to make savings, it has done so. The way forward is to at look what is there at the moment and to include the Department of Education. Also, look at the duplication, administration and the decisions that are being made at headquarters in the Department of Education. Look too at the board set-up, reduce the bureaucracy elements and address the whole situation with the aim of getting value for money. If you do that, you will get savings based on the present structures and the Department of Education remaining as they are, but assessing what the boards and the Department are doing.

Mr Fowler: If the new Northern Education and Library Board headquarters were to be sited in Ballymena would it change the thinking of your organization?

Mr Park: I was expecting that question. I will be very honest. Yes, it would reassure a lot of the staff in the Ballymena area, and it might reassure some other people there, that there were not going to be job losses in Ballymena. I have tried to make it quite clear that this is not the way forward. I am opposed to a change that would keep the headquarters in Ballymena if Ballymena then had to administer Strabane and Londonderry. The chamber I represent and the other chambers believe that is not the best way to administer the province. Therefore, I want to make it quite clear that we are not thinking just of Ballymena.

And I am not just talking of Ballymena. I believe I can speak reasonably well for a lot of people throughout the province. I support the Western Board’s being allowed to remain, and I believe that the five-board set-up is the best way forward. In answer to your question, I would be opposed to having Ballymena retained as a headquarters if that was part of the other major

changes in reorganization, that are proposed.

Mr Fowler: Do you think we could be running a risk of forgetting about the welfare of the school children in our fight for five boards?

Mr Park: Well, you could say that, but I believe that that issue is dealt with under the present set-up. If we really want to address their needs, how could these be looked at better and how could the work of looking after those children be done better by a three-board set up than by a five-board set-up? I am not convinced that a three-board set-up, trying to administer a very large expanse of the province taking in the whole of the northern part from Strabane to Larne, could be administered from one headquarters, wherever it was located. I have studied the papers that relate to Britain, and it appears to me that the Government are clearly saying there is a need for an area board to administer a smaller area, to reduce the population within that board set-up, so that the best decisions about schools and the children can be made. So, if the Government think it is right on the mainland, why is it wrong over here.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: You mentioned duplication between the five boards and DENI. If there is an argument about duplication it is equally valid to get the reverse.

Mr Park: You could make a case for one board for Northern Ireland. In a sense you could say let us have one board covering Northern Ireland. Some people might believe this would give the most savings of all, but is that really what you call the best answer to our problems in Northern Ireland, to try to administer education throughout the scattered areas and the deprived areas where there are great difficulties at present? I believe the answer is that a single board would not work with the Department of Education giving itself more powers. I accept there is a need for change, but this must cover the boards and the Department of Education.

I hope that the Forum when it delivers its report will conclude that there is a need to look at the whole education administration in Northern Ireland, but that that should not involve the five boards being reorganized into three. I would like to think that the Forum will decide to look at the whole scenario and call for the setting up of a proper working party comprising representatives of the Department, the boards, the councils and others. Let them look at the whole situation in Northern Ireland and produce conclusions on the matter. That is where the Forum can give a lead, so why is the Minister seeking to impose changes now? Why can he not wait any longer? I believe it is absolute nonsense that he must make these changes in October, that he cannot wait until the proper consultation reviews take place.

Mr Bolton: Can you hazard a guess as to why he might be doing it in October?

Mr Park: I could hazard a guess that this Government is probably within its last six months in office, so I do not think anybody would want to take a bet on whether Michael Ancram is going to be here in the spring. I believe he is being pressurized to get these changes through now just in case the Government have to call a snap election. It is totally wrong that a Government in its last months in office should make these changes now. Why are Ministers saying they must set the legislation in motion during October? Does it have to be now? I believe we are getting unsatisfactory answers. Therefore, in answer to your question, it is purely for political reasons -- if you really want a short answer.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr Park. We have probably exhausted this.

Mr Park: Yes.

The Chairman: I appreciate your having answered the questions forthrightly and honestly. Ballymena Chamber of Commerce has recognized the Forum Committee by sending a representative, and a very good advocate you were on its behalf.

Mr Park: Thank you very much. I wish you well in your deliberations. Indeed, I wish the Forum well in all its deliberations. I just wish there were wider representation.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Witnesses:

Mrs Odling-Smee, Mrs McIvor, Mr Brown and Mrs Sinnott

(Association of Northern Ireland Education and Library Boards)

The Chairman: Good morning and welcome.

The Education Committee, by resolution in July, took a decision to examine the proposal by the Department of Education to create three new boards instead of five. Obviously this has been of concern, not only to the elected members but to everyone who has an interest in education.

Please proceed as you wish.

Mrs Odling-Smee: Thank you very much. I am here representing the Association of Education and Library Boards, as its first Vice President; our President is unfortunately away at a conference. We have Mrs Berna McIvor from the Western Board, Mrs Margaret Sinnott from the South Eastern Education and Library Board and Mr Ernie Brown, our Honorary Secretary, also from the South Eastern Education and Library Board.

We are part of the consultative group of the association, and it is very appropriate that we should be able to come and talk to the Forum. We think that the Forum is the body that should be discussing these issues, so it is an excellent opportunity for us to put our case. One of the points that we would like to make is that the Forum is where we think the decisions should be made. We feel at the moment that democracy in Northern Ireland is being undermined by the fact that decisions are not being made at a local level, and the people who are making the decisions are not responsible and accountable to the electorate here, and we are very disturbed about that.

Therefore, we would like to draw your attention firstly to the resolution that we passed at last year’s conference, and the one we are going to discuss at this year’s conference. These resolutions have come from consensus among the five boards. There is a lot of discussion and a great deal of detailed research being done, as my colleagues will describe to you later. The Minister, in one of his documents, said that they really could not get consensus from the five boards. It was difficult, so they needed to reduce them to three in number.

We just do not agree with that at all. We think the association does in fact have a very good and increasingly developed role as a consensual body. The analysis which the association carried out on the first set of proposals in DENI shows that 70% to 90% of the responses to the proposals indicated a cross-community response of keeping the five boards. This was based on local access and the need for a stable framework in times of change. We would say that it is even more important at the present moment to preserve local accountability and responsiveness to local needs.

We are very keen for a study to be done on ways in which co-operation between the boards could be enhanced, and this is already being developed. Already boards carry out certain functions on behalf of all and there is a good deal of co-operation between the boards when a task is suitable for that approach.

We think the boards are extremely powerful forces for partnership in the community, and at the moment that is what we need. We would also like to draw your attention to the report of the Northern Ireland Economic Council in 1995 which looked at the document from DENI 'Learning for Life', and its comment was that by far the greatest cost to Northern Ireland’s education administration comes from the fact that we have such a divided education system.

It is divided by religion, it is divided by ability and it is divided by the nature of administration. We have the maintained sector, we have the controlled sector, we have the voluntary grammar schools, and we have the integrated sector. We hold that it would be perfectly possible to administer all of those sectors through the boards with certain safeguards for people’s rights and special sensitivities, so we suggest that this idea of dealing with the boards on their own is just tinkering at the edges of the cost of Northern Ireland’s education administration and that really is not dealing with the question. This is backed up by the evidence that the Economic Council’s report gives.

I am now going to ask Mrs McIvor to continue.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. I will be coming back to you with a question on the economic appraisal of the Department.

Mrs McIvor: Thank you, Mr Chairman. You treated me well the last time, so I have come back. The last time, for the benefit of those members who were not present, I represented the Western Education and Library Board. This time I am indeed privileged to represent the Association of Education and Library Boards.

The proposal to split up the South Eastern Board last year was viewed with dismay by a wide range of people in the South Eastern area. The Minister recognized then that this proposition had not received support, so he decided not to proceed with it.

Now his intention is to split up the Western Board. I believe he has aroused even greater opposition, particularly since there was no consultation, and I stress again: no consultation. It has been presented as a fait accompli.

There were originally two consultative phases and the reaction to them took place a couple of years ago and last year, but on the present proposal for three boards there has not been a consultative process, and I stress what I stressed when I was here last week on behalf of the Western Board, indeed, Mrs Odling Smee has referred already to the unanimity of opposition to the Minister’s proposal — namely that we should focus on the consensus that there is in opposition to the proposals.

This association has close contacts with the Council of Local Education Authorities. In England and Wales the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of CLEA, Cllr Graham Lane and Cllr Saxton Spence, cannot understand the direction the Minister is taking here in Northern Ireland when in LEAs in England, Wales and Scotland changes are going in the opposite direction. LEAs are becoming smaller, they are being split up, they are bringing services closer to the people, and they are increasing local participation in the democratic system and decision-making. Last week we brought along from the Western Board a chart showing the sizes of the LEAs in Wales and

Scotland.

One other point is the co-operation that exists between the boards. Now we do co-operate, and as an example I could mention our joint legal service and our regional training unit. There may be more areas where we could co-operate and indeed there are others that I could mention where we do co-operate, but at the same time we also believe in local responses to local needs, and there may be cases where the services should be differentiated in different places.

Mr Brown: I have got to put on a fresh hat today also from the last time I was here, the hat of Honorary Secretary to the association.

You have a fair bit of detail in our letter about some of the points backing up our resolution. I would just like to add to that very briefly because I know you want to get to the questions you wish to ask us — perhaps some four or five bullet points, if I might, on the issue.

Our association, through its links with the Council for Local Educational Authorities in Great Britain, the Society of Education Officers and the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, has a very deep understanding of the pattern of local education administration across the water. We have day-to-day contacts and we work with education officers and with members from across the water within those associations, so we really do know what we are talking about on the particular topic of English, Scottish and Welsh LEAs.

The boards here certainly carry out a very wide range of local government functions compared with education authorities in England or Scotland, and they represent a tremendously wide range of local interests in their construction. From any analysis that I have done, my view is that the boards are economical, efficient and effective in comparison with parallel authorities in England. In particular, the managerial levels of staff in an educational and library board in Northern Ireland tend to be a good deal lower than those in local education authorities in England, as a study, for example, of

the ‘Education Year Book’ would very easily prove.

The Society of Education Officers represents the officers of LEAs in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Whilst our association has the senior officers of the board in full membership as well as the actual members of the board, it is a bridging organization that brings officers and members together at that particular level.

The Council of the Society of Education Officers — that is the national body — has already viewed the Minister’s decision here with such concern in terms of its potential to damage the education and library service here, that the President of the Society, Mr Andrew Collier, who is a former Director of Education of Lancashire County Council, thought it appropriate to write directly to the Minister expressing those concerns and asking him to change his direction. That is a very powerful voice from national level, who knows about local education authority administration, who along with the people from the elected side — the Chairs of CLEA — expressed his serious and grave doubts about the direction that this matter is taking here.

The boards are wholly unconvinced about the possibilities of making real savings by reducing their number. Our boards are now very economical in the use of headquarters administrative resources. We use between 2% and 2.5% of our recurrent budgets on administration, but if you put the capital in as well, which we have to manage, that figure comes down to between 1.5% and 2% of our budgets. In anybody’s count that is an extremely economical administration budget for the boards.

If you reorganize the boards into three, it is very unlikely that there will be any significant savings in the number of clerical, executive or administrative staff. The Minister said this himself to the Northern Ireland Select Affairs Committee when asked that question by local MPs.

Some reduction in the number of managers may be possible, but we have got to set that against the fact that we have a job evaluation scheme. If you reduce the number of managers, you make their work spans bigger and their responsibilities generally higher, and job evaluation is likely to bring about a rise in salaries in the light of that. So we cannot see how big savings would be made by staff changes — certainly nothing in the order of the figures that the Minister and his Department are talking about. If the intention is to make those savings through accommodation changes, it is very hard to know how you can reduce accommodation costs if the number of staff stays broadly the same, as we believe it will.

Indeed, it is hard to see where any of these savings are going to come from. We are also aware that there will be major transitional costs and the association has asked each of the boards to contribute to a process of endeavouring to estimate these at the moment. It is going to have to be an estimate because it is difficult to predict the outcome of the whole thing when we do not know the location of proposed headquarters or other key information factors about the proposed new boards.

The President and I were at a CLEA conference in Bristol earlier this month, on the subject of creating new LEAs, as part of our partnership with CLEA. It was revealed there that the costs of the reorganization of one English authority had totalled nearly £1 million in itself.

Even if you could save the Department’s predicted £2 million or so each year by reorganization, it is our view that it would be at least between five and seven years before the transitional costs would be recouped by those sort of savings, and, as I say, we do not believe they are likely to happen at all.

Finally, all the boards have already made very significant savings in administration over the last number of years. They have made those savings by internal restructuring and downsizing their operations to get more money out to schools. This sort of tactic is more likely to produce savings within the boards than any proposals to reorganize, but I would like to re-emphasize again our Vice-President’s point that rationalization of the whole administration system — and I include looking at the Department, looking at the other bodies that play a role in administration and the boards to avoid waste, to avoid duplication and to make it more efficient — has a much greater potential for savings than this sort of tinkering with a very successful education system.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

You mentioned the economic appraisal done by the Northern Ireland Economic Development Council. Can you give us a date, time or reference?

Mrs Odling-Smee: I am afraid I do not have the document with me. It came out in January 1995 and it was a response to the various papers on administration of education in Northern Ireland. It is a very tightly argued and packed document and the quote that I was taking was from the setting-the-scene chapters. I do not have chapter and verse with me, but I can let you have it.

The Chairman: We will want to research that.

Mrs Odling-Smee: Yes, it is a very useful document.

The Chairman: I was faxed some information about the size of LEAs in England. They are generally smaller, closer to the community, more representative. Can you give one or two examples?

Mr Brown: The South Eastern Board did an analysis of this before going to the House of Commons Select Committee last November and at that time the Northern Ireland education authorities were all in the top 30% on a table of some 100 authorities. Since then 35 new authorities have been created in England by the division of existing authorities, so we have gone up the table in that sense. For example, the authority to which I was referring in Avon was a very big authority. It has been split into Bristol City, North Somerset, Bath and North East Somerset and South Gloucestershire. So four authorities have been created out of that. Now all those 35 new authorities are smaller than any Northern Ireland education and library board, and most of them are a very great deal smaller. In Scotland 12 authorities have been sub-divided into 32, all of which are now smaller than the local educational authorities here and in Wales eight authorities have been sub-divided into 22, all of which are smaller than our boards here. The South Eastern Board was asked last week to give you an analysis of LEAs. I have that document with me to leave with you today, and you will get those figures in it.

The Chairman: In your overall submission you are suggesting that any review should be a bottom-up job.

You are saying that, taking out the capital, your administration cost is 1.5% to 2%.

Mr Brown: No, you leave out capital in the figures of 1.5% to 2%. If you take the recurrent cost only, it is between 2% and 2.5%.

The Chairman: But what I am getting at is that is the overall administration figure is 1.5% to 2%, including the capital.

Mr Brown: Yes, including the capital.

The Chairman: To compare it with other administrations, I have to get a basis.

Mrs Odling-Smee: Quite.

The Chairman: Otherwise I could be accused of not comparing like with like.

Mr Brown: The South Eastern Board is giving you those figures as well.

Mr Fowler: I believe there is already co-operation between the boards in respect of legal services. Does this point to more joint working between the boards and, consequently, a reduction in their number?

Mrs Odling-Smee: The two things actually sound as if it is a logical progression, but I do not think it is. Because of the need for local representation, because of the need for decisions and consultations to be rooted in the communities, and because of the way in which we are geographically, with mountains and valleys and rivers and things that make little hinter lands, we need to be very careful that local communities are very well represented and not too far from the centre where things happen.

That does not mean to say that there are not certain economies of scale that can arise and develop which would be shared. No, we do not think that you would therefore reduce the boards’ numbers, because it is a different thing having certain functions that can be shared and having all the functions rolled into one. With the suggested board areas the geographical spread is very vast and the locale is very different from one end of the proposed structures to the other. My colleagues may like to come in on that.

Mrs McIvor: I totally agree. I did make the point that there is certainly co-operation. I mentioned the legal service and the regional training unit, but I also talked about the needs of a local community and the differentiated needs — and we are different. I do not want to talk again about the West, because I got that opportunity last week, but I remember saying that we have a distinct ethos in the West, and the same could be said by anyone from the Belfast Board. Belfast is a large city; we are a huge rural area in the West, and there is a very wide geographical spread. I talk about democracy and bringing decisions and consultation down to the people. That does not cost money, yet it is so important in a democracy and, especially in this troubled country of ours, it is so important to consult the people. People will feel happier.

Mr Fowler: Almost everyone who has come to make representations has complained of the lack of consultation. Now it appears that there seems to have been nothing talked about in the last 12 months but education. How much more consultation do you think there should be?

Mrs McIvor: Well you said that education has been much talked about, and I believe it should be much talked about. It should be nearly at the top of everybody’s agenda and we should be discussing it. The future of our young people is so important, but how much consultation? When I talked about consultation, I was talking about consultation about this particular proposal. I mentioned the four education and library boards proposal and the dismay that caused in the South Eastern area. Now we have another proposal from the Minister, and there has been absolutely no consultation. He announced it one night at the end of June to the chairman and Chief Executives, and there had been no consultation about a three-board model. There was no consultation about splitting up the West and putting some of the area to the North and some to the South, and that is the sort of consultation I am talking about — anyway I will talk for ever about education, I spent my life in it.

Mrs Odling-Smee: I think Mr Brown might like to come in on that.

Mr Brown: There were certainly two very big consultative phases on those proposals, but there has not been any consultation about the present proposal. We did our analysis of the outcome of those consultative phases in terms of the churches, the political parties, the schools, the teachers’ unions, the boards of governors and so on. The Minister has not listened to a whit of what came out of that, and that is quite clear. He has simply made a decision and gone ahead despite our consultation. In any case, if you want to formulate good quality education policy, what you really need is to get the people together who have to deliver it, both at local authority level and in the schools, to help formulate that policy you do not formulate it on high and bring it down for consultation, the outcome of which you do not intend to listen to.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: You made reference to the council of the national body discussing all this. Would it be possible for you to forward to us a copy of the letter that they sent?

The Chairman: Just to clarify that one. The letter of Mr Collier is already in a submission.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: Reference has been made to distance — the Northern Board, and the Southern Board — would it be possible for you to give us some tabular statement about the distance in the case of LEAs in England and Scotland as compared to ours? If you are arguing that distance is such a very important factor, what about distance in the case of LEAs which are a lot smaller?

Mr Brown: The new LEAs in England were formed quite recently. I was trying to get school population figures for them but I found some difficulty in getting any central source, so I will follow that track back and see what we can get. But, obviously, in somewhere like Bristol city, for example, distances are extremely small. It is a single-city authority.

Mr Smyth: What do you think the Government are up to? We listened to your talk about the boards being a lot smaller across the United Kingdom.

The Chairman: That is the 64,000 dollar question.

Mrs Odling-Smee: How long have you got?

The Chairman: Make an inspired guess.

Mrs Odling-Smee: I think that is a very difficult question. You could hazard a guess; it might be this or it might be that, but really we do not know for sure.

Mrs McIvor: Really, we do not know.

Mr Bolton: The previous submission majored very heavily on duplication, and you, Mr Brown, touched on that subject. How do you weigh that in terms of the Department and the five boards?

Mr Brown: I raised this, maybe I should respond. If you compare the functions of the Department for Education and Employment, or the Scottish Office Education and Industry Department with the Department of Education for Northern Ireland, you will find that there is much closer involvement in day-to-day decision making here. The boards make many decisions, the Department then re-checks them and approves them. They ask for massive day-to-day approvals for them. They also retain a much higher level of services that they fund directly and by which they, therefore, control the actions of the boards. So, there is a lot of duplication between boards and the Department in areas that are properly the functions of local government. But equally there is a lot of duplication with other bodies in the world of education and administration. The Curriculum Council is one, the Catholic Council for the Maintained Schools is another. Again they are doing the same work as the boards and that could be brought together, integrated and given some sense of coherence.

Mr Bolton: It would be no problem to your association to undertake most of these tasks.

Mr Brown: We have publicly stated that it would be our wish to develop, by whatever structural changes were needed, organizations - five of them - which could deliver a whole service to meet all the educational and library needs of schools in their areas.

Mrs McIvor: In our original submission from the Western Board, those are the points we made about the education and library boards and what we are capable of doing. We talked about an integrated approach to the administration of education, and I believe the five education and library boards can do exactly that.

Mrs Odling-Smee: It would give much greater cohesion to planning, for instance, and inter-developmental work between schools.

The Chairman: You have so much duplication and the Government simply ignored it.

Mr McFarland: When the Department came here, we pressed them on the league table of LEAs in England, and where we fell. They dismissed it fairly rapidly on the basis that LEAs had many different functions. They included all sorts of other areas, or at least they were based on areas which included things other than education. You could not use that table, because it was not comparing like with like. Is that correct? Where are the areas that are different? Are they so different as to make invalid the argument?

Mr Brown: Two things, perhaps. First of all, an English local education authority is part of a county or a borough council. We have to recognize that fact. It is still the local education authority and it comprises elected members and co-opted members who represent interests within the community in a not dissimilar way, although the proportions are different from the education and library boards over here. For

example, there would be substantially more elected members and fewer co-opted members. But both categories exist. Most education authorities in England get their central treasury, personnel, establishment, architectural and corporate services from the County Council’s Chief Executive. So they do not have to provide those but all our boards, because they are stand-alone bodies, do have to provide those services. We have our own treasury, we have our own establishment and so forth. That is a clear cut difference — we do more tasks.

Look through the range of services that LEAs provide to schools and the public. We do everything that local education authorities in England do and provide more services, which only some or none of the local education authorities in England do. An example of this is the public library service which no local education authority in England provides, as far as I know, although some provide the school library service. At the moment we are still providing further and adult education. We know that is going to transfer. But at this present time, and one is looking for comparisons, that is another extra that is not done across the water. So we actually do more than a local education authority on a range of counts while performing all of their functions

Mr McFarland: They were saying "We have an area that the board had, which is based on education criteria in theory“. I think they were saying that those figures for an English LEA were often based on what the county council had as its road-sweeping area.

The reason there are X thousand children under West Sussex LEA is more geographical/administrative than educational. The criteria are different.

Mrs Odling-Smee: You could also say that that should be the case here in a sense, that we ought to be thinking about the particular geographical and community depositions here, plus transport and accessibility and the rural and the city. We have a very particular type of make-up so if you are idiosyncratic in England, you need to be idiosyncratic here.

The Chairman: What validity can we put on these figures?

Mr Brown: The only way I could answer that would be to say this. There was a very sizable debate within the body politic, that is the local body politic in England, about the nature of the organization there and the possible sizes of new local authorities, multi-functional local authorities. That debate centred round two factors. One was the fact that 60% of the budget of local authorities in England is spent on education so it is a very major service of great importance to the local authority. The second and key question was whether small authorities could provide an adequate education service for the children of their area. It was debated very extensively in the Local Government Commission that looked at that review. Again, my source for this is the Society of Education Officers Group which took a very keen interest in all of this.

The conclusion was that it was very important that education services were devolved as near to the people as they could be, and many of the smaller authorities were quite adequate vehicles for delivering education services especially, as our President has said, in a city environment. Where they were perhaps too small to provide a full range — and I am talking now about very small authorities, with a population of around 10,000, 15,000 or 20,000 — there was no reason why they should not co-operate and provide some joint services. So the principle of getting education near to the people was the dominant principle that came out of that debate.

Mr McFarland: Do we have easy access to the Great Britain equivalent? Is there someone who could say “I know these well enough to know that, although in theory they could be based on other considerations, in fact they are largely the same in most of those authorities”?

Mr Brown: Yes, interesting, Mr Hanley, when he was Minister, compared us with Yorkshire. He said that Yorkshire did not need five education authorities. We found out at that time it had nine, and now it has 11. He also said that Hampshire would be a good body to compare us with, and I believe Bedfordshire might just be in the frame at the present time as something that would be a useful comparator. It does seem to me that there are valid comparisons to be made with authorities across the water, but you need to be very careful to compare like with like.

The Chairman: I do not like to follow Ministerial or Departmental red herrings.

Mrs Odling-Smee: That was exactly my feeling, yes.

The Chairman: I regard Northern Ireland as unique, culturally different from across the water. How do you rate English, Scottish or Welsh performance? Have you a gut feeling as to how their new LEAs are working?

Mrs Odling-Smee: Is that a question we could answer when they are still finding their feet?

The Chairman: I know that it is subjective.

Mr Brown: In Scotland, a huge authority like Strathclyde was rated very poorly, yet in Bristol City, where I had a long discussion recently with the new director of education and a number of councillors, they are very pleased with the service’s being brought down to a single-city authority that can really concentrate on the problems they have in providing education in a multi-cultural environment with economic difficulties. Those are only pointers, it is probably fairly patchy at the moment.

The Chairman: There was this great idea of looking at the whole of Northern Ireland. We have equalized school meals and the deprivation factor in the calculations. We can take away all this business of differentiation. I am the sort of person who likes formulae. I am getting a bit afraid of standardization. “Rationalization” seems to be the buzz word. May we focus on that for a second.

Mrs Odling-Smee: I think your point is very well made. Any arrangement has got to be sensitive, flexible and responsive to local need. This is what we have been talking about all the time.

Mrs McIvor: Bringing this into the debate or the discussion makes no positive contribution at all. I do not think it is desirable because there are different uptakes and different areas, and we have not had a problem administering that. Each board addresses the problems in its own area as it sees fit, which is usually the best way. I have got a copy of the Department’s document. I looked at the figures and I wondered why it was bringing this into the debate. I go back again to what I mentioned earlier, differentiation

The Chairman: Am I looking at another red herring?

Mrs McIvor: Well I certainly do not believe it makes a contribution. I would say categorically that it makes no contribution to this at all.

The Chairman: I want to eradicate the red herrings — LEAs, multi-functional authorities and all the rest. We could get into all sorts of jargon and lose what we are really about.

Mr Brown: The bottom line, on this point, is that the boards believe in differentiation on two counts: one, when it is appropriate for the locality and, two, when it is fair. As long as we can satisfy these two criteria, what the system should be having is differentiation, because the needs of a small school in the Lecale area of Co Down are not the same as the needs of a school in very difficult urban area of Belfast or what have you. You need that local sensitivity to work with your head teachers, to work with your governors, to get a system of administration that suits your area.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentation.

Mrs Odling-Smee: Thank you also for the way you have heard us. We are very grateful for being able to come because we think you are the people we should be talking to. We will send you all the things you need.

Witness:

Mr Andrews

(Castlereagh Borough Council)

The Chairman: Thank you very much for coming. You have submitted a 10-point document. Would you like to elaborate on that?

Mr Andrews: I will go through the different points. Firstly, we felt that the boards had been chosen out of the whole realm of education administration in Northern Ireland for this review and that if we were going to look at the administration of education in Northern Ireland, we should be looking at the Department of Education. It administers things which could be done equally well by the boards and which are done by the education authorities in England. The existing five education and library boards have provided, to our mind, an excellent service to the schools, the colleges, the libraries and the youth groups. We do not feel that there is necessarily a need for change, and we make that point. However, the Minister accepted that the boards should be more accountable in future.

Now, on the proposal to increase the number of elected representatives from 40 to 48, at a meeting at which I was not present, Castlereagh council felt that the percentage of elected representatives should be increased to 60% of the membership of the board. I was not able to give an argument against that at the council. I favour less than that because of the need to cater for transferors’ representatives and representatives from, for instance, the youth service and libraries who are on the education and library boards. I feel that somewhere around about fifty-fifty would probably be adequate, but our council decided on 60%, and that is what I must say on behalf of my council.

Now in Castlereagh we have felt rather aggrieved that we only have two members, whereas all the other areas of which the South Eastern Education and Library Board is made up have actually got at least three, and some have up to, I think, five. We find it very difficult to represent all the services provided in schools, colleges and libraries and for youth with just two elected representatives for Castlereagh. I think that three should be the minimum, to be honest.

The Chairman: Are you saying that the three-board model would be acceptable if you got enough councillors?

Mr Andrews: I will deal with that under item seven.

The Chairman: Very well.

Mr Andrews: The council cannot agree that substantial savings would be made from the proposals as they are put forward at the moment because of the restructuring that is involved. We understand that it is going cost one board alone £2 million to effect the changes, and the proposals refer to £2 million as the total amount it is hoped to save.

Now the boards, as they are constituted, have enabled all sections of the community to work together for the promotion of dialogue and understanding within the education system. The South Eastern Education and Library Board has representatives, apart from Sinn Fein, from all the different political groupings and has worked for the benefit, as far as possible, of the whole community and worked well, with very little ill feeling. The education system and the boards is one area that is best representative of the whole community. That is not only my impression but also the impression of other members of our council who have served on the board.

With regard to the restructuring, at item 7 you will see that if the restructuring of the education and library boards is absolutely essential, our council would find the three-board proposal more acceptable than the original four-board one for the reason that the South Eastern Education and Library Board would remain intact. We gave some thought to how the split up would work for the rest of the province, and it was the majority view on the council that the four-board proposal was never going to be a satisfactory arrangement. However, if it has to be split, while we prefer having the five boards, Castlereagh feels that the three-board model would be more reasonable and more acceptable. Simply to reduce the number of boards does not follow what is happening in the rest of the United Kingdom, and we have noted that in other areas of the United Kingdom, the number is increasing rather than decreasing.

With reference to the proposed incorporation of further and higher education colleges, that has gone beyond the point of no return now. The colleges all seem to be keen to progress along that line and, presumably, some form of funding will have to be set up.

Finally, while there may be a good case for a review of the system of education administration in Northern Ireland, we felt that this was something which was ideally suited to local administration — by that I mean a form of provincial Northern Ireland administration rather than by the Minister. I do not know how much one should attribute to the civil servants as the basis for some of the suggestions that were made and how much to the Minister’s ideas. I feel that some sort of Assembly would be the ideal place to look at education. This is one area where, from Castlereagh’s experience as representatives on the South Eastern Education and Library Board, people can work together very well in the field of education and if immediate action is not absolutely necessary, it should be left for such an elected Assembly.

If there are any questions that you would like to put, I will be happy to answer them.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr Fowler: I am interested in point number 7 — that if restructuring of the education and library boards proves essential you would find three better than four. "You are going to be shot. Do you want us to use a cannon or a shotgun?"

Mr Andrews: To be honest, that is the way we feel about it. We would prefer to have been left with the five boards. Whenever the newspapers were given this statement the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ worked out that we were advocating a four-board proposal, which was never the intention. In fact it does not say that and it then had to publish a correction the next week, yet, we were blamed for supporting a four-board proposal. If it were possible, we would certainly like it to remain a five-board proposal until a local administration had an opportunity to look at it. That is our feeling in Castlereagh.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: It does not seem logical for the council, in number 7, to say "We like the three, but we note that everywhere else the reverse is happening". Would it not have been better for Castlereagh Council to say "We want either, or", than to be contradictory? It would seem that Castlereagh is interested only in protecting the South Eastern Education and Library Board, no matter what happens to all the other boards. "I am only interested in one board, no matter what happens the rest."

Mr Andrews: We made the argument in favour of five boards, and we now have another proposal before us which is not four boards. It does not mention five. Earlier on in our statement, under 2, we say that we are happy with the five boards and they should not be changed just for the sake of change. But we have had this document thrust on us which seems to be a final document and yet the original consultative document suggested four. We made strong representations that it should remain at five when the original consultative document was published.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: Some of these paragraphs appear to be suggesting, "At all costs keep the South Eastern, and to pot with the rest!"

Mr Andrews: The South Eastern is not being kept under the three-board proposal.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: Yes I understand that but the implication appears to be that at all costs the one that you are fighting for is just the South Eastern, that is the one you are really concerned about.

Mr Andrews: The South Eastern Board was being enlarged to include a bit of Newtownabbey and to work together with Belfast. You are reading too much into the fact that we think that something is more acceptable. We have already said that we do not want it changed at all, but we do say that something is more acceptable than something else. You have to read what we have said. We would prefer the three-board model to the original four-board proposal.

The Chairman: In other words, the five-board model should remain?

Mr Andrews: Possibly toned done slightly, that is basically what we are saying. We would be happy with that since we always wanted the five boards to stay the way they were until an Assembly could look at them. But then we were left with the position that we had a consultative document for four which was nonsensical. Look at the number of people who were being administered. In fact, in this proposal the number of people who are to be administered by one of the boards is much higher than any of the others, so we have tried to keep this down to a minimum. We could have made a very good case for anybody who wanted to go back to the five-board model if that were a choice that we had.

The Chairman: Is your point that if there is to be a review from top to bottom, and if somebody is going to force something, three is preferable to four?

Mr Andrews: We would look at that sadly, yes, but we thought that the consultative document would have listened more to what we said about the five boards, and we hoped that that would be the case.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr Andrews: I did not want the case to go without our views being heard.

Witness: Rev Patrick Crilly

(representing Cardinal Cahal Daly

and The Most Rev Dr Seamus Hegarty, Bishop of Derry)

The Chairman: You are very welcome. I appreciate your attendance at the Forum Education Committee.

Fr Crilly: Thank you.

The Chairman: You are probably aware that in early July we debated the Minister’s announcement and his intention to have a legal directive placed in Parliament. The Forum thought that there had been very little consultation and that it should set up a Committee to examine these proposals in some depth. Please proceed as you wish.

Fr Crilly: Thank you very much for your welcome and for the opportunity to reflect on the questions that the Chairman has outlined. Can I clarify the point that he made about who I am and why I am here.

Cardinal Daly received an invitation from this Committee to make a presentation and he was not able to be here so, as any person in his position would do, he delegated to Bishop Hegarty, as the Bishop most affected by the proposed elimination of the Western Board,

“I think you would be best placed to address the Education Committee. If you are unable to do so, perhaps you could get someone to represent you.”

I am the one that it has fallen to. I am not normally a regular spokesperson for our Church on these matters, it is simply because I have been very involved in this particular case over the summertime that I was asked to represent our views. In the letter the Cardinal suggests that the points he made in his letter to Michael Ancram might serve as part of the case to be made. So in many ways I am basing my presentation on the outline of his letter, his personal submission to Michael Ancram. That will be my argument.

The Chairman: Do you have a copy of the Archbishop’s letter.

Fr Crilly: I am not sure whether I would be in a position to submit it or release it, but it might be worth your while contacting the Cardinal’s office and Bishop Hegarty’s office.

The Chairman: We certainly will. Obviously he has made an original response in his capacity as the Cardinal.

Fr Crilly: Yes, exactly, and Bishop Hegarty also has. I am not in a position to release them on their behalf but if you contact their offices, I am sure it will be possible for you to have them.

The Chairman: Yes. It is just that you may refer to the letters.

Fr Crilly: Yes, I appreciate that and I think it would be a good idea from your point of view. I think you would find them both useful.

I was just finishing my holidays in June when the Minister’s announcement was made suggesting a three-board structure for education in Northern Ireland. It was not the only significant publication about education this year. Just a couple of months before that UNESCO published a report called ‘Learning: the Treasure Within’. It was produced by an international commission on education for the 21st century, chaired by Jacques Delors. That report bases its ideas on four pillars - learning to know, learning to do, learning to live together and learning to be, and at an early stage it comes out in favour of one of those pillars as the foundation, and that is learning to live together. Can I quote from that report:

"Learning to live together by developing an understanding of others and their history, traditions and spiritual values and on this basis creating a new spirit which, guided by recognition of our growing inter-dependence and a common analysis of the risks and challenges of the future, would induce people to implement common projects or to manage the inevitable conflicts in an intelligent and peaceful way."

And at a further stage it says:

"The main parties contributing to the success of educational reforms are first of all the local community, including parents, school heads and teachers, second the public authorities and thirdly the international community. Many past failures have been due to insufficient involvement of one or more of these partners. Attempts to impose educational reforms from the top down or from outside have obviously failed."

These words suggest the link between education and democracy that is surely

at the heart of our present debate.

We wish our children, our young people and our adults to be well educated and we wish as parents and communities to exercise the right to be involved in that. We want them to learn all through their lives, not merely a series of facts but a system of living and working together which will bring us to a better, agreed, participative future. Therefore, we must and we do encourage in our schools and colleges various ways of participation in the running of the life of those schools and colleges. We try to show them this in family and parish life and we hope they will see it in society. For "education to live together” to be real this participation must be seen at local level and felt at local level. Small is beautiful. The distant edict delivered by fax, E-mail or courier is not always a sign of the participation into which we need to educate our children. If they are to learn about democracy it can surely be done only in the context of visible, local and accessible structures run by people they know and see in places that are at a reasonable distance from them. Efficiency alone, or even effectiveness, could be achieved by fewer people and more machines and yet be less human and less educative. A development of the class computerized administration system could reduce human contact even more unless it is used as an effective tool by real human decision-making communities.

We can see that new localized approach in the new local authorities set up this year in Britain where the smallest is a population of 19,000 in one in Scotland, 59,000 in one in Wales and 90,000 in one in England. The average size of a local education authority in Wales is 132,000; in Scotland it is 160,000. Why is it considered over-administration to have a board covering 251,000 in the West? I apologize for straying into the territory already covered by the Association of Education and Library Boards this morning, and by the submissions from individual boards. I am aware of them and I agree with them. My contribution is rather to outline the significance of where we are and where our behaviour is likely to take us.

I believe we must insist that our education be child, family and community centred. Inevitably that brings with it the question of values and I believe that it is specifically in the context of learning to live together that these values will be found, tried, exercised and communicated. Realists and financiers will say that it must come down to money. LMS has taught us to see the almighty budget as crucial to responsibility. That is true, but at the same time there will always be a price to pay for what is worthwhile. Savings should not always be the motive for the ways of educating our young, otherwise we end up short-changing and cheap-skating them. If we believe that people are the basis of our society we must be willing to invest money in them, in their education and in their future, otherwise we will be investing it at the rate of £70,000 per person per year in the Prison Service.

Having said that, I do not accept that the Minister’s proposal will save £2 million. If it could, why does he not show us why and how? Where is the financial appraisal and what are its assumptions? Previous experience of estimated savings proposed by the Department, for example in the suggested centralization of services, have proved wrong. So were many of the population figures in the proposed new board areas. These proposals do not carry a well researched ring with them. I could not agree to any generation of children being treated as guinea pigs on such an ill-informed basis.

The reason you are here today is that you value stability. Any society, any family, needs stability. Particularly now in the autumn of 1996 we need stability. This is no time to start moving the planks under our feet when we have difficulty enough in standing as it is. It is not long since the Minister promised five years of stability as a respite from all the changes since education reform in 1989. I do not recognize the value of stability in the proposal to make radical changes to the decision-making processes for education and our community. Our teachers and our overworked boards of governors are still reeling from the effects of so much change and so many new processes. It is, as everyone knows, becoming difficult to get people willing to sit on boards of governors. Very often the one thing they can hold onto is the trust they have in well known and well worn channels of advice and support in their local board. Take that away from them and they would find it difficult to cope. We have already lost a whole generation of teachers, the gathered wisdom of many years, to early retirement and a sense of no longer being useful, of being de-skilled in their richest years. We do not want this to happen again.

Schools and youth clubs have been a source of stability over the past 25 years for many young people from backgrounds where society had surrounded them with violence. Our teachers and our education system built up an account of goodwill and a debt of gratitude that they have a right to call on now. In the name of stability, at a time of upheaval, I ask you not to allow these proposals from the Minister to go through. Please recommend that they not be proceeded with.

I would like to illustrate the impact of these proposals with specific reference to the Western Board which I know best. At a time when the whole world is watching us search for a system or style of participative decision-making, there already exists in the West a body which has, sometimes painfully, developed a means of sharing decision-making that we dare not abandon. In the Western Board the Chairman and Vice-Chairman and its committees come from both communities and halfway through the life of the board they change places. There is always a Catholic and a Protestant at the head of each committee. This has allowed a consensus type of decision-making that makes voting a formal ratification of consensus rather than a basis for conflict or division.

Policy documents are prepared and worked through by groups involving officers and members. Difference of opinion is part of the challenge on the way to consensus, not a sign to stop. This atmosphere pervades the work of the board and shows all those working in it and serviced by it that working together and living together is something that can be learned. This has been highlighted by both Cardinal Daly and Bishop Hegarty and also by the leaders of the four main churches in Derry and Clogher in their submissions to Michael Ancram. It would seem strange to abandon the one group that seems to be getting to grips with local democracy for the sake of £2 million that few people believe could exist.

If I could go back to the wider community, I would also like to highlight the impact this proposal would have on the area West of the Bann. The campaign on behalf of the Western Board has come up with the term “Easternization” for the process that this illustrates. Fundamentally, Michael Ancram has admitted that the basic reason for his proposal is the need for reorganizing education in the Greater Belfast area. This should not be done at the expense of other areas. There has already been a reduction of services and infrastructure in the West, in roads, industry, health and education. The highest unemployment is in the West, the worst roads are in the West. Most of the inward investment and development in the West has come from the efforts of communities and individuals in the West rather than from Government

sources. The West notices these things and wonders why it is not wanted, and could you blame them. Marginalization is a great vogue word for a perennial problem of disaffected young people in society. The Minister has been encouraging the boards to develop ways of counteracting marginalization yet his own proposal is marginalizing yet again a section of our society in Northern Ireland that has done nothing to deserve it other than to live at a distance from Belfast, and surely there is no crime in that.

The striking thing to me is that a campaign which began as a lonely voice from the West has been taken up across the North, by councils and by all the other boards as you heard this morning. This is a real growth in the unanimity so clearly expressed in the West. Could I quote from the letter from Cardinal Daly to Michael Ancram when he said

“It is rare indeed to find unanimity in support of any single objective among all the Church leaders, all the schools - controlled, maintained, Protestant Voluntary Grammar and Catholic Voluntary Grammar, all the Chambers of Commerce, all 5 District Councils in the Western region. Within some of these bodies there is deep division and mistrust on many issues, hence the significance, the great significance, of the fact that there is unanimity among all these persons and groups in their demand for the retention of the Western Education and Library Board and in the strength of their opposition to its proposed abolition. Given the grave setback to inter-community relations ensuing from the events at Drumcree and after, this unanimity should not be ignored”

and then later on

“This sense of disparity of esteem and inequity of treatment is shared equally by Unionist and Nationalist, Protestant and Catholic, citizens and communities. The consequences of this for the prospects of reconciliation and an overall political settlement are surely very obvious.”

And Bishop Hegarty made reference to the same difficulty when he said in his

letter to the Minister

“We need to be able to show people that participation and democracy is possible, that discussion can be productive, that Government listens to serious arguments and is willing to act as a result. Otherwise how can we ever hope to wean people away from the violence that comes from frustration. In my own experience of recent times I am more convinced of the need for dialogue and mutual co-operation. Decisions taken unilaterally which may have economic or administrative validity will not serve their purpose in a comprehensive way if they do not find general acceptance among people. When opposition to such decisions reaches the level of opposition and rejection which has been apparent in recent months then prudence would demand that the original decision be reviewed.”

There will always be tensions in life and in society. How we solve and resolve those tensions is the question, not the existence of the tensions themselves. Tensions are there to be overcome. That is the process of growth. The UNESCO report that I referred to at the beginning talks of a number of tensions that will face us in the world and in education in the 21st century. Among them they list the tension between the global and the local, how to become world citizens without losing their roots and while continuing to play an active part in the life of the local community. There is also the tension between the goal and the process, the ambition and the journey, the tension between the spiritual and the material. Today we also look at the

tension between Government aims and people’s needs. As Jacques Delors put it

“ Education is at the heart of both personal and community development, its mission is to enable each of us without exception to develop all our talents to the full and to realize our creative potential, including responsibility for our own lives and achievement of our personal aims.”

This responsibility for our own lives brings out other tensions in communities. One thing is certain, we all want community involvement of a credible nature in the management of the education of a realistic number of people at a reasonable proximity. We already have that in the five boards. It is not broken. Please do not try to fix it.

I said at the beginning that I have come at the request of Bishop Hegarty of Derry to represent the views and interests of Bishop Hegarty and Cardinal Daly who was invited by the Forum to make a presentation and who unfortunately cannot be present. If I were to sum up what I was asked to do here today on behalf of our Church, I would put it simply in the words of Cardinal Daly from his letter

“For all these reasons I most strongly urge that the proposal be not proceeded with.”

The Chairman: Thank you very much. I am sure both the Cardinal and Bishop Hegarty would be extremely proud of your presentation.

Fr Crilly : Thank you.

The Chairman: Obviously what your thesis is, to quote the more simplistic quote I picked up out of it - if it’s not broken don't fix it is what your main thesis is.

Mr Fowler: Fr Crilly, our experience during this week has almost totally been a submission against any change in the five boards, almost totally. Is there some reason that would suggest to you that children’s education would suffer in a three-board set-up.

Fr Crilly: My own personal belief is, yes, I believe it would, because I believe that education is best carried on in a family type community atmosphere where there is confidence around them and resourcefulness and a sense of shared responsibility. Where there is doubt and tension in the teachers and in the parents and in the community then I believe that is bound to influence, and from that point of view I think it would suffer. The point that the Minister keeps coming back to, and I have been on two delegations to the Minister, is that the change of administrative structures would not at all impact on the services being provided, and I think that is looking on services with the machine mentality, being able to communicate instructions by fax, E-mail or courier as I said earlier, rather than through the well developed and well grown inter-personal relationships and team spirit which are necessary to build a true shoulder-to-shoulder type of support from both administration and advisory services. For that reason I personally believe that the teaching and the learning would go on, there is no doubt about that, but I believe it would be missing something which is significant in the whole education process, which is that “education in learning to live together” contributes towards a deeper understanding of what democracy means for the life of every community.

Mr Fowler: In your submission you made reference to the fact that this could precipitate the loss of teachers. Over the last 10 to 15 years there was a flow of teachers from the profession into industry and office management, some of them even going to the church. This seems to be a natural flow. This feared movement to three boards could produce a similar flow, only this time it could be different. There would not be the same availability of employment for them. Do you agree?

Fr Crilly: I would not totally agree with your initial premise that there was a flow from teaching to industry and to other jobs as a change of employment. I do believe that post-1989, when the education reform came in and the actual working processes in the classroom and the school became so different, quite a number of people who were reaching the last stage in their teaching career decided that this was more than they were going to be willing to cope with and therefore they would leave it to the younger ones and they would get out. There is still I believe a group of teachers who are just, if you like, sitting on the edge of credibility and who are surviving admirably and contributing tremendously, as did those who took early retirement post-reform. I think that wisdom in persons is more important to the education system than knowledge of structures and processes, and I would be afraid at the moment that those whom we really need to hold onto because of their wisdom and teaching experience over the years might well see the break of those personal links and known structures to be the last straw. I fear that it might lead to a loss of some very good teachers from the profession.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: So far as the maintained sector is concerned, if all the boards were abolished it would be almost irrelevant. How many boards would have no effect, or very little effect, upon the maintained sector?

Fr Crilly: I am very glad you asked that because I had intended to put that into my presentation and then, as the presentation developed, it was going. to be a little bit out of kilter with the rest of it and I thought, hopefully, that somebody will ask the question and allow me to explain it. I do not agree. I think you are assuming that the running of the maintained sector is totally in the hands of the CCMS.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: Not totally, but a fair bit of it.

Fr Crilly: CCMS deals with the administration side in terms of boards of governors and so on, but that does not take into consideration the fact that budgeting is totally through the hands of the boards, school meals are totally through the hands of the boards and the advisory service is totally through the hands of the boards. School transport is also totally through the hands of the boards. The overall policy for a board area which, if I could use the illustration of policies towards small rural schools, is a policy that can only be made by the board; it cannot be made by CCMS. The employer in the maintained sector is definitely the CCMS and therefore that has direct relevance to processes of employment and also to the workings of boards of governors, because they work under terms of reference slightly different to those of the boards of governors in the controlled sector. But all of those other areas are common to both maintained and controlled, which is not true of the other sectors of

education and is why we have the representation of the trustees on each of the boards. That very structural statement points out the fact that the boards do impact very much on the day-to-day administration. All of that is part of the normal working relationship that goes on, statutorily speaking, between both sectors and the boards.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: The point of my question is that in the CCMS review of the arrangements for the administration of education and related services in Northern Ireland you specifically state

“The CCMS would argue that the interests of the Catholic sector cannot be adequately promoted within a five-board structure”.

One of the options you have is for the total abolition of all the boards, with one leader board and regional offices. So you would not be affected at all.

Fr Crilly: Sorry I cannot speak, I am not delegated to speak, on behalf of the CCMS, but I think you are referring to a 1993 document.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: Yes, 1992.

Fr Crilly: This is 1996 and I think the situation that we are dealing with is not necessarily the same as in 1992, but the one thing I had to make sure was that I was very clear on my remit, especially since I am not normally a spokesman, and one of the things that I did have to make very clear was that, since the CCMS covers the administrative side and has a civil service of its own, I cannot speak on behalf of it. I speak on behalf of the trustees.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: As far as the chalk-face is concerned, it does not matter what happens in administration, it will not affect the pupils in the classroom. They will still get their three hours. They will still get whatever other activities they have to do. The day-to-day running of the school will be affected very little by any administrative changes.

Fr Crilly: That is the Minister’s approach, that is the Minister’s opinion. That does not tally with the letters that have come in from schools all over the Western Board and, I think, from further afield. It does not tally with the attitudes of the teachers expressed in those letters, it does not tally with the attitudes of parents.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: Yes, but you would accept that when there are any changes you can whip up a head of steam. You can get parents to sign any petition you put before them, as a general rule, if you present things as black and as bad enough. If we go back over the change that was brought in over the curriculum, there was very little effect upon the pupils themselves. There may have been some ripples of discontent, but those went past. Remember, you are only talking about a couple of years. The ones who are there may be affected, but the new ones coming into school are starting with a blank sheet.

Fr Crilly: You may be right. I do not agree with that and I do not think that simply whipping up a head of steam can explain why in the Western Board area 110,000 signatures to a petition were got during summer holidays when schools were closed and many people away. The numbers are against that interpretation: people have come out, all the voluntary organizations have come out in support, all the political parties, all the trade unions, all the chambers of commerce, all the Churches, all the schools. You know, it is simply impossible to achieve that type of unanimity by pressure. It simply does not work like that and anybody in the political world surely will agree with that.

Mr Bolton: I am very happy with your presentation. It will be of great assistance in coming up with a decision. Thank you for it. Several of the folk who have appeared in front of us here have complained that it was just the boards coming into the firing line for examination on this, and that really one of the areas that should be looked at is the Department because it has a massive budget. And not only the Department but the whole education system should have been looked at and taken into consideration here. Now this would include CCMS for example and I appreciate that you are not a spokesman for CCMS. However, what is your view on the idea that there should be a complete revamp or examination of education, including the Department and all those agencies involved in it?

Fr Crilly: When the review was going on initially, everybody in the educational world was making the recommendation that if the structures of education are to be reviewed, then let us review them and let us not be piecemeal in it. Now that situation was true then, but I do not think that the current situation would lead us to draw the same conclusion. That would rather be saying that we want to go further than the Minister is going and causing fresh upheaval, while what we are trying to do at the moment is say “Look, you know, we really have had enough.” Education cannot cope with this constant changing and we do need a time of stability. The schools need it, the pupils need it and the parents do not know where they are.

The teachers and boards of governors are at a loss. Now is not the time. We must surely, above all else when we are dealing with education, allow stability to grow at some stage. We would be inclined to believe that, and if you compare, for example, those figures that are given for the population size of the new educational units in Wales, Scotland and England with the sizes that these proposals seem to be suggesting for Northern Ireland, it would seem that there is some kind of an experimental base to suggestions like this which is running against the current Government policy in Britain, and that does not make sense. Therefore, I would say that your logic breaks down, and comments that were sensible in 1993 are not sensible at present.

Mr McFarland: Suppose we could get stability now and it was agreed that the five boards would remain in being for the moment but that there would be a review in a couple of years' time or when the situation had settled a little more. One of the other things we have heard from people coming before us is that there should be one education system and that all the different little bits of the integrated sector, the maintained sector, all these little satellites that have grown up for historic reasons, should be brought in and there should simply be a board structure for everybody. Is that something that you think would cause a great deal of angst?

Fr Crilly: I think the value of that could be developed while at the same time not removing the respect for individuality that those different sectors would wish to keep. You are aware of the tremendous reaction from the GBA sector when the suggestion was made that the funding for all schools be held and channelled on an equal level and with an equal formula through the boards. The voluntary grammar schools immediately went up in arms and said “No, we won't have that, we need our own individuality.” And it is the same with the integrated sector as well. It would wish to have its individuality respected. I was not all that happy that the voluntary grammar schools did succeed in retaining a separate type of formula for their funding. I thought it would have been a good idea to centralize the funding for all types of schools, that funding would be given on an equal formula for all. I think it is possible to develop board structures with a good knowledge of the local area without tramping on the toes of the need for individuality within the different sectors that make up the total. I think we all make up the one total of groups which are working towards the education of children and society.

The Chairman: What you are saying is that it is not just a matter of reviewing the whole of education. What you are making an appeal for is much more than “Not now, Minister”, you know, as if there were another date round the corner when maybe somebody could look at it again. You are saying that education needs a period of predicted stability.

Fr Crilly: Yes.

The Chairman: It is not just a matter of people in Northern Ireland, as somebody suggested. There is a sort of an implication that if I'm not shot at dawn you could shoot me at 6 o'clock. You favour a period of stability. Is that it?

Fr Crilly: I do, and I like your expression “predicted stability”. I think the two words go well. At the moment teachers are watching the postman more than the pupils because they do not know what is coming in next. We would need a time when we can save paper, when there is less documentation coming out to the schools, and allow the teachers to have confidence in who they are and what their work is and allow them to concentrate on the pupils and on parental relationships with the pupils and community relationships with the schools. There have been many admirable things that have been developing in education over the last while, but we do need time to allow them to be assimilated by real people and brought into real families.

The Chairman: Would you say chalk-face should not be altered and instability destabilizes?

Fr Crilly: That is right.

The Chairman: Is your concern that it does affect the chalk-face?

Fr Crilly: That would be my concern and I believe that it is inevitable that it will affect the chalk-face, or the computer face, or whatever the current word may be.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for coming and making your presentation. Please take back to your Bishop and the Cardinal our thanks for your being allowed to make an excellent presentation.

Fr Crilly: Thank you, Mr Chairman, and can I thank you and the members for making this such a pleasant occasion and making it so easy. When I was coming up the road I must admit I thought of this as a very difficult situation. You made it a very enjoyable one, and I thank you for that.

Witness:

Mr J K Gardiner

The Chairman: Good afternoon, Mr Gardiner. You are very welcome to the Northern Ireland Forum and the Education Committee. This Committee was set up in July after the Minister announced his proposals to change the administration of Northern Ireland education from five boards to three. We look forward to hearing you. I presume you would like to say something first by way of submission.

Mr Gardiner: Thank you very much for receiving me. I think it is great for a member of the public to be able to come in and speak a few words to an elected body for a change, and I would like to, at the beginning, praise the idea of the Forum and the different Committees. I hope there will always be an elected body where people can come and listen to debate, and even make submissions. The time is long overdue for an elected body to be here in Northern Ireland. There is no elected body, and that gives such an unstable feeling in the mind of the general public that it contributes to violence. I hope you will take that point and please make sure an elected body stays in Northern Ireland for good.

Now, I took a great interest in education when I retired at 65. Before that I was on the buses for 27 years and then my wife and I had a little business in Limavady for 20 years. After I finished business I took up the very important job of school patrol man outside a Catholic school. I myself am a Protestant and I stayed there for nearly three years. I have a testimony from them as to how I behaved, and I got a presentation from them. Then I also helped to organize a cross-community group in my local village, Articlave, and I made sure that the people who were helping me represented fairly the breakdown of the people.

I made sure that the Committee reflected the breakdown of the Protestant/Catholic difference in the village - it is predominantly Protestant - but I think I was very fair and for two years I was able, with the help of the Committee, to take these underprivileged children from both traditions to the zoo, to Cultra, to the Folk Park at Omagh and here and there, and I really was thrilled to see those children being together — though they found it very awkward, I know that. However, after I gave up that and handed over the torch to someone else I managed to get another grant for them — still cross-community. I felt that I would like to express something which has been in my mind since I was at school, and I am now in my seventy first year. Here is my letter which I wrote to Mr Tony Blair, President Mary Robinson and a number of other very important people, and I got letters back from most of them.

“My name is James Kennedy Gardiner. I was born in Articlave village Co Londonderry, Northern Ireland, I am 70 years of age and I do not belong to any political party. My Father and Mother were both born in Articlave and attended the village school there. They were educated with all creeds and classes. When it came to my turn to go to school, the same school, someone had decided that the Catholics should not attend the mixed school. So, I was educated with only Protestants through no fault of my own. I think that that was a bad thing. My Father and Mother had little Catholic school friends and I had not. I think that that was not fair to both the Catholics and I. This system is still in operation in Ireland today, North and South. Could something be not done to change it?”

Now, I feel very deeply about that and I will soon be leaving this old world. I am glad, after all these years that I can put that to an elected body, that is you, Gentlemen. Evidently I am against separate schools, and there is another reason. In ‘The Price of My Soul’ on pages 61-62 Bernadette Devlin writes

"St Patrick’s Academy, Dungannon was a militantly republican school, and I notice how a partisan slant was given to the Vice-Principal, Sister Benignus, whom we called Reverend Mother, and who is among the people who have influenced me, one of those I most respect. To Sister Benignus, everything English was bad. She hated the English. She didn't hate the Protestants, but her view was that you couldn't very well put up with them — they weren't Irish. We learned Irish history, people who went to State Schools learned British. We were all learning the same things, the same events, the same period of time but the interpretations we were given were very different."

Now, I got that book I suppose 20 years ago and that feeling of unfairness and injustice which I had in my mind was inflicted by the Reverend Mother that she “couldn't very well put up with” Protestants for they weren't Irish. Now I am Irish, I am North Irish. Of course, my ancestors probably came from Scotland, but where did President DeValera’s ancestors come from? And if you start to go into things like that you end up with the fact that the ancestors of everyone in Ireland came from somewhere. I suppose the Reverend Mother thought you had to be a Catholic, a Roman Catholic, or you had to give allegiance to the Dublin Government before you could be Irish, and I think that is absolutely ridiculous. I am glad that after all these years I did not go out and throw stones at Catholics just because she said that, but I have managed after all these years to be able now to redress that grievance.

Now I know that you are particularly interested in the mechanics of how you will run the education system. I have read in an article that it is a good system. I do not think it is.

If we had a good system, where people were being educated properly, we would not have had 25 years of violence from both sides. And while I am a Protestant, and I am an evangelical Protestant, that is to say I believe in a personal relationship with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, I want to be fair to both sides, to all sides. I believe that the leaders of the four main Christian churches have failed.

They have failed in their leadership of the educational experience. If children had been given the proper Christian leadership, we would not have to mourn the deaths of so many people, including the young man that is lying dead in London at this very moment.

I hope that the Committee will see to it that the four leaders will not be given this custody of the education of our young people in the future. If they are, we will be back to square one again. There need to be fresh minds brought in. People who should be able to inject the spirit of Christianity rather than the spirit of denominationalism.

I hope that you, for all you can, will push the idea of integrated schools. I know that it will not be easy. I know there are 33 going, and I am delighted about that, but if that cannot be, then will you please push for joint school meetings — where young Catholics and Protestants can be brought from school to school and educated together.

You know in this cross-community group that I organized, I found that when the mothers brought down the little catholic boys, they did not want to go with the other boys because they were strangers, and I had to work on them and tell them that we are all friends. And I taught them four things. I sent this home with the children to let the parents see what I was teaching them. Number one, everyone must respect everyone. Number two, everyone has a right to be different. Number three, everyone should think for himself, and number four everyone has responsibility to be of good behaviour.

I hope then, that before the four leaders of the four main Christian denominations are given any part in the running of the schools they will be brought before you people. This is the only elected body we have in Northern Ireland. This is the body that should be speaking for all the people, and I am sorry that there are parties today staying away. Why? They do not want to hear the likes of me.

I hope that you will make sure that there will be a common menu for education and no hidden agenda, that it will not be given a twist, a different interpretation. And I hope that you will also ask to see what kinds of religious teaching are being given. Because whether it is a Protestant school or a Catholic school, whether it is a state school or not, all religious teaching should be with the purpose of making people good, not turning them into something that is going to go out to work against the state. Also, it should not turn them into people who are going to react badly whenever something happens. I am not going to say that one side only is causing our troubles because that would not be true. The four leaders must share equal responsibility for the state that we are in today. I do not blame the politicians completely. I do not blame the paramilitaries completely. They are to blame up to a point, but the spiritual leaders are the people who should have been giving a lead to both.

Now there are seven things I would like to mention about schools, and I will go over them very quickly. Then I will be finished.

Number one: teach the children that no one has got the title deeds of Ireland in his back pocket. No one owns Ireland, or Northern Ireland. We have the loan of it.

Teach them that the only way to solve disputes or change the constitution is by meekness. The meek shall inherit the earth. Violence has failed. Violence has only produced more violence until the whole countryside, my town, my district has been affected. Coleraine was never violent, the attitude of mind was never like that, never. Violence only begets violence.

There are four components, including land. But teach them the three components: the people, the faith and the language. Teach them that these all had to be imported. They are all implants. Teach them that all denominations are faulty and teach them to love their enemies.

Gentlemen, thank you very much for hearing me. I am willing to answer any questions that you want to put to me, to the best of my ability.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr Gardiner. You submission was very refreshing and much different from many of the submissions we have had to hear. Many people were specialists in education administration, and it is very refreshing to have a different point of view.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: Are you aware of the educational system in the Netherlands?

Mr Gardiner: No, I am not.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: Well, they have three separate school systems — Protestant, Catholic and state. They have a triplicate of everything. Why is it there has been no trouble there for many years?

Mr Gardiner: Because the leaders have given their own leadership in their country. That is the point I made very strongly. Our leaders have failed.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: Yes, but my point is that separate schooling does not mean trouble. The Netherlands has separate schooling, but no trouble.

Mr Gardiner: Well, the only thing I would say about that is that you would probably find that the religious leaders in the Netherlands are much more liberal than ours.

Mr Fowler: I am a member of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, and I would like to clear up one thing with you. We have no single church leader. Our Moderator is what the title says. He moderates our general assembly for one week every year. After that he is just a PR man, going round the country, bringing greetings. The people with the power are our Government Committee of the Church, which is a big body. They are the people you have got to blame.

Mr Gardiner: I am sorry, I cannot accept that, because you see this is what is wrong with our country. Someone will always erect a barricade to defend himself. The Presbyterians must carry the same blame as the rest.

Mr Fowler: I must make it clear that our Moderator is in the office for one year, and he is a Coleraine man at the moment.

The Chairman: I think, Mr Fowler, that Mr Gardiner has taken your point.

Mr Fowler: Right.

Mr Curran: Mr Gardiner, I hope you are going to be with us for a long time. Actually I was very interested in what you were saying, and indeed I listened with quite intense interest. I think you are really saying that we need to co-operate much more in Northern Ireland.

Mr Gardiner: Yes.

Mr Curran: Not only in education, but indeed on a whole range of issues.

Mr Gardiner: Yes, indeed.

Mr Curran: It is a breath of fresh air to have a member of the public, and not somebody coming from one of our quangos, to tell us how it is going to be done.

Mr Gardiner: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: May I thank you for making the long journey down from Coleraine. For a 70-year-old you are looking an extremely fit and able man. I too wish you long life and happiness.

Mr Gardiner: Thank you very much and I may say to them that I have nothing but the best of feelings towards the Presbyterians.

The Chairman: There you are

Mr Gardiner: Well, Gentlemen, now that I am leaving, I hope you will see to it that you are in power or that some subsequent body will be in power for the rest of time. And do not let the power that you have got slip; you are the elected, you are the only people that I acknowledge in Northern Ireland because you have been elected, and I am very glad that you have given me the chance to speak. I will not waste any more of your time.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr Gardiner: May I shake hands with you all?

The Chairman: You can indeed.

Witnesses:

Mr P Carvill and Mr D Hill

(Department of Education)

The Chairman: Good afternoon, Gentlemen. You are very welcome again.

Mr Carvill: Thank you

The Chairman: For the record, first of all, I want to check some details with you. The last day we were presented with a synopsis of some statistics. It said you are giving what looks like a PAFT analysis and also some form of economic appraisal. We asked for those last Friday. We received them this morning.

We forwarded you a number of questions, some of which had been asked on 19 September. We sent you some pages of questions which were really covering the four areas that had been outlined. PAFT was part of that. Some questions are still unanswered. It is important that we get continuity and succinct answers.

We have had time to distil some of the information. To assist you I have shortened the questions to about half dozen.

Perhaps you could read those out, Mr McFarland. Members have burning issues to get discussed and analyzed.

Mr Carvill: There was a list, Mr Chairman, of about 20 or 30 questions which you faxed to us.

Mr McFarland: We have reduced it to the key ones.

Mr Carvill: If I could just clarify the timetable point, the list of questions, I think, arrived with us on Monday about lunchtime.

We had taken delivery of the request from the Committee for papers on economic appraisal and on PAFT which we prepared and sent to you. I do not think that we were specifically working to a Friday deadline. The request from the Committee was that we should make those papers available as soon as possible, and we sought to do that.

The Chairman: For the record, I specifically asked for it to be with us on Friday. I have a note of that.

Mr Carvill: That was not my understanding.

Mr McFarland: You maintained at our last meeting the main reason for the restructuring of the education and library boards from five to three was not financial savings but increased administrative effectiveness. Can you give us more details on the anticipated administrative and educational improvements?

Mr Carvill: We believe that administrative effectiveness would be improved partly in the existing services for schools by reducing duplication and wasted effort between boards. It would make collaboration and co-operation between the boards easier, five separate boards being rather more difficult to co-ordinate than three. We believe, for reasons that I think we discussed with the Committee last time, that it would improve the equity of resource distribution between schools. We think also that the changes in the structure of the system would actually improve accountability at local level, and again we spent some time at the last session talking about the changes in representation and in the role of district councillors. Finally, we think the changes would also reduce the number of boundaries which are no longer as meaningful as they should be in educational terms and often create unnecessary problems, boundaries I mean between boards. I am thinking particularly of the Belfast situation and, again, I will not repeat the ground that we went over at the last session because you are asking me to be concise.

Mr Hill: Could I just add to that very briefly. Our concerns about duplication between boards are based to a large extent on reports published by the inspectorate, and I am quite happy to leave with the Committee two of those reports which, for example, make statements such as

“ the absence of clearly defined areas of responsibility results in some cases in the duplication and repetition of training provision.”

It became increasingly obvious that there was a significant duplication of effort within and between boards occasioned by the present arrangements, so the source of a lot of those concerns are concerns expressed by the inspectorate, but again I appreciate the brevity point. Those comments are not in anyway intended as a general criticism of PAFT services. PAFT services are generally very good but there are significant problems from duplications which have been recorded by the inspectorate.

The Chairman: We can now move down the rest of these questions. These questions are already partially answered or will want exploration. I would rather the Committee members started to go through their concerns or areas of worry, in other words things that they were not satisfied with the answers about.

I want to just open with one or two small points. The last day you did spend some time talking about comparators. The statistics that we have been able to get our hands on have been considerable. The consistent thing that comes out is that in Scotland they have increased the number of areas of administration and Wales and England are the same.

Mr Carvill: I have seen some of the comments that you referred to and the comparisons between trends in developments here and trends in developments in England and Wales, and I have seen the view that the proposed developments here are inconsistent with the trends in local authority developments in England and Wales.

That view is actually based on a misunderstanding of what is happening, I do not think there is any inconsistency because the two situations are entirely different. The comparisons that have been drawn are, therefore, misleading, and may I just explain why.

The Chairman: Very quickly.

Mr Carvill: Well, first of all, in Northern Ireland we are looking at the needs of the education sector alone. The education and library boards are single purpose authorities and the only function for which they are responsible is education.

The Chairman: Sorry, Mr Carvill, but we are quite aware of all that. And all the rest of it and we divined that the driving force for the areas, for the size of the areas, was 60% or more driven by education needs. Could you try to tell us why, where England is going for small, close, comfortable community relationships in administration, we are simply going in the opposite direction?

Mr Carvill: What you have to remember is that in England they are moving from a system which is a two-tier system where you have county councils responsible for some services and district councils, very small district councils responsible for very local services to a unitary system which combines those two sets of functions.

Now the question is what size of authority is appropriate for that combined range of local and regional services and they have reached a view there that is not at all what we are doing here. We are looking here at the appropriate size of authorities for education alone.

The Chairman: Thank you.

The 25 June document told us that this is not really financially driven. I want you to have regard to how paragraph 4 equates with what is actually happening. That paragraph, to me, strongly indicates that the engine behind this is purely financial.

Mr Carvill: I do not have the paragraph immediately in front of me but I think the point is clear. I think the Minister has been very consistent throughout this exercise and that his main objective is to improve the effectiveness of the system. He is also concerned with the efficiency of the system and with its cost. He believes that the changes he has proposed will make improvements in both of those directions, but it is not a question of its being either effective or economic; both are important. Effectiveness is more important, but economy is also very important.

The Chairman: Could I just take you to 8.14. Hugh Smyth said there were 64 words on his page, but I never counted them. Look down at the third bull point and your estimated savings. I did a little bit of counting on number one and on your awards system.

Mr Carvill: Yes.

The Chairman: Looking at that and at how your working party set about its task, how did you achieve the figure of £1.6 million saving?

Mr Carvill: The £1.6 million is the total estimated savings on all of the services, awards, accounts, audit et cetera which are listed there.

The Chairman: Right.

Mr Carvill: The paper which I sent to the Committee yesterday goes into rather more detail obviously than —

The Chairman: Can I just take that up? Could you tell me what year those figures are based on.

Mr Carvill: Yes, the exercise was carried out in 1994, and it was based on data which applied in 1991, 1992 or 1992/93, depending on the exact data because in some cases more up to date information was not available. That is the .......

The Chairman: In fact that would have been what the Capita report was working on.

Mr Carvill: Yes. The entire exercise was based on the same data.

The Chairman: In other words, the appraisal was carried out on the facts and figures that were in the Capita report.

Mr Carvill: I am not sure what document you are referring to.

The Chairman: You have produced the statistics and all the rest of it.

Mr Carvill: Yes, the statistics. The year to which the data related is given in the paper which was sent to the Committee yesterday. It is quite clearly set out there.

Mr Hill: Just to be clear, most of the statistics used and certainly all the figures in relation to staff numbers and costs were actually supplied by the education and library boards directly through one board, not by Capita. Capita was used to provide additional information and to look at the comparisons with England because Capita had recently completed a detailed exercise in the boards and was therefore very familiar with the staffing structure and organization.

The Chairman: I take your point. I discovered that the figures we were presented with contained an overestimation by 10% of staff, 20% on the other side, in the opposite direction, and an underestimation in the number of awards.

There is an area of genuine concern felt very strongly by every member of this Committee, and not only have we felt it, but everyone who has made representations to us has felt it. Now this is an area which will be serious to put it mildly and, therefore, this is your opportunity. It looks as though the basis of the work that has been done and the facts and figures that have been presented are not only suspect but are in error. There is a margin of error that is beyond normal tolerance. In other words, most of us work in a world where there can be margins of errors and tolerances that would be accepted. But this is something that is so inaccurate as to throw grave doubts on everything that we have been trying to base our report on.

Mr Hill: As I said before, the figures on which the grants and awards information was based were supplied by each education and library board. The key underestimation of numbers of awards was a figure supplied by the Southern Board in August 1994 and corrected in 1995. I actually looked up the file, and looked up the Southern Board Officer’s letter only this morning.

The Chairman: Surely we are beyond the stage of correcting figures that somebody else has discovered are wrong. We are at the stage of serious discussion. This is not the sort of thing that should be going on, on the morning of a meeting like this, where we are getting a letter in from one party and a letter from yourselves rubbishing it. This is not childish stuff. We are talking serious stuff.

Mr Hill: I am clarifying where the inaccuracy arose in practice. Whilst the staffing figure was subsequently changed, the actual cost of the staff did not change significantly with the result that the findings in 1994 were still relevant. But the actual Working Group report, which I am sure you have, shows quite clearly that one board spends twice as much per award on administration than another board.

The Chairman: Your basic figure was 10% on the staff, and your other basic figure was 20% out on the other side — the wrong side. We are not talking about boards giving you a wrong figure. You should have correction mechanisms between the Department and the boards. I am not blaming you as people for it. Here is the dilemma we are in. Someone is pointing out to us that there is grievous error.

Mr Hill: The point I am trying to make to you is that, yes, those figures were based on data which was subsequently corrected. The Working Group has produced a new report based on new data, updated data.

The Chairman: These results were found to be incorrect. The burning question is obviously this: has everything else been based on the same data?

Mr Hill: All the information on which the data and the costings were based was supplied by the boards, re-issued to the boards, and in a number of instances the boards corrected their own figures. Those corrections were quite significant in the case of awards, but the fact remains that the most recent assessment by the Working Group itself still confirms that there are major differentials in the administrative expenditure across the five boards, and that those differentials point clearly to potential savings.

The Chairman: I accept the points you are making. We are aware of that. I do not want to leave this until I get it cleared. This compilation of material — I am given this, and somebody starts to work on it. He finds an error, and this comes down the line. Do you not think that this does not happen in other organizations? We are all fallible. But how much other work may have brought us to results which could be off kilter?

Mr Carvill: It is perhaps, not surprising that people have been challenging and questioning these figures to the Committee, because, when people are unhappy with the conclusion that is reached on an exercise, they do tend to attack some of the premises on which the conclusion is based. I only say that all the data which was used has been released to the boards, and in some cases, as Mr Hill has said, the figures have been corrected by the boards. I have seen no correction made which is of a nature or of an order that would in any way question the reliability of the order of magnitude of the savings which we were estimating. We made it very clear to the Committee throughout the exercise that what we were estimating are orders of magnitude.

The Chairman: Is there a double audit of awards, accounts? I think that somebody has made a double audit in there.

Mr Carvill: Sorry, I do not understand the point.

The Chairman: Paragraph 1.6, is there a double audit on that?

Mr Carvill: I do not understand the double-audit point.

The Chairman: Page 14 says awards, accounts.

Mr Carvill: Audit transport, wages et cetera. That is simply a list of the executive services.

The Chairman: I am looking at the actual copy.

Mr Carvill: I cannot understand your question, I do not understand it.

The Chairman: It is probably an auditor’s question, one of these things pointed out to me very forcefully.

Mr Carvill: Perhaps the more detailed paper which we sent yesterday will help in that regard.

Mr Hussey: You refer to duplication of services. Are you implying that in your opinion the services offered by all five boards are identical?

Mr Carvill: I am saying that all five boards have the same range of responsibilities, that all five boards carry out the same functions in a number of areas. I am not saying that they all do exactly the same things in exactly the same way. But I think there is a very significant amount of overlap in some things. For example, they each have a Chief Executive, they each have a Chief Librarian, they each have an accounts section, they each have an internal audit section, and they each have an architectural services section. So I think there is a lot of overlap, yes.

Mr Hussey: Perhaps the services offered by all five boards are not identical in that they are more related to the communities that they are dealing with. Have you any comment?

Mr Carvill: Each board obviously does relate to its own community.

Mr Hussey: You are admitting that?

Mr Carvill: Well, of course it does.

Mr Hussey: Thank you.

Mr Carvill: I think that the way in which they administer similar services is very similar. We are talking here about the administration of the services.

Mr Hussey: So you are admitting also that they each have a community to service?

Mr Carvill: Well they each have an area for which they are responsible. They are the education and library ...... .

Mr Hussey: You mentioned the English boards cutting down from a two-tier system. Why is it then the intention of DENI to move towards a two-tier system? This regionalization of services will create a two-tier system.

Mr Carvill: Well, let me be clear what I meant by a two-tier system in the England and Wales context. The two-tier system there is the two separate sets of local authorities, one of which deals with regional services and the other with district council level services.

Mr Hussey: That is exactly the point I am getting at. You are talking about regionalized services and local services. And they are moving away from that, whereas, by the regionalization of services, surely DENI is going to work towards what boards in England are moving away from.

Mr Carvill: I do not think so, because what we were contemplating here on regionalization was that the education and library boards would, if you like, come together to provide a service collectively. We looked particularly at the concept of a lead board which could provide the same service to each of the five boards.

Mr Hussey: A regionalized service.

Mr Carvill: You could so describe. It was a regionalized service, yes.

Mr Hussey: I am looking at a document which I presume came from DENI. It is entitled ‘Services Proposed for Regionalization’ — I assume regionalized services. So you are moving in a direction that the English boards are moving away from?

Mr Carvill: No, I do not think so.

Mr Hussey: You do not think so, but —

Mr Carvill: Well can I illustrate what is happening in England and Wales if you will allow me to do so — it will take a minute. I can illustrate that best perhaps by looking at Wales where it has been pointed out there will in future be 22 education authorities. That is true, but it is not the whole picture. In Wales what is actually happening is that under the old system there were 45 separate local authorities, 8 of those were regional, 37 of them were districts and those 45 are being condensed into 22. So.......

Mr Hussey: What is their average size?

Mr Carvill: I cannot tell you the Welsh figure.

Mr Hussey: Just an interesting point.

Mr Carvill: The point I was making is that in Wales as here there is a process of consolidation and that is why, in answer to the Chairman’s question earlier, I was saying that I do not think there is any inconsistency between the trend of developments here and the trend of developments in England and Wales. I think the comparisons can be confusing, and it is important that we are clear about what exactly is happening in each area.

Mr Hussey: I am prepared to leave it at that point, but I would like to come back, with your permission.

Mr Fowler: In the comparison between Northern Ireland and the LEAs in England we are not comparing like with like in any shape or form. Here the boards have responsibility for the library service. They do not have that responsibility in England, Wales or Scotland.

Mr Carvill: I certainly agree with your first comment that in comparing local authorities here and education and library boards here with local authorities in England is not comparing like with like at all because the range of responsibilities is very different. I cannot actually comment on your point about responsibility for library services because I am not sure how library services are administered in England, but I agree with the general thrust of your comment that they are very different entities indeed. That is a point which I have been making to the Committee.

Mr Fowler: You made another point in your answer. You said that it would improve the training provision. Could you enlarge upon that?

Mr Carvill: Yes and I would like Mr Hill to comment as well. The basic point about training that I was referring to there is that on the in-service training for teachers and the curriculum advisory and support system for teachers, which is one of the present responsibilities of the boards, it is certainly our view — and that view is based on inspection evidence — that the effectiveness of that service could be improved and increased by greater collaboration and by boards being larger units.

Mr Hill: There are already some good examples of collaboration across the current boards, and with this sort of argument it is possible to be unduly critical. The Regional Training Unit has been established to work on a regional basis on common areas and there is some excellent work being done by the boards, for example, on the induction of teachers, and those work well. There are also, and I quoted some illustrations from the inspection reports a moment ago, a number of areas where collaboration is not working well and, given the fact that we now have a common statutory curriculum and we are embarking shortly on a common code of practice for special schools, there is an increasingly large number of areas where common needs can be addressed through a process which does not require five separate services to create their own materials, their own methodology, and organize their own training.

The inspection reports and our own experience suggest very clearly that duplication of effort is essentially a structural problem. Collaboration can work and boards try to make it work; but they are separate entities, and they do tend to do their own thing in a number of areas. The creation of three boards will not eliminate that completely, but it will go a long way to reducing it.

Mr Hussey: May I just correct a remark there?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr Hussey: The code of practice is not for special schools; it is for special needs.

Mr Hill: I accept that

The Chairman: Mr Hill acknowledges that.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: What has been saved by the boards on administration in the last four or five years?

Mr Carvill: I find it hard to give the answer to that. There has certainly been considerable downward pressure on board running costs in the last four or five years as there has been for the Department. It is quite clear that in real terms expenditure on running costs has reduced both in the boards and in the Department. I would not like to attempt to pluck a figure out of the air and give you a percentage on it.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: Are you telling me that it is not possible to get a figure?

Mr Carvill: No. I am saying I do not have one here.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: The boards are seen to be quite keen to demonstrate that over the last four or five years. In fact, one of them gave us a quotation from the Northern Ireland Audit Office. I think it was that savings were up 8% until 1994, and they are now up to 12%. Would you agree that 8% is a fair saving?

Mr Carvill: Yes it is. It is very similar to the saving that was made in departmental running costs over that same period.

The Chairman: You made savings in DENI?

Mr Carvill: Yes.

The Chairman: I am looking at an answer to a Parliamentary Question. Unless I am reading it wrong, the expenditure has gone up.

Mr Carvill: No, I actually wrote to the Committee this morning, Mr Chairman. I suggest that you read the letter I sent to the Committee because it makes the point that the figures that are being quoted were taken — and I think the heading to the page I saw says this — from a number of Parliamentary Questions. They are not actually on the same basis, they are not comparing like with like. In one case expenditure is included which is excluded in another case. When you make those adjustments, you will find that in cash terms —

The Chairman: I am talking about what the Department itself is spending. It has gone up from 11.96% to 12.3%.

Mr Carvill: If we are talking about the same figures, and I am referring to the figures that were given to the Committee by the education board ........

The Chairman: The boards are telling us that they have made massive reductions and they are saying, maybe with a certain amount of jealousy, that this is not happening where it could be happening. Then we find from an independent source that there may be some honesty in what they are saying.

Mr Carvill: If you examine the figures carefully and if you make allowance for the things that are included in one case and not included in the other, if you put the figures on to a consistent basis you will see that in the case of the Department’s running costs, which you have referred to, the main distorting factor is that over the period which is being compared, responsibility for pensions payments was delegated to Departments, so the second figure includes the cost of pensions whereas the first figure does not. But, I have written to the Committee because I saw those comparisons. I was surprised to see those figures being used in that way because they have been used publicly before and we have written to the boards to correct them, so I am not sure why they were before the Committee.

Mr McFarland: This is actually quite an important thing. In your letter you were talking about Roy Beggs’s submission to you and the boards.

Mr Carvill: I was making my comments with reference to the paper which I understand was submitted by the North Eastern Board to the Committee a short time ago.

Mr Hill: Absolutely, and we have taken on board the fact that the figures had different elements in them.

Mr McFarland: What the Chairman is talking about here is the PQ dated 5 May 1995, which set out the Department’s costs from 94/95 to 95/96. There are no caveats here. These are straight ballpark figures. It talks about the inspectorate and the inspectorate support branch going up from £3,061,000 to £3,346,000. There are admin costs, £11,960,000 rising to £12,389,000. Those are parliamentary figures. I think you said this morning that you were quoting your own figures. You are presumably not muddled at all. You were showing us you had a decrease.

Mr Carvill: Yes.

Mr McFarland: It doesn't compute.

Mr Carvill: Right. The figures that I sent to the Committee this morning were adjusted figures to provide a like-for-like comparison, in other words, two figures on the same basis. I do not have the PQ that you refer to in front of me, I am sure I can get a copy of it. I will be very happy to look at that PQ and reconcile it with the figures for you.

The Chairman: This is what bedevils this whole process.

Mr Carvill: Yes.

The Chairman: I am never too sure whether we are living in an age when the figures come out to suit something. I was very annoyed that this letter appeared on the 25th and then another one on 23 October. It strikes me as being childish in the extreme. Surely nobody is trying to be crooked about this. All I am trying to do is just what any outside person would do. I see a figure. Last year it was 11.69%. This year it is 12.38%. Common sense tells me that that is an increase.

I am looking also at the figures from the boards, and they are going down and down and down. Now, that tells me that the boards are making savings. There is an element of truth in what the boards have been pointing out to me — that the savings are not being made in another quarter as well. I discovered inaccuracies running through this whole thing. The original data may be somewhat suspect. If someone says “I can save you £2 million” the whole argument you have presented becomes somewhat flat. We as a Committee cannot avoid those realities. We can all play with words. Some of us are more expert then others, but what we are trying to do is get the integrity of the argument. Let us get down to the integrity of this argument and see is there some substance in the Department’s presentation.

Mr Carvill: Gentlemen, I am sure you are right to be cautious about comparisons that are drawn on figures. I think you used the phrase “bedevils the exercise”, it has been very difficult throughout this exercise to get figures which are genuinely comparable because changes in classifications do take place. I am sure nobody is trying to mislead the Committee, but I did think the Committee would wish to know that figures which had been given to it were in fact misleading and that was why I sent the letter that I did today. I will certainly take delivery of the PQ figures that you have referred to and if I may I will give the Committee a note on them. Would that be helpful?

The Chairman: That would be helpful certainly. I live in a world where integrity comes very high on the list, where everything is done on trust and where people, once they distrust — that is the last time. I am trying to get everyone else into this way of going.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: I was asking about savings by boards. Could you go further and give me some indication of the percentage that is spent by boards on administration?

Mr Carvill: As a percentage of their total expenditure?

Rev Trevor Kirkland: Yes. Either by all five boards or as an average.

Mr Carvill: I think again of the Chairman’s point about the difficulties that bedevil comparisons. You have to be clear what you mean by administration as well. Most of the discussion that we have had with the Committee has been focusing on the area of headquarters administration. Now, is that the area that you particularly want to know about.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: Yes. That would do well.

Mr Carvill: Well, headquarters administration costs — I am doing some mental arithmetic — run at about £35 million.

Mr Hill: Well, they were running at £35 million on the basis of the classification of headquarters expenditure in 92/93 and 93/94, and now you are running straight into the previous discussion because for the years after that they were reclassified. A number of elements of expenditure previously classified as board headquarters was actually transferred into other parts of the accounts. But, when we were doing this exercise it was a £35 million/£36 million headquarters figure, as shown in the published accounts.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: The proposals estimate a figure of about £2 million. In the light of the overall budget, is it rational and logical to pursue a minuscule saving in the light of the totality of the budget for education? Does it seem rational and logical to pursue £2 million and create all the upheaval and the overlap in trying to change from five boards to three boards?

Mr Carvill: Well the short answer to that question has to be yes, for a number of reasons. Yes, there will be transitional costs and difficulties — there always are when you change the system — but those transitional costs are for the short term, the savings are permanent. Secondly, it is not an either or situation. It is not a question of going either for efficiency savings or for restructuring; we are actually trying to go for both.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: If you saved £5 million or £10 million you could employ extra teachers or reduce the pupil/teacher ratio. That would be efficiency; it would also be good educational practice. But £2 million will not reduce or improve the pupil/teacher ratio, it will not improve administration. It will not improve efficiency, because all the work that has to be done must still be done.

Mr Carvill: Yes, but what I am saying is that if there are efficiency savings to be made, be it £2 million, £5 million or £10 million to take your figure, they should be made, we should make those savings. If there are further savings that can be made by restructuring, they are worth having as well. In some cases the savings can only be made by restructuring. If you want to cut down on a number of headquarters administrative posts, that requires a restructuring. In some cases restructuring is a stimulus to changes in organizations which will produce savings, in other cases, of course, there are improvements and increased efficiencies which can be introduced which are independent of restructuring, and we wish to see that done. We have made it clear that the boards themselves have been doing that, that the Department has been doing it and that we will all continue to do it. It is not an either or situation. It is not either take these restructuring savings or take efficiency savings; if both are there, they should both be taken.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: You tend to say the range of responsibilities is different, yet when it comes down to your side of the fence you are trying to produce a rationale for something. It comes through your very answers. On one hand you say you want to use this benchmark, but when we ask you the same question you say, you cannot compare it. There is a lot of duplication. You tell us there is overlap, yet at the same time you tell us the range of responsibilities is different.

The Chairman: There is a terrible range across the water, and I am not unfamiliar with it. I do not go to Strathclyde or Bedfordshire or anywhere else; start with the fact that maybe it is in-house that needs to be improved, and then achieve a benchmark. Why did you not go in-house to one of the boards that you were familiar with?

Mr Carvill: Right. Well —

The Chairman: These are things the rest of us do daily. I certainly do not go to Germany to get comparison.

Mr Carvill: If I can start with that point Mr Chairman. We did in fact do what you are suggesting because in looking at and estimating the savings that result from restructuring, we looked at the different levels of administrative expenditure in each board here for each of the executive services that we have looked at, and we sought to improve the average. In other words, we made the assumption that the best practice that existed in one board could be transferred elsewhere. So we did do that.

The Chairman: “I couldn't get the information that gave me the answer I wanted, so I went somewhere else.” This is what you are really saying?

Mr Carvill: Not at all, not at all.

The Chairman: Let us get down to the integrity of the argument again. What you are really saying is “I didn't get the answer I wanted there, or the information to support the answer I wanted, so I went somewhere else.”

Mr Carvill: No, that is not what I am saying at all. I was replying to your question about why did we not compare practice between boards. The answer is that we did and I think my colleague, Mr Hill, in relation to the grants and awards which we were talking about earlier, referred to some of the discrepancies in the level of cost per unit of activity which can be found there. We do look at those comparisons, and I very much take the point that we should be seeking to transfer best practice from one board to another.

We looked to the English LEAs for benchmark comparisons. We benchmarked the expenditure relevant to the education responsibility, we obviously did not benchmark the expenditure which was relevant to the non-educational expenditure. With the aid of Capita we took the data which was published by CIPFA and others and we extracted the education relevant expenditure. We then looked at the range of, if you like, indices of efficiency and the average of costs that applied there. We then took two LEAs, and this is spelt out in the paper which we sent to you, as comparators because they approximated to the size of authorities that we were looking at. They also fitted close to the average level of expenditure of England and Wales, in other words, not the best and not the lowest — around the middle. We used that not in order to derive estimates of savings, we used it as, if you like, a cross-check or long-stop, a comparator to see whether the savings that we were deriving from our calculations looked reasonable, looked unreasonable, or looked achievable. In every case the savings that we were deriving were less than would have been derived if we had simply read across the benchmark. That was not the way we did it, it was a long-stop.

The Chairman: Using that as a benchmark, using your own information, what does it cost to deliver a scholarship in Bedfordshire?

Mr Carvill: Not a sum that I carry in my head, but it may be a sum that I could look up for you if you would allow me to do that.

The Chairman: Somebody discovered that what was costing on a regional basis £38 had already been done for £32. I would not have needed to go to Bedfordshire to discover that. This exercise goes back to the premise that this whole thing was built on. This whole exercise by Capita is beginning to worry me more and more. Where I find major discrepancies it does not matter where I go for my benchmark. The economic appraisal on the whole thing is becoming a very liquid affair.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: In regard to the duplication, three boards will not eliminate that completely. If there is concern about duplicating, and if three boards will not eliminate it completely, then remove the three boards and have one. If you are so concerned about duplication, we could all point to the duplication of the Department and the boards and eliminate the Department itself. That would be a good argument for rationalization and a great saving.

Mr Carvill: I think Mr Kirkland’s point is why stop at three, why not go to one. If the only concern were to produce the least expensive system of administration that we could devise, then that might very well be the answer.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: You could have five regional offices.

Mr Carvill: Maybe, but no one has actually proposed that we should go to one board, at least the Government have not proposed that we go to one board because there are other factors which I will not weary the Committee by repeating that have to be taken into consideration like accountability and accessibility. So the three-board proposal is, if you like, meant to try to give the best for both of those approaches.

The Chairman: But surely the counter-argument to that was very quickly proved to you. The four areas that you looked at were fairly obvious ones.

Mr Carvill: We discovered that in each of those areas there are savings to be made through regionalization.

The Chairman: Two of them proved to be worthwhile, and the others proved to be losers.

Mr Carvill: Not quite. In all cases there were savings to be made. The question was whether the savings that would be made would be that much greater than those going to result from a three-board model anyway and whether there were other factors. Take for example the internal audit report. The point was made very strongly by the Chief Executives of the boards that they regarded internal audit as a key part of their own internal accountability performance. That is, if you like, a non-quantifiable factor but it is right to take it into account and since the absolute sums involved were not large, it was not worth pursuing. In all the areas which were looked at by the regionalization working parties, even if they were not regionalized, the economies of scale that can be obtained from a three-board model would still apply.

The Chairman: Purchasing is quite obvious, and there was another one. The figures proved that it was more expensive to run it as a central issue. Because the answers do not suit, one decides to go somewhere else.

Speaker: Yes, purchasing was a winner.

Mr Hill: I refer you to page 25 of the report.

The Chairman: That was a good saving.

Mr Hill: Actually it showed, and the figures presented elsewhere to the Committee show, that on one scenario, an enhanced purchasing scenario: you could actually handle £166m of purchasing compared to £104m of purchasing at the moment with a £38,000 saving. They also showed that by expanding the purchasing section to cover the entire education service you could handle £213m worth of purchasing at an additional cost of £104,000, so what has been presented in some circles as an additional cost is actually significantly greater value for money which is neatly summarized in page 25 of the report.

The Chairman: I accept that purchasing was a winner.

Mr Hill: And to complete the picture, information systems also demonstrate —

The Chairman: They have done the same.

Mr Hill: But not now, and the decision not to proceed is a timing one. In the case of legal and insurance services and internal audit, the Minister’s decision was that the additional advantages of regionalization compared to the three-board model were not worth the difficulties of doing it, particularly on internal audit where Chief Executives would like internal audit staff ...

The Chairman: I would have thought that was an automatic thing in any system.

Mr Hill: The three areas where we are still quite convinced, after the working party’s report, that significant savings can still be achieved by regionalization are architectural and property services, awards and purchasing.

The Chairman: I don't want to follow that.

Mr Hussey: Two of the other areas of concern that you mention are acceptability and accountability. Could you explain to me to whom the three-board model is acceptable and how it is acceptable.

Mr Carvill: Well, we have spent time on accessibility and on accountability. Acceptability is a result in many cases of familiarity. I acknowledge that what we are proposing are changes and people are uncomfortable with change because they know the existing system, they relate to it, they feel comfortable with it, they are concerned about the unknown, and that is understandable.

Mr Hussey: You are admitting that there is not acceptability at this time?

Mr Carvill: I have said, I think consistently, to the Committee that the comments that have been received in response to consultations — and there has been a series of consultations — have put an emphasis on continuity and on nervousness about change.

Mr Hussey: You clearly stated that one of the aims was the obvious financial savings, but the other two that you specifically referred to within the last couple of minutes were acceptability and accountability.

Mr Carvill: Well, I think the one I referred to was accessibility, but I am not disputing it.

Mr Hussey: You say accountability. I am questioning the acceptability.

Mr Carvill: I understand, I am not dismissing acceptability.

Mr Hussey: It was obviously an area that you were concerned with, otherwise you would not have used that word.

Mr Carvill: Yes.

Mr Hussey: Will you admit that you have not achieved your target in that area?

Mr Carvill: I can only repeat what I have already said to the Committee that the great majority of the comments we have received have expressed concern and worry about these changes, rather than enthusiasm for them.

Mr Hussey: Could you give a percentage for that?

Mr Carvill: A very high percentage.

Mr Hussey: Thank you.

The Chairman: Do you accept that in the world of administration things change? Over a lifetime I have seen people acknowledge there had to be change. People welcome change.

What I am getting at is this bottom-up approach. This time last year the Minister was sitting across in Westminster. I was reading through the report, and you and your kith were there trying to defend it. Suddenly the thing reversed. You discovered that it could not be defended. Without consultation, suddenly out of the blue, like a bolt of lightening you decided on three. I picked up a brochure and saw this three-board model. The same sort of model has been lying around since 1970. I may be guilty of having produced that model originally, but I do not want to take that admission too far. So far, all this documentation has proved nothing, but it has raised a lot of serious questions about its credibility. The Church, the state, politicians all say one thing. Somebody said this morning that we want predictable stability. Can you in all honesty justify the exercise we are carrying out?

Mr Carvill: We have been over this ground many times. Is there an upsurge of demand for change, is that coming from the grass roots? No is the answer to that, that is common ground, but is there a need for change. It is the Minister’s view and the Government’s view that there is a need, and I have explained the reasons for that. These are reasons which the Committee may or may not accept but I have tried to explain them. You asked about the Minister’s appearance at the Select Committee and what had changed, you said, from his defence of a four-board model. He was explaining to that Committee why it was that he had proposed four boards. He had reasons for it which I will not burden you with

The Chairman: This defence was for four boards.

Mr Carvill: There is complete consistency in arguing that four boards is an improvement on five and three is a further improvement given certain criteria, not least the cost, but other factors as well. I do not think there is an inconsistency in arguing for each of these.

The Chairman: I take that point.

Mr Carvill: The Minister responded, he listened to the comments that were made on the four-board model and he decided to take account of those comments and to move from there.

The Chairman: If you had listened to the advice at that stage, you could not have proceeded because of the weight of public derision. That is what really stopped the whole thing — the sheer weight of political pressure. Just acknowledge where it was coming from.

Mr Carvill: The Minister has been very clear that he proposed four boards because he regarded that as a compromise between the factors for more change and the factors for less. It was not in fact a successful compromise and he has been very clear about that. That is why he has looked again at it.

Mr Hussey: The Government and the Department feel that there is a need for change. I suppose the 1993 document was the start, but they also state on the first page in the foreword “established on a basis which commands widespread acceptance throughout the community.”

Mr Carvill: That is why I said earlier that I did not dispute that acceptability was an important factor.

Mr Hussey: It is very early — on the first page.

Question: The vast majority of people I have listened to are against what the Government are doing. It is obvious you are not going to listen to what public opinion and the politicians are saying. The schools and all the people that we have listened to are completely against it. The Government are going against the advice of the people, and you are going to force something upon them. There is enough pressure on schools and boards of governors. I am a member of three of them. We are no longer running schools; we are administrators. Headmasters are no longer teachers; they are administrators. All this is destroying the education of our children and it is going to have a terrible effect in years to come. The Government are running out of time and

trying to push things quickly. Unfortunately, we are the ones who are going to suffer — the public, the teachers and the education boards who are going to have to administer these things that the Government are putting through. You need to listen to the people.

Mr Bolton: I am not one to take away from the arguments — the lack of support in the country and the constituencies and the fact that there is no real financial reason for change.

Mr Curran: In over 35 years' involvement in the public sector, where I worked for many years in the same organization that you belong to, and as a politician, I have never heard any policy generate such talk and dissension as this one. I have never seen such a united opposition to a piece of public policy from any of the Departments. Let me quote from the ‘Strategic Plan for Education 1996 to the year 2000’:

“Education is central to the Government’s wider aims in the key areas of economic development, social policy and community relations”.

Mr Carvill was speaking a moment ago about change. Change is something that we all recognize as necessary. You recognize under-achievement in education. You see so very many young people coming out of schools with no qualifications of any kind. Education is an essential foundation of a modern competitive economy. The level of qualifications in the Northern Ireland labour force is low compared with that of our competitors, and this calls for action to reduce under-achievement and low achievement.

Obviously we could all prioritize the themes for improvement in any area of social policy but in respect of education I would suggest that this is one that should be at the very top of the list. Let me quote Michael Ancram’s introduction to this document:

“The challenges which face education for the rest of the decade and beyond are formidable. The targets and objectives which have been set for the service will only be attainable if all our energies are focused on the key issues.”

I listened carefully to what the education boards had to say, and it appears to me — and I say this to you as the Permanent Secretary and Deputy Secretary in the Department of Education — that they were so completely at variance with you on such a wide range of issues as to be unbelievable. I would have thought that you would all, as professionals in the field of the education service, have been working closely together, recognizing the importance of the education service for the development of our country and the development of the individual.

When you were here last week, Mr Carvill, you said that finance was not the key factor. It was a factor, but it was not the key factor; there were other factors that had to be taken into consideration. I wonder to what extent this whole exercise is really driven not by finance but by the other factors that you mentioned: the securing of equality of opportunity and the targeting of social need. I have had great difficulty in understanding the difference in educational spend across the existing boards, and it was one of the factors that you touched upon. I wonder to what extent these factors influenced the Government’s thinking. I share the argument that the minuscule saving is not going to lead to any major improvement if we target some of the key factors in the boards.

I would like you to expand a little more on those factors that you discussed, the factors in support of your proposals, because that is extremely important. In relation to the financial appraisal, we want to consider the details in great depth before we comment to the extent that we really wish to. There are fundamental questions, particularly the one on split locations. We come back to the point that I made to you the last day you were here. I know you are not going to scrub fairly serviceable buildings. Maintaining split locations and all the implications that are involved in that — I have been involved in that exercise myself, and I know that sometimes the game is not worth the candle when you take into account the downstream costs that are involved in exercises of that nature.

You say that you have done a strategic overview, but sometimes when you get down to the nitty-gritty of administration and look at the real financial implications, you suddenly find that things cost a lot more than you had originally envisaged. From a preliminary look at the figures that you have provided, it is fairly clear to me that much more work will need to be done on this whole exercise before I will be able to judge whether, on a purely financial basis, you are going to achieve the savings that you are suggesting can be achieved.

I know there are a number of things in there, but I would like to deal especially with this whole question in relation to policy. I am not asking you to defend Government policy. I would not expect that from you as a civil servant. Nevertheless, it is a factor in this whole exercise, and we have to understand the implications of that in trying to come to a conclusion. We are not in an adversarial situation where we are challenging you. A substantial majority of people in Northern Ireland are utterly opposed to what the Minister and the Department are proposing. We have to see whether there is overwhelming evidence to support your position. That is what we are trying to tease out in our discussions here. Certainly, the evidence is not stacking up in favour of the policy that is being proposed. Change we do support, but a lot needs to be done to education but can the downstream cost of the changes you are proposing be measured?

Mr Carvill: A number of points in Mr Curran’s comments readily strike a chord, and I welcome some of his comments on the strategic plan. Mr Curran referred to the perception that the boards and the Department are at loggerheads over a range of issues. I think that perception is understandable because the Committee has been focusing on an area where there is a difference of opinion. The boards have taken one position and the Department a different one, and naturally you are getting, in a sort of adversarial way, different explanations and different statements of the position. I do not think it would be right to generalize from that into the area of board/Department relationships. I think the working-level relationships are very good. You can see a range of developments, and I think particularly of educational technology, curriculum advice and support, in-service training for teachers and the regional technology unit where you can see that initiatives are being taken forward jointly by the Department and the boards in exactly the interests of the sort of improvements that you correctly identify are needed in things like raising school standards. So I hope that is some reassurance.

You also asked whether the savings that people identify on paper are achievable in practice and I agree that it is right to ask that question and to look hard at paper calculations. I have tried to explain to the Committee the basis on which we made our estimates. I have explained that we made deliberately conservative estimates at all times and that we have tried to round down rather than round up savings because we were anxious not to overstate them. I think we have tried to do what you are saying but you will form your own view as to whether we have allowed adequately for that or not.

You referred to the non-financial benefits which we hoped to obtain from the exercise. In a sense that almost brings us right back to the beginning because I think that that was the first question Mr Chairman that you put to me, and the record will show what I tried to say there. I will not take up the time of the Committee by repeating it.

The Chairman: People see where their priorities are. The chalk-face is the major priority.

Mr McFarland: May I start by thanking you for this document. We received it this morning and have taken a minute or two to have a quick run through it. What I am really trying to do is clarify some bits of it that do not immediately make sense to me.

Mr Carvill: Is this essentially the economic appraisal paper?

Mr McFarland: Yes, the one dated 24 September. Let us take the PAFT initiative

“On 25 June the Government announced its decisions on changes to the structure for educational administration in Northern Ireland. These followed an extensive consultative process which had included not only formal consultations on three separate option papers”

All the boards that have come before us say that there was absolutely no consultation at all on the three-board option. Everyone appreciates that on the four-board option there was originally consultation in 1992. Presumably one of the three separate option papers was on a three-board option.

Mr Carvill: Consultation on the three-board model is, I think, the focus of your question. Originally a three-board model was illustrated in the document that was published in 1993 and that was the subject of consultation at that time. Formal consultation on the three-board conclusion which the Minister has now reached, in the light of all the consultations which he had, will actually be the statutory consultation which will follow from the publication of the draft proposal for a draft Order. The draft legislation will be published shortly.

Mr McFarland: So what you are saying is that the boards do not merit consultation before the decision is made, but once the legal system is gone through, and to all intents and purposes the ball has started rolling, they are allowed to run after it.

Mr Carvill No, I am not saying that. I am saying that there has been the longest, most detailed, most extensive consultation that I have had experience of in my career in the public sector, on this issue of changes in the structure of educational administration. I think all the issues that are relevant to decisions following that consultation were very fully ventilated — indeed, even a number of the boards themselves, while making it clear that they disagreed with the conclusion that the Minister reached, actually acknowledged that the consultation was very extensive. I do not think that this is an issue on which the Government can be accused of a lack of consultation.

Mr McFarland: But virtually every delegation that has appeared in front of us has brought up as one key point the fact that there has not been any consultation on these proposals. I can understand all the other reasons. They have produced various reasons for things, and we have challenged those, some of them quite rigorously. Some of them clearly have not thought things out as well as they might have done. Some of them have been slightly spurious. But in other areas they have been constant and their criticisms seem to be valid. One criticism that they have maintained absolutely is that there has been no consultation with them on the three-board model. I am confused about how you can square what you are saying to me with that view.

Mr Carvill: The view the Minister took was that after three years of consultation on the generality of this topic, including very specific consultation on a proposal for a four-board model, it was time to bring the consultation to a close. It had been impressed on him very strongly that the uncertainties which are naturally created by this sort of discussion were damaging to morale and that they ought to be brought to a conclusion, and he has sought to do that by reaching a considered view in the light of all the comments and all the consultation papers he has received on what is the right way forward. Now he has made his conclusion known and clear, and that will be the subject of consultation on the draft legislation that is to be brought forward.

Mr Bolton: The North Eastern Board did spend some time deliberating on a new strategic document and a new logo on the day before the public announcement. The Minister was asked to come and launch it, but he refused. Out of the blue we were told that the decision was to have three boards instead of five.

Mr Carvill: Advance information was given as a matter of courtesy by bringing in the people who were directly affected and telling them, before it became public knowledge, what conclusion the Minister had reached. I cannot see how anybody could object to that courtesy being extended to those who were directly affected by a decision which was going to be announced the next day.

Mr McFarland: In formulating these proposals the Government had regard to PAFT considerations. It concluded that, on the information available, there was no evidence to suggest that in overall terms this new structure would have any unjustifiable differential impact on any of the groups cited in the guidelines. This phrase “on the information available to it” is a sort of a catch-all. If you did not go and ask people, it is difficult to see how you got the information upon which to base a PAFT assessment.

The Chairman: Can you include in your answer why, as was demonstrated very forcefully, there was a total lack of information from last October? Suddenly someone went off and had a dream or something and came up with three. In other words, everyone is saying that though we might not have liked the end result, at least we should have had the courtesy of consultation.

Mr Carvill: Well the period in between was largely taken up with consultation with political parties which were on the basis of a paper which did in fact include a three-board model.

Mr Carvill: You lead me into territory where I am not sure I should follow.

The Chairman: It is imperative that we have that answer. After all, we have listened to the Church, the state and everyone else, and we want to hear what the politicians said to you.

Mr Carvill: My difficulty with that question is that the discussions with the political parties which the Minister held were private discussions. He regarded them as private and I do not think it is for me to divulge the detail of it, but I can tell you in general terms, if you wish, that the parties did not support change at this time, and I stress at this time. A number of them felt that change might well be needed, but it was a pretty general view among the parties that decisions of this sort should best be left to a local elected Assembly to deal with.

Mr Hussey: Is that a summary of all the major political parties?

The Chairman: I presume that this is a summary of all the major political parties.

Mr Carvill: It is what the Minister has authorized me to say to you about his discussions with them.

Mr Hussey: As a summary of his discussions with all of the major parties in Northern Ireland?

Mr Carvill: Let me repeat what that summary was: in general terms the parties did not support change at this time. Some of them felt that change might well be necessary but it was a general view that decisions on such matters should be deferred until a local Assembly could deal with them. That is the summary, does that help?

Mr McFarland: “The Government accepts that the detailed implementation of the new structures will have an impact on the employees of boards and that those effects will need to be assessed against the PAFT guidelines.”

That is just to confirm that there is a whole area down here that has not been looked at at all yet and the effects of it are not known because you have not done a full PAFT study.

The Chairman: What was the response of political parties?

Mr Carvill: A full PAFT study cannot be done because that sort of detail of implementation can only be addressed when you get down to the fine grain practicalities of what you are going to do in particular locations with particular groups of staff.

The Chairman: You park that whole idea until you make that point, and then you look at the realities of it.

Mr Carvill: No, we have said that as and when we come to deal with the detail of implementation of these proposals, PAFT considerations are one of the factors that will certainly be taken into account at that stage.

Mr McFarland: Let us look at Annex A.

“However with the exception of one Board, the Education and Library Boards declined to participate in discussions or consultations.”

Is this correct? They say they were never asked to consult. You have said here that they refused to consult.

Mr Carvill: This paragraph is talking about the costing exercise which was carried out in the summer of 1994, costing alternatives to the existing structure. The boards were asked to discuss those with us. It was their view then that they did not wish to do so, for reasons of principle I think, with the exception of one board which had a more relaxed view about it.

Mr McFarland: Was that because they thought you were imposing this upon them and they were not going to play ball by producing figures that would allow you to back up your case?

Mr Carvill: I am not sure that I should speak for them.

Mr McFarland: Correct me if I am wrong. One of the key questions centres round the famous Roy Beggs PQ figures. We approached this with you before. I think you said it was not comparing like with like.

Mr Carvill: I am not sure that was exactly the point I was making.

Mr McFarland: What you were saying, as I understood it, was that the local education authority areas were there for reasons that were not solely educational ones.

Mr Carvill: More or less. I was saying that the England/Wales local authorities were designed for a different purpose than just education alone, that was the point.

Mr McFarland: Throughout the rest of the submission you have quoted 1991 figures. The Bedfordshire and Northumberland figures that you quote are your two-bench marks on this.

Mr Carvill: Yes.

Mr McFarland: These, as I understand it, are 1991 figures.

Mr Carvill: Yes.

Mr McFarland: 1991-92 presumably.

Mr Carvill: Yes, I think so.

Mr McFarland: If I look at the answer to Roy Beggs’s parliamentary question, the figures from January 1992 would be half way through that year,

would they not?

Mr Carvill: Right.

Mr McFarland: For Bedfordshire you are quoting as 83,000, while Roy Beggs was told 76,781. For Northumberland you are quoting as 48,000, and in the January 1992 figures it is 43,700. So, on your figures we have somehow acquired 5,000-odd on each, yet these figures are purporting to come from the same period.

Mr Carvill: They do seem to.

Mr McFarland: This report used 1991 figures and you say that that has to be before the local education authorities changed. The local authorities in England are just changing again. If I were producing this as a consultant, I might be run out of town for trying what amounts to fudging figures and taking something that is no longer relevant for comparison.

Mr Carvill: If that was the basis on which these estimates of savings were derived, you would be right to question it, but it is not.

The Chairman: Could you explain first why there is a discrepancy of 5,000 in the numbers.

Mr Carvill: I cannot explain the different figures because I have not done the cross-check, but Mr McFarland has. I cannot be confident of the figures in question, I cannot be confident of the point of time in question. But can I remind the Committee of the purpose for which these comparators were used. They were not used in order to derive the estimates of savings that we have put before the Committee. They were used, if you like, as long stop bench-marks, a second check just to see whether the figures that emerged in the detailed calculations looked reasonable or unreasonable by comparison with the actual expenditure in an area which, whether it has 43,000 or 48,000 pupils, is not very different from, in terms of expenditure per capita, the United Kingdom average. So these comparators are not the basis for the savings that we have estimated.

Mr McFarland: Can I quote you on 1.6? When measured on a per capita basis against pupil numbers, the education and library boards were shown to spend 13% more than the average LEA — equivalent to some £3.4 million per annum. That is a statement.

Mr Carvill: Yes.

Mr McFarland: It includes all the buzz words and produces a percentage saving.

Mr Carvill: Yes, it is referenced to the average unit cost of the entire range of LEAs, but we have not in any of these papers suggested that these changes will lead to that saving of £3.4 million. What we have said is that the savings which we estimated separately — and I have set out in the paper the basis on which we made that calculation — did not look unreasonable in comparison to what the expenditure would have been if the expenditure here had been the same as the Great Britain average. That is the only purpose.

Mr McFarland: What we have here are a lot of facts and figures and it is actually quite a smoke-screen. You are saying you have done this thoroughly. It would be interesting to have more time to take this side-show out of the way and say it is a very spurious basis — 1991 figures fudged to try to compare with education and library boards. If you take that out of the way, what are we left with is the hard-rock basis for a decision. It keeps referring to this comparison with LEAs right across costings, productivity amongst headquarters staff — all such a things.

Mr Carvill: Right, well it is certainly not a smoke-screen, because I think I have, several times, as clearly as I can, explained to the Committee what it was used for, and I do not think I can add to what I have already explained. It is not a comparison that we have relied on in any way as validating or as being the source of the estimate of savings. It is, as I have said, simply a cross-check. If we had come to you and said that we had paid no regard at all to the levels of administrative expenditure elsewhere in the United Kingdom when making our estimates, you might have thought that that was an unusual thing to have done.

Mr McFarland: If comparing like with like, I would agree with you, but we have not compared like with like.

Mr Carvill: No, we made the best comparison that it was possible to make at that time and we compared the education expenditure.

The Chairman: We are comparing a different set of services to come up with a figure like this. When I glanced through this this morning, I regarded it as of no benefit. I could not see where I was going to get anything useful that would guide me towards making a honest decision. Yes, it is an exercise, and probably a very useful exercise, to cross-check what everyone else is doing as best one can. These are the things we all do somehow or other. It is just like comparing shop-window prices.

Mr Carvill: Could I just comment on something that was said because I think there may be a slight misunderstanding, given something you said. The bench-marking was not related to the totality of those authorities' expenditure which related to their relevant education expenditure. We did allow for the different range of functions.

The Chairman: But we have a much wider remit in educational terms than many LEAs over there, so we are into difficult areas.

Mr Carvill: Yes, always difficult.

Mr McFarland: May I take you to HQ core services?

Mr Carvill: Right.

Mr McFarland: To estimate potential savings, two approaches were adopted. For senior management teams new notional staff structures were assumed, so presumably you have done some planning on the staff structures at senior management, despite what you say — that no planning has been done on this. To estimate potential savings, you are telling us that you have actually designed these staff structures. Is that correct?

Mr Carvill: No, I am saying that notional staff structures were assumed for the purposes of costings. We have not attempted to read that forward into saying that in this office, this number of staff will be doing that function.

Mr McFarland: I appreciate that. What I am saying is that you have based a costing on a staff structure that you had designed, albeit a notional one. But presumably it is a fairly accurate notional one, otherwise you could not work out accurate potential savings on it.

Mr Carvill: It is a structure which is reasonably appropriate.

Mr McFarland: So we actually have that available somewhere, have we?

Mr Carvill: Yes.

Mr Hill: You will actually find the regionalization structures in the annex to each of the working party’s reports.

Mr McFarland: In 3.6 these figures take no account of regionalization. Now, we had quite an interesting discussion with the North Eastern Board, and you will recall that when we spoke to you before you agreed with us that it was going to cost £0.5 million more. But then you say “But we have actually extracted three areas from this.”

Mr Carvill: Sorry, is that architectural services?

Mr McFarland: Aah, it was architectural services. Grants and awards and purchasing were left in?

Mr Carvill: Yes.

Mr McFarland: But we said “This with the others in was about half a million” and you said “Yes, that is approximately correct, but we actually extracted internal audit, legal and information services.”

Mr Carvill: I am not at all sure that I am following the calculation or the paper that you are referring to.

Mr McFarland: This purports to be from the working party established by the Department to consider the practicalities of regionalization of management of the services. That showed that it was going to cost £0.5 million more. I think the record will show that you said that is about right.

Mr Carvill: Well.

Mr McFarland: You said “We have extracted three of these items, therefore this is no longer correct.”

Mr Carvill: There are two areas in particular where the reports from those working groups suggested higher levels of expenditure. One was on architectural services, another was on grants and awards. Maybe this is the point that you are referring to. The point that I recall making earlier was that the job remit, if you like, for the regionalization of the architectural services unit included more than simply the area boards. It was to provide a service for the education sector as a whole and therefore it was a larger unit, a more expensive one, but doing a bigger job. That was the point that I was making. On grants and awards, it is true that the working party produced a surprising conclusion on the cost estimates. We have queried some of the assumptions which the working party used there, but further work is being done on that, so it is an open question.

Mr McFarland: But my concern here is that we have had produced by the North East Board — and presumably it has produced it to you — a table which purports to be the same as this except that it says “estimated savings per working party documentation”. The figures are not a cost of £0.5 million but a cost of over £1 million.

Mr Hill: I have the table in front of me and, at the risk of repetition, a number of the figures used in this table are simply misleading. The purchasing section is shown as having an increased cost of £104,000.

The Chairman: Who did your figures?

Mr Hill: We did our figures.

The Chairman: Internally?

Mr Hill: Internally, and we also had a member on each of the working groups. The £380,000 is not for the same regionalization exercise as the Department’s figures. Again the working group’s report will actually make this quite clear.

The Chairman: When the working group first sat down it had a remit to produce an architectural service for the whole of Northern Ireland. Somebody then decided that that was not what it was asked. It was asked to do something else, so we will go back and cost that. Is that what we are really saying?

Mr Hill: The working group — I actually provided the remit for the Committee — was asked to examine the practicalities of regionalization. The members from the CCMS, the voluntary grammar school sector and the grant maintained integrated sector who sat on that working group produced a report that showed that with an additional £380,000 you could regionalize board services, introduce a new system of project management for all education projects, and take on responsibility for the work that the Department, the CCMS and the voluntary schools presently do for the voluntary sector. So the working group report is a report which deals with something completely different from an analysis of board services, only.

The Chairman: But in the long term what you are actually saying is “Let us regionalize architecture”.

Mr Hill: Yes. The estimated savings per the working group party’s documentation of £380,000 are not on the same basis as the £273,000. This table is completely misleading, and the working group report, which I am sure you have, will actually make that quite clear.

I have already covered the purchasing figures above it. The £139,000 estimated saving was in relation to existing purchasing. The £38,000 revised estimate was the cost of purchasing a much greater amount within the boards, and the £104,000 additional cost was for a purchasing service for the entire education service. Those two columns are not relevant, and therefore misleading.

Mr McFarland: The Department of Education has set up and tasked a number of working groups. You presumably wanted them to produce information for a particular purpose, which was presumably tied in with this restructuring. They have reported back to you under your guidelines. Presumably these are correct findings. You then said “Hang on a minute. This doesn't quite fit what we're trying to do here. We have our DENI document which produces figures that fit into to what we think.”

Do you understand our confusion here over why when organizations set up by you for a purpose report back to you, you do not accept their findings?

Mr Hill: But we do accept their findings.

The Chairman: You accept their findings, but you immediately set about something else.

Mr Hill: No.

The Chairman: Another exercise with a different remit and a different set of figures.

Mr Hill: They have carried out this exercise and

The Chairman: But you asked them to carry out this exercise.

Mr Hill: We did, and as part of that remit we asked them to explore specific options and a range of further options as they considered appropriate. The purchasing department, the purchasing working group, led by an officer from the Southern Board, did an excellent job and produced a report which demonstrates that an expanded purchasing service can be run for the entire education system at better value for money.

The Chairman: You used the word “expanded”.

Mr Hill: Yes, that was the recommendation —

The Chairman: I just want to pick up that word.

Mr Hill: — which we are accepting.

The Chairman: Are you accepting it because it brought in a figure which showed a decrease in the cost of the present services, or are you bringing it in because it is a more efficient service for purchasing?

Mr Hill: No, that is a recommendation of the working group.

The Chairman: Let us go back and take your original argument on architectural services. You produced a regional service, a perfectly good delivery system for the Department’s own architectural services, yet it is only going to cost £380,000 more to have this service cover the whole of Northern Ireland. If you can get an expanded service with this all-embracing remit, why do you set about doing a different exercise?

Mr Carvill: You mean, it looks good value for money?

The Chairman: I do not live in a world if there is not value for money.

Mr Carvill: Well, we think it looks good value for money too.

The Chairman: But why the persistence in going all out to come up with a different service.

Mr Carvill: I think the chronology is maybe getting us confused here. May I briefly re-cap. We started with an estimate drawn up by the Department which related to the existing board service. We said it was worth exploring. We set up a Working Group involving the boards and the Department looking at that option and arranging other options as they thought fit.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr Carvill: The Working Group came back to us and said that it would be sensible if the exercise encompassed not just the board but other services as well, and we said that that looked attractive. Now that is the basis on which we are going forward, but there are issues which do still have to be resolved about the management of that regional service.

The Chairman: Maybe our Committee is simple-minded, but it would not have had to set up a working party to realize that economy of scale in purchasing had to be examined.

Mr Carvill: There is a distinction between unified purchasing and a unified purchasing service, and as you say there are economies of scale in purchasing larger quantities. The boards in fairness had explored those and had negotiated contracts in some cases.

The Chairman: Do you think that the boards had already co-operated on this?

Mr Carvill: Yes. But what was being addressed here was taking it a further step forward and saying that we would not negotiate central contracts only, but have a single unit to negotiate contracts for all of us. That was the distinction.

Mr Hill: To summarize in one sentence, what this table does is misleading for the reasons I have explained at this meeting. The estimated savings were £1 million but the fact that we have decided not to take the regionalization option in three of the services and other factors brought out in the exercise are likely to reduce the saving to somewhere between £0.5 million and £0.75 million. We are still convinced, and we believe the working party conclusions are clear, that those savings are achievable. Therefore, the presentation of those figures is simply misleading.

Mr McFarland: Paragraph 3.7 says that savings do not take into account any additional cost resulting from, say, increased travelling expenses. You have not looked at potentially enormous expenditures, so it is very much an unfinished exercise. It is difficult to see how you can say what is going to be saved if you have not actually followed the logical conclusion of your actions.

Mr Carvill: Again, we are clear these are gross figures not net figures. I have explained some of the assumptions that we used which we thought were conservative and would tend to offset that factor. The paper which you have in front of you includes a separate note on an exercise that we did when assessing what is likely to be the largest transitional cost, that being redundancy costs. In that separate note I have explained the conclusion we reached that the savings were robust enough potentially to offset redundancy costs. I have been clear about the basis of the figures.

Mr McFarland: OK. Now let us consider comparative costing data. Again you have used the LEAs versus education and library boards. For example, Bedfordshire is full of extremely flat countryside and has an incredible road network where you can go from A to B in no time at all. How can you compare these with library boards which have the Sperrins in between and Lough Neagh in the middle? Are costs like electricity taken into account in the comparative costing data?

Mr Carvill: No. Those are actual costs. As I said before, if you were criticizing that comparison as the sole basis of estimated savings I would agree with you — it would not be an appropriate basis for doing that. But I do not seem to be able to say this too often that that is not the basis on which the estimated savings were worked out.

Mr McFarland: But every page is talking about comparing LEAs with ELBs.

Mr Hill: It is an interesting and relevant comparison, but that is all. To do the exercise —

Mr McFarland: But it takes up an enormous amount of space in the documents you have given us as justification for your decision. You are saying it is only a tiny part of it now. For a tiny part, it is extremely pervasive.

Mr Hill: We have described it as a cross-check on the assumptions, not as a reason for doing it. Those figures and, I suspect, the population figures are all drawn from the exercise to compare with other areas which do exactly the same thing.

The Chairman: You are telling us now it is purely a snow storm.

Mr Carvill: I do not think that is at all a fair summary of what Mr Hill has been saying.

Mr McFarland: But where are the real figures? If all these pages are full of LEA versus ELB, where is the paper setting out the hard figures which are the basis of this entire operation?

Mr Carvill: I have never said that these papers are other than a summary of the conclusions of the working documentation.

Mr McFarland: You have given us all the stuff about ELBs — the nice stuff and the comparative stuff — but you have not given us the hard cost-benefit analysis that you say is the real basis for your operation.

Mr Carvill: I am saying that what this paper does is explain the methodology, explain the assumptions.

The Chairman: That is not the question you were asked. Let us get down to the walnut. He said that that is not the reality. Where is the reality you based your figures on? Obviously there is cost-benefit in all of this and an economic appraisal which is factual and gives hard evidence. Maybe you do not wish to give it. Then say so. But let us not pussy-foot around. I have seen red herrings before. Where are the hard facts?

Mr Carvill: This is a summary of very extensive working papers across a range of files. It shows the methodology, it shows the assumptions, it shows the summation of the costings, but it is not the working document and it is not the departmental files, obviously it is not.

The Chairman: We are not asking for the departmental files.

Mr McFarland: Is it possible for you to produce a synopsis from which you have removed the ELB versus local authority arguments that are in every single page here.

Mr Carvill: Well, simply put a line through them, but it does not change the conclusions.

Mr McFarland: No, I am talking about you.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: We do not want the comparative studies. We would like a summary.

Mr McFarland: You are saying to us that you are not basing your decision on this.

Mr Carvill: No, I am saying that we are not basing our estimates of savings on comparator LEAs.

The Chairman: I accept that, but you have estimated your savings on something.

Mr Carvill: Yes. We talked earlier about staffing structures and notional staffing structures that were assumed.

The Chairman: You estimated your savings on something.

Mr Carvill: Yes, of course.

Mr McFarland: There must be some hard figures somewhere, unless, of course, it is entirely a political decision. We have talked about value for money, and about cost-effectivenesses all the way through. This was one of the reasons for this cost-effectiveness item.

You have now very kindly given us this, which sets out methodology and a number of other things, except that all the way through it uses comparators between the LEAs in England and the education and library boards here. This is to do with your experience of costings. Is it possible for you to give us an A4 sheet or two A4 sheets — however much it takes — setting out the sort of basis upon which this decision was made?

Mr Carvill: It is in 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5.

Mr McFarland: These are dependent on the notional staff structures?

Mr Carvill: Yes.

Mr McFarland: Is it possible to have the notional staff structures? Obviously it will not make sense without them.

Mr Carvill: Yes, it is possible.

Mr McFarland: In 3.1 there are the words “which were adjusted to reflect the performance levels already achieved in the better performing boards”. How do you determine a performance level? Is there a whole area that we are not aware of?

Mr Carvill: We looked at the costings that were available to indicate the unit costs of particular functions in different boards.

Mr McFarland: This is from the one board which co-operated.

Mr Carvill: No, existing boards.

Mr McFarland: But you said they did not co-operate and refused to give their figures, which is why you could not do the rest of them.

Mr Carvill: I said their line was to co-operate in discussing these figures with us and that they were prepared to supply figures in correspondence. We got those figures in that way. Does that answer the question?

Mr Hussey: In what year were those figures done?

Mr Hill: They would be 1991/92 figures.

Mr Hussey: Either 1991-92 or 1992-93.

The Chairman: Would they be part of the figures in the 1992-93 document?

Mr McFarland: Do we have those board figures that we based this on. Obviously that would be useful. You talk about “adjusted to reflect performance”. Adjusted is a great word and can mean a number of things.

Mr Hill: Could I just emphasize that this exercise was carried out in 1994 which means that the most recent reliable figures that we had were ones from 91/92 and 92/93. I know it seems quite a bit away now, but they were actually the most recent.

The Chairman: Whoever it was you sent to Bedfordshire overdid it.

Mr Hill: The base data was supplied by the local boards in correspondence.

Mr McFarland: Paragraph 3.1 provides staffing structures drawn up for each service. So you have all this available?

Mr Carvill: Yes.

Mr McFarland: I am slightly confused about why you were not rushing in to help us by providing what is obviously a detailed planning document that must exist somewhere which shows what you think this is going to look like and upon which you have based your figures. There must be some detail there if you are actually quoting. You have revised staffing structures, and you have notional staff structures for management. This all must be available. I am confused about why we have taken two hours. It looks like a court case, and I do not mean it to be. We finally prised out that these things exist. One would have thought, if you were confident of the basis on which this was done, that we would have had those on day one.

Mr Carvill: They are not predictions of what the staffing structure will be in a particular board area. They are, as it says, notional staff structures, our best guess of what would be appropriate.

Mr McFarland: For each of the services.

Mr Carvill: They are not predictions, they are estimates.

Mr McFarland: You are taking serious decisions on hard figures. Of course you have to do notional figures. I understand that fully. That is the way things are done. What I am confused about is why you have been slightly reluctant — if I am not wrong — to produce these to us. Presumably, because you are basing the entire reorganization of education on them, you are confident they will stand up to any scrutiny.

Mr Carvill: What I am basing them on is an estimate of savings that would result from some structural changes. I am confident that they are adequate for that purpose.

Mr McFarland: But this has been sold on the £2 million savings.

Mr Hill: Well, to be honest, you keep telling us that it is based on £2 million savings, and we keep telling you that it is based on a number of factors including the £2 million savings.

Mr McFarland: But that was the selling point in the press releases. It was the selling point in all the documentation.

Mr Fowler: It does not just say £2 million; it says £2.564 million. That is how accurate your estimating is. You must have a basis for all this.

The Chairman: You can play with all this from now until next year. The available facts are the compendium of information that everyone was working on. Is that correct?

Mr Carvill: You have waved that document a number of times. I do not think that that is a document which we supplied.

The Chairman: I think it is a document that you would have originally supplied.

Mr Carvill: It is possible, but is it part of the Capita working papers?

The Chairman: I got somebody to assess some of the facts. One of things that we discovered was that it was inadequate, inaccurate and misleading.

There is integrity of argument somewhere, if I can get it. I am given new information every day and I depend on good faith. But if I get somebody to examine that good-faith document and am told there is an inaccuracy, I get very sceptical. I can get people who would do all sorts of figures for me, and they could make all sorts of predictions. But I live in a real world.

Mr Carvill: It is difficult for me to comment on what the Chairman said because I do not know who the commentator was, I do not know the basis on which those comments were made and I do not immediately recognize the document that is being referred to.

The Chairman: It is the Department of Education for Northern Ireland market testing.

Mr Carvill: Oh, it is the Capita Market Testing Document?

The Chairman: It speaks for itself. Maybe you have had to make corrections yourselves.

Mr Carvill: I will not go into that.

Mr McFarland: It is extremely useful to have this because it is very enlightening. Could I take you to redundancy costs? The second talks about cost of redundancy being between £1 million and £2.5 million. There is at present no valid basis for determining where the figure would lie.

At the beginning you said it was not possible to do things, but we have been stacking things up and we will, I hope, drag them all out from the various hiding places.

I understand that if you cut back on a post, and someone takes on extra responsibilities, there is immediately a salary review.

The Chairman: Job evaluation.

Mr McFarland: Job evaluation comes along. It strikes me that we based this whole exercise on a great many suppositions. I would argue that you have perhaps too many suppositions to stand up to a sceptic asking if you have really done your homework on this. Have you really done your homework here and can you put a hand on your heart and say that you know exactly what the cost-benefit analysis is in terms of the advantages and disadvantages of taking this course of action? Short of doing a detailed study of your document and having a sort of Pauline conversion, I am moving towards being slightly sceptical about the figures involved in all this.

Mr Carvill: I think the figures do stand up to scrutiny. You will form your own judgement on that. The assumptions on which they are based are modest ones, conservative in the sense that we have rounded down and pushed the target low. I think as far as it is possible to identify the transitional costs, be they travelling or redundancy, we have reason to be confident that the savings are robust against them. I do not think it is possible to improve on that given current knowledge. Now, the more fine-grain material which you have been discussing can only be produced when we come to the actual implementation stage. I accept that but that is inevitable in any exercise of reorganization.

Mr McFarland: But if you find at that stage that you have an horrendous bill and it is not going to be cost-effective, do you see the Minister throwing up his hands and saying “Oops, bit of a mistake here” and changing everything back to having five boards, which would be the obvious and logical thing to do?

Mr Carvill: Any reorganization of public services can only be done on the basis of the best estimates you can draw up at the time. There is always doubt about them, there always has to be. I am quite sure you can produce different assumptions, and perhaps some of the calculations you referred to are based on assumptions of this sort which would show horrendous costs. You ought to look very carefully at whether those assumptions are reasonable or not. We have made our assessment.

The Chairman: Have you had regard to a recent public document which made a big play on education?

Mr Carvill: Yes, and its contribution to economic development.

The Chairman: Then there is, of course, the UNESCO document. This exercise is not about education; it is not about saving money. What is the real reason?

Mr Carvill: I can only say that in my opinion the administrative, educational and financial arguments in favour of reorganization are clear.

The Chairman: I admire your faithfulness.

Mr Hussey: You make much of the map giving us the population statistics — Protestant versus Roman Catholic. I notice that the free-school-meals item was inserted there. Your map shows an inequality across the province. Would you agree?

Mr Carvill: Yes.

Mr Hussey: If that is not evidence of an attempt at social engineering —

Mr Carvill: I do not know whether that is a criticism or a compliment.

Mr Hussey: Is it evidence of social engineering?

Mr Carvill: As a result of our proposals the boards will be more homogenous than they are at present. Is that evidence of what?

Mr Hussey: Is it chance?

Mr Carvill: Well, if you are asking if we started with the percentages of free schools meals and built that up to reach some predetermined conclusion, no we did not.

Mr Hussey: Is it a chance outcome?

Mr Carvill: Do not forget that we started ......

Mr Hussey: Either it is or it is not.

Mr Carvill: Well, it is a fact.

Mr Hussey: If you did not set out to achieve that, it must be a chance outcome.

Mr Carvill: It is a factor that we were aware of; it is a factor against which we tested the boundaries that were generated in that model.

Mr Hussey: There is no evidence of that in what is presented here. These are factors that you were aware of and considered but did not mention in any of the documentation.

Mr Carvill: Not quite. I think I talked at some length about free school meals

The Chairman: To be fair, Mr Carvill did elaborate and waxed eloquently on that point. I was trying to work out why he was waxing eloquently, and then I discovered why.

The boards and the churches have made very honest attempts to explain their concerns. In all of this, they talk about savings. I am not too familiar with the financial engineering. That guarantees nothing. I have a ball-park figure for this from a consultant who has worked down South on regionalization. The figure is horrendous. What is the benefit at the chalk-face?

Mr Carvill: Better services at less cost.

Mr Hill: Mr Curran was right when he started his questions by reference to the strategic plan because it is to the fulfillment of those objectives in the strategic plan that these structural changes will make a significant contribution.

The Chairman: Are those things worth the money?

Mr Curran: But have you explored getting savings by other means? I could go into this at length. Did you explore savings within the whole of the system? I have no evidence of that. The boards showed how they could save £0.5 million in a year. I put the question specifically to every board: what is the potential for co-operation to generate further savings? I was getting vibes that there was potential there. I put the same question to DENI. What is the potential for savings within DENI? We know that there is always some fat in the system, but could you have saved £2 million - £3 million by other means without causing this massive disruption that is possibly going to militate against the priority objectives that you set out in your strategic plan?

Mr Carvill: Nobody, as I said earlier, is arguing that this is the only possible source of savings. If other savings can be made as well, they should be made.

Mr Curran: That is what I would like to have seen explored, rather than this total disruption of the system, given that the savings are minuscule at the chalk-face.

The Chairman: The education priorities are the ones that the boards have picked. This is where DENI always seems to come in somewhat lacking.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: The religious make-up of each of the three areas — why is this significant?

Mr Carvill: The reason the point is highlighted in the presentation is that a lot of people focused on in their comments at various stages of the consultation including the consultation on the four-board model. It was a point to which people attached importance, that is why it is highlighted. It is a factual statement of the known religious balance in those three areas.

The Chairman: I was interested in the point you made last time about accountability and public representation. The fifty-man board is a fairly unwieldy organization. The Minister’s 25 June statement talks about experience of English LEAs. What is the engine driving all this? I do not think it is anything we have heard about that today or on the last day.

Mr Carvill: I can only conclude that what we have said to you has failed to convince because we have said very clearly what is driving the exercise. We have explained the improvements in services that we look for, we have explained the savings in costs that we look for. I have heard it said that £2 million is not a large sum in terms of the total education budget. I have to say that it is a large enough sum to be significant in my responsibilities as Accounting Officer for the Department. I would not like to go to the PAC and say that £2 million is an insignificant figure and we have discounted it. I would be on dangerous ground there. So I am not sure that I can add to the points

that we have already made.

Mr Hussey: Would you agree that this whole procedure has been and is contentious?

Mr Carvill: Yes. It has been a controversial exercise.

Mr Hussey: Thank you.

The Chairman: I thank you. We may live in a world that is contentious, but I would hate ever to forget the proper courtesies. I admire your faithfulness in defending what you feel has to be defended and, indeed, your guarding of the ministerial prerogatives. It is an exercise which most of us have come through in different spheres of life.

Mr Carvill: Thank you.

The Chairman: We are politicians to some extent and, therefore, we have to be a bit more open than civil servants or anyone else. But we are not afraid to declare our hand. We will have to wait till Monday so this can be written up. The work the Minister gave us was impossible to do. As soon as we have a copy on the table, copies will be offered to you.

Mr Carvill: I do appreciate that. May I add just one point to what we discussed? One area was highlighted in the questions you sent to us which we have not actually got round to today and that was a specific request to list the areas where education and library boards’ responsibilities had been affected by education reform. Would it be helpful if I left with you a note on that?

The Chairman: Yes. We have asked headmasters to do the same thing. In other words, we do the same as you — we double-check.

Mr Carvill: Well I will leave a note with the Clerk.

Witnesses:

Rev Brian Kennaway, Mr G Montgomery and Mr R Whitten

(Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland)

The Chairman: Gentlemen, you are very welcome to the Northern Ireland Forum’s Education Committee. The Committee was set up in July as a result of the Minister’s directive of 25 June indicating that he intended to bring in legislation forthwith to reduce the number of education and library boards from five to three. We met early this month, we have been hearing evidence last week and this week, and we have evidence to hear tomorrow.

Please proceed as you wish.

Rev Brian Kennaway: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman, it is nice for us to be here. I am the Convener of the Education Committee of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland. I will introduce things and then my two colleagues will make particular contributions. We have submitted to you copies of two documents that we submitted to the Department, with an introduction that highlights the key features that concern us. I know you have had a long day and, I am sure you are anxious to finish.

The history of the Orange Institution’s connection with education goes back to the formation of the state when the Orange Institution, in connection with the churches, sought to maintain a reformed Protestant witness in the schools in Northern Ireland and to maintain the general Christian ethos of the schools. This was well documented over the period when many minor battles were fought over the retention of the Bible in schools and having morning assemblies. Our concern is over the matter of consultation. We have been involved in this process of consultation. We have spoken to the Minister, Michael Ancram, but we are, however, somewhat disappointed at the final outcome of this consultation process, very disappointed indeed.

The words that come to mind are “something of a sham”, and sham, of course, has its own particular connotations for us. This consultation period has been a sham and the Ministers and his friends seem totally to have ignored much of the material that was presented to them.

Having highlighted our particular concerns, I want to introduce my colleagues to address those concerns now. Richard Whitten will address the small schools and CCMS, and then Graham Montgomery will deal with political unity and DENI.

Mr Whitten: Gentlemen and ladies, one of our main concerns about the future administration of education in Northern Ireland was the setting up of the CCMS some three years ago. Now, of course, we were aware that in the maintained sector the Roman Catholic church had a perfect right to set up an institution, another layer of administration, for its own schools since it is the legal owner of those schools. Our objection, which we made very forcefully to the Minister, was that this could be being funded by taxpayers' money. Three years ago when CCMS started a consultation document showed a costing for it to be £0.7m — that has now reached £2 million. That figure shows a 100% increase in each of the last three years, and we would question whether there has been any comparable increase anywhere else in the education sector, indeed anywhere else in public administration in Northern Ireland, of 100% in each of the last three years.

As I say, our objection cannot be to the fact that the CCMS was set up. Our objection is to another layer of administration being funded by taxpayers' money. It has not escaped our notice that the CCMS actually lobbied for only one board for Northern Ireland, and we question why it feels that only one board is necessary. Obviously, from our point of view, this would further dilute the transferors' rights in the Protestant Churches' sector.

We question the imbalance and the unfairness, and indeed we say that it is extremely unfortunate that the setting up of the CCMS with taxpayers' money seems to have sectarianised Northern Ireland’s education further. We asked Michael Ancram directly why he was presiding over what could be described as the most sectarian publicly funded education system in Western Europe. Needless to say, he disagreed with that, but we really stuck to our point. It is interesting that the amount he claims will be saved by reducing from five boards to three is £2 million and that the cost of CCMS is also £2 million.

In the matter of small schools, it seems to us that in the last number of years there has been a concerted effort by DENI to close small rural schools, particularly in the border areas. Now we are under pressure from our membership to maintain the populations along the border areas. We are under pressure from lots of different quarters. We are under pressure from terrorism and under pressure economically, and the closure of a rural school has a terrible effect on a local community. It is not too long after that, with travel that is too difficult and winter nights et cetera, that families move to be nearer the larger schools, and that also dilutes the whole population along the border areas.

Now in some of the more recent quarrels about the closure of small rural primary schools, in particular, there has been cross-community support for them to be kept open, and I have a personal example quite near me of Cladymilltown Primary School near Markethill in Co Armagh. The local MP, Mr Seamus Mallon, lobbied extensively for that school to be retained. Mr Jim Nicholson, the MEP, lobbied extensively for that school to be retained, and the Southern Education and Library Board was wholeheartedly in favour of retaining it, but Michael Ancram overruled the lot and closed it. Fait accompli. End of story.

We fear that if the number of boards is reduced from five to three we will have even less concern for the future of small schools, and we are not convinced that in education big is necessarily beautiful. There is a drive to produce these large schools — one might almost call them factory schools — and we are not convinced that that policy is right in all circumstances.

Mr Montgomery: Gentlemen, a couple of the points that I am going to make have been touched on already by Mr Whitten. The first thing which is very important is the nature of the situation in Northern Ireland. While we accept that economics dictate reality in any political situation — and of course the Government are attempting to rationalize the Civil Service in many areas and, therefore, a review of education in Northern Ireland falls very logically under this — we feel, however, that there are circumstances in Northern Ireland which make our situation very different. This is not unique to education — the subvention which we have in the economy in general is largely a result of our differences from the rest of the United Kingdom.

Political agreement between the people of Northern Ireland, or the representatives of the communities in Northern Ireland, is quite important and, indeed, that is one of the reasons the Forum was created in the first place, to establish understanding and greater harmony among our people. It is rather regrettable that when the Minister has consultation, and most of the political parties and most of the interested groups in Northern Ireland representing all sections of the community reply to the effect that they wish to retain the five-board structure, he then decides to reduce the number of boards to three — now that defies logic first of all. It is not unknown for Governments to ignore advice or to ignore opinions, but we feel it is regrettable that when there is agreement, the Department of Education in this case, and perhaps the Minister more especially, appears to ignore it.

There is no point, quite simply, in having consultation if the Minister leads people to feel that he has made his mind up to begin with, that the consultation is a cosmetic exercise to allow the people to feel a sense of democracy. He allows them to do that and then he completely ignores their findings. Roughly 80%, I believe, of respondents to the consultation said that they wished the five boards to be retained, yet we find that the boards are being reduced to three. It is quite simply wrong to ignore such political union among the parties concerned. The fact that the Minister appears to have ignored the consultation leads on to the difficulty with DENI itself because many people, and certainly many of our members, are beginning to feel that the Department of Education has some sort of agenda of its own, and Mr Whitten has alluded to that already. The fact, for example — and I think it bears repetition — is that when the consultation process began CCMS was being funded to the tune of £0.78 million and the Department wanted to save £2 million; CCMS is now being funded by almost £2 million and the Department is still seeking to save £2 million, so they are increasing spending in a contentious area and, at the same time, planning to rationalize services.

I think it is important also that we should make clear that we are not opposed to rationalization. We are not Luddites. We do understand that there are certain necessities and we are not devoted to the idea of ever increasing bureaucracy. However, we do feel that these things have to be managed sensitively and in a practical and realistic way, and internal reorganization and rationalization of individual boards may well be an alternative to just reducing the number of boards to three in a way which will not be at all helpful.

Also, the Minister’s proposals, we fear, will further reduce the number of elected representatives, or the input of elected representatives, in the educational process in Northern Ireland. That would be regrettable because as we come to a time in our history, real or imagined, when we are preparing to take on greater responsibility for governing ourselves — if that is, indeed, the Government’s aim for the political process in which they have been engaged from the early 1990s — it is rather regrettable that, while having that aim, they are rationalizing boards and reducing the representation of elected representatives. That appears contradictory and again feeds the perception that we have had relayed to us by many of our members that DENI is working to some sort of agenda of its own. It is not responsive to the wishes of people and it is not paying any attention to the wishes of people. It is talking on the one hand about increasing accountability while on the other creating these large boards which will in fact reduce accountability. Those are the main points which I wished to make about DENI and the consultation process.

The consultation process in short was fatally flawed, and the one point which we would like to make on record, and which we think is absolutely essential, is that it is now time that the Department of Education for Northern Ireland made the Coopers and Lybrand Report available. Publish it and let us see what it says, let us see what the consultants suggested. If the Government’s findings, if the Department’s findings, are similar to the Coopers and Lybrand Report, we will have egg on our face; if not, well that is a matter for the Minister.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for your gravity and your succinctness.

Mr Hussey: You obviously have more concerns about education administration than the actual board reorganization. It is fair to say that one of the major elements which has come through in submissions to us has been concern about the reduction in board numbers. But you have deeper concerns about the administrative system rather than just the board structure. Is that correct?

Rev Brian Kennaway: Yes, but obviously the reduction of boards from five to three affects all those other concerns and that is why we are highlighting them.

Mr Hussey: There was concern expressed about border schools. The Department will, of course, argue that all the boards will disappear and new boards will be constituted, but the Western Education and Library Board will disappear, and that board has a considerable number of border schools within its area. That type of area would also probably be regarded as being one of a Nationalist persuasion. The new Northern Board and Southern Board structure would favour those of a more pro-Union stance, as opposed to the current situation, given the geographical and population structure of the west. Taking into account your argument about border schools, would that sort of set-up not suit your concerns better?

Mr Whitten: It may be that much larger boards favouring, if you like, those of a more Unionist opinion might actually work against the smaller schools. They are the ones that seem to be concerned most with saving the Government’s money. That is our experience and in actual fact the Western Board and the Southern Board which have, of course, large Catholic majorities have been most scrupulous in trying to keep the small schools open, both Catholic and Protestant. They seem to be more responsive to the local community. It is not the experience of our committee, expressed to us through the ordinary members of the Orange Order, that they suffered in any untoward way from being in the Western Board or the Southern Board areas. Quite the reverse, they were helped, they were given considerable assistance to try to keep many of those schools going. Our concern is that the larger the boards, the more the emphasis will be on saving money, and the more the concerns of the local community will be diluted.

Mr Hussey: Your argument is that the present board structure has greater concern about cross-community issues than the proposed three-board structure would have.

Mr Whitten: I certainly feel that. If you were living in a small village in Tyrone, you would have more chance of securing your local school’s future with the existing Western Board than you would if you were in a part of Tyrone which was going to be administered from Ballymena or if you were in Southern Tyrone and you were going to be administered from Armagh.

Mr Hussey: As someone from Castlederg, I hope that is correct.

Mr Bolton: I am very sorry to relate that I have that experience. I am a member of the North Eastern Education Board based in Ballymena. It closed a primary school known to me last year or the year before.

Mr Fowler: The point has been made that the CCMS when it was first set up cost roughly £1 million and since then it has reached the magical amount of £2 million. This suggests that it would rather balance the books. It would make them pay their own way. But is it as simple as that? The children must be educated somewhere, so they are going to have to spend roughly that amount of money under a new system.

Mr Whitten: Well the £2 million for CCMS is funding which was not available to spend on ordinary schools. Until the CCMS was funded, the Catholic schools in the maintained sector were administrated through the board areas. Now all the CCMS is doing is duplicating the efforts of the boards, and our criticism is of the duplication of effort in the administrative sphere. To give you an example, the boards have sections, each education and library board has a section dealing with planning, where architects, basically, plan new schools and extensions to existing schools. They have building control officers who go round and inspect the school buildings, they have finance officers who send teams into schools and inspect the books of the schools. They have personnel departments who look after the appointments of staff to schools. Now CCMS is duplicating all this. It has its own sections for planning, architects and everything else. If a Catholic school wants an extension, it employs obviously the architect that CCMS has and so on, so it is duplication of effort that could be saved.

Mr Fowler: So they do not employ the board’s architect?

Mr Whitten: No, they have their own in the planning section. There are up to 17 paid officers now, and they have all these different sections and largely, it seems to us — at any rate they can obviously speak for themselves — that they are simply duplicating the effort which is already available and the services which are already available through the area boards. We question whether they actually need the CCMS. Of course it puts the main Protestant Churches in an invidious position in that they do not now own schools. They handed them over many years ago, so as they do not hold legal title to the schools. They are in a difficult position. They cannot argue that they need a Protestant equivalent of the CCMS. As a matter of fact I do not think they would want a Protestant equivalent of the CCMS. If we were to go down that route we would really sectarianise the whole thing even more than it is now, and that was the line of our questioning of Michael Ancram. If he was determined to build up the CCMS, he would provoke a reaction on the Protestant side. Protestant Churches might demand something similar for themselves, and we actually do not want that. We question whether that is necessary. We question the road that this is taking us along.

Rev Brian Kennaway: Mr Fowler seems to think that if the CCMS were abolished tomorrow the maintained sector would not be administered. If it were, it would still all be administered through the board. Our fundamental problem is that it creates another tier of administration which according to these documents that come from DENI, they are trying to streamline by reducing the number of boards from five to three. Yet, they have, in fact, created another tier of administration internally themselves.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: Just two things. One is actually a rejoinder to your point that Protestant Churches do not want an equivalent to CCMS. In fact, some of the denominations do want the equivalent, and they have been asking for it over a number of years. But that is not my point. You showed a deep concern in your opening remarks about preserving the Protestant and Reformed faith in schools. All the Ministers that I have come across have rejected the Protestant and Reformed faith, so should we not have a separate school system altogether? In fact, there are no Protestant schools. There are state schools, to which we send our children.

Rev Brian Kennaway: Yes, the policy of the institution has since the 1920s been to support the state’s having a state system of education. We have thrown in our lot with that principle, the Protestant Churches threw in their lot and handed over the schools. It was, in fact, the Roman Catholic Church that declined so to do, so we would actually want to see the state system maintained and not a further divisive system.

Mr Montgomery: Our concern is not to create state Protestant schools either. Our submission says that the Order on many occasions has used its influence to ensure the retention of the principles of the Protestant reformed tradition within the curriculum of those schools known as controlled schools. Many schools have been created recently, but virtually all the older controlled schools have an independent or individual ethos because of their history, and that ethos must be maintained so what we seek to do is to ensure that there is a retention of the principles of the reformed faith in the curriculum of the schools.

Many schools which may be regarded as Protestant controlled schools now have Roman Catholic pupils, a considerable number in some cases, and it is not our desire to ensure that those Roman Catholic pupils have to adopt some form of Protestantism or have to be force-fed with Protestantism because that is inconsistent with the principles of liberty which we espouse, but we wish, as a Protestant organization with concerns for the Protestant reformed faith, to see that it is maintained within the curriculum, that it is available. Our committee originally came into being because we felt that the state sector had gone too far towards secularization, where religious education had been banished from the schools completely. We do not wish to see that either. We want to see a level of religious instruction, for our part we wish to see the reformed faith’s remaining there for pupils from that faith.

Mr McFarland: You spoke about a reduction in public representation. As you probably know, the Department is claiming an 8% increase — a princely total of three extra councillors across Northern Ireland. So I am not sure whether you were talking in proportion to particular areas.

Mr Montgomery: I'll take that point on board.

Mr Whitten: It is more our concern about the Western Board. Mr Hussey’s point is that it seems to us that it could be the loser. Local representatives might lose the influence they have at the moment with the separate Western Board, their influence may be diluted in the three-board structure.

The Chairman: You mentioned your concern over small schools in rural areas and how you have been treated by different boards in that respect. I want to move to Mr Montgomery’s point. Are you saying that you want to retain a state system and yet retain the reformed ethos in it?

Mr Montgomery: No, I said that we wished to see the ethos of individual schools retained but that, as an institution which represents a broad Protestant platform and opinion, we wished to see a retention of the reformed Protestant faith within the school curriculum, especially in those schools where the transferees are from Protestant Churches.

The Chairman: This has always intrigued me. In 1923 when this battle raged, a Church of Ireland clergyman wrote fairly extensively about it, and a Member of Parliament from somewhere in my part of the world carried this campaign on. I remember somebody saying that we won the battle but lost the war. Is that an accurate summation of the state of play at present? In the transfer to the state, we gave willingly.

Rev Brian Kennaway: Yes, in my own denomination, the Irish Presbyterian Church, Mr Corky, quite a famous minister around Belfast, fought a rearguard action and fought quite vigorously but unfortunately lost the debate in the General Assembly. If he were alive today he would be saying simply “I told you so”, because he warned, and unfortunately he was really prophetic. I think it is true, yes. Looking back at it, we have lost the war in that sense, but the other word that comes to mind is “betrayed”. I think the churches have been betrayed in the trust that they gave to the state in the 1920s.

The Chairman: Well, put not your trust in whatever it is.

Mr Hussey: Is there a case for greater representation on all boards of those whose family tradition has been in the state sector, as opposed to those whose family tradition has been in the maintained sector? I am thinking particularly of my own board area, the Western Board area.

Rev Brian Kennaway: I suppose there has to be a careful balance. But our fear about the whole new scenario that is projected is that there will be a reduction in the transferors at board level, and dear knows what is going to come out at local school level. In boards of governors at local school level there will probably be a similar reduction in transferors — every time there is a change in the structure there always seems to be a reduction in the transferors. That is just part of the continuing system of betrayal.

Mr Hussey: And would it be the case that the maintained sector could be over-represented?

Rev Brian Kennaway: Well, it is by CCMS, of course.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for coming. We appreciate your attendance.

Rev Brian Kennaway: Thank you very much.

NORTHERN IRELAND FORUM

_____________

EDUCATION COMMITTEE

Thursday 26 September 1996

____________

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

on

EDUCATION ADMINISTRATION

___________

Witnesses:

Mr R Farrow and Ms G McKinley

(Library and Information Services Council for Northern Ireland)

The Chairman: Thank you very much for coming. You are very welcome.

The Education Committee was set up as a result of a debate in early July. The resolution was that we would invite the Minister responsible for Education to put his proposed directive on hold until the Committee had formulated some form of report.

Please proceed as you wish.

Mr Farrow: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I am Russell Farrow, and I am here as Honorary Secretary of the Library Information Services Council of Northern Ireland. I shall call that LISC from now on.

There is a little hand-out which simply explains what LISC is — I do not want to go into a great length here today. My colleague is Gail McKinley. Ms McKinley is our executive officer of the council. I apologize for our Chairman, Mr Norman Russell from Queen's, who is unable to be present today.

I should make it clear at the outset that I am also Chief Librarian of the Western Board, but it is for LISC that we appear here today, not for any individual board. Of course we do have a fair idea of the library needs and structures of the boards, and we will be very happy to answer any questions members have in that field if we possibly can.

I would like to say something about LISC. We did send a short written submission when we thought we would just be talking in general terms about libraries. We did not realize at the time that we would be so focused on the reorganization, but LISC represents and has membership in virtually every library and information provider in Northern Ireland, public, professional, academic, government, special business and voluntary.

There are over 50 separate individual organizations in membership, and our influence we hope is much like that of the Forum. We are only empowered to persuade, to encourage, to warn and to support. We can influence and we do research. As LISC we are not empowered to run library services, or to direct those who do, but we are generally consulted on matters of strategy, co-operation or legislation, and we have panels and working parties in a variety of fields.

We would like to say that we very much appreciate the chance to be here today, and what we would appreciate, if there is more time at a later date and when we have a less hurried agenda, is a chance to say something about libraries in general and the contribution they might make.

The Chairman: Your request is noted and can be followed up.

Mr Farrow: We do appreciate that the focus of your interest today is the proposed reorganization of the education-and-library-board system, so we will simply focus on that and talk about the link between education and libraries through the boards.

First, we would like to stress that the link between libraries and education has generally been a happy and successful one. There have been good times and not so good, but compared with pre-board days library services have improved dramatically, whether we measure them by usage, by staff, by the range of services provided, or even by the buildings and facilities.

So, we involved with libraries do not wish to break away from education. In fact, our statutory duty to provide a schools' library service is held up as a United Kingdom-wide model. Ours is the only part of the United Kingdom which has that statutory duty, and the link with education has been extremely valuable. However, we think that the only reason three library systems are being proposed is simply that three boards are being suggested.

No “library” reason has been advanced or, so far as we can discover, even thought of for having three library systems rather than five. The existing five systems all meet standards comfortably above the minimum required by the international federation of library associations, IFLA is the body. The minimum international standard for a population base for a good library service is one hundred and fifty thousand, and all the boards, as constituted, meet that comfortably. They also fit well with the communities and institutions that they service, and we feel that three, should they come to pass, will not be better than five, only different.

I would like to say something about other local relationships. Over the years close working relationships have been developed between the library services and other agencies in their areas — district councils, the health and social services boards, colleges, schools in particular, hospitals and community homes, and, latterly, enterprise agencies and the business sector.

Now this has involved a series of partnerships based on similar community objectives, and whereas I am sure the proposed new boards would adopt the same principles involved, and would wish to be helpful, there would inevitably be problems for some considerable time. Some prospective partners would certainly be much more geographically remote from each other, and new personal relationships and trust would take a long time to develop, certainly where local working practices are currently adjusted to suit local needs, in other words, practices that do not exactly go by to the book.

These practices would be likely to be restructured in accordance with standard procedures for the sake of administrative uniformity, certainly in the early years of a new, and generally more remote, system. This is not just a library perspective, this is not just something that librarians have made up, if you like. These are the concerns that are coming to us from the public, the users, the schools, colleges, community homes, and certainly from the councils within the board areas with whom we have a happy and constructive working relationship.

They are certainly not demanding a change of areas, and what this gives LISC concern about are the basic principles of accessibility and responsiveness to local needs. We are concerned that these bigger areas will breach several of the local good working relationships that we have.

I want to say something about the current set-up of the statutory library committee within each board. Each board has a statutory library committee which really reflects the board in microcosm. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the board are members, the church interests are represented, every district council in membership of the board has at least one representative on the library committee, and the teacher representatives on the board too are all on the library committee.

But additionally each board has three members appointed to represent the community interest in libraries; people with a particular interest in libraries for instance. There are fifteen such people in Northern Ireland at present, three on each of the five boards. Although the Minister is technically correct in referring to them as his nominees, they, to a person, are independently minded people who are properly protective of the library service and do work to try to ensure that libraries are not simply swallowed up within the necessarily much bigger field of education. They do speak out on behalf of users, when appropriate, on matters of particular library concern. Obviously all the members do this, but these people are interested in libraries and therefore more focused.

It is a matter of deep worry to LISC that under the Minister's proposals there would probably only be two such members per board, or just possibly three. It is not absolutely clear because he has said where he will add numbers and percentages on, but he has not said where they are going to come off. But there are not that many places left where they can come off, other than the library interest members. So among the three new boards there could be between six and nine library interest members across Northern Ireland instead of the present 15.

So 10% of the present board comprises library interest members, and we would be seeing that reduced to between 4% and 6%. In other words, roughly half those members would be lost to the system. They would not be there to support the service, and we feel that that would be a regrettable loss of influence and expertise. Also, we cannot see how the committees within the three proposed boards can continue to be representative of all those interests and all the council areas within the new board areas and still be of a workable size.

This is perhaps marginally outside our brief, but when we look at boards with 50 members, we seriously wonder how DENI thinks anybody will get a word in edgeways. Fifty to us seems to be on the verge of being unworkable.

The same concern about disruption applies to libraries as well as to education. Disruption has already taken place and more will surely lie ahead. I am talking about the staff here. Officers are being diverted from concentrating on their ordinary work on planning the services which need to be developed, to worrying about their futures. I have absolutely no doubt that, should these proposals go ahead, the next two to three years will see many officers coping with structural disruption of the system and personal disruption of their home lives rather than concentrating on libraries and their development.

Unfortunately, we have absolutely no information on where the proposed library headquarters will be or on who will be doing what in the new set-up. But the present headquarters officers based in Ballynahinch, Ballymena, Armagh, Belfast and Omagh, in particular headquarters based library officers, are deeply worried about their futures and their families. This is not good for the individuals, it is not good for the communities they live in and it is certainly not good for the service either at present or in the foreseeable future. LISC is concerned about these worried staff and also that this does not even seem to have been considered by the Department in formulating its proposals. The Department does not even seem to have an idea of where it thinks the headquarters should be, and LISC feels that the library staff deserve better treatment than this.

I would like to give you some very brief statistics about the size of the library business and move on briefly to co-operation and economy before I finish. These are only rounded illustrative figures to give you a very broad idea of the size of library output and expenditure. They are of a broad-brush nature. Boards in Northern Ireland spend roughly £20 million a year on the library service.

The Chairman: Twenty million pounds a year each?

Mr Farrow: No, in total. The five boards between them spend £20 million a year. Public libraries have roughly 7,050 registered users, about the half the population, and they issue between them over 12 million items to the public. Now included in the £20 million expenditure is the cost of about 1,000 full and part-time staff, the purchase of stock, and the running of buildings and vehicles. Now this is not just the public service; included in that is the total cost of the service to schools, colleges, hospitals and the house-bound. That is a wrap-up figure for the whole lot, and the cost of the service for all those items works out at under 30 pence per week per head of population.

There is not much wastage in operating at this sort of expenditure level and, in terms of book issues alone, the service represents very good value for money. There is little to be saved within the administrative elements of the library service and I would like to illustrate this with just a few examples of co-operative activity that are already in place, designed to avoid unnecessary duplication.

Section 8 is about co-operation and economy, LISC undertakes — and I spoke earlier of joint research — encouragement of good practice and suitable standards. So I want to point out some practical examples of existing co-operation and sharing among the five boards. When one board seems best placed to provide expertise for a service, the boards collectively have an arrangement jointly to fund and share such a service. The most obvious example is the exchange on loan, with a minimum of fuss and formality, of book stock. Readers' requests are sought from any board and indeed from beyond boards. This is the whole principle of a library network sharing. The Western Board runs the Ulster American Folk Park Library and Database, but all the boards fund this service collectively and all have on line access to it. It is used by schools and the public from everywhere and will form a central plank in Queen's University's new masters degree on emigration studies.

The public service information bulletin is a publication that comes out once a month and it is an index of articles of interest to those in local government and other agencies. All the boards share the editing and production work and costs. There have been battles in the past, but is only fair to say that Belfast Central Library is a precious provincial resource and has, amongst other facilities, an excellent business library. A share of the costings for Belfast Central, currently 35% of the cost, is met by the other boards in recognition of Belfast's special role and to save unnecessary duplication of stock and specialist collections. The services are looking at joint marketing with regard to publicity and how to improve access for disabled people, and they have just completed a feasibility study for a single computer system. The boards are working collectively and running three instead of five will not necessarily save on administrative costs because although the present boards have local variations in their opening hours and types of stock to suit local communities, they do not waste money in doing things five times over.

There is one particular concern that we have, and this is a two-edged sword. The short term need if we have three boards will be to make the computer systems that are in place totally compatible, certainly within each board, and that is likely to cost between £2 million and £2.5 million to achieve. Now that is a two-edged-sword because it is a highly desirable end in itself and something that we have wanted to do for years. It is technically possible to operate with other similar systems simply by sharing but under this new reorganization a very complicated set-up with multiple bits of computer systems from different boards would suddenly be visited on us, and that would have to be put right. We do not know whether this development is going to be funded or not, whether it is planned or has even been costed by DENI at all. We simply do not know.

So, in summary, LISC is saying that we have been given no good reasons for changing the system. We certainly have no economic evidence of any savings and we do have some genuine, deep concerns that library services and their delivery have received no consideration at all in DENI's proposed reorganization. We do feel that the new areas proposed would be less sensitive to local variations where years of good relationships with local schools in particular have been built up, and this is a concern. The proposed structure of administration simply does not flow from, nor is it designed to help deliver, the strategic aims of DENI or the library service.

In our view it would be arbitrary, certainly unwieldy and unpopular.

The Chairman: Thank you very much indeed. You have obviously a very detailed paper, and you have given us a lot of food for thought. Your views are very important to us. Good submissions are important to us. Time is less important.

Ms McKinley: I have just one point that Mr Farrow noted at the beginning of his presentation. LISC is a body with a very wide remit which he outlined. I would like to be part of the deputation that comes back to give the broader picture of the influence of library and information services in Northern Ireland. The main reason I would like to do that is that I noted in the DENI strategic plan for education the very important point, bearing in mind where we are today, that it is committed to securing equality of opportunity and equity of treatment for all people in Northern Ireland. Having worked in public libraries for 17 or 18 years I think that the public libraries and the information services generally in Northern Ireland have a very deep contribution to make on this point.

The Chairman: In other words, equality of opportunity.

Ms McKinley: Absolutely.

The Chairman: I have a healthy sympathy for libraries. I use what is in the back rooms, or under lock and key, for research. Could we look at it from the Department's point of view? Down that line you have CCMS on one side and integrated education on the other. You have dealt with some of the sensitivities. Five broad administrative areas: is that a good model, or would you have in mind another model that was even better?

Mr Farrow: It is not a very exact science. To start with, there is a range of good and bad library services of all sorts and sizes across the world and it does depend on proper financing, local interest, the members who have the say, the strategy and the officers who run the service. The initial temptation is the stand-alone, single-library-agency model that you mention. There are concerns about that, it is a temptation. It sounds nice to run your own ship — that is it; we are the library people, and you can like it or lump it, not to put too fine a point on it. You are not dependent on partnerships and sharing and so on. But when we look at it, it is not as tempting as it might appear. It is neat and clean and separate, and libraries can do what libraries do.

But, for a start, that separates a library from all its natural partners, for example, education, health education requirements, linking with local homes, hospitals and, indeed, prisons.

A library is not something that is done to a community. Libraries work with other agencies and with local communities in cultural, recreational, educational and informational fields, and we really need to be part of a system. We would prefer to be part of multi-purpose local authorities with all sorts of functions, but if we have to pick a partner, education is a better partner for libraries than some of the old parks and baths or recreation departments. The wish to stand alone could also be regarded as possible isolation. It is also quite clear to us that a single Northern Ireland agency would not be locally sensitive — and we have seen the model in all sorts of services — or capable of local variations without a series of local rows about why people should be different.

This is possibly just a value judgement of the attention that has been paid over the last few years, but we feel the service would be over-dependent on reporting through whatever kind of board was running it to DENI direct, and our experience is that this would not necessarily ensure any better treatment for libraries or any better focus on them. We feel we have had much more support from the boards and our education friends than we have had from direct dealing with the Department.

Finally, and this is a down-to-earth point: if we did set up such an agency we would also need to set up a whole support mechanism for that agency, for example, a finance department, a transport department, a personnel department, and a property services department, and these are things which incidentally would not make savings on administration here because those are provided for us by the boards. So, we could not count on three library services rather than five to double the savings on those admin things. I have nothing against there being four if four were the proper number, or three if three were the proper number, but what we are saying is that the relationship with education is important to us and it would be a nonsense to say that if education goes down the road of three, we will go to the ditch trying to run five independent library systems because that would just be an even bigger nonsense. There is nothing wrong with the five, the five work perfectly well. They are sensitive and have a good track record and library people are quite happy to go along with five.

The Chairman: So there is no one in the whole library service at the minute champing at the bit for radical change? Appreciation is what carries the fingerprint of public opinion.

Mr Farrow: Absolutely.

The Chairman: What you are saying is that you are confident about the competence of what is happening in the present system?

Mr Farrow: Yes, absolutely.

Mr Hussey: I have just come up from the Chairman's part of the world — West Tyrone. The Western Board has plans for a library in my area. Will that be carried through by the proposed new set-up or by the Western Board?

Mr Farrow: Putting my Western Board hat on briefly, I am not now speaking on behalf of LISC. No, I do not know. I assume Mr Hussey is talking about libraries in Strabane and Castlederg, both of which are required. The Strabane one is a much larger project and is in theory at the top of the Department's library list because it is one of the Western Board's top three projects. Now, I have no idea whether Strabane Library would head the list of a new Northern Board. I suspect it would have a lot of elbowing to do with a lot of other projects.

Mr Hussey: What I am saying is that there is no guarantee of continuity.

Mr Farrow: There is no guarantee of continuity. Absolutely no guarantee. It would be a new ball-game starting all over again.

Mr Fowler: My two sisters and my wife worked in the public and parliamentary library services.

You said that the service had improved wonderfully with the advent of the boards. I am interested to know whether the services, with time, would not have improved anyway. We tend today to co-operate with people in our own field.

Mr Farrow: Well, that is a very difficult one. It is certainly quite possible, but there were a lot of variations even within. I was thinking more of the, if I can use the term, country board, rather than Belfast which had an up-and-developed library service running for a long, long time. But the black areas have gone, and people expect to be networked into modern information and technology. I will just give you a quick example from the Western area because that is where I happen to be from. In the Western area there were bits and pieces of four systems before the 1973 reorganization; on average something like 26% or 27% of the population were active library users. We now have 55% of people using libraries there. We have 175 staff serving the public, the schools and the hospitals, of whom 30 are qualified librarians. Before reorganization there were five qualified librarians in that area, so perhaps I should not have said that everything is wonderful in the garden, rather that the black spots have been eliminated and everybody is running more or less to a standard now.

Mr Fowler: If you were allowed to pick a partner for the library service, would education be the one?

Mr Farrow: If I were given Hobson's choice as a partner, education would undoubtedly be the one I would pick. I would still prefer libraries to be part of a total community of local services that ran all the local services but, given the option of picking one partner, I would have no reservations about education being the one to be associated with.

Ms McKinley: Would it be possible just to make a small point from the ground as it were on that? Talking about the link with education, the library service along with schools is now concentrating very heavily on training programmes and staff development, and it is my opinion that we benefit greatly from being linked with the education personnel department because it gives us a wide menu of training programmes that are available to our staff. As a working librarian I have found it very beneficial, and my colleagues and I have had to develop our own professional standards.

The Chairman: Somebody made a point yesterday on administration. Administrators get a bad name sometimes. Roughly, what percentage of your £4 million will be spent on pure administration?

Mr Farrow: Yes, there are different ways of looking at it. I mean we split library expenditure in very crude terms into three main areas. About 70% of the budget goes on staffing, in general terms, about 20% goes on stock, book stock and videos et cetera, and about 10% goes on admin. Now that admin figure includes the running costs of buildings, vehicles, heat, light, rates and so on. The problem about giving you an admin ball-park figure and extracting some of the staffing costs is that we have very few people who are purely administrators. If, for example, one of the assistant chief librarian of the board is the assistant chief librarian in charge of the schools' library services, it is very tempting to say that that is a senior management post, but in fact that person's time is spent generally going round schools, meeting principals,

meeting teachers, running courses and so on. Also, it is only fair to point out that some of our admin costs are hidden, in other words the personnel costs, transport costs, and finance costs are already accounted for at board headquarters. But the admin costs are extremely small partly because some of the admin is done for us by education and has therefore already been costed, so there are not additional savings to be made there.

The five chief librarians and their immediate support staff you could regard as administrative; the rest are providing services on the ground. I could not give you a percentage, but I could send you in a percentage.

The Chairman: How do you rate yourselves? You have told us that your service generally is very highly rated in Western World opinion.

Mr Farrow: Well I think it is quite slimline; the figures vary very greatly. Figures were submitted to you earlier on the size of education authorities across the United Kingdom, and library services are very much along those lines. On board sizes there is an instant saving in that the current board sizes are in the top three quarters of the average population and therefore have a chief librarian and a cataloguer and someone in charge of your finance. A lot of services in England, Wales and Scotland have around 100,000 or 120,000 of a population. There are two of them for every one of us even as we stand. It is really quite economical.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: I find your submission very interesting. I note that the Department of Education is on the council. I take it that your submission is on behalf of the whole council, that it has sat and thought about this. The Department of Education then is in agreement with your submission that you are not happy with the number of boards being reduced from five to three?

Mr Farrow: Well the Department of Education has representatives on the executive committee. We did have an annual general meeting of LISC where we reported that we had complained last year about the proposal to make five boards into four, and nobody voiced disagreement, but the Department of Education representatives on the executive committee were present at our meeting last week when Ms McKinley and I were told to come here and I made absolutely clear to the executive committee of LISC the specific issues I intended to address. Now I cannot say, hand on heart, that

the Department of Education is in full agreement with them as a Department, but nobody has commented.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: This is the complete list?

Mr Farrow: That was the complete list at the time of that flyer.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: It is fascinating to see the people who are on this council. I find it interesting that you have come on behalf of all the service and are not unhappy to face problems with us. I thank you for that.

Mr Bolton: To get back to administration, the first reason given for the change is over-administration. Could you elaborate just a little more on the physical effect that three headquarters and three chief librarians would have on your service? We have been told by the education and library boards that in some months they might have to have split headquarters and offices in two parts of the new areas. Would you have to go along with that and say six or seven chief librarians?

Mr Farrow: Well, as far as the headquarters go, the proposed new Northern Board has only one existing library headquarters and that is the one in Ballymena which currently serves the present North Eastern Board. The new proposed Southern Board would have two existing library headquarters in it, one in Omagh which is the Western Board's headquarters and one in Armagh which is the current Southern Board's headquarters, and the new Eastern Board, as proposed, would have two library headquarters, one in Belfast Central Library and one in Ballynahinch, so we have a proposed model where of the three new areas, one would have its headquarters in Ballymena and the other two might have split-site headquarters in Armagh and Omagh, in the case of the Southern Board, and Ballynahinch and Belfast, in the case of the Eastern Board. But whether someone intends to pick one of those two or to run split-site operations or to draw for it or see which is the more centrally placed, I really do not know. This is part of the problem.

From our point of view the nonsense is that the decision or proposal — the Minister is not empowered to make a decision, it is up to Parliament to pass the legislation which will make the decision — seems to have been plucked from the air, it does not flow from any way of improving library headquarters or from rationalization. It just seems to have been made, and now we have got to try to shoe-horn everything into it. It would not make sense to have five chief librarians, two within each board, but clearly they would intend to have three for three board areas. The other point is if they do operate between split sites, to some extent, presumably, people's jobs in those sites might be a little bit safer, but on the other hand, if you are going to continue to operate all the headquarters you are currently running, where are your savings?

I just do not know, but part of the problem is that we do not have the information. If the decision to have three library services had flowed from a rational look at the thing. I could perhaps have answered. But it seems to me that the proposal has been made and now we have got to try to shoe-horn things into it, and that is the wrong way to go.

The Chairman: This is a foot that doesn't fit a shoe?

Mr Farrow: It would be made to fit for a couple of years, but very soon new boards, if they come in, will say that this is a nonsense we got into.

The Chairman: In other words, we start to modify the foot.

Mr Farrow: Exactly.

Mr McFarland: This has been a very interesting general discussion on libraries, and quite informative. I understand that the libraries themselves are untouched by this. We are looking here at the management. You said yourself “It's not better, just different.” There has been a great discussion about effects, and obviously there will be effects, because people are unsure about what is happening and, in essence, the folk in the firing-line are the library anagement committees. Is that correct?

Mr Farrow: Mainly so. Certainly branch libraries, for example in towns, would presumably remain branch libraries.

Mr McFarland: So the library service itself will go on as it always has done, in most cases providing an excellent service.

Mr Farrow: In so far as they are branch libraries in towns and villages, yes. I cannot be sure the same could be said for, for example, mobile libraries. I mean, whether a mobile library currently going from Omagh to Newtownstewart, which is about ten miles, would go from Ballymena to Newtownstewart in the new Northern Board I just do not know.

Mr McFarland: I know we do not know that. In essence, what is being examined here is the management of the library system, not the actual system itself. It is easy to get confused about what is threatened. How many headquarters staff are we looking at?

Mr Farrow: Within a library headquarters.

Mr McFarland: No — within the sort of board library headquarters.

Mr Farrow: The library headquarters are in every case in separate buildings, and separately staffed from board headquarters.

Mr McFarland : But there must be a fairly standard manning level, presumably, in terms of chief executive and so on.

Mr Farrow: In terms of top-tier management?

Mr McFarland : No — in terms of the staff. If you have five library boards with the same function, essentially there will be roughly the same number of people in each headquarters. I am just trying to find out an average. I appreciate that there will be some differences.

Mr Farrow: Yes, there will be some difference.

Mr McFarland : But, roughly, how many people are we talking about?

Mr Farrow: I think you would be talking of, based in board headquarters and based in library headquarters, about 400 or 450 people, maybe even more, in each board, but, and I say but, this includes people based there but providing direct services like grounds maintenance people and school meals people.

Mr McFarland: But they are not threatened. Is that right?

Mr Farrow: Well they are threatened in a different way in that they are being, if you like, lined up for a series of regional panels who would do this thing — this was the agency part of the Department's look at the administration. Quite separate from whether there were to be five boards or three boards, their services were looked at.

Mr McFarland: I do not want to get into that. If you change from five to three, how many people on each of those boards will be affected, in library terms?

Mr Farrow: Right. I am happier to answer in library terms rather than education, because I do not have the figures for that.

Mr McFarland: It is the library bit I am interested in.

Mr Farrow: I beg your pardon, my apologies. In library terms I think you would be talking about 100 people in total, perhaps 20 in each board, who would be mainly, if not totally, involved in administration or largely in administration as well as in giving advice. So you are talking about 100 who would have obvious direct concerns, and if you are talking about there being three boards instead of five, clearly you are talking about losing 40 people somewhere along the line.

Mr McFarland: Worst case: a loss of 40. The Department thinking is to phase them out — redundancy, natural wastage, or whatever.

Mr Farrow: But that is a guess.

Mr McFarland: Indeed, but we are not talking about 450 or 500 in each case?

Mr Farrow: Certainly not.

Mr McFarland: So, a relatively small number of people are affected. The management side is mainly in the firing-line here?

Mr Farrow: Mainly management and advisory.

Ms McKinley: I think Mr McFarland did say that the library services at the branches would be unaffected. But it strikes me that if the number of library interest board members is actually changed, is lessened, there would be fewer people around to get the public's opinion of what should be changing in the public library. So basically the point is this: if there are fewer library interest members, we may not get the public's reaction to how we should be changing or, indeed, to whether we should be keeping certain services as they are. So there is a danger there.

Mr McFarland: I would have thought that you find out what the public thinks of your services, and what people want, from the people wandering into a library. Surely the people on a management committee are not your main source of information.

Ms McKinley: No, absolutely not. I appreciate that.

Mr Hussey: Have we identified the fact that there is a threat to potential provision?

Mr McFarland: On the five to three?

Mr Hussey: Yes.

The Chairman: I think we have already identified that and I think we have to follow all this for every board, in other words we can be sure that somebody is waiting in the queue on one board and somebody else waiting in a queue in another board, because everyone has a stacking order of priority. It would be enough to follow the obvious.

Mr Snoddy: Part of DENI's agreement is that there is going to be a £2 million saving. You are indicating that you do not see any savings whatsoever in the library service. If you want to provide the same service at the same standard you will have to update your technology. Any savings will be eaten up. Is that the message?

Mr Farrow: Although there should be a one-off capital payment in order to bring the two diverse ones into line, they can operate at present, because they are OK within a total system, but once you join bits and pieces of three together it simply will not even work across one system. So it is highly desirable that this be done anyway. But the money has never been there before and I am not sure the Department realizes that because it has just finished a working group which has come up with a scheme for doing this. I am not sure if it realizes that this would have to be done to make it work. But it would certainly take £2 million - £2.5 million up front.

The Chairman: Can copies of the working group's report that you have just mentioned be made available to us?

Mr Farrow: Yes, no problem.

Mr Browne: In the case of the Belfast Education and Library Board the weaker areas are the library and the youth services. If there are going to be cuts, that is usually where they are made. You say that the administration people are going to suffer most here. Is it not going to affect the service delivered to schools pretty seriously also? Libraries in the street and administration — will one be affected more than the other?

Mr Farrow: No. This was the point, but I did not want to labour it because I know Mr McFarland was really asking about something else when he said not to worry about the library service. The public library service would be OK, but the services to schools, hospitals, and to house-bound people, which depend on local knowledge and local accessibility, would become extremely remote and distant. Even to get advice, for somebody to pop over, is another hidden cost, and people would be driving miles where currently they are quite local. This service would be certainly remote and probably more expensive to administer. Either that or you would have to set up a series of sub-local things.

Mr Browne: Many things are done that are not seen or maybe even costed at the present time. It is a different matter when you are driving a mile out to see somebody. Now you are going to have to drive 30 miles. If you are going to drive 30 miles, you will have to be paid for it.

The Chairman: There is an impression that only a few will really be involved and that they are quite capable of looking after themselves. What I am talking about is quality. With a three-board model, can you see quality, standards and accountability being maintained?

Mr Farrow: If two chief librarians are made redundant and you have three boards instead of five you will have to pay those who remain that bit more, because you are talking a bigger population base and they will have to do a lot more travelling. To maintain the service you need seriously to look at the geographic areas that the existing two or three assistant chiefs deal with. You also need to look at the geographic areas of the existing divisional librarians on which local mobiles are based. To say that because you have three excellent headquarters instead of five excellent headquarters, the rest of the service will run is not true. It simply will not because those people will not have the span of attention or the senior staff on the ground talking to local councils, schools and hospitals and so on. To maintain the services. Yes, you could shrink the number of systems, but, correspondingly, you would have to give them all more staff each in order to maintain the spread. In other words, it is OK if you happen to be sitting where the headquarters is, but if you are in another part of any area, you could very easily be left behind.

The Chairman: The shape of the slice of bread is changing, but you are applying the same butter.

Mr Farrow: I'll have to think about that.

Mr Bolton: It is hardly as simple as that. There is an increasing demand from small communities to have the criterion brought down from 1,500 per village to spread the service more evenly. These proposals will have an effect on that, surely.

Mr Farrow: The main effect is that it would cost more money to do that. The more remote they are, the fewer votes there will be and the fewer voices will be heard, they will just join the end of a very long queue. It is doubtful if they will even be heard let alone provided for.

The Chairman: We are over time, but it is for us to make sure that we have taken on board all perspectives. Thank you very much.

Witness:

Mr McEvoy (Green Party)

The Chairman: I welcome you on behalf of the Education Committee. By resolution of the Forum we are examining the proposal by the Minister for Education to change the administration system. The proposal is to reduce the number of boards to three.

Mr McEvoy: Good morning. Thank you for hearing this submission.

There are compelling arguments which I am sure have been rehearsed over and over again to you by various internal interest groups for and against leaving things as they are and for and against reducing the number of boards to four, three, or, indeed even to one. More on this anon.

The decision to reduce the number of boards is going to be a political one and any amount of lobbying is unlikely to change what looks like an inevitable exercise in cost-cutting — rationalization, down-sizing — which will affect careers, jobs and areas.

Of far more importance to us is not who is arranging the deck furniture which those engaged in educational administration are involved with, but where the ship is heading.

Education is and has been a political football in the United Kingdom for a very long time, but ever since Jim Callaghan's Oxford speech on the theme of accountability in 1978 the green light has been on and education has been the victim of what Prince Charles has called “innovation fatigue” since the Conservatives came to power in 1979. The changes have been unrelenting since the “reforms” of the mid 80s. I spent 21 years as a teacher in state schools in England — I am now associated with Rudolf Steiner education — so I speak with some experience. While in England I observed a growing demand for the dis-integration of the national service in the sense that religious and ethnic minorities were calling for their own schools. I pointed out that

while Catholic or Jewish schools existed, other minorities had a cast-iron case for special status themselves. If what amounted to sectarian privileges were sacrificed, an appropriate curriculum for all could be worked on.

Since the mid 80s, all manner of reforms have been carried out, all based on a questionable manipulation of education as a vote-catcher. Some of the finest teachers I have known could not tolerate the mania for measurement, quantification and standardization, and left the profession. I say mania because no responsible teacher would question the need for professionalism in what she/he is doing in the classroom and for being consistent in what one teaches; mania, because a school's place in the league tables is now all that matters in the harsh application of market principles to the world of education, singularly inappropriate criteria, as it happens.

In Northern Ireland we have two tribal sectors each vying with each other as to who is more effectively hot-housing the emerging elites. We in Green Politics believe that the educational equivalent of the Mitchell Principles should be devised for education and monitored by an education commission, an overarching body that would have powers throughout the region. These principles would embrace matters such as: community well-being, hidden curriculum, creativity, economic well-being, multiculturalism, the move to comprehensive schools, high standards in all areas, academic, behaviour, sports et cetera.

Community well-being - how does the work of the school contribute to the well-being of the whole community and to society as a whole? How is the school making a contribution to integration?

Hidden curriculum - what are the community's expectations of their local schools and how does one go about finding this out? Is the curriculum of the school one-sided in its presentation of local cultures or sub-cultures? We read that the anti-poverty network has reported that children in Northern Ireland are the poorest in the United Kingdom. That is the kind of league table that concerns us in the Green Party for it is sheer folly to expect children from the ghetto to become enthused about the “season of mists and mellow fruitfulness” or to worry about which verbs take the dative case. They have much more important survival challenges to cope with.

The league tables dominating schools' lives today result in teachers being plagued by form-filling, box-ticking and children tormented by a testing programme that has little to do with a child's sense of self-worth, self-esteem and innate well-being. In these circumstances only the compliant and co-operative get through — those given to awkward questions are doomed. There just is not time.

Creativity - how does the school nurture the creativity of the young? The intellectual and physical are overemphasized in current educational practice to the detriment of the emotional, heart forces. It is by creativity we survive; the plodding ritualism that mars our culture must be phased out. Schools can play a vital role in this process but a wholly different approach to the curriculum is needed. We need schools of special character to do innovative curriculum work, and over 700 Steiner schools world-wide are doing that.

Economic - schools can foster a healthy attitude to economic activity. Too many of our young people in Northern Ireland at one end of the spectrum have no realistic expectation of a career with an income that will ensure financial independence — yet too many at the other end of the spectrum see education as a stepping stone out of Northern Ireland, in too many cases never to return.

Multiculturalism - education should reflect the broad range of world cultures rather than the somewhat narrower agenda of the either/or syndrome we too often get in this region.

High standards - it almost goes without saying that high standards in everything are the hallmark of good education. These high standards are attainable when children's energies are channelled creatively. Good education is a by-product of good relationships and anything that stands as a barrier to good relationships should be removed. Ask teachers and they will tell you of the kinds of activity that futilely sap their energies.

The education commission being proposed by the Green Party would be an overarching body overseeing the work of schools and monitoring the implementation of the foregoing principles. It would examine the

appropriateness of the common curriculum to the needs of the children of Northern Ireland. It would get away from the reductionist mind-set that has been described as the mentality that would slit a linnet's throat to try to find out how it sings. What was conceived as a means of putting order into the life of the nation's schools has become a monolith, a millstone that is dragging down the work of schools. It is not serving our children well.

On the subject of the number of education and library boards, the education commission could work with the boards as they exist. We have the same number of children, of teachers, of schools. The boards could stay as they are but the commission would assure that they increasingly worked as one.

A new century and a new millennium beckon. We can do something really creative, really novel, in freeing schools to maximize the potential of all our children to phase out labelling, to bring new life to our culture. We in the Green Party exhort the Government to take this opportunity to create a model that might be emulated in the many other divided regions of the world.

The Chairman: I could not help but detect the odd smile round the Committee when they heard “plodding ritualism”. The idea of an overarching commission to study education is very interesting.

Mr McFarland: This is a very interesting area. The Committee is involved particularly in getting an interim report out on the five-to-three reduction, but it is in existence until December, and we might turn our minds to the business of where our schools should be going.

Mr McEvoy: We will have quite a lot to say on expanding ideas on the education of little ones.

The Chairman: This is something that we will certainly take on board. Nobody has come up with the idea of a set of principles to guide a curriculum.

Thank you for your time and courtesy.

Mr McEvoy: Could I say for the Green Party that we wish the Forum well and we wish the Talks well.

The Chairman: Thank you. That is appreciated.

Witnesses:

Mr D McKee, Mr M Kennedy, Mrs G McCafferty, Mr R Lapsley and Mr E McGrade

(Western Secondary Schools)

The Chairman: Good morning. You are very welcome.

We will give you the opportunity of making your presentation, and then the Committee members will put questions. We are, of course, confined by the resolution of July referring to the 25 June directive from the Minister which said that he intends to bring in legislation immediately to change the administration of education from five boards to three. We are obviously aware of vested interests, and we certainly welcome the fact that someone is giving us a perspective from the chalk-face.

Mr McKee: Thank you very much indeed for your kind and warm welcome, Mr Chairman, on behalf of the Forum Committee. Equally I thank you, Gentlemen and Ladies, for your kind invitation to give us this opportunity to address you. We are quite well aware of the need for public awareness on this issue and for people such as yourselves to be taking this issue to the Minister.

Our association represents all 35 secondary schools in the Western Board area. It may exclude grammar and integrated and special needs. Every secondary school has agreed to the submission that we have made to you and I hope that you have a written copy of that available.

We are made up of schools from each of five district council areas, and our delegation here today represents that flavour. We are made up of Protestant and Catholic schools, we are made up of small, large, single-sex schools and so on, so we believe that we are bringing to you a very fair representation of principals at the chalk-face. On my left is Mr Lapsley who will be speaking immediately after me. He is from Limavady High School. Mrs Grainne McCafferty is from St Cecilia's in Derry and on her right is Mr Eugene McGrade from St John's, Dromore. On my extreme left is Mr

Michael Kennedy from St Colman's in Strabane.

Now the decision to scrap the Western Education and Library Board in our view flies in the face of widespread public anger in the Western area. It is viewed as an attack on the West of the Bann and in the words of Mr Hayes in the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ and I quote

“The decision to abolish the WELB flies in the face of geography, lines of communication, local loyalty and identity.”

If proof from the West were needed to support Mr Hayes, 113,000 people have now signed the petition to save the Western Education and Library Board. Each of the five district councils opposes the change. Each of the Westminster MPs also opposes the change. And we would now like to add our voice and professional opinion to that cause.

We as principals have to be critical clients, and I mean by that that we have to act in the very best interests of our schools. It is our responsibility to ensure that we get value for money, are provided with a reliable service and have access to a range of support services. The WELB gives us that and has done so for the last 20 years, and this fact unites all 35 principals. It is also our belief that the WELB enjoys widespread respect and support because its composition reflects the variety of interests which make up our community. The WELB has a long and treasured history of providing a stable influence in the community because it is widely seen as acting fairly and impartially.

I should also like to register our anger at the time-scale set for the implementation. It is unfair, it is unrealistic and it is unrepresentative. We hope we can be forgiven for being cynical when we ask why the review was timed to come out at the end of June and why your own time schedule has been so short. We believe that this all smacks of indecent haste and, further to that, we are not sure that it is fair to have a Government which in Northern Ireland is trying radically to change the education administration when on the mainland United Kingdom it is electioneering to impose its will on our children in the 21st century.

I would now like to hand over to Mr Lapsley.

Mr Lapsley: My name is Ron Lapsley and I am headmaster of Limavady High School. I have been in that position since 1975 and I was acting head in another secondary school in the Western Board area for two years prior to that. That probably makes me the longest serving head certainly in the Western Board area in the province.

Obviously over the 20 years I have had very close dealings with the boards and all its officers at all levels. I can remember the change from the old county system to the board system and the confusion that that caused. Now there was a certain lack of trust at the time of the change and there was certainly some administrative confusion. I have seen the board actually eliminate all these teething problems to develop into what in my opinion is a very highly efficient administrative body. The point I would like to make is a very simple one. In 1973 when the change took place, schools themselves were in quite a stable condition. There had not been a great deal of change, things were going on very smoothly, but nevertheless, with schools in that stable situation, there was confusion. There were administrative problems, there was a lack of trust and there was no knowledge of the officers with whom you were dealing.

The situation now is completely different. Schools for the past number of years have been subjected to many changes. In fact, they are still being subjected to changes. What we cannot afford, and what we would oppose vehemently, is a situation where change would take place and that period of instability with administration return. Schools simply cannot afford that. We have had many major changes. The Western Board has established a relationship with all the schools in this area; it has provided the services that we have asked for; it is accessible to all the schools, and any problems the schools have had have been smoothed over by the board and its very efficient team of officers. Now, I would hate to be plunged into a situation where change was still occurring in school and where the level of administration above us was in a confused state as well. That is the main point that I would like to make.

Mrs McCafferty: My name is Grainne McCafferty and I am principal of St Cecilia's College in Derry. Our school is in an urban environment and in the maintained sector. There are probably just two main points that I would like to make. I would like to take up Mr Lapsley's point about the possibility of confusion and draw specific attention to the situation that is going to arise in Derry next September. It will actually affect people, as I discovered this morning, as far away as Strabane and Limavady.

In Derry a new voluntary grammar school is about to be built. That does not simply impact on the sector to which it belongs, the voluntary maintained sector, it impacts right across as far as Strabane and Limavady. It will certainly impact on schools in Derry. It will be opening next September and already there is widespread anxiety in Derry schools about how it is going to impact on numbers, intake and so on.

The local integrated school has been given an opportunity to increase its numbers, so at the same time as we have an increase in numbers in the integrated sector, a brand new grammar school is opening practically on our doorstep, and combined with that we have the changes in transport which are going to be implemented in September 1997, about which parents are as yet uninformed. Now, I am assuming that your group will have had time to have a look at the implications of the changes in transport. They are going to affect, I recognize, the whole of Northern Ireland, but they will impact particularly on the Western Area Board where apparently there are more children to be transported over larger areas than in some other boards areas. That is an issue which, as I say, is specific to Derry, but it impacts on both Strabane and Limavady.

I would also like point out that it has been claimed that as a result of the devolution of funds to schools, the boards are less necessary now that schools have control of their budgets. I would argue that the opposite is the case. We have had closer links with Western Area Board in the past five years than in many of the years before that in any of the areas that you care to mention — maintenance, purchasing, LMS, transfer, personnel and transport, to name but a few. I would just like to conclude by saying that one other major contribution that the Western Board has made to schools has been in the development of the curriculum and in providing in-service support for teachers.

We know the personnel, we were able to contact them, they are flexible, they come to the schools, they identify our needs and they help to fulfil those in terms of in-service training. The days of in-service training are not over, in fact if anything they are at least as great as they were in the past. Now is not the time to put that very valuable service to schools under threat by changing the entire structure in Northern Ireland. That sums up in essence what I have to say.

Mr McKee: Mr McGrade will deal with the budget issue now.

Mr McGrade: Eugene McGrade is my name, and I am principal of a medium sized rural secondary school in Dromore, County Tyrone. I am a Tyrone man, and Tyrone men are known to be people who demand value for money, and we principals are busy people. We have to take decisions fast, we have got to respond to numerous changes, and the Western Board to my mind — and I speak on behalf of the other 34 principals — has provided that sort of a service. We look for a reliable service, an accessible service, a stable service, a tested service and a quality service, and the Western Board has given that.

Now what has been proposed? We are being asked to accept an unknown package. The figure of £2 million has been mentioned, but this package to my mind has not been tested, there are no figures that we can look at and say that these savings were made here and that sort of thing.

Now we are responsible for budgets and everything that we attempt to do or want to consider is audited and scrutinized. It is only fair that the proposals we have been asked to look at should be in the public domain. We do not know where the savings are coming from. Such radical proposals will cause major upheavals. Consider this: which one of us would invest in a new house or a car without having weighed up, costed the thing out accurately and been at the same time assured or guaranteed of a service? This is the point I want to make.

Is it fair that we should be asked to take this on? I would just finish by saying that we have valued the service that the Western Board has provided. That is value for money. We have better value for money at present, than the anticipated savings that are suppose to trickle down to a classroom.

Mr Kennedy: My name is Michael Kennedy, and I have been a principal of St Colmcille's High School in Strabane for a mere two years. Previous to that I was very proud to work for the Western Education and Library Board as an assistant education officer in the advisory and support services which Mrs McCafferty has referred to. I am now very pleased to be a consumer of the services which you have heard referred to, and I feel that I am qualified to speak from both sides.

I also represent a staff which is very supportive of the work done by the board. They would describe it as efficient, friendly, familiar and reliable, so, for all the right reasons, we wish it to survive.

I would like to refer to question of representation. Despite the claim to the contrary, the proposal to extend the representation from 32 members of the Western Education and Library Board to 50 in the new Northern Board would actually reduce a district's representation in mathematical terms from 6.4 to 5. A larger forum will surely dilute local contributions and influence and, consequently, the representative power of any of the members.

Furthermore, the greater distance to travel will make it less convenient, reduce attendance and possibly good co-operation and thereby make it less efficient, thus failing in one of the most crucial aspects of this reform. In terms of area represented, the Minister claimed that Northern Ireland's education administration is overmanaged. But the Western Education and Library Board includes a population of something like 240,000 people and the new proposals will increase that to something in the region of 420,000. Yet, in England and Wales approximately half of LEAs are smaller in size than the Western Education and Library Board is at present.

It does not make sense that we are actually going to make this even larger. I believe that larger board areas will not give good service for money, and we are extremely satisfied with the services provided by the board. We wish those services to continue. In the past there have been major changes, and the Western Education and Library Board has been resourceful, innovative, reflective and professional enough to take on board all of the changes within the structure. The role of the board has not diminished, but it has changed and it has certainly increased.

The Chairman: Thank you all very much indeed. I sympathize with your point about the timescale, but ours is even shorter. Our report has to be written by next Wednesday.

Surely headmasters and schools are not affected, and we are going to save a great amount of money, which will eventually improve the quality of education. So what is all the fuss about?.

Mr McKee: That is a very fair point but our comment to you is that we of all people in schools have more dealings with outside agencies regardless of what they are, and where they are, and we would be dealing with the board on a very regular basis. That is the point that is coming across from everybody here. There is also another point, and I will come back to Mr McGrade's point about £2 million savings. Where is that money coming from to be saved? It can only come from a cut-back, we believe, in the quality of service that is presently available. Now the Western Board offers us the three As. It is acceptable to all of us, it is accessible to all of us, and it is accountable, and that is the most important thing of all because when we with our boards of governors have issues to raise with the Western Board, we are dealing with people who understand those issues and our points of view.

Now, yes, you can save money, yes, you can say it is going to go back into a classroom. We have been given absolutely no evidence of that £2 million saving. We believe the figure to be largely insignificant to start with, and we do not believe that the overhaul is worth that amount of money. What price is there on relationship, what price is there on trust and reliability of service? We know the way the health service is being affected and the problems that it has had, and we certainly do not want to see an excellent education service such as we have in Northern Ireland being diminished in any shape or form.

The Chairman: My last point is very elementary but obvious. Schools are all about change. Learning, surely, is a matter of change. Surely that is something that pragmatic people like yourselves can handle. Obviously this has nothing to do with the chalk-face.

Mr McKee: Here is a lady who has implemented many changes.

Mrs McCafferty: That is obviously right. Schools have already implemented many changes and will continue to implement many more. But what we argue is that in order to facilitate schools to implement them at the chalk-face, we actually need all the back-up and the support services to enable us to do that. That is where the change should really take place — in the schools. But if change is taking place in the schools and change is also taking place at an administrative level, that, to me, is a recipe for chaos. After all, you have to remember that the people who are really the ultimate clients or customers of a school are the pupils. We have to ensure that if we are going to undertake changes for the good of the pupils, the principals and the teachers should be able to call on a stable set of services to enable them to deliver the changes in the curriculum necessary for the pupils. The last people we want to see affected by all of this are the pupils.

Mr McFarland: This is a very emotive issue. I am a Tyrone man, and I can understand why it is so emotive. What we need to do if we are to get our case over is become slightly dispassionate about it.

You talked about the three As. Which parts of this are most critical to you? On accountability, the Department says that there will be increased local government representation on these boards. They have increased it by 8%, or whatever. In fact, that means only three people more, but, in theory, they are more accountable.

Suppose the Department decided to split-site this and have a satellite of the Northern Board in Derry, keeping Omagh as a satellite of Armagh. Would the increased accessibility take away from this argument? If they split-site would that give you better service? The northern folk, instead of having to go to Omagh, would just have to nip up the road.

There is a number of issues in respect of which they have not produced the figures. I am worried that, while we are hanging our arguments on logic, if they follow a particular course of action, those arguments will fall apart.

Mr Lapsley:I cannot really accept that argument. I do not think that satellite stations work very well. They are disjointed themselves, and communication between the main board and the outlying areas is obviously something which could delay decision making. We have a board which has grown up with many of the schools in the area; the board and the board officers are familiar with the schools and their problems; they can come and deal with schools knowing their background, and they are prepared to implement that help.

We simply cannot afford to have an administrative system now which is not familiar with the schools and familiar with the problems and familiar with the sort of help that we need. Directly after any change there is going to be that period of instability when we need the administration to be particularly stable. We think it is absolutely essential to have stable administration to help us implement the change. It does not matter how smoothly it is going to happen, it does not matter how long it is going to take, there is going to be a period when we will be left with an inefficient administration.

Mr Bolton: Mr Kennedy said he was an administrator. I would like to hear his views on the first statement made by the Minister — that education is at present overadministered.

Mr Kennedy: At present we have five boards and they are very busy places of administration. They are dealing day and daily with requests, sometimes help cries, from schools. Take my own school for example, I can list the services that we require almost every day from the board. There is a good relationship between the two and in a much bigger situation there would be less contact, less familiarity. I do not believe that Northern Ireland is overadministrated, and I cite the situation that most of LEAs in England look at us with great envy. I had the privilege of being at a Society of Education Officers' conference several years ago in Stranmillis, and a number of delegates from England said they wished they had our set-up, they envied us, and they would take the message back to England. In fact in Wales now there is a move from larger LEAs to smaller areas. The Secretary of State for Education in England some years ago said “when it is not necessary to change it is necessary not to change.” This system works very, very well for us. If it did not work well, we would be asking the Minister to fix it, but it works for us so, please, do not fix it.

Mr Smyth: Mr Kennedy has got it right. Why fix something that is not broken? I am impressed by the fact that in the Western Area more than 100,000 people have evidently shown their opposition. Why do Governments continue to force something upon a people that is completely unacceptable? The only reason I can think of is financial. This magical figure of £2 million has been mentioned, but we, like yourselves, have no evidence for it.

Am I right in assuming that a saving of £2 million would work out at about 5 pence per pupil? That would not even buy a rubber or a pencil. Where is the benefit?

Mr McKee: I would not be prepared to say that I accept the figure of £2 million savings for a start. I do not. The failure of the Government to produce a factual audited argument when they presented the review speaks volumes for their inability actually to provide a logical, detailed and reasoned argument. The Western Board is the one board that we know about. We are not speaking against any other area board, and we wish to make that very, very clear. We are saying that the board that we have is user friendly, it has proved itself to be adaptable to change in itself, and I really do not agree with you, Mr Smyth, when you say that the reason could be financial. I honestly believe there must be some other hidden agenda and reason for this manufactured thing that nobody seems to want. I really do not believe it is necessary. All 35 principals here are saying that they do not need this change. We are certain and sure that the Western Board can adjust and adapt to the changes it itself will have to

make.

Mr Neeson: I can accept the argument about opposition to any demographic change, but clearly the Government are determined that there is going to be change. They talk about making the system more efficient, more effective. Do the principals believe that there is an instance in the Western Board area where there could be more efficiency?

Mr McKee: You are asking us to make a judgment on areas that we may not have sufficient information about — we can only tell you how, as end users, the services affect us, how accessible they are for us and how reliable they are. For instance, I do not want to spend my time having to decide that a certain type of desk is safe, durable and of a reasonable price — I want to phone up Willie Montgomery in the Western Board and get a reliable answer from a reliable man. That is my position. I really do not want to see West of the Bann destroyed; it is an entity within other entities and it does not need to have this false line drawn across it. It is changing the whole axis of Northern Ireland and, therefore, I keeping coming back to the conclusion that this is not for educational reasons.

In Wales this year they introduced education authorities with a population base of only 130,000. The Western Board's is at least twice that figure and we believe it to be efficient, so why are they doing it? It does not make sense and you well know, Ladies and Gentlemen, the massive public and professional support there is for the board, and that speaks volumes. Where have you a bureaucracy enjoying such widespread public support and trust? Our board is giving that to us and we suggest that it is maybe the same in other boards. The Government need to go back and look at the architects of the plan and see whether they are doing a service or a disservice to Northern Ireland.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: This is a bit of a red herring being thrown out about Wales. We are told that they have gone from eight to 22, but that is not correct. Originally there were eight regional and 37 local bodies.

Mr McKee: We are not actually bandying that figure, if you forgive me. What we are saying is that at present, now, this year the authorities in Wales have a population base of around 130,000 people. The Western Board's is twice that and we are happy with that service. We believe that the efficiency of the Western Board's service has been proved, and we also find the same thing in Scotland is true. The education authorities are smaller there.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: But you do accept that rather than going from eight to 22, they have gone from 45 to 22, irrespective of the size?

Mr McKee: I am not worried about that quite honestly. I am worried about the fact that the population base that we are going to get will actually increase dramatically and will ignore the geography of the province.

Mr Browne: It is double the amount now, and it is to double again. It is going to be even worse.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: If you take away half the budget of the boards — which LMS is effectively doing  transfer a wide range of functions from the boards to the schools, create a common curriculum and look after exams and assessment you have, in effect, reduced the purpose of having so many boards.

Mr McKee: No. First, the examination system was not within the remit of the boards. Up until 1990 decisions about who staffed what schools and how many were in them were mostly taken on a departmental level. There is a whole range of services that the Department's document suggests went from the boards to the schools — that is not true.

LMS has created a whole change of emphasis and in fact what I am talking to property services people about now is the simple fact that we, the users, are indeed taking more of their time. We demand to know why they are doing something, what they are doing and what they have done, and we check whether the quality of service is there.

The Chairman: I think Mr Kirkland was testing you with the Department's views.

Mr Fowler: Mrs McCafferty stated that in-service training was going to be put at risk. May I suggest that under a three-board set-up, service training provision could be enhanced.

Mrs McCafferty: The first answer to that is on a financial point. I assume that the only way that money is going to be saved is by job cutting — that seems to be the obvious thing. Therefore, if jobs are cut, and they are cut across the board, the in-service people, the curriculum advice service, will obviously be part of that cut too. But, even supposing that the brunt of any financial cuts did not fall on the curriculum advice service, there is evidence, and we all have it in our own schools because of the way the board operates. For example, every year the board identifies in a relatively small area the needs of the schools across the board's area. It then draws up a scheme which it presents to each school showing what its in-service needs are.

We are in touch with those people who give in-service help on an external basis though, if a school itself identifies a particular need, those people will come and do some in-service training in that school. Now if, as a result of what I am saying, the money is going to be cut — and we can only assume it is going to be — then those people are not going to be available, they are not going to have the time to facilitate the schools with all the in-service training that is going on. Across Northern Ireland not only are the boards facilitating curriculum advancement for teachers and in-service training for teachers, but all the schools are undertaking a completely new system this year of staff development and performance review, and the curriculum service is widely involved in supporting all that. That has major implications for everybody in schools and it is something new that schools have never had to deal with before. It is generally called appraisal, so an additional burden is coming onto the curriculum advisory service at precisely the moment that its role is being looked at in terms of the finance that will be provided to enable it to continue its good work.

Mr Hussey: You are highlighting in-service provision in the Western Education and Library Board. DENI emphasizes, of course, regionalization, which brings into play the RTU. Would an expanded RTU not provide services that are currently being provided by the boards?

Mrs McCafferty: My answer is still the same, but, yes, we have used RTU for certain things, and I know you are talking about expanding it. But why replace something that we have and that works with something which is regionalized and further removed from us, something which would have more difficulty identifying our needs? Why, to go back to the earlier point, fix what is not broken?

Mr Lapsley: May I just make the point that the board's curriculum support service has received praise from the inspectors. I have not seen the RTU being praised.

The Chairman: I give each of you a sound-bite.

Mr McGrade: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. Mine is a general point but it refers to a number of matters. My worry is that these proposals are coming from what I would call a business background, but I think education is different. We have seen how the market-forces philosophy applied to education has forced the Department to do a U-turn, for example, in transport. Now the key to education is stability and anyone who has looked at the worsening situation over recent years — and they have been tough years — would say that the school situation is very stable and that that is due to the hard work of teachers and principals and the board's supporting them. The big word I would always use in education is relationships and, to quote somebody else, "Why fix it if it ain't broke?"

The relationships that we have built up work. However, with a new board we would have to get to know new people, and it takes people months to read into a situation. Why change? Can you apply a business plan to education? We need to answer those questions.

Mrs McCafferty: It has been argued that because of the devolution of powers to schools, less support from the board is needed. I would say that the exact opposite is the case. In a maintained school I could point to any number of areas where five years ago we might not have depended so much on the board but now we actually do depend on the board. We take a lot of decisions for ourselves but the board support us in all sorts of ways. My second point, and I am sorry to localize it, applies to the region around Derry, which is after all the second city of Northern Ireland. Now is not the time for upheaval which is going to affect not only Derry but also Strabane, Limavady and so on. It is not the time for upheaval.

The Chairman: I am tempted to say that it is second after Beragh.

Mr Lapsley: Compare savings of 0.2% of the budget with the upheaval. Is it worth it?

Mr Kennedy: I will also individualize it. In 1965 the Government took our railways away. The changes were to be economical and efficient, they were to be replaced by new, fast motorways, dual carriageway and town by-passes. Thirty years on — have you travelled between Omagh and Derry lately? We were promised a bypass for Strabane, and it took them 27 years to build half of it. So much for the promise of more efficiency.

Mr McKee: Could I just round off by saying that in my view the arguments actually put forward by the Department are essentially flawed and the big problem we all face is whether the Minister has the courage to make an honest decision in the face of what we believe is an unassailable argument in defence of the present system and leave the upheaval, which may come at some future point, to some political forum in Northern Ireland, for the people of Northern Ireland to decide for themselves. That is where the 21st century must go: we must learn to take our own decisions.

May I just thank you very much for your patience in listening to us. As Mr McFarland pointed out, we are quite emotional, about it, but also, I hope, professional.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Witnesses:

Mr H Keys, Mr E Bullick, Mr Bradley, Mr D Canning and Mr P McGilley

(Western Primary Principals' Group)

The Chairman: Thank you very much for coming. Our remit results from the resolution of the Forum that empowers us to report on the Government's intention to reduce the number of education boards from five to three. I want to give you the opportunity to make a fair and careful presentation.

Mr Bradley: Thank you very much. I wish to thank you on behalf of the group for your invitation to us regarding the proposal by Michael Ancram to abolish the Western Education and Library Board. You introduced us as the North West principals because I am chairman of the North West Primary Principals' Association, but today I have with me representatives from all the schools and all the areas represented on the Western board.

On my extreme right is David Canning who is principal of Strabane Controlled Primary School and past chairman of Strabane District Primary Principals' Association. Next to me is Paddy McGilley, principal of St Ronan's Catholic Maintained Primary School, Lisnaskea. On my left is Eric Bullick, principal of Omagh Integrated Primary School and chairman of Omagh Primary Principals' Association. And on my extreme left is Henry Keys, principal of the Model Controlled Primary School, Enniskillen and chairman of Fermanagh Primary Principals' Association.

Before I hand you over to our first speaker I would like to convey my support for the sentiments expressed by the secondary principals. We concur entirely with them. We have the full support of the 201 primary principals and the governors of the primary schools in the Western Board area. We also have the support of the nursery schools there too.

Mr Canning: Ladies and Gentlemen, may I begin on a very practical note reflecting my concern for the ability of schools to provide a quality service for our children if we have to undergo more change. The heart of a good education system is its teaching force and teachers are weary of change. The Dearing report in England and Wales stated that the pace of change and the workload on teachers was far too great. Consequently, there was to be a review and, of course, that was carried out. The review recommended that the curriculum be slimmed. We were also assured that after that review there would be a period of stability.

Now may I illustrate what stability has meant to us so far. This is why I have this big, heavy briefcase beside me. Yesterday I picked up details around my office of all the data that had arrived since the beginning of September in relation to this period of stability. There is another briefcase outside which we did not bring in. There is not quite as much in it. I just want to run through very quickly some of the things that are here: a revised programme of study, a new financial manual for the local management of schools, and CCEA's directions for statutory assessment which begins for all primary schools this year. As the class computerized system now moves into the majority of primary schools, we have manuals for it. A major drugs initiative has been launched by the Department, there is the incorporation of boards of governors, there are new directives about open enrolment, there are new responsibilities for governors relating to the transfer of pupils from primary to secondary schools, there are additional demands for the school prospectus and the annual parents' meeting and there have been detailed statistical bulletins from the Department about the transfer procedure. For a significant number of schools there is the initiative to raise school standards which is also bringing far more work to those schools. There is the introduction of the code of practice for special needs and there is the introduction of staff development and performance review, sometimes called appraisal. And, by the way, I am only starting appraisal this year so I do not have the documents for it yet, neither here nor in the other briefcase. That is stability, and that is my greatest concern.

Over the past number of years the Western Board has built up a detailed knowledge of schools and how schools need to be supported. We need that support now, as these documents will illustrate. If this is stability, all I can say is “Help” — and that help will come from people who have built up our trust, as we have built up their trust, people who have an insight into our schools as we have an insight into how they can support us. If new bodies are to be inaugurated around Northern Ireland, teachers will not have that trust rebuilt overnight, but we need the help now. This is my first point.

My second point centres around WELB's cross-community contact scheme. Much has already been said about the quality of the cross-community contact that the Western Education and Library Board has facilitated in its area. I would just like to say as the principal of a controlled school — and I say this on a very personal note — that I have been a principal for over 10 years now in two different schools, and I have always valued the opportunities afforded by the Western Board to participate in cross-community contact. I believe that any attempt to split our board now would damage contacts at a time when we need to be building bridges and not demolishing them. Once again, what we have to recognize here is that it is the development of trust and the growth of tolerance — both of which are slow and delicate things — that are the heart of cross-community contact. If we dismember the board now, we split schools

that have been co-operating for years and years, we split staff and we split pupils. I do not think that this is what is needed in our current climate.

Finally, may I add in the realm of local accountability about which our Government have had much to say in many arenas in recent years: if change is to come about to the administrative part of our education system, we should be looking far beyond the current proposals. It was pointed out some time ago that any changes to the administrative part of our education system should be delayed until the current peace initiatives have a chance to blossom.

A move to change now may eventually lead to one of two things: either any future developments in education will be put on the back-burner because we have just gone through a period of great upheaval and administrative change, or else in a year or perhaps two years' time, or whenever the peace initiatives blossom, we will have to change education administration yet again to bring it under local democratic control. That would be most unfortunate, not unfortunate in its coming under local democratic control, but most unfortunate in that we would have to change yet again. What I am suggesting to you is that the education system should be strongly rooted in local government so that we can have true accountability — that is what we should be striving for, and current proposals fall far short of this goal. So what I would say to you is this: please do not support the removal of a structure which has served and is

continuing to serve us very well just to replace it with a less accountable and very remote body which we may have to change in a couple of years' time anyway. Instead, let us all strive for a more democratic and accountable service even if it takes a little longer to organize in the first place.

Mr McGilley: I will keep my submission as short as possible. I wish to highlight four important aspects of the work of the Western Education and Library Board. These are: the Inset programme, the in-service support for teachers, the EMU (the Education for Mutual Understanding) programme and the small schools policy. Now with regard to in-service support, the teachers in this board have the highest regard for the board's in-service programme for them. The in-service programme has been of immense benefit in enabling teachers and schools to address the overwhelming changes brought about by education reform. Now I could speak at length on this topic, however, I want to refer you to an impartial professional report on this service by the Department of Education's inspectorate, and this was referred to by the secondary principals. I commend this report to you in its entirety and to give

you a flavour of it, I would like to read some extracts from it. Firstly

“School based courses were generally considered outstanding in terms of quality and effectiveness and, with regard to the board's management of the programme, a well defined, efficient and effective structure for the management and co-ordination of the board's Inset has been devised and skilfully implemented by the senior officers in change of inset.”

Now, I could read many more extracts, but to cut it short I would just like to refer you to part of the conclusion.

“It is clear from the evidence that the Western Board has addressed most of the fundamental issues which contribute to a successful effective Inset programme with realism, vigour and a sound grasp of what is needed and how it can be best be provided. The management of the Inset programme at senior level is outstandingly good. Strategies are effective, the quality of the Inset staff is high and the Inset programme is a clear benefit to the great majority of teachers.”

I commend this inspectorate report to you for your deliberations on this matter. Now, with regard to EMU, my colleague has referred to it here and I will be quite short about it. There is a high level of participation in this scheme in the Western area and schools are playing a vital role in fostering effective community harmony. This task is not easy in the present climate. I teach in Lisnaskea in County Fermanagh and that speaks for itself. Our schools have addressed this issue in the past with considerable success. We will continue to promote community harmony but we attribute our past achievements in this field to the support and encouragement of the board. An example of this is the in-service courses addressing this issue by the board, and I have already read to you what the Department of Education's inspectorate has had to say in its appraisal of those courses. If the Western Board were dismantled, I would be

fearful for the consequences on community relations in the period of instability which would inevitably follow. The cost would be very high if the board were dismantled.

Lastly, and briefly, the Western Board has developed a policy of support for small schools, small primary schools mainly. It has considerable expertise in addressing the needs of small schools. There are many small schools in the West and whether they are in the hills of Tyrone or on the borders of Fermanagh, they are not just small schools, they are the focal points of small communities, of all denominations. They may be more costly to run per pupil than their town counterparts, but their closure would further depopulate the countryside as families would have to move to set up home closer to the schools. This is a social consequence that cannot be costed, but it would be a disaster if these communities had their schools closed. It would be like taking the heart out of them. I would be fearful for the survival of many of these

small schools if the Western Board were dismantled.

Mr Bullick: My name is Eric Bullick, and I am headmaster of Omagh Integrated Primary School. As head of a direct grant-maintained school which receives its funding directly from Bangor and for whom the Western Board does not carry any management role, you may wonder why I am speaking on behalf of the board. In fact, the six integrated schools in the Western Education and Library Board receive many services from the board and are highly satisfied with those services. I am talking in particular of curriculum advice and support, the induction of new teachers, the library service, the transport service, help with our undertaking, the administering of the transfer procedure and support with computing. In addition, most of these schools buy their meals in from the Western Board.

Before my move to Omagh Integrated I was head of a controlled school in the village of Fintona for 14 years and in that position I was totally dependent on this high quality service which you have heard described this afternoon. During those 14 years in Fintona, board officers guided our school and our governors through many difficult issues which we could not have handled on our own. People who volunteer to become school governors do not come in with any pre-planning or training or expertise; Board officers took us through redundancies, grievance procedures, tribunals and financial difficulties, while other board officers looked after our school premises and school building and kept them in fine shape.

I have been wondering what on earth it is that is behind this proposal to axe the Western Education and Library Board. I have been trying to discover the reasoning behind it and I have several ideas. I will not refer to those which I have heard mentioned before this morning or this afternoon, just to save on time. Why focus on a board which is already second to none and single it out for axing? I wonder if perhaps the Western Board is being closed because it is an innovative board, a class leader, a trend setting board. I wonder if DENI feels a little bit threatened by it. The Western Board carries out a host of duties and, perhaps, DENI would like to undertake some of those duties itself. Maybe the message that is coming out of DENI is that it cannot beat the board, so it will close it. This is clearly not the wish of the people in the West of the province.

Perhaps the Western Board is being punished because three years ago it led a campaign to slow the pace of education reform. Education reform had reached the stage were it was threatening the good of schools. Principals in the Western Board persuaded the Western Board itself to come in behind the campaign actually to slow that pace of reform. DENI may not have appreciated the intervention of the WELB, but it was clearly the wish of teachers, governors, parents through out the West that educational reform be slowed down.

The Western Board may also be being punished because it is not enthusiastic about the closing of small schools. Many small schools in the Western area have closed but that has been the decision of the governors of those schools and not of the Western Board itself. The Western Board has helped and assisted, when a decision has been made by the governors, the closure process, but the Western Board has not initiated. Maybe DENI feels that the Western Board is an impediment to the rapid closure of more schools. Again, this would not be the wish of the people in the West.

I wonder too if the Western Board is being punished for spending too much money on getting its pupils to and from school. The bill for transport is indeed very high, but in a scattered rural community there is, of necessity, much travelling to be undertaken and many more buses and drivers are required than in any other part of Northern Ireland. The Western Board is fulfilling its requirements to the people of the West.

Then, perhaps, it is being punished because it spends money on keeping its buildings and school grounds well maintained. Yes, the Western Board does spend money on keeping its buildings stock in an excellent state of repair, but again it is the wish of parents and teachers and people in the West that the buildings be kept up to standard. I wonder if it is being axed because the Government desperately needs the elusive £2 million which they claim will be saved. It is possible, yes, but I have to say that in a meeting I had with Michael Ancram approximately one year ago on a different matter, he freely admitted that the reduction from five boards to one, two, three or four was not being made on financial grounds.

I believe that it is not the Minister who is pushing for this reduction, but a handful of senior civil servants who have been going round the boards one by one seeing who will crack first. It is not the wish of the people of the West that the West should crack. I conclude that against the wishes of the people of the West, the Western Board is being axed because it is highly efficient, it is effective, and it is accountable. It is a leading board and somehow maybe DENI feels threatened by it. It is being axed because it is there and a few powerful senior civil servants — and I will not name the three of them — would be happier if it were not there.

Mr Keys: First of all, I endorse everything that has been said previously by the panel of secondary principals. I listened with interest and found their case very well presented. Coming from the primary sector and from Fermanagh — and sometimes in Fermanagh we do feel we are out on a limb and perhaps forgotten about — I want to say that it was with shock and dismay that we learnt of the announcement by the Minister back in June, and since that time we have reflecting upon what the effect on the West would be of the breaking up of the Western Board.

I also endorse what has been said about the service of the Western Board and I base my case mainly on relationships. Over the 23 years, excellent relationships have been developed involving board members, board officers, teachers and principals across the whole sector and also among the schools — controlled, maintained and integrated. The fact that we sit here as principals from the area right across from Derry down to Fermanagh is not just chance. We have relationships, sound relationships, and that has been of great value through many difficult times in the province. I feel the Western Board has been, perhaps along with all the boards, one of those stable factors in our community. The Western Board has led not only with moderation and co-operation but with a great degree of vision and commitment to the youth of our area, and I have nothing but praise for it.

My concern as a principal is that on a day-to-day basis I have a working relationship with officers from every department of the Western Board. I know whom I am speaking to, they know whom they are speaking to. While relationships could be built up under another board, I have no doubt, it would take time. I will simply finish by saying what has already been said: in time of change this is one change too many, and I certainly hope that the case against it will be fought very strongly.

The Chairman: The Department will look at Mr Bullick and Mr McGilley and say “It does not really concern you. You have your integrated system. You have your CCMS, and therefore you are already protected. You can buy in services that you require. We want, as a very good administration team in Rathgael House, to improve the quality of performance at the chalk-face, and boards do not do that.” How would you react to that?

Mr Bradley: My immediate reaction would be to ask the Minister to read the inspector's report on the in-service training programme provided by the board. We have a copy of it here and Mr McGilley referred to the excellent work done by the board on training teachers to perform at the chalk-face. That really answers that question.

Mr Fowler: Mr Canning said that this change to three boards would inflict terrible pressures on the staff in schools, which might have to be reversed two or three years hence. Are you clairvoyant, Mr Canning?

Mr Canning: No, but I am hopeful that our peace process will move onto the right track. Let us all recognize that if we do get relationships established and if we do find that we can move into avenues where we see peace as realistic and have a political settlement that is acceptable to the vast majority of people, we will be looking at a situation where somebody in Northern Ireland, and with whatever connections outside that the people ultimately agree to, will have responsibility for local services, and people will be locally accountable. In that instance education would obviously have to be considered.

Mr Neeson: I was very impressed by Mr McGilley's comments about small schools. Does he think that under a larger board, as is being proposed by the Department, they would suffer? I accept your argument totally about their importance to society in the west of the province, but will they suffer to the extent you suggest?

Mr McGilley: Well, because the Western Board has so many small schools under its umbrella, it has developed skill and expertise over the years in learning to deal with them, administer them and fund them. Another board may not have developed the same skill or expertise in dealing with these issues, and I fear that it could take a considerable time for it to develop. In the meantime, some small schools may close. The funding is different in different boards and the service is different. The in-service provision — and I will go back to it again — in the Western Board is tailored to suit small schools. Its in-service provision is in the schools' not in a central location. The service is brought out into the schools. The schools work in clusters, and there are various schemes to deliver it. The Western Board has developed an expertise in dealing with this because it has so many of them. The other boards may not have the same expertise.

Mr Bradley: Certainly the existence of small schools is at a price, and the price is paid by larger schools, but the large schools in the Western area are sympathetic to the needs of the small schools, and we really can understand if some of our money is being spent to educate a child at a small school. We do not mind so much because this is the ethos of the West — we can work together. I do not know the situation elsewhere, but I know that that is the situation in the West.

The Chairman: So you are really saying that standardization and equalization could be extremely detrimental?

Mr Bradley: Very much so.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: But 28,900 people will still be there — bus drivers and everybody else — so it is not going to affect any school to any measurable degree.

Mr Bradley: Well, where does the Minister hope to save his £2 million then because surely the most immediate way of saving money would be by reducing salary costs? You say that there would only be a loss of 100 people. I am not sure about that and what I am concerned about is a continuity to enable our schools to continue to work as they are.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: There will be continuity with the other 28,900 people.

Mr Bradley: Well we cannot be sure that a new Northern Board would not consider it prudent to rationalize, say, the in-service training programmes that we have and move their offices from the West to other areas. This would place a considerable strain on our schools. I will give you a quick example of the type of strain that primary schools are under at the moment.

There was a job advertised in Londonderry for a principalship — perhaps you are aware of it. The first time the board advertised, there were only four applicants for this principalship. It re-advertised hoping to get more applicants: it got only two. Now this is an illustration of the difficulties faced by principals nowadays and the pressures we are under — and this is with the board in existence. The principal can phone up somebody at headquarters or at the district office and get support immediately from the likes of Billy Montgomery who will help. If the board is abolished and we have to establish new relationships with new people, this will be more strain on the principals, and the children will have to suffer.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: You do not need a board to tell children how they ought to live. It is not the education and library board that gets involved in cross-community matters.

Mr McGilley: Well I know.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: So it is a red herring.

Mr McGilley: The Western Board has been an excellent facilitator for our schools. We cannot do it on our own. We need resourcing, we need in-service provision, and in-service provision has played a very very big part in it. I want to compliment the Western Board on the way it has addressed the in-service EMU.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: But if you have all the other staff?

Mr McGilley: But would they still be able to do it?

Rev Trevor Kirkland: It is the quality of their service that I was emphasizing.

The Chairman: I think Mr Kirkland is maybe enjoying what DENI would do.

Mr Keys: DENI has only recently handed over to the boards responsibility for cross-community schemes. Has the board no role to play then?

The Chairman: Mr Kirkland has probably had his answer.

Thank you all. I enjoyed the freshness of your presentation

Witnesses:

Ms A McClintock, Mr J Flynn, Mr E Connolly, Ms V McDonald and Ms C Devlin

(North Eastern Education and Library Board Staff)

The Chairman: May I first bid you a very warm welcome to the Northern Ireland Forum and its Education Committee.

You have made a written presentation, and this will be diligently read by the Committee.

Please proceed as you wish.

Ms McClintock: My name is Angela McClintock and I am a staff representative of the North Eastern Education and Library Board. On behalf of the headquarters staff of the North Eastern Education and Library Board employed at County Hall, I would like to thank you for allowing us this opportunity to place our case before you today.

Michael Ancram, the Minister responsible for Education announced in June that his decision regarding the review of education administration in Northern Ireland is to reduce the number of education boards in the province from five to three. This came as a shock announcement to everyone involved in education for several reasons.

Firstly, the consultative document ‘Educational Administration in Northern Ireland’ was launched on 17 February 1993 with the purpose of debating how the Northern Ireland education system should be administered effectively and efficiently. The foreword to the consultation document stated that in reviewing the existing system of administration it was important to ensure that it remains fair, effective, efficient and appropriate to the changing needs of education in Northern Ireland. All parts of the education service help to heal community division and promote co-operation and better understanding. We preserve and build on the co-operation which already exists and seek to extend and strengthen these links, not weaken them. The Minister, in highlighting these aspects, commented specifically on the success of the current arrangements for administration particularly in relation to the role of education and library boards where he stated that

“There are few if any other areas of day-to-day life in Northern Ireland where churchmen and laymen from both of the main traditions meet so regularly and work together so constructively.”

The board believes that while the consultative document set out the context within which any discussions on change should take place and the objectives and principles which should underpin any such changes, the opportunity to stimulate real debate has been missed.

A few important points to note include: recognition that the opportunity has not been taken in the document to review the totality of education administration. The review concentrated almost exclusively on the role, function and future of the boards and has, to a large extent, excluded the Department of Education itself. No business case was established for the changes outlined in the models for structural change. In addition, no economic appraisal has been carried out costing the various options put forward at the time. This made an evaluation of these alternatives almost impossible in terms of efficiency and effectiveness and will inevitably lead to an evaluation of

factors without quantitative or qualitative data. The board's response to the consultative document sought to build on the secure foundations already in place to ensure the creation of effective and efficient structures which will contribute to greater unity and integration and promote co-operation and better understanding throughout the community.

The North Eastern Education and Library Board believes that one of the key issues and objectives which must underpin any new system of educational administration is accessibility. Education is a social service which impacts on every household in Northern Ireland. It is a local, community-based service which services and must be accountable to its local community. It is, therefore, vitally important that administrative arrangements continue to reflect this tradition by remaining accessible to all. This should be characterized by a tier of local administration which is close to the customers and clients it serves. It must be flexible enough to be responsive to local needs and changing demands, to embrace and develop community relations and enhance decision-making at local level by the involvement of local interest. Public accountability with any administrative system should involve all interests in the decision-making process, facilitate full consultation with local communities and ensure equality of opportunity and treatment. Financial accountability should ensure that adequate resources are secured and that proper planning and control mechanisms exist. There should be proper financial accounting

procedures and a business-like approach must be demonstrated.

With regard to efficiency and effectiveness, any system of education administration must demonstrate equity and resource allocation which is targeted to strategic priorities and local needs. There must also be integration, planning and delivery of services, value for money, continuous measurement of performance, both financial and non-financial, and a commitment to quality.

Acceptability — this should be characterized by a tier of local administration which facilitates decision making at local level, embraces the Citizen's Charter and the Parent's Charter, is open and sympathetic to individual needs, demonstrates even-handedness and contributes to the development of harmonious community relations.

Other key objectives include creating a more unified system and conformity with educational reform principles. With these key objectives and principles in mind, the board's response stated that the model set out in the document failed to build on the secure foundations already in place or incorporate the key principles which must underpin any new structure if it is to be successful.

One of the greatest strengths of the existing five-board system is its accessibility which contributes to its acceptance and ownership at local level. The three-board model proposed would not enhance the capacity at local level to bring together diverse interests in planning and developing educational services for their communities. Neither would it contribute to a more unified system nor enhance accountability or acceptability at local level. It would also lead to more centralized, bureaucratic decision-making with the inherent danger of organizations serving themselves rather than their clients and customers. With regard to efficiency and economy, no costings of any kind were included to facilitate comparisons with the current system and its associated costs. There was little or no analysis of the complete structure which might be required.

There is nothing to commend the three-board model which appears to disregard the principles and objectives outlined in the consultative document in preference for substantial rather than minimalist change.

For these reasons and the following points, we the staff at the North Eastern Education and Library Board headquarters are totally opposed to the three-board model proposed. There has been no consultation with the local community on this decision. Last year's four-board proposal was at least the subject of a period of public consultation. The same opportunity that was given to the communities in the areas served by the Belfast and South Eastern Boards, in respect of the proposal to merge these two boards, must surely be given to the communities living in Ballymena, Carrickfergus, Newtownabbey, Omagh, Fermanagh, Strabane, Limavady and Londonderry. Public consultation on this issue is a necessity. There is overwhelming support for the current five-board arrangement and very little for the Government's decision. To support this we quote from a overview of responses to the Department of Education's consultative document issued by the Association of Chief Executives of the Education and Library Boards. Some extracts from the responses of schools are as follows

“The more remote the controlling body the less the possibility exists for local factors in social, economic, environmental and morale considerations to be given due weight. The officer's local knowledge and awareness of the small rural school problems have eased the burden of many teachers in remote areas. Why change something that is a success, why not build on that success and go from strength to strength?”

The Government have completely disregarded the results of the 1995 consultative exercise and in doing so have treated the local community and educational interests with contempt. In early 1996 all the political parties were invited to discuss the issue with the Minister and as far as we know they have all conveyed to him their wish to maintain the five boards until a local assembly could discuss the issue. Clearly this has also been disregarded.

The decision announced is therefore undemocratic and dictorial. The decision to reduce the number of boards will result in major upheaval in the support and service provided to schools and the community generally. The Government’s claim that this decision will save £2 million represents less than one quarter of one per cent of the budgets of the five boards. No satisfactory explanation has been given as to how the £2 million will be saved. The Government are moving to implement this decision with improper haste over the heads of the local population and the political parties. It must not be permitted to do so with the strongest opposition. The decision has created tremendous uncertainty amongst the board staff as it will certainly lead to a loss of jobs and resources from many areas, many of which are already suffering from social deprivation and high unemployment.

Furthermore, the decision raised the issue of the siting of new headquarters for the three boards. Staff are of the opinion that any attempt to change the existing locations would not only have major social consequences for many staff, the majority of whom are working mothers, but it would also result in a potentially devisive community wrangle over the site of new headquarters buildings. This would be contrary to the social cohesion presently found in the existing five-board structure. In an attempt to highlight the concerns of board employees with regard to the Minister's decision, staff initiated a campaign under the banner 'United to Win'. One of our tactics was to lobby the nine councils within the North Eastern Education and Library Boards area by way of a staff presentation of our case to each. The nine councils were unanimous in their support for the retention of the existing five-board structure.

Yet again, this demonstrates the strength of opposition to Michael Ancram's decision and the ability of people to unite over this fundamental issue which affects all creeds and classes.

In conclusion therefore, we the staff of the North Eastern Education and Library Board thank you for your attention to this matter and ask that the Forum support the present five-board structure as the most suitable model for education administration in Northern Ireland.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for an excellent presentation very well delivered. How do you wish to proceed from here?

Mr Connolly: We would like to answer any questions that the members of the Committee may have.

The Chairman: One of the things that the Department may say is that this is not about the people who work in education, that education is about children.

They may say that five boards are duplicating what is done in the north and the south and the east and the west. There is a lot of money to be saved. How do you respond?

Mr Flynn: I am Jimmy Flynn from the personnel section of the board. I am sure some of my colleagues will wish to add to what I want to say. We share the concern for the quality of education that is delivered in the schools by the teachers for we have always seen it as our job to support the teachers in their vital task of concentrating on education while we handle the nuts and bolts, the support administration, that is required in order to keep the schools in being. We, for example, have to look after things like the constitution of boards of governors. Somebody has to keep those maintained. We have to look after the architectural services. Somebody has to give professional, legal and personnel advice, and I can speak for the legal and personnel side of our work. We lift the burden of all of those technicalities, transport and everything else from the schools and enable the teachers to concentrate on delivering a quality education service to the schools.

Now the question of duplication has arisen, and very rightly so. There are five area boards but, to pick up a point which my colleague Mrs McClintock made earlier, you know that when a board gets too big, when it becomes too bureaucratic and too centralized, you lose the effective working relations that you should be able to have with people on the ground. We think that the five-board mix in relation to the overall demographic population of Northern Ireland is just about right. We have certainly capitalized upon the fact that we run a local service, that we know people locally, that we have local working relations, understandings and contact. Those things are money in the pocket of the schools and are an enormous support in delivering an effective

service. If you know the people, you can get things done. If you are working 50 miles away and you know nothing about the area where they are living, you are quite likely to be inefficient. Now for that reason we believe that five boards will respect and preserve the effective working relationships that each board has established with principals and governors. To change this would be to take a retrograde step and for that reason we do think you can carry rationalization too far. You can carry it to the stage where, for example, you only have one board, but that would be at an enormous cost in terms of the effective working relations that actually support the schools in an individual way. Perhaps my colleagues would like to add to that.

Mr Connolly: Part of our difficulty also is that those who have figures for the totality of administration, and that includes the Department of Education and the other bodies as well as the education boards, can show that the costs attributable to the education boards have actually been dropping over the last number of years whereas, for example, the costs of the Department's administration functions have in fact been rising. That is one of the inequalities that we are particularly concerned about, and until we see otherwise we can only assume that those have not been taken into account. The boards, I am quite sure, can look at their costs and provide savings themselves by judicial management, and I am quite sure that the North Eastern Board has already got that underway, particularly with its forward strategic planning.

I certainly reiterate Mr Flynn's concern for the service delivered to the schools. I was in a school yesterday in an area which would be considered to have social difficulties and it really was superb watching the staff working in that school and looking at the children and the benefits they are getting, and it made me feel that part of those benefits are a result of the good support that we think we are giving the school.

Mr Flynn referred to lifting burdens off shoulders. That particular school had enough burdens and I can see that it is gaining so much from the service we have been providing.

The Chairman: This is a very simple question that I am sure Michael Ancram will bear in mind — and he may be surprised that you, the workers, are in here worrying about this. It is only a few top managers who are going to lose jobs and, what is more, this personnel service can be delivered from Magherafelt just as easily — is that not so?

Mr Connolly: That is an easily made point. It puts me in mind of something I heard on the radio. Apparently if you ring up to book a British Airways ticket your call is accepted by someone in Calcutta and that someone rearranges the ticket and your ticket arrives. Now you do not know that. No one says this is Calcutta. That is the sort of technical thing which does not require hands-on support. In the school I was referring to a moment ago, the principal knows me and the rest of my colleagues. Our service is vital. He cannot ring Calcutta, the personal service is not there.

The Chairman: Relationships are what you are emphasizing.

Mr Connolly: That is certainly one of the points we would stress.

Mr McFarland: I am quite curious about this. Unlike the Western Board that actually has a fairly serious problem because it is facing complete removal, you, in theory if all goes well, will not move. You will retain — apart from Newtownabbey and Carrick — all your current board area and get some more to the west. Are you seriously saying that you as professionals will be unable to give those schools in the west the sort of excellent service that you currently give those in your own board area?

Mr Flynn: Larne and Strabane do not have a lot in common and what has happened here is that the Minister appears to have decided on a carve up of the province without any respect for the traditional, historical boundaries. These areas have little in common either culturally or demographically and he is assuming that you can simply extend cold administrative structures to people. I go back to relationships again. Without reference to the culture, without reference to the insights of the community, without respect for the traditions of that community, is not a good way to administer anything.

In the past when I first came to County Hall I attempted to work on the principle that it was only a matter of drawing a diagram and setting in place administrative and organizational arrangements. I found out otherwise. I found to my cost that I was treading on people's corns, that I was treading on people's sensitivities. You cannot administer effectively unless you know the people you are administering, that you are serving, and with all due respect, we do not know the people in Strabane all that well.

Mr McFarland: Yet.

Mr Flynn: There is one other little point I would like to make, picking up something that the Chairman said. Yes, we do gain areas and we do lose areas with whom we have long been associated in the past. You can move the headquarters but you cannot move the young men, and particularly the young women, who are married and have families at school. You cannot tell them to go and work in Londonderry because people have built their lives around where they are actually working in County Hall in Ballymena.

Mr McFarland: We have strayed slightly. I would argue that there is little in common between Benone and Roslea yet the Western Board will tell you that its board is all at one. You are saying that areas have got to be similar. They are not at the moment, so the logic that they have to be so in the future does not necessarily hold water.

Mr Flynn: That is right. We have a locally administered system of education and locally means that you exercise local knowledge and insight in the way you actually organize and do things, in the way you conduct your business. It is not respect for local knowledge and insight if you simply divide the country up on an organizational chart such as you have shown me.

Mr McFarland: We heard this morning that when the current system was set in place people complained but very quickly settled down and got on with it, and now it is the best model in the world that nobody wants to change. The Department's argument is that if this goes ahead, in a year and half's time, you, like all professionals, will have made it work. You will have got to know schools in the west, and those relationships will be as cosy as with Dalriada.

Mr Flynn: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to reflect upon my experience. I joined education administration, the North Eastern Board, in 1973, so I was there at the beginning and I have had some personal experience of the way things work. That argument was a perfectly valid one. The one thing on which everybody agreed about in 1973 in Northern Ireland was the importance of providing a quality education service for all our children, irrespective of the community divisions. But, speaking from my experience in 1973, it took us until about 1978 to settle down and what I am saying is that history is going to repeat itself. We are going to get demoralization, a lack of contact and new arrangements to be made. We lost a lot of expertise the last

time because with reorganization a lot of the staff simply disappeared. It took about five years to settle down and during those five years the schools were anything but the beneficiaries of what we were intending to deliver them.

It is going to demoralize staff, it is going to disrupt relationships. It is not just the board officers looking after their jobs, we are thinking ahead and trying to estimate from our experience the impact upon the schools that we support because, and there is no doubt about it, there will be a severe knock-back in efficiency when you make arrangements or when you change arrangements in the order of magnitude that has been set out here, so the schools will suffer, coming back to the Chairman's point. We are concerned about the children as well as about our jobs and we see clearly that in the end this disruption and demoralization will feed through to the schools and they will be less capable of doing their job.

Mr Hussey: I teach in Castlederg. I would ring Willie Montgomery or Jackie Walls in the Omagh Office. If this new situation arises, eventually I may be ringing up somebody in your offices. The two people I named happen to live in Castlederg, so I have a personal relationship with them. But there are other board officers who do not live in the same locality as myself. I am carrying on from Mr McFarland's point. Eventually I would expect that when things settled down, however long it took — I suppose this could be a crux issue — I would be able to ring your purchasing officer. I would be able to contact your youth service department. I am asking the same question as a practitioner. What difference do you see its making to me? The number of times that I see board officers coming into school are not that many. I am just a teacher, not a headmaster. If I want to contact my business studies advisory person, I contact the board. She is probably out on the ground, and someone contacts her and she contacts me from Clondermott or Lisnaskea, or wherever she happens to be, and we make an appointment, and she eventually comes to see me. So how is it going to affect me to my detriment?

Mr Flynn: I have actually been a member of the advisory service and I prided myself, as do my colleagues in the advisory service, on knowing the principals, on knowing, for example, if I were in charge of a particular area or specialism, my colleagues. I know everybody who is in charge of each of the departments, and they know to whom they can turn in order to get help with anything. They can use this network of personal relationships, personal working contacts, to deliver answers to problems quickly and efficiently.

Mr Hussey: I have worked under three advisory people, and I have got to know each one of them.

Mr Connolly: I am on the architectural side of the business and it may better illustrate the point we are trying to make if I tell you that my knowledge of your school is zero. My knowledge of the schools within the board is a lot greater and if I do not have the personal knowledge, there are others who do have it. That personal knowledge goes way back to the history of, for example, extensions which have been done to a school over a number of years, and that intimate personal knowledge is a vital part of the service we provide. I have great difficulty in seeing how I could replace that sort of intimate knowledge that I have of a series of schools.

Mr Hussey: Surely the plans are still available.

Mr Connolly: Yes, I am loath to quote examples but I was on a site yesterday where we were digging up manholes, for example, that were not on plans. But something triggered off something in someone's mind about two previous extensions that were done on that site, and that is the intimate knowledge that that person has of that particular school. I would have great difficulty getting access to that sort of intimate knowledge in other areas.

Mr Fowler: I spent two nights last week talking with Jim Stark, asking him to tell me some of the things that would be going through your minds. I worked under a four-board arrangement and it worked very adequately. Do you think it is open season for cutting up boards?

Mr Connolly: This is probably the case. It is happening across other Government bodies as well — in the Health Service there are changes happening everywhere. That is why I was referring to the business of booking tickets. I do not think you can clinically cut off a chunk of the service that we provide and expect it to be replaced by better technology or fax machines or whatever. I do not really think you can do that.

The Chairman: What you are telling us here is that in the people industry, as compared to a product industry in the inanimate sense, it takes a different skill, different working and a different set of contacts. In other words, the models for the ruthless efficiency of manufacture are not applicable in this case.

Mr Connolly: That is the point I am trying to make with this analogy of the tickets. You said that only one board is closing down and asked why we care. I think that most of the staff feel that two boards are closing down or being relocated.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: I want to ask one question of the ladies. What effect, in a couple of senses, have the proposals had upon you in terms of morale? Could you give us, in a couple of sentences, the details of how it would affect you if the headquarters were to move to Londonderry, or wherever else they might plonk it?

Ms McClintock: I am a working mother. I have two children who go to schools locally. Morale in County Hall has gone down. Michael Ancram announced this at the end of June when the schools were closing. No board meetings were scheduled until the end of September. Other staff members were going on holidays, and Prince Charles was in the province, so it was getting very little profile. Morale fell, and I, as a working mother, together with five other girls started this campaign ‘United to Win’ because this affected everybody on the ground. Ms McDonald, for example, is a single girl. This affected her. Where was she going to work in the future? Did she want to stay with education? Now, if I go out of work, my childminder goes out of work. I would have trouble finding a job that would give me the same satisfaction. I work in salaries and wages, and we have to keep very tight time schedules. We have a service to get to the people. When we were getting up our petition, the caretaker from Carnlough thought that he was going to have to go to Londonderry to find out about his pay as he was on low income. So at the grass-roots level there is a great ground-swell of opinion that the five boards should be maintained.

Mr Snoddy: Recognizing the difficulties that you have, could I turn the argument back. The argument is that in Rathcoole, which is a part of your board area, there were two schools, one with 300-odd pupils, and another with 280-odd pupils. Because of LMS your board took a decision to amalgamate them on the basis of finance. People out at work who had childminders close to one of those schools were all going to be disrupted, and your board did not listen. Why do you not accept that the Department can use exactly the same argument? This is not what it is all about; it is all about children's education.

Ms McClintock: That is why, as a working mother, I can see it from two angles. I see it as an employee of the board, but I also see it as a parent of children going to school and the service that has to be provided in the schools. My daughter goes to Gracehill Primary School which has been high up the list to get a new building - it has not got it because the money is not forthcoming to do that. So I see it from two clear angles.

Ms McDonald: My name is Valerie McDonald and I work for the transfer department of the North Eastern Education and Library Board. I am single so I cannot say that I can see it from a mother's point of view, but I am seeing it as a member of staff. I have been working for the board for eight years now, and it is a specialized type of training that you get in all the offices. Our office has very specific functions and we have a lot of contact with the small rural schools. Now we have a working knowledge of all the schools and the transfer system. Each school has different needs. We deliver test papers et cetera and we have, you know, like the other departments, a close working relationship with them. That would all be lost as would the specific training that people have received to work in offices to do those jobs. Although the Western Board has been told that it is basically out of existence, we have not been told that, but we have not been told that our jobs are safe either. We have been left in limbo, and staff morale is very very low at the moment.

Ms Devlin: My name is Cora Devlin. I work in the Finance Department and like Ms McClintock I am a mother of two young children who attend the local primary school. I can tell you that if the headquarters were relocated to another part of the board, whether there be three boards or five, I would find it extremely difficulty actually to travel. I would have to uproot a young family and leave the rest of my family and, indeed, my friends behind. I would be very reluctant to do that.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for giving us your time. I wish you a safe journey home to Ballymena.

Witnesses:

Mr R Dallas, Mr S Shields, Mr S Gault, Mr J O'Kane, Mrs A McGinley and Mr J McKinnney

(Save the West)

The Chairman: Welcome, Gentlemen. We are delighted to have you here. I presume that you wish to give a submission first.

Mr Hussey: I declare an interest and ask not to be called for questions.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr McKinney: Thank you very much for receiving us. I know you are under a bit of pressure of time, so first of all I will introduce the deputation and start with the lady on my left, the Chief Executive from Fermanagh District Council, Aideen McGinley. On my right is Cllr Seamus Shields, Chairman of Omagh District Council. On his right is Cllr James O'Kane from Strabane District Council and Cllr Dallas from Derry City Council, and on my extreme right is Cllr Gault from Limavady District Council. My name is John McKinney and I have asked to have this deputation. Some members may wish to make a short presentation after Cllr Shields makes the main presentation.

Mr Shields: First of all may I thank you and your Committee for giving us this opportunity to address you. The Chief Executive has indicated the composition of this delegation which represents the entire spectrum of the western region. We have representatives of the five district councils and they represent the various party interests which are represented on councils.

The Western Education and Library Board enjoys 100% support from the entire community in terms of the people who are the providers of education and the consumers of education, and the general public throughout the Western Board area have indicated a magnificent sense of support for the retention of the education and library board in its present form. Over 100,000 signatures have already been collected in a petition for the retention of the board, and that represents about 50% of the entire adult population of the Western Board area.

Why does the Western Board merit this volume of support? Firstly, because the Western Education and Library Board is widely regarded as having provided a quality service from its inception right through to the present time. That is acknowledged not just by the people in the Western region but by the DENI inspectorate itself. The provision of education services by the WELB is second to none in Northern Ireland.

Beyond that the board itself has a deservedly high reputation for promoting cross-community contacts in all aspect of life which it funds through the promotion of various activities through schools and youth clubs to involve people in cross-community contact. Perhaps more significantly in the conduct of its own affairs, the Western Education and Library Board has always ensured that all decisions taken by the board are taken on a collegiate basis involving all the various interest groups, and it is widely acknowledged by everybody in the Western Board area that the board itself has been a role model for co-operation and collaboration between all the various interests there.

These are some of the reasons the board is so highly valued and esteemed and there is such a volume of support for its retention in its present form. Let me ask the question: what would be the consequences of the abolition of the Western Education and Library Board? Well, first of all, in the political context last year the Prime Minister convened a meeting of all the chief executives and chairmen of the 26 district councils in Northern Ireland. The objective of that particular exercise was to encourage local elected representatives to take some responsibility for decision making themselves. Here in the Western Board area is an example of that in actual practice. Local people make decisions for the local area, and the significant thing about those decisions is that they are widely accepted, respected and regarded. So here we have the very thing that the Prime Minister himself is attempting to encourage in actual practice on a day-to-day basis. The very thing that the Prime Minister appears to be wishing to encourage is fully esteemed and highly regarded by the people who are the actual recipients of this service, and surely this is what the Government in Northern Ireland and Michael Ancram in particular, as Minister for political development, should be seeking to encourage. When you have a role model such as this, it is sensible and right that that role model should be encouraged and built upon and should be looked upon as a model for further extension.

So we believe that the abolition of the board itself at this present time would run contrary to professed policy with regard to Michael Ancram's other responsibilities in the Northern Ireland Office. The abolition of the Western Board would also increase the feeling of isolation and alienation which is already evident in may aspects in the West at the moment. We suffer from, perhaps, the worse roads in Northern Ireland. We have the most thinly spread and the most rural population in Northern Ireland. We do not have an airport, we do not have a port, we do not have a railway system apart from the railway that goes into Derry and the small airport at Eglington. But that vast region south of Strabane has absolutely no communication system whatsoever other than a single road, so already there is a significant feeling of isolation from the centre of decision making.

To abolish the Western Board at this time would significantly increase that feeling of isolation, the feeling that we are removed from things, the feeling that we are marginalized and distanced from services.

Increased easternization of services is evident in many other areas of the public service at the moment. You will be aware that recently there was an announcement by the Department of Health that the future of the health service, for example, will be based on six acute hospitals, four of those acute hospitals being in the Greater Belfast area. That type of announcement tends to make people feel uneasy, isolated and that they are being further downgraded and disregarded. To remove the headquarters of the Western Education and Library Board from their own area and from the West general would only further exacerbate that feeling of neglect.

One of the most commendable features of the structure at present is its accessibility to the people who need help. I am principal of a small school and I can vouch for the quality of service in terms of accessibility when the need arises. The people who provide the service in the Western Board at every level from chief executive down to the 7,000 employees of the board are there to help, and they make that the principle on which they operate — they always make themselves available. I can lift the phone at any time and almost guarantee that I will be helped within an hour. Now that is the quality of service that the Western Education and Library Board is renowned for, and when Michael Ancram declares that this proposed restructuring would provide an even better service, I contend from my experience that that would be a virtual impossibility.

What of the economic implications? Well the West, as I have indicated, is already felling very isolated and marginalized. Beyond that, it is the area which has the highest unemployment in Northern Ireland, and if this decision is implemented we will undoubtedly have further redundancies and reduction in staff numbers et cetera, maybe not in the short term but certainly in the longer term. That is something the Western Board can ill-afford. If the headquarters of the Western Board is removed from the Omagh area and from the West in general, we will have further downgrading in the status of the area. Now, we find it particularly difficult in parts of the Western Board to attract inward investment. So we feel that any reduction in the status of the area will only militate against the possibility of inward investment so we are really in the worst possible situation compared with other areas in Northern Ireland with our lack of communication systems and our poor road services et cetera. Anything that further downgrades our area and reduces its status and image will have a very detrimental and devastating effect on the community.

One of the arguments made for the restructuring at the present time is that the education service is overadministered, that too many people are doing the same kind of work and that fewer people could deliver the same service up to the same standard and perhaps even to a better standard. I have already said that I contest that.

It has been said that in recent years, since education reform was introduced in 1989, there has been a reduction in the type of service that the Western Board is required to deliver to schools. People in the education service and those who are involved in day-to-day contact with the education and library boards contest that view. In fact, some people maintain that the number of services that the boards are now providing to schools is greater than it was in the past.

If the argument is that education reform has reduced the amount of work that education and library boards have to do, why then is there not a similar reduction in the number of education and library boards across the water? The very same reforms have been implemented on the same basis, LMS and so forth, across the water. Yet what we find there is that the opposite is actually happening, and that education administrative units in Great Britain are being sub-divided at present.

We are also told that the units in Northern Ireland are too small in terms of population. Again that is a lie, because in Wales, for example, where there are something like 20 different administrative educational units, only one is bigger in terms of population than the Western Board area. The Western Board area serves one of the widest geographical areas in the entire United Kingdom because of the thin spread of the population. Because of the rurality of the Western area the people in the WELB, because of their understanding of far-flung communities with small schools and so on, have an affinity with the needs of those people.

The Western Board has been the champion of the small rural school. Unfortunately, we have examples from other board areas that show that the type of sympathy which exists in the WELB does not exist elsewhere for the small rural schools and the small rural communities, and people must understand the important role that small rural schools pay in rural communities. They help to keep communities together and give communities their own strength and their own identity. If the Western Board were to be abolished, we would lose something which is extremely valuable. Small schools would come under threat, small rural communities would come under threat, and our whole way of life would certainly be in jeopardy.

So, with regard to the consultation which Michael Ancram claims was carried out prior to the decision, from all research that we have done, and from all contacts that we have made, we are certain that practically every interest that was considered about this matter came out against this decision. If consultation means anything, it means that the people who consult must respond to that consultation. The members of this delegation have no doubt that the consultation that took place was nothing more than a charade. If consultation is to have any effect and be of any value, it has to be acted upon. It must be listened to and it must be responded to.

The only certain outcome of restructuring the education and library service at this time will be a great increase in the democratic deficit in Northern Ireland. We are already very short of decision-making bodies with decision-making powers in Northern Ireland. The education and library boards do have some powers over the spending of their own budget. They do have some impact on local communities and on local people's needs. This is due to be removed at this time. The £2 million projected savings that this restructuring is to make will be totally insignificant given the alienation, the upheaval and the damage that the restructuring will cause.

Many people feel that this proposal is not just about the education services. It is really the thin end of the wedge. If this proposal succeeds and gets through, health services may be next — a reduction in the number of health and social services boards. We know that they have been emasculated in many ways already because public representation has been removed from them. We fear that if this decision goes ahead, these other services will similarly be reduced. Perhaps even the 26 district councils themselves will be reduced to three. Why is this happening? Michael Ancram has said that this proposal is not about money. He said that if it were about money, he would have abolished all the boards and have had one. If it is not about money, what is it really about? How many people have talked about the hidden agenda? I do not know but we have certain fears about that.

That is the essence of my presentation, so finally I thank you. I beg the Northern Ireland Forum to convey in the strongest possible terms the views of this delegation about the esteem in which we hold the Western Board, the reasons we feel it must be retained, must, in fact, be spared and encouraged. We think that is absolutely essential for the image, status and well being of the Western Board. If Michael Ancram pushes ahead with this decision now, he will leave behind a legacy of bitterness unparalleled in the history of Northern Ireland.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr Shields, and thank you for your original submission of the 9th of this month

First of all, I will be the devil's advocate and do what the Minister would probably do. The board has given away a lot of powers. We are not really talking about safeguarding jobs. We have a few very highly paid people, but the vast majority of people in the education boards will not be affected. Surely you want the money saved to go to improve the quality of education. Here is the Minister trying to help you in the west to join up with the fat, rolling, opulent east.

Mr Dallas: Both Cllr Shields and I are members of the WELB. The board itself has not been challenged in any way to improve its efficiency. The board would be quite prepared to look at its efficiency — indeed, it is always doing that, if that is what you are getting at. We are quite prepared to be supportive if the board wishes to look at efficiency. If it can provide the services in a more efficient manner we will be very supportive. If Michael Ancram is talking about putting money in at the coal-face, why does he not then turn that about and challenge the boards themselves to provide a £2 million saving out of a £1 billion budget, which would be minimal savings. Now £2

million at the coal-face — certainly, we would welcome that. Why does he not say “If we are not going to touch the boards, I still want that £2 million saving” and challenge the boards to come up with that. I am sure he would not find the Western Education and Library Board wanting in trying to improve its efficiency, which it is doing at the present time.

Now, even though Michael Ancram is talking about putting more money into the coalface — £2 million through the reorganization — at the present time there has been no financial appraisal. These figures have been plucked out of mid-air and we challenge him, first of all, to prove to us that he is going to save money by this reorganization and by the education reforms. Secondly, if he wants to restructure, why on earth does he not first of all challenge the boards to be more efficient, to be more effective? Now you would probably find that the Western Education and Library Board is one of the most efficient and effective boards in Northern Ireland and we say “Why on earth are you penalizing the Western Education and Library Board for the other boards in Northern Ireland?” That is where we would be looking for a reply

from the Minster.

The Chairman: Excellent.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: There was a statement made — I think it was by Mr Shields — that the Western Board has to serve the largest geographical area in the United Kingdom. Can you back that up with fact?

Mr Shields: I cannot say that it is the largest geographical education unit in the United Kingdom. It is certainly the largest in Northern Ireland, but that is something which I will certainly research and respond to you on. There may well be an area more extensive than it in the highlands of Scotland; I cannot say, but I will certainly get the facts on that matter.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: It would be good if you could look at the geographical spread and compare it with some of the other parts of the Kingdom. There is a complaint that has been made too regularly: there has been no consultation. Surely there has been consultation ever since this document came out. All the options were put in it. You have had a couple of years to look at all the options. I know there was a lot of talk about the five/four option, but all the options were there, from keeping the five, right

down to scrapping all but one.

Mr Shields: When that document was first produced it was brought out as a consultation document. That document suggested that the Department would look at a number of possible models starting with the five-board model. It said there was a possibility that it would reduce the five boards to four. There is also the possibility that it would reduce the five boards to three, and it gave a very useful model in that document. As a result of that particular consultation, the Department decided to have a four-board model, that it would combine the South Eastern Education and Library Board with the Belfast Board and reduce the number of boards to four. After extensive objections to that particular proposal, that document and that consultation process were abandoned and the whole process was suspended for almost two years. Then we heard absolutely nothing at all until the bombshell was dropped that the Department had decided that it was going to have a new three-board system.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: Can the Department not argue that it has set it all out before?

Mr Shields: What I am saying is that that consultation had nothing whatever to do with the decision it came to about three boards because the outcome of that particular consultation was four boards. That proposal did not go ahead; it and that document were abandoned.

Mr Dallas: What we are saying is that there is no consultation now. This is a major submission today because of what it represents. It represents the five district councils in the Western Education and Library Board area crossing the party political sphere and coming out and saying with a united voice “Don't tamper with the Western Education and Library Board. If it is not broken, don't fix it.” That is what they are simply saying. They are saying they are pleased with the service. It is one of the best services in the whole of the United Kingdom and we do not want it tampered with because we can save the better services to our schools.

Mr Fowler: The written submission states that the board has been an outstanding success which has crossed party, religious and cultural affiliations. The loss of the Western Board would radically disrupt this. It would mean a loss of identity for communities in the west. Can you explain what that means? Does it mean a loss of identity for the communities?

Mrs McGinley: I can possibly answer part of that question on behalf ofFermanagh which is the only area in the British Isles that still has its townlands; indeed many other areas are now regretting that they did not hold out for postcodes. There is a very very strong sense of pride in the Western Board area, mainly because it is such a rural district (with the exception of the City of Derry itself), and local people genuinely feel beleaguered. Twenty-five years ago, before local Government reorganization, there was a very strong them-and-us attitude to the East and West of the Bann. That was partly political and partly the result of deprivation and various other disadvantages which had led to the political situation that we were in. It is the work of the boards such as the Western Education and Library Board that has actually helped the community to come together. That sense of having a giant chip on our shoulder, that we are the poor west and on the periphery et cetera is starting to be eroded; we are starting to have a self-confidence about the fact that the west is somewhere to be proud to live in and work and to bring up your children. We are seeing this, as a community in the west, as a total erosion of all that has been done since the pre-local government days when there was a very definite east/west divide. The carve up seems to be on a north/south basis so the strong identity created over the last 25 years will be seriously eroded. Some people would say to you that when you look from Lisnaskea to Kilkeel, you see two very different areas. There is a different ethos. It is not that we are trying to create kingdoms, far from it, but there is a cultural identity that exists in the west that is very different to that in the east. It has taken many years to become a positive thing as opposed to a negative one, and we see this as the start of an erosion of that identity.

Mr Fowler: Would that not survive in a new arrangement? Will the drawing of the line and the presenting of a new name change that?

Ms McGinley: It will. Just this morning we were at a local government conference, and we were talking about the need for district councils to work together. In the west, the five councils are working together on health, education, and issues like fluoridation, because the thoughts of working together exist. It has taken a long time to build that on the common ground that has been identified. There is going to be upheaval and it will take many years to re-establish different relationships.

Also, has it been proven that anything will actually change in terms of the economics of this case? There seems to have been an arbitrary drawing of lines with no taking into account of the cultural identity of the people who live there. We are a very rural population, very different to Belfast. If anything, the four-board option which was previously consulted on and put forward, is a far more sensible option because two boards would be amalgamated that actually service the Greater Belfast area and that, politically and culturally, would be far more appropriate than what is to happen now.

Mr McMichael: Out of all the representations that have been made there is one common theme which is high on the priority list in the arguments against the proposals and that is the upheaval and the impact upon employment of relocation. In the submission presented to the Committee earlier this month that was a significant part of the economic argument against the proposals. But the board or the education service argues that 80% of the jobs under the control of the Department of Education will not be affected at all, that this would affect a small percentage only directly within the service and mostly at the administration level. So, are the arguments about upheaval and the direct impact upon jobs, which the Department has said may be fewer than 100 province-wide, as serious as people say?

Mr Shields: As already indicated, the Western Board employs 7,000 people. Now, that is very significant.

The Chairman: The bus drivers will be there, the groundsmen will be there, the teachers will be there. In reality, only a few administrative professionals may lose their jobs. What does matter is the chalk-face and the future of education. I am being deliberately warped here.

Mr Shields: But the point I am trying to make is that the Western Board does employ 7,000 people. If you take 20% of 7,000 people you are talking about 1,400 employees of the Western Board. Who are those people going to be who will be affected by this restructuring? It is going to be those people at the top tier of management who actually administer the service.

It is not going to be the people who deliver the service on the ground, I accept that. It is not going to be the people in the school kitchens or the people in school transport. Yes, those people are going to be retained as long as those services exist and as long as those services are necessary, I accept that. But it is going to be the decision makers and, perhaps, the administrators and the managers who are going to be affected, and let us apply that to a town like Omagh.

Omagh has already, in recent years, as the Chairman very well knows, lost the regional office of the Housing Executive. It has lost the regional headquarters of the Northern Ireland Electricity Service and it has lost the maternity unit from its hospital. Now, if it were to lose people, high profile, highly qualified, high earning people from the education and library board under this restructuring, it would have a very significant effect on the Omagh district and, of course, on the Western Education and Library Board. It is not simply located in Omagh, it also has headquarters offices in Derry and Fermanagh. Those are the people who would be affected by this reorganization and I have no doubt at all that if this proposal goes ahead, the effect of redundancies and

job losses will be very sorely felt.

The Chairman: Look at a school on the edge of Benone and another one down in Ms McGinley's part of the world, Magherafelt. What have they in common?

Ms McGinley: They have a lot in common. There is rurality for a start. The east of the province is much more urbanized, so even the city of Derry is a very different city to the one of Belfast. A very strong culture identity does exist and a lot of inter-school and cross-community work has been done. In fact, the Western Education and Library Board is a leading board given its innovative work in that field and, indeed, it is sharing that with other boards which are now learning.

But there are definite differences, not just geographic ones, and we have a lot to learn from people at the opposite end. We are not saying that we are drawing a line down the Western Board area, but why not spread and change from within? We do not need to dissolve the west. There is also the psychological effect of having a board in the north, south and east but not in the west. It is just a simple human thing: the west has disappeared, and that is what the ordinary man or woman is actually finding, it is as fundamental as that.

The Chairman: DENI would argue very strongly “But we have increased accountability. We have given you a few more councillors. We are trying to equalize out. We have the whole thing equal. There is the same number of schools, free school meals in the north as in the south and in Belfast. Everything is equal.”

Mr McKinney: I do not think you have measured accountability just by giving extra elected members, although that is one way of doing it obviously, and that is what we are trying to argue. You are going to have a board of 50 members and you have to think about the practicalities of actually managing and operating that system. For example, we are operating on a 32-board system or a 35-board system and what actually happened was that an exercise was carried out by the designers of this document. To try to prove mathematically that we are being given accountability by having an increase in the number of councillors. But what they have actually done in my opinion is create a system that will be very difficult to manage. We all know how difficult it is to manage a 21 or 25-council-type situation; no doubt you Gentlemen know the difficulties involved in a larger grouping and what will happen with 50 people. I do not think accountability will be improved; I think it has been a mathematical exercise to try to justify accountability.

Mr O'Kane: Councillors are totally irrelevant to this argument. As a representative of Strabane District Council I would like to state that our council in conjunction with Derry, Fermanagh, Limavady and Omagh Councils condemn in the strongest possible manner and cannot and will not accept the decision of the education Minister to reduce the number of education and library boards from five to three. It is ironic, and indeed insulting, to the integrity of the five councils that the Minister has blatantly ignored the views of the councils, schools and local communities who took into account what the Prime Minister said to the Chief Executives and the Chairmen.

We now call on the Forum to tell Michael Ancram to reconsider and indeed reverse his decision in the light of the multitude of concerns expressed about the serious consequences it will have for the population of the Western Boardarea who have the united support of the chambers of commerce and all the church leaders, without exception. Indeed, to dismantle the Western Board is totally contrary to all the principles of effective and efficient management when cross-community relations in Northern Ireland are being stretched actually to breaking point. Surely, this is not the time to abolish the Western Board which is seen as an outstanding example of good practice. Northern Ireland needs more of this type of co-operation not less. Schools which, it has been said, would stand to gain from the alleged savings have indicated clearly and forcefully that they place much greater value on the service provided by the Western Board than on the possible financial benefits.

The Minister's argument that a saving of £2 million per annum can be achieved has no bearing against the upheaval and the inconvenience, worry and uncertainty which his proposals have brought. There does not seem to be any compelling argument for abolishing the Western Board. Why wipe out all the effort and enthusiasm of the last 20 plus years in the face of total opposition from all the communities and districts. To make such radical changes for so little and bring down the wrath of the people of the Western Board area is neither logical nor creditable. Therefore, we implore you not to ignore but rather take heed of the voice of the people which has been ignored on previous occasions by the Minister. Chairman, may I throw in a few clichés: unity is strength and knowledge is poor; united we stand, divided we fall. Members of the Forum, we seek your support to save the west.

The Chairman: I note what you saying, Mr O'Kane, that you have the churches supporting you.

Mr O'Kane: That is correct.

The Chairman: Every church in your area is supporting you?

Mr O'Kane: That is correct.

The Chairman: You have all the political parties supporting you.

Mr O'Kane: That is correct.

The Chairman: How many councils?

Mr O'Kane: Five.

The Chairman: Those all more or less support the line that Ms McGinley has put to us that we need to recognize a cultural identity and a community spirit.

Mr O'Kane: That is correct and not only the churches and councils, but the chambers of commerce.

The Chairman: There is one thread here that is coming through.

Mr Gault: Limavady Borough Council has 15 members across the board and though we are divided politically, we are all in agreement that the West should be retained. We got an extension to our local high school this summer and we are very pleased with the service that the board provided in erecting, extending and fitting out this school and we are frightened that we would lose that service if this board were done away with. If we become part of such a big area, we do not think we will get the same service in the future. We are very much in favour of the board's being retained.

The Chairman: Just to go back to Mrs McGinley, why demolish the five? Why not retune all five, make them function differently and thus enhance performance?

Mrs McGinley: Yes, there is an opportunity to rationalize the existing system especially with things like the incorporation of the further education colleges next year. It is very much a time of change and the boards would be open to looking internally at their own structures. Indeed, the two councillors who are on the Western Board have already said that there are opportunities within the existing system to improve the situation, yet it would appear that that has not been considered or looked at in any way. If this is a simple cost exercise, why not do that instead of radically altering something that is working well?

The Chairman: You have the CCMS, you have the integrated schools, you have the voluntary grammar schools — more or less original roles. Why not let the board administer their affairs, yet let each retain its identity and ethos?

Mrs McGinley: There is a number of models that could be suggested and there is a feeling that a lot have not been explored.

The Chairman: Is that one that your campaign would consider?

Mr Dallas: Do you mean internal reform of the Western Education and Library Board?

The Chairman: Not only an internal reform, but —

Mr Dallas: More powers for the board itself.

Mr O'Kane: We have no argument with streamlining or anything else. We are here today totally incensed at the Minister's attitude. We are not just some of these Johnny-come-latelys, we are elected by the people for the people. The Prime Minister has said that the district councils should take decisions yet when they do take decisions, and are very forthright in their decision taking, the Minister of the day comes along and rules that out “You're not on, I'll decide.” That is totally contrary to the Prime Minister's advice, but our sole aim here today is to ask for the support of the Forum in its entirety. What we are asking the Forum to do is come out united to save the West, and we are here pleading with you for that today.

The Chairman: I recognize the earnestness of that plea, and it is certainly on the record. I am delighted that you said that. That is why you were provoked.

Mr McKinney: I would like to thank you once again for receiving us. I think most of the points have been covered. To reiterate, on the consultation aspect we do not feel that we were properly consulted. The district councils certainly were not consulted and the education boards were not consulted. The three-board option was what we would call in Tyrone sneaky, putting in the three-board option when it had not been set out for proper consultation.

The Government uses three measures usually to determine policy — accountability, accessibility and acceptability. This is not acceptable, and you have heard that from all the different parties throughout Northern Ireland. We do not think it matches up on accountability and it fails the accessibility test as well. And finally a quote from John Major

“We need proper Government. No Irish politicians (that includes yourselves) for several generations have taken any decisions, not even local government decisions, that is appalling.”

That was John Major speaking in Manchester in the summer of 1996 - I think that says it all.

The Chairman: Thank you very much indeed for your courtesy in coming here and for the excellent manner in which you presented your case.

Unfortunately we had to put pressure of time on you but I hope you feel you have made your case. Indeed the feeling around the table is that you made it very succinctly. I wish you a safe journey home.

Witnesses:

Mr F Bunting and Mr P Hanna

(Irish National Teachers Organization)

The Chairman: Good afternoon, Gentlemen, your are very welcome.

Our remit is very simple. The Minister made his announcement on 25 June, and in early July the Forum decided to form an Education Committee to look at the effects of reducing the number of boards from five to three. Obviously your union has an input.

You are a very important contributor to this whole consultation process. You represent those who are concerned with education standards and improvements. We view your input, as one of the larger unions in Northern Ireland, as very necessary.

Please proceed in your own way.

Mr Bunting: I do not think I will take up too much of your time since you have our submission. Just to show that there is consistency on our view on education administration we have brought along copies of the previous submission which was made in response to the initial proposals of the Minister regarding the South Eastern Education and Library Board's demise and the campaign that was organized about that time.

The Chairman: Just to put it on the record, we have received a copy of another submission from INTO. This represents your views when the five-to-four was under discussion.

Mr Bunting: I will just outline our position. First of all, irrespective of the problems which are there in education administration, the view of our organization is that any review should be a full review. And when we went to the Education Minister to put this view to him his response to us was unacceptable in that there were parties in education administration who were not prepared to be involved in any discussion or dialogue with the education and library boards about a future basis of education administration on the basis that they were exempt.

There are a number of main players in education administration. They are the education and library boards, the Governing Bodies Association for Grammar Schools in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education and the largest employing authority of all, the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools. Now, there cannot be a partial review of education administration. There has to be an overall review of education administration, and indeed this matter was basically examined during the first series of responses which were brought forward to the Department of Education's proposals, and I do not mind acknowledging that some of the more informed comments came from the Western Education and Library Board.

The Western Education and Library Board brought forward proposals to the other partners in the education process and to the teachers' unions saying that a format could be devised whereby all the other main players could have their ethos and their integrity respected under the auspices of the existing education and library board structure. We found a lot of merit in that proposal, and we thought that would have given the opportunity for proper rationalization to take place. Indeed, the rationalization could also have taken on board the interface between the main education players and the Department of Education itself.

There are a number of main players that I have not mentioned such as the CCEA and others which are all part of the education administration structure in Northern Ireland. On the basis of consistency and coherence you should have a review of education administration which takes on board all the main players.

The second point that we would make — and I am not saying this to curry favour with you — is that this is a major proposal in terms of local government: it goes to the very heart of the democratic process in Northern Ireland. Our view has always been that this proposal should be taken after full discussion and dialogue with the democratically elected parties in Northern Ireland because you are in the best position to make an informed decision. Now, I am talking about all the democratically elected political parties in Northern Ireland. That process has not taken place and the proposal by the Minister to give additional Council representation on his new boards is basically a sop. I have been talking to a number of education and library boards and district councils and they, like us, were not consulted before this decision was taken. That is not the way things should happen in Northern Ireland. You should not be coming down a motorway listening to the 1.00 o'clock news and suddenly finding that a major decision, which is going to affect the life and education of every child in Northern Ireland, has been taken.

To summarize, we are talking here about coherence and democracy. That is not an idle concept and we have always had faith in the ability and the ingenuity of our local politicians in Northern Ireland to resolve a situation quickly. I have to say that those initial feelings which are outlined in this document here have been somewhat dented during the course of this summer. But we still have confidence in you and we implore you to inspire confidence in the ability of local people to take decisions which affect all our lives.

As well as being a professional organization of teachers, we are also a trade union and we have a genuine concern for the rights of all worker's and trade unionists in Northern Ireland. We are talking here about a decision whereby every worker's job from the chief executive down to the bus driver or lollipop person is on the line. They will have to reapply for their jobs, what jobs are there. You are talking about a situation of tremendous upset and disruption and having already been through a tremendous period of disruption, caused by this Government's policies of education reform, what we crave most of all at the present is continuity and stability in the education system in Northern Ireland to enable it to develop. If we are serious about dealing with education administration, the various players in education administration in Northern Ireland should be given a time limit to sort out the most effective system that can be introduced, and that should be done under the guidance of our locally elected politicians. That is the view of this organization and we will be very happy to answer any questions that you may have.

The Chairman: You may be delighted to know that there is sympathy for that idea. What you are saying is significant because you represent a significant number of affected people, but people who have not a vested interest.

Mr Bunting: That is correct.

The Chairman: You represent the people at the chalk-face who are trying to create the standards and who are looking for the money in the right place rather than somewhere else. You are advocating a complete review of education and are adding that this is probably best done by elected representatives in Northern Ireland getting down and forming a consortium to take it from Michael Ancram's desk right to the chalk-face?

Mr Bunting: Well, we take the view that you are going to form the Government here pretty soon. If everything goes well, and there is going to be some form of local assembly here in Northern Ireland, education is actually going to be one of the main areas of your responsibility. If that is the case — and that is what we trust and hope will be the case — then taking major decisions now is premature.

Mr Benson: When you spoke of the review that you wanted and listed the boards, CCMS and all the rest, did you include DENI?

Mr Bunting: Yes - an interface between them and DENI.

Mr Benson: I wanted to be clear, because I think DENI is one that we really need.

Mr Hanna: While we recognize that in the period of 25 years or so education administration cannot stand still, it should be noted that the system that we currently have has served all our communities very well. There have certainly been a minimum of complaints, let me put it that way. We were disturbed about why there should be a reorganization now, why it is being done in this way and why it is being done to save £2 paltry million. I do not want to be dismissive of that sum of money, but in terms of the overall education budget £2 million is not very much, especially when the Government are prepared to spend £40 million on school transport policies. To cause such a major social upheaval for £2 million. We who are outside Belfast and Derry, who are made up of small local communities think the Government are just being heavy-handed and if the rationalization goes on in the way that is envisaged — and I am talking now from a trade union point of view — there are bound to be redundancies. There are bound to be changes of personnel and disruption with people working on unfamiliar areas.

I am not an advocate for the Western Board alone, but one has to question what balance-sheet has been drawn up. You know the pros and the cons within the existing five boards. The officers have provided a service to the teachers, the schools and the general public on a local basis, and there has been local accountability. Some advocate that the £2 million saved will be put back into the education budget and do all sorts of weird and wonderful things. But £2 million is not a lot of money. There are other ways of saving £20 million, £40 million. The scheme seems to be ill-conceived. It does not seem to have been thoroughly thought out and there has not been a proper consultation process with all the interested parties. Above all else, it would be better if local representatives devised a scheme for local people.

The Chairman: Somebody followed more or less the same thesis earlier: if we are going to have to review, we review the whole administrative thing from top to bottom. That does not mean we want to stand still. A churchman said to me “I don't change the parish boundary because someone is annoying me; I deal with the problem inside the parish and make it work better.” Next week we have to put pen to paper and write a report which has to be ready for the first day of October. You might think it is an unreasonable time — we think it is — but that is the best concession we could get. Are you happy to say that that is it?

Mr Bunting: There are essentially two points. I do not think anybody would say that the present system is ideal. There are some very serious problems, some of which have been identified and some of which have not. I could give you one example in terms of the size of the various education and library boards. In the Belfast Education and Library Board, for example, because of population changes which have taken place since the establishment of the education and library boards, there is a much smaller number of controlled schools, particularly in the secondary sector, than there was beforehand. The problem of the selective system has not been tackled. This Government has run away from that problem. Now what happens is that a Protestant teacher in the controlled secondary sector is not given equity of treatment with a Catholic secondary teacher in the same board area because in a situation of declining rolls and redundancies, that Catholic teacher has more chance of being employed through his or her employing authority which is the Council of Catholic Maintained Schools. In the Greater Belfast area a Protestant teacher in a controlled school has only got a very limited number of schools in which he can be redeployed, and the likelihood is that that teacher will be made redundant. That is not parity of treatment. There are obviously problems which need to be identified particularly in relation to the employment of teachers.

The second point I want to make is that when you are trying to get things done you go to the people who actually know how best they are done. We have a certain expertise in developing the curriculum for children in Northern Ireland, and we sat down during the 70s and worked with our employers to develop new curricula which we thought were relevant to the people in Northern Ireland. All our efforts were thrown out the window by a previous Education Minister, Dr Mawhinney, and, without any consultation with us, he foisted new curricula and assessment arrangements on us. The cost of those to date has been £94 million. The main effect of this has been the felling of forests to print publications. Very little has been done actually to improve or enhance the quality of education in Northern Ireland. This has created a tremendous amount of ill-will among the teaching profession. So, the lesson to be learnt from that is that if you proceed to make decisions without

consultation and without dialogue with interested parties, you are likely to get it wrong.

Mr Benson: You mentioned the £2 million. Despite its having been asked to produce some documentation on how it arrived at that £2 million, the Department has not yet been able to give us that.

The Chairman: In fairness, yesterday afternoon we did have some effort, but —

Mr Benson: It may give it to you on the one hand, but it does not give you the balance-sheet — the redundancies, the change. I am associated with the South Eastern Board and we reckon it will be probably five years before they even get to a saving — if it ever reaches that stage. It will be a cost exercise rather than a saving exercise. We agree with you that at this stage it is ill-conceived.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: How many teachers are in your union?

Mr Bunting: How many paid teachers do we have? We have 5,340. There is a major recruitment exercise going on. Teaching union figures in Northern Ireland are subject to a great degree of massaging. But I would say that we are one of the larger teacher organizations in Northern Ireland.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: In terms of the chalk-face, I know that the curriculum changes did have a tremendous effect on teachers, but administrative changes would have very, very little effect.

Mr Bunting: Is that your belief?

Rev Trevor Kirkland: No, I am saying that the Permanent Secretary has told us that the estimated number of jobs lost would be about 100 out of 29,000.

Mr Bunting: Well, from the perspective of the various boards and the advisory services and the job that they do for school teachers, relationships have been built up there which are based on trust and professionalism, and they are certainly much admired by teachers.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: But relationships are not the basis on which you argue for keeping the present system. If Joe Bloggs changes to Mrs Peacocke, or whoever, it is not going to make any difference to the professional carrying out the job. “We must keep these boards because we have built up this wonderful relationship. I only have to say to this person and they know the whole situation.” — that is not really a rational argument for their defence.

Mr Bunting: Well I would take issue with you and say that it is a rational argument. I said to the Western Education and Library Board that with the expertise that we have got on both the teaching side and the administrative side there is no doubt that any proposal that this Minister comes forward with, be it for three boards, be it for one board, be it two boards — and given the quality of people that we have in both sectors — it could be made to work, and work very effectively. It might take us seven or five or eight years to get to the same degree of quality that we currently have. But are we prepared actually to sacrifice our children's education for 10 years to accomplish this?

Rev Trevor Kirkland: But it is not going to affect the children. You are not sacrificing one child in Ulster.

Mr Bunting: Well, the teaching profession as a whole is under tremendous strain and stress at the present moment. Many are retiring on the grounds of ill-health. The board's curriculum advisory service, to give you an example, is providing in-service training for teachers which is valued. That is a factor which helps to give stability for the teaching profession which will be reflected in the classroom teaching of the children. If that is taken away I believe that the education of the children will suffer. I do not think you can have a change, particularly an imposed change like this, without its actually cutting into the fabric of the community.

Mr Fowler: Does the INTO recruit teachers of all religions and none?

Mr Bunting: Yes.

Mr Hanna: In a word, yes.

Mr Bunting: We have an historical problem in Northern Ireland and we have a major problem with sectarianism as well. During the foundation of what are now called the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, ie during the war of independence, a large number of INTO members broke away from the Irish National Teachers Organization over their affiliation to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions at that time and their recognition of that state and they formed themselves into another union called the Ulster Teachers Union. Now you have a situation where the majority of members of the Irish National Teachers Organization come from a Catholic background and the majority of members of the Ulster Teachers Union come from a Protestant background. They are separated brethren going back to the 1920s and while we have a very good working relationship with the Ulster Teachers Union in particular, we regard them as soul brothers and soul sisters to ourselves. Once people break away from each other it is very difficult actually to get together. It is like a row inside the family house. The silver has not been stolen, mind you, and we are still hopeful.

Mr Fowler: I would like to ask your opinion on these figures presented by the Department. It states that in the new boards, based on the 1994-95 figures, the percentage of pupils entitled to free school meals will be: Eastern Board: 26.2%; Southern Board: 27.6%; and Northern Board: 35%. Do you think there has been any juggling with deprivation in the drawing of new board boundaries?

Mr Bunting: One of the direct or indirect consequences of the Minister's proposals for three boards is an attempt to bring forward a harmonization of the local management of schools' budgets and schemes which are produced by those particular board areas. My colleague Alderman Benson will confirm that some of the boards rob Peter to pay Paul instead of putting money actually to address the social need. An indirect effect of what the Minister is doing will be harmonization of the budgets. The district council boundaries for the new boards and the community backgrounds have been significant factors in their composition

I have to say that I have very little sympathy for the view that some people in parts of the west may not have a relationship or empathy with other people in the east. I do not like that argument at all. Once I hear that argument I am inclined to go to the opposite extreme and say that maybe they should have. To answer your question specifically, in the drawing up of those board boundaries deprivation and community background were certainly factors.

The Chairman: Would it be a view that if Northern Ireland had priority 1 status and you could equalize poverty or show deprivation at a certain level, there could be extra funding?

Mr Bunting: Well, if that degree of ingenuity has been shown by the Department of Education, I will throw my hat in the air. At the same time, though, that will not undercut the basic premise of our argument which is that if that is one of the proposals which has come forward, or one of the objectives, that does not take away from the need for dialogue and consultation with the democratic parties in Northern Ireland.

The Chairman: It is one of those sneaky things that happen to us, coming at a bad time.

Mr Bunting: That is not a bad idea actually.

Mr Hussey: Are you suggesting social engineering?

Mr Bunting: Well, there is social engineering involved in everything, is there not?

Mr Hussey: As being the priority of this particular review?

Mr Bunting: Well, I do not know what the priority of this particular review is.

Mr Hussey: Does anyone?

Mr Bunting: Our view is that there is ample justification for the continuation of the five education and library boards as at present.

Mr Hussey: Initially your main attack was on the sort of operation-overlord way this has been put through. Which is your main objection — the fact that five have become three or the way it was done?

Mr Bunting: The process of decision making is a factor but that is not the main argument. The main argument is that the problem is not being addressed. There is a problem in education administration which needs to be addressed by those involved in it. Those involved in it are not participating in the solution.

Mr Hussey: Are you saying that if the process had been different but the result had been the same, it would have been more acceptable?

Mr Bunting: No, I am not saying that.

Mr Hussey: I teach in Castlederg and I deal with the board office in Omagh. I can ring up and get my answer quite often down the phone. I am not involved in senior management; I am slightly below that. Being in my chalk-face position, I may want to get in touch with my business studies adviser. What difference would it make to me if I had to ring Ballymena to get in touch with my adviser, who is probably out on the ground anyway?

Mr Bunting: Assuming that the board headquarters is in Ballymena, nothing much as you have described it. But in direct response to that, there will be no difference.

Mr Hussey: And any of the other support services?

Mr Bunting: I contend that there are in-service training days being organized in primary schools throughout the Western area, throughout the North Eastern area.

Mr Hussey: Could that not be done by RTU?

Mr Bunting: RTU is only involved in senior management training.

Mr Hussey: Could it be an extended role of RTU?

Mr Bunting: I am not sure whether it could be. It can be most effectively delivered by the people who are in the existing education and library boards. There is a tremendous response from schools in your own board area for the in-service training which is given and a very high degree of confidence from the school staff. Very few reservations have been expressed and there has been very little demand for the service to be removed to another agency. That would be cause for concern.

Mr Hussey: So that is an expression of satisfaction, assisted by staff on the ground.

The administrative impositions over this last while which have been put on teachers and, indeed, managers through LMS — can you see this lightening the load on teachers? Teachers are not trained as managers.

Mr Bunting: No, I cannot. I have consulted with our members at various levels, principal and senior management in both primary and secondary schools, and I have to say that there are different views depending on how people perceive what is actually being done. But I think there is a tremendous satisfaction rating with what is actually being devised for them and with the sensitivity of service which is there. That could also be delivered by the new three-board structure, but it would require time for it to happen. There is potential for it, but the cost of its actually coming about and the "savings" which are there do not justify it.

Mr Hussey: The perceived instability which could result from a five-to-three — how would that affect the administrative ability of senior management? You said it would be for a time, until things settled down.

Mr Bunting: What we are dealing with here is really a decision which has been forced upon people, not one which is generically happening. You are talking about the dislocation of staff and the dislocation of offices. You are talking about the appointment of an entire new education and library board from chief executive down. The staff will no doubt team build with each other and in the process of time will form themselves into an effective unit no doubt provided with sound leadership. And, no doubt, after the demoralizing experience of having been declared redundant and then re-appointed, having sacrificed a number of their colleagues en route, the staff will be full of the joys of spring and wanting to get involved in the whole process of education again. It will be a sobering experience for them and the people who are teaching who watch this process and see people who have given their lives for the education of children being sacrificed on the whim of a Minister's decision.

In those circumstances what is likely is that the uneasiness which is already there, the demoralization which is there, the workload which is there will combine and people will ask why they should put it all in when it can be so selfishly sacrificed.

Mr Hussey: You are suggesting that it could come about. If it were to come about, is now the time for it?

Mr Bunting: A lot depends on you. It could be if you were to accept this as a rational structure, as one which tackles the problem of education administration comprehensibly. Then, if you were to find yourself a member of an administration next year, three years or five years down the line and you were to give guarantees that you would not look at education administration again, that the problems that had not been addressed would be addressed, it might be. Well, when is the right time? I think the right time is when the people who are actually living and working in Northern Ireland, the people who actually know what the problems are in education, all get together and say that this is the way forward.

Now you may take that decision in two or three or four years time and we will be back to you saying we do not like what you are doing.

Mr Bunting: Thank you for your time.

Witnesses:

Mr T McKee and Mr R French

(National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers)

The Chairman: Good afternoon. I realize that you represent a very large body of people who deliver the necessary goods, and therefore your views are very important to us. We welcome you to the Forum. The only remit that we have is the result of the debate in early July — a resolution giving us permission to examine and report on changing the five boards to three.

Mr McKee: Thank you very much for the welcome. We are pleased to note that our elected representatives are now taking a serious interest in education — that has been long overdue in Northern Ireland.

I assume that a summary of our written position is available to you and that we need not read through it in detail. I will try to be brief because I am aware of the volume of work that you have this afternoon. We take the view that anyone who argues at the moment for the retention of the present system is saying that the McCrory Reforms in the early 1970s were perfect. At the time, I was aware of the problems in moving from what was then an eight-board system, the old education committees, to the education and library boards and, as politicians, you will be aware of the controversies that surrounded the setting up of the district councils. Anyone who says that the present system is working very well is agreeing, therefore, that the McCrory Reforms were perfect.

Our view is that they have worked in certain respects — there is no point in knocking them all — but there are striking deficiencies and, at a time when the total education system in schools and further education colleges has been turned inside out, no part of the education system should be above review and scrutiny to make certain that we are all getting value for money, particularly the children and students who are served by that system.

A lot has happened since the early 1970s. I do not have to tell you in Northern Ireland what has happened politically, but from an educational point of view there have been changes that are no less profound within the system.

There has been the emergence, for example, of the CCMS, the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools. More recently we have had the emergence of the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education, and both of these now sit on the management side of the teachers' negotiating machinery. Then, of course, there is the rather strange decision to hive-off further education from the education and library boards. Mr French will touch on that briefly in a moment.

However, the most profound change has been the introduction of formula funding in the school system of LMS, Local Management of Schools, and LMC, Local Management of Colleges of Further Education. That has introduced a destabilizing element into education. It has led to serious disparities, and those are touched upon briefly in the paper. It has put in question the equitable provision of education for children and students regardless of their religious persuasion in Northern Ireland and regardless of which area they live in.

The system works in such a way that different amounts of money go through to schools of the same type, and that is a very, very serious problem and one that is being perpetuated by different boards because each of the five boards strikes its own LMS formula. It has, if you like, its own LMS currency. This year the losing board in the reshuffle of money was the North Eastern Board which was given a crippling allocation of money, less than 2%, whereas one board, the Southern Board, got an increase in its budget for the financial year of 4.9%. Some of these discrepancies have been touched upon in the SACHR reports this summer. I refer in particular to the SACHR report on Targeting Social Need and in its education section you will see some striking inconsistencies in how money is worked through the system.

The other point that we make in our opening paragraph relates to whether the Department of Education is indeed best fitted to carry out a convincing review. The Department of Education is a player in the education game. A very significant one. To our mind it is not fitted to carry out this review. There should be an independent review which would look not only at the various education authorities, but at the role of the Department itself. Now we are not suggesting that everything that the Department is doing is bad. That would be untenable. We would not want, for example, the Department not to have its role as paymaster for teachers or to change the way it operates the teachers' pension scheme unless there were very convincing arguments for that. But there is a lot of conflict with the role of Department in a number of fields, and that puts a serious question mark against the validity of Michael Ancram's exercise at the moment.

In the second paragraph we come to the kernel of our position. In our submission to McCrory we argued for one education authority for Northern Ireland. We felt that Northern Ireland, even in those days, could be administered effectively in a united way. That, in our view, is preferable to the present system where there are eight employer bodies. The bodies are the five boards, the CCMS, the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education and the Voluntary Grammar Schools body, the Governing Bodies Association. We believe that all those schools are funded out of state funds; they are state schools and they should be administered centrally without division, without certain children in some schools appearing to get a better slice of the cake than others.

In the third paragraph we refer to PAFT and I am sure you have dealt with that yourselves. We believe that Michael Ancram is deficient in not having published that, and we certainly support the early-day motion by the MPs identified. We ourselves wrote to Mr Pat Carvill, the Permanent Secretary, on 27 June, and we have still had no reply. Our view on PAFT is quite simple, and we use the analogy of the head teacher. If a head teacher is going to introduce something new in the system, he should explain clearly to the staff of the school what is wrong with the existing arrangements and how the new arrangements will work better in the interests of the children and staff. That is something that Michael Ancram has singularly failed to do.

In the fourth paragraph I outline some of the particular problems. There is overlapping administration. The original paper produced by Michael Ancram actually pinpoints a serious weakness in the system. Controlled schools attended by Protestant children, generally in Belfast, have three education authorities in the Greater Belfast area, the North Eastern, Belfast itself and the South Eastern. The parents and children do not understand the boundaries between them, the boundaries are quite arbitrary and they mean nothing to them. There is no rationale or justification in the Belfast area, and that is one good example of the overlapping and inconsistent nature of the present system.

Then over the page we refer to the variations in budgets. I have touched on that already. At (c) we refer to less financial accountability. In my office I can show you the pile of documentation that we get from the education and library boards, the outturn statements, LMS outturn statements — they are colossal. They give us useful information not only on the budgets that come to schools but on how the money is dispersed and how it is spent, whether the schools are overspent or underspent. It is a colossal amount - it would stretch from here to the ceiling quite easily in the few years of LMS. A similar pile dealing with voluntary grammar schools and integrated schools reach no more than an inch or so. All we get from the Department is the money given to those schools, we are not told anything about how the money is spent and, when we ask questions, we are rapped over the knuckles, we are told, like naughty little boys, that it is not part of our business.

That is not acceptable. These schools are funded out of public money, the integrated sector and the voluntary grammar, and they should be accountable. This raises a further issue about voluntary grammar schools, and that is the strange way in which they are given exemption from rates. Ordinary Catholic maintained schools and controlled schools are subject to paying rates. The typical rates bill for a fairly average secondary intermediate school is about £100,000 a year. Why is it that the voluntary grammar schools are given that exemption allegedly on the grounds of their having charitable status? If a voluntary grammar school can be given voluntary status and exempted from rates, why not the secondary intermediate school or the primary school?

I have already touched on (d) to a certain extent, and (e) touches on the argument about unfair redeployment arrangements. The redeployment arrangements for teachers are restricted to the authority in which they are employed, and teachers in a voluntary grammar school can only be redeployed within their own school. There is no effective central authority for the 50 grammar schools, so if there is a redundancy in your school, and it is a compulsory redundancy, your chances of redeployment are virtually nil. If, however, you are in a controlled school, the variation in the situation is amazing. For example, Belfast has 11 secondary schools on its list including controlled grammar schools. So if someone is faced with compulsory redundancy in a secondary school in Belfast, the number of schools in which he can be redeployed is no more than 10, 11 minus his own school. In the

North East there are 28 controlled schools so a teacher faced with compulsory

redundancy in that board area has the possibility of being redeployed in any one

of 27 schools. But look at another example in Belfast. Take a teacher in Castle

High School faced with redundancy — hypothetical I assure you, I am not going to quote names. If he is going to look for redeployment, what are his options? On one side is Mount Gilbert in Ballygomartin and on the other side is Ashfield. That is the extent of the redeployment available to him. The same teacher in a Catholic school, say Corpus Christi on the Falls Road, because his education authority is the Down and Connor Diocese of the CCMS has a possibility of redeployment from as far north as Coleraine to as far south as Kilkeel. Where is the equity and fairness in that?

I will skip over the duplication of support services for the moment — you may wish me to come back to it. We believe that a central education authority would be stronger and able to resist the Government much more effectively than the present system of eight authorities which is an open recipe for dividing and conquering. As far as the ethos of schools are concerned, by coming under one overall umbrella, they would not suffer. The voluntary schools and the Catholic voluntary schools were given 100% funding for capital expenditure about two years ago. Has that seriously affected their status? In no way do I think would their status would suffer from coming under the umbrella of an overall authority on which there was adequate representation of the various interests, the elected councils, the nominated representatives and so on.

Point 7, touches on the divisions. No matter how you redistribute in Northern Ireland, you end up with divisions. We believe that an overall authority would get round all of them. Just think of the controversy identified by SACHR two or three years ago in that respect. It would deal with the feeling, or the perceived feeling of discrimination that controlled and maintained schools have regarding voluntary grammar schools at the moment, or indeed integrated schools. The feeling is that integrated schools are put to the top of the queue, if you like, for capital expenditure. And it would also deal with any perceived discrimination that those west of the Bann feel about those east of the Bann or that those in the rest of Northern Ireland feel about those in the Belfast area.

We do not believe that the argument advanced for having local authorities close to the area is a really convincing one. If you argue that you would be arguing about going back, with respect, to what the situation was before McCrory because eight authorities would be even closer to the ground. And why not go beyond that to 10 or 15? In the age of information technology, with sophisticated communications now, computer, e-mail, fax, and sophisticated telephone systems, it is possible to co-operate effectively within the Northern Ireland area on a split-site basis. Schools have demonstrated that they can do that. FE colleges have introduced very effective communication systems to show that the new colleges can operate on split-site campus. Finally, schools and FE colleges have shown that they can rationalize and streamline in the interests of the education of the children. Why should administration be over and beyond that? The one issue that should unite all of us is having the best system so that we can to give our young people the best

education and training to equip them to compete fairly with their colleagues, their counterparts from whatever part of Europe or indeed the world.

Mr French: I would like to deal with further education. I should explain that I was in further education for over 30 years and I was made redundant as a result of the rationalization that has taken place. The boards started to divest themselves of administration work when they introduced LMS and LMC. With LMC the colleges and, indeed, the schools, of course, had to manage their own budgets. They had to arrange their own purchases, make their own appointments, handle hiring and firing, and a lot of local management has resulted in work being devolved from the boards. The report of the Stewart review group on further education recommended a rationalization of the colleges and as a result of that rationalization the number of colleges was reduced from 24 to 17 by a series of mergers. There were no mergers in the west, but in the other board areas there were several. For instance, in the North East eight colleges were reduced to four.

Over the three years since Stewart, between 250 and 300 full-time lecturing posts have gone out of the FE system. Many of these have gone, like my own, through redundancy or through not replacing staff on resignation or retirement. Now, there is no doubt that that has led to greater efficiency in certain areas. But the unions, not only ours but the other recognized unions, entered into these mergers on the understanding that greater funding would be made available to the colleges. Stewart identified some 10 areas in which the colleges were underresourced. I have a statement here that lists the funding areas that Stewart acknowledged. He said that conditions in most colleges were extremely poor, not at all in keeping with what is expected of a tertiary-level institution. Additional recouped capital resources are urgently needed. He saw poor and inadequate maintenance work in colleges, painting and repairs neglected, dampness, dull and dreary decor, out-of-date, or non-existing, name boards and school type furnishings and fittings — an image of FE being run down and making do.

The Chairman: We are all aware of the state of FE colleges.

Mr French: Well, I am trying to make the point that the colleges have been pushed out on their own. A lot of the responsibility for the administration of the colleges has been devolved from the boards. In fact, we are now coming up to the imminent incorporation of the colleges where the colleges are going to be made independent corporations for which the boards will have no responsibility at all. Now we are opposed to incorporation and we made representations to each of the boards and sought their support for our view on this. But the boards would not co-operate with us. The boards were quite happy to see the colleges being taken away from them. That reduces the amount of funds that the boards have, it reduces the amount of work that the boards have and it pushes the work of personnel, accountancy, marketing, wages systems, computerized systems, legal processes, estate management and so on away from the boards and out to these 17 colleges.

Now, part of the argument for the incorporation of the colleges was that the rationalization process would save in costs and make management more efficient and so on. Well, our attitude really is that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If this work is taken away from the boards and there is a honed down administration system there, it should be possible for the boards themselves, along with the other education administration bodies, to rationalize. For instance, the purchasing function could be dealt with by one board, the accounting function could be dealt with by another board and the personnel, pensions and salaries and so on could be dealt with by another. We could have a central administrative system and still retain the five or six offices which we are concerned about in Omagh and Ballymena et cetera. The personnel involved there could be redeployed so that with a honed down system one administrative body could perform all the functions.

It would make life a lot easier for us, it would make life a lot easier for the schools, if we were dealing with one central body which had one set of policies instead of, as at the moment, having to deal with eight different sets of policies. There would be much more money available for the actual education of your children and our children, your grandchildren and our grandchildren. It is a shame today that so much money is sliced off to provide for what are essentially non-educational purposes.

The Chairman: You are for the regionalization of services in various locations round the province?

Mr McKee: Yes, that is our view.

The Chairman: This whole rationalization process — you said this incorporates all the players on the scene. In other words, it involves CCMS, the integrated schools system and the voluntary grammar schools — the whole works. Its starts from DENI, from Ancram's desk, right down to the chalk-face.

Mr McKee: In our view the Department, being a player in that game, is ineligible to carry out the inquiry.

The Chairman: In other words, DENI is involved from Permanent Secretary downwards, the whole way.

Mr McKee: One simple overall approach. To repeat what I said, the most important issue in this, more important than administration, jobs or teaching jobs, is the service provided to the children and students. That is why education was set up — it was not set up to perpetuate empires or to demonstrate political points.

The Chairman: You are aware of the working parties that have been set up to attempt regionalization of some things and the surprising figures that came up — whether deliberately or otherwise. As Churchill said, there are lies, damned lies and statistics. Were you amazed at what the regionalization working parties produced?

Mr McKee: We have not been consulted at all about them. We are aware of the working groups which are working quite hard. We would like to see some services operated on a Northern Ireland basis urgently. We believe, for example, that legal services and staff welfare services do not have to be operated by separate authorities. If they were operated right across Northern Ireland, you would concentrate resources in a meaningful way. Take the welfare scheme at the moment. It is operated by the five boards and there is a separate one for the CCMS.

The Chairman: What you are saying now is that there is duplication with so many school systems and everybody doing their own thing.

Mr McKee: Yes, and the resources made available are thin, as the North Eastern Board is attempting to operate it. But, as I understand its scheme, it is only able to offer four hours of counselling for staff who have serious problems. That is much too thin and if they were to concentrate their resources centrally and operate a central system it would work effectively.

The legal system for the area boards has been regionalized for some time — is

it any weaker for that?

Mr Bolton: The Minister's proposals, you will accept, are controversial. Yours are equally controversial. Do you think the time is right for any change of a controversial nature?

Mr McKee: The answer to that is that the time is not right until the Minister engages in a proper policy appraisal exercise, which he has failed to do. Now, we understand that some documentation may have come to you in the Forum. We are certainly not aware of it. Remember, we wrote to Pat Carvill asking for that. The consultation, or the exercise that Ancram is carrying out, is like that of a head teacher who believes that consultation simply consists of telling the staff what is going happen. That is not good enough.

Mr Hussey: The actual management structure — what are your proposals for that?

Mr McKee: Well, the exercise in the boards, in that sense, has proved to be a very useful one, with the caveat that we do not think that the Minister's powers to nominate should continue to exist. The proportion of representation at the moment would appear to be workable, but we would like to see people coming on as of right, in other words, elected representatives should come on without having to be nominated by the Minister and, equally, interested groups like recognized unions should have seats as of right without having to put forward names so that the Minister can pick the Minister's men and women.

Mr Hussey: You are aware that the present boards have 32/35 membership. The three-board model is to be 50/50/50. Are you suggesting that the management tier for that would be in the range of 100 to 150 people?

Mr McKee: No, we think that the numbers for the boards at the moment are sufficient to operate the system in Northern Ireland. Simply because there is a bigger area does not mean to say that you need a bigger board. The biggest school in Northern Ireland is St Louise's; its board of governors only has nine members, and it operates effectively. Simply because you make your board of governors bigger when you are managing a school, does not mean to say that the school is better managed.

Mr Hussey: So it would be a board or a —

Mr McKee: We would use the term education authority, yes.

Mr Hussey: An education authority representative of the entire district council areas of Northern Ireland. Containing how many people?

Mr McKee: Well, we do not have figures for the precise number that would be needed, but we would not seriously quibble with the breakdown of the representation on the boards at the moment.

Mr Hussey: The present representation is 69. I think it is proposed that 72 councillors should service the three boards.

Mr McKee: The point I am making is I would not want it to become unwieldy. Obviously you would have to make arrangements for the new interests which would be the voluntary grammar, the integrated schools and the CCMS. There would have to some provision for those. But we would certainly not want it to be an unwieldy body by any stretch of the imagination. The only point we would make strongly is that we are against the principle of nomination by the Minister to education and library boards.

Mr Hussey: The present boards allow elected representation of around 42%, I think. They still allow for a high degree of local accountability. That could be lost in the sort of set-up that you are talking of. What is your view on that?

Mr McKee: The difficulty about local accountability is that when you come close to the grass roots, there is nowhere closer than boards of governors. And here is another worrying development, and that is the apathy shown by parents in the elections of parents governors. That is a profoundly worrying aspect of the scheme. Do you argue that because you bring administration down to a particular area you get better local administration?

It may appear in theory to be a sound argument, but in practice we are finding that parents are not coming forward to the elections. More and more parents are reluctant to come forward and serve on boards of governors. We do not devalue the argument, but we would say that the crisis in that respect is already being experienced at individual school level. I think it is appalling that so many parent governors are selected not by election, because there is no quorum at the meetings called to conduct the elections, but are put on by some peculiar sort of nomination. We are not quite certain how it works, but these parents turn up. To be quite honest, they do not have the same credentials in the eyes of the staff of the school that a democratically elected parent governor has.

Mr Hussey: Do you also agree that there is a problem getting teacher governors in some cases?

Mr McKee: Yes.

Mr Hussey: Because of the responsibilities that are put on governors?

Mr McKee: Yes.

Mr Hussey: If we take that up to board level, at least there you have people who are representatives of other bodies. Therefore, it is the body that they are representing, rather than they themselves, who can carry the can if something goes wrong. Is there not a need for that slight distancing?

Mr McKee: Yes, I agree fully because an individual who comes on without the protection of a representative body is in an exposed position and must feel that it is not worth the candle to continue with the increase in degrees of responsibility.

Mr Hussey: So it is a question of how far you distance yourself.

Mr McKee: True. The local accountability issue is one that we are aware of. We still believe that it can be exercised within the Northern Ireland structure, but if you are going to tackle it, we would respectfully suggest that you look also at the way in which democratic accountability is developing at a board of governors level. There are disturbing trends there, Mr Chairman.

The Chairman: I could not agree with you more. Thank you sincerely for coming and also for the content of your presentation. At least someone is prepared to take a different route.

Witnesses:

Mr B Campfield and Ms E Duffy

(Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance)

The Chairman: Thank you very much for coming.

We have been charged by the Forum to examine and report on the administrative changes in education from five boards to three.

Mr Campfield: My name is Brian Campfield. I am an assistant secretary with the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance. Thank you for the opportunity to make an oral presentation. You have a copy of the submission.

I want to concentrate on some issues and to try and focus on them a bit immediately. Firstly, in NIPSA, we organize and represent the vast bulk of administrative, clerical, technical, executive and professional staff within the five education and library boards. It is the main trade union covering that area. NIPSA is opposed to the Minister's decision for two reasons: the decision itself, and the basis of it, and the manner in which the decision was taken, and that relates to the consultative process and the history to this. I would like to deal firstly with the decision itself.

The point of departure that we take is whether there is any educational justification for the Minister's decision. Since the Minister announced his proposals for change in 1995 relating to the reduction to the number of boards from five to four, we have been asking the Department of Education and the Minister to provide us with the educational rationale behind his decision and for him to demonstrate how his new system that he proposes to implement is going to provide a better system of education for the community in Northern Ireland, and particularly for young people.

Now it is our view that the onus and the obligation really rests with the Minister to do that. Our view is that the current five-board system has worked relatively well and has been fairly successful over this last 20-odd years. It has been fairly successful in a situation which has not been easy. We have had a lot of community tension and a lot of violence, and I think that the one thing that can be said about the five education and library boards is that they have got on with their business irrespective of the political affiliations of people who sit on boards, or, for that matter, people who work on boards.

Given that the system has worked relatively well, the onus, in our view, is on the Minister to justify his decision. If he can demonstrate that there are educational benefits which will be translated on the ground to young people and others who are recipients of education in Northern Ireland or who are involved in the educational process, then, I think, anybody, including trade unions, who may stand to lose members or whose members may be redundant, would have to examine those. If there are overwhelming arguments then, clearly, we would have to defer to the argument. But, in all the documentation that Mr Ancram has provided, we have not detected any educational justification for his decision.

The two arguments that have been used to date by the Minister have been financial and developments over this last number of years in the education and library service. In relation to the latter he has argued that with the advent of local management of school and local management of colleges, with the creation of CCMS and with the planned incorporation of further education, that really, given the remaining functions that boards have to carry out, there is no reason or justification for having five boards to do that, and that three boards can do it just as well.

Our view would be that that argument is superficial. There is a superficial attractiveness in it, but really it is a formal type of argument. There is no real content in it. If you apply the same logic, if boards were to have more functions, then the logic of that argument is that there should be more than five education and library boards. It does not automatically follow that because the functions of a board are reduced that you need less boards in order to administer what remains. While there may be a superficial attractiveness in the argument, I think there is an obligation on the Minister to spell out in a real, concrete form exactly how his changes are going to benefit the system.

It seems to us that his decision on further education colleges, and for the

incorporation and the establishment of what will be 17 distinct independent corporate bodies with the ability to run their affairs, in fact undermines his argument that he is trying to rationalize and cut back on administration and bureaucracy, because each individual further education college — in theory anyway — is going to have its own personnel function, its own accounts function, pay its own salary and wages, look after all its own affairs and particularly it will need to have access to legal advice.

A lot of these functions are currently provided and pooled through the boards and the further education colleges use these. So we believe that there is a gap between his plans for further education and the rationale for that, and that with his decision to reduce a number of boards in corporation of colleges he will be creating a bigger bureaucracy. From our point of view, as a trade union which organizes administrators and clerical people, we may say that is fine because we stand to recruit more members. But the reality, in our view, is that you need a proper balance between the teaching and the non-teaching roles within further education colleges. Our view is that it is quite likely that the balance of resources within further education colleges will be shifted to some degree towards the administrative and support ends as opposed to the direct teaching ends.

So we see there being an inconsistency in the approach that the Minister has taken in further education and in respect of the number of boards.

The second argument that he has made relates to the financial savings that are likely to be made.

We have asked the Department, on a number of occasions, for the economic appraisal upon which the decision was based. We know that the Minister has stated that it is likely that by moving to a three-board model there will be savings in the region of £2m per annum. As you will be aware from our submission, this represents less than one quarter of one per cent of the budget of the five education and library boards. Even if the £2m were to be saved, the degree of upheaval that is likely to be created by the abolition of five boards and the creation of three boards is much more destructive than the previous four-board proposal because that involved really only two boards, and to some extent the Southern Board because of the proposed move of the Down District Council area to the Southern Board.

But this is a complete disruption of all five boards, and the work of all five boards. In balancing the upheaval and the disruption that is likely to be caused against the suggested savings, we think there is a judgment to be made there, but that it is not really worth it, and that it does not make sense to proceed on that basis.

But we will also take the view from our experience of public service reorganization over the years that, in the first number of years, it costs money rather than saves money. We have not any figures because the Department is the body which has access to the figures. We understand that they have been in front of the Committee and they have provided some documents to the Committee. They are not, as far as I am aware, in the public domain.

On that issue may I could say that if the Department had provided at the very early stage during the consultative process the sort of information that may have been provided to yourselves, both in relation to the economic appraisal and in relation to the policy appraisal fair treatment guidelines, then it would have been quite possible for a much more public debate to have taken place. We now have a situation where people are working to an eleventh-hour deadline for your interim Report. The Minister needs to publish the Draft Order in Council by some time in October. I think mid-October is the last deadline by which they need to publish the Order in order for it to go through the last section of Parliament of this particular Government anyway.

I think it is completely unsatisfactory that the Department can provide detailed information to yourselves which still, in some respects, is not in the public domain for public discussion, and expect yourselves and everybody else to analyse and assess the implications and the authenticity of the information that it has supplied. An analysis of that information cannot necessarily be done very quickly. It would have been much better, and I think much more democratic, had that sort of information been placed in the public domain at an early stage so that everyone with an interest in this issue could at least have been working on the same basis. It is unfortunate that this was not the case.

As far as the £2 million is concerned, I understand that the Southern Education and Library Board expressed the view to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions at a meeting that we had with it that it will cost them £2 million each year for the first three years to implement this decision. I not sure whether or not that information is in the public domain but that is what we understand the Southern Board view is that this decision will cost it, and, given the recent publicity about British Airways and the downsizing and restructuring that it is involved in, together with the cost of redesigning the logo and repainting the aeroplanes and all the different equipment, there is also the whole issue of new logos for new boards. It is going to cost many thousands of pounds to repaint buses, vans and other equipment and redesign the logos. A question also arises about the cost of the whole exercise that the Department has undertaken over the last number of years. All of that has yet to be appraised economically and we remain to see the economic appraisal that the Department has produced if, in fact, it is available. The second element of the decision that we are unhappy about is the manner in which it was made.

Last year we all know that there was public consultation on the proposal to move from five boards to four boards. The people those proposals would primarily have affected were those in the South Eastern Education and Library Board and the Belfast Education and Library Board. The people in the communities in the Belfast and the South Eastern areas were given an opportunity to consider the proposals and to feed into the Government's decision. A campaign was organized in the South Eastern Education and Library Board area, and a lot of people with an education interest became involved and the Minister deferred making a decision on the number of boards.

The people in those areas had an opportunity of engaging with the Department. That cannot be said about the people in the Western Education and Library Board area or the people in the North Eastern Education and Library Board area. If you lived in the Western Board area or the North Eastern Board area, and I suppose to some extent in the Southern Board area, it would not have been unreasonable for someone in those areas to have laboured on under the impression that as the four-board proposal was up for consultation, the integrity and the continued existence of those boards was not in question. The people in those areas would have had a legitimate expectation that they were not going to be affected by the Minister's decision. The initial anger and shock and the feelings which followed reflect the fact that people in those areas were sitting there and not making much noise about the Minister's four-board proposal because they did not see themselves as being directly affected. Then, out of the blue, came this more extreme decision to reduce the number of boards to three.

I think the way in which that decision was made without giving the people in the Western, North Eastern and Southern board areas an opportunity to consider the proposals, to be presented with what looks very much like a fait accompli, says a lot about the way in which the Department and the Minister have handled this decision. There was a legitimate expectation by people in those areas that they would not be touched and that their boards would remain intact. That has not materialized and it is up to the Government to go back to the drawing board and provide for a proper period of consultation on their decision.

As a trade union we would also take the view that it is legitimate to look at education administration because, while we organize people in the administration end, the way in which education administration must surely be dictated and determined is by reference to what is best for the people who require education. We do not, as a matter of principle, have any hard and fast notions about the number of boards that are required. What we would say is that the five boards have worked reasonably well and no public administration is perfect and really the obligation is on the Minister to justify and demonstrate how his decision is going to result in additional resources and a better education system for people in Northern Ireland, and he has failed to do that.

We have very strongly taken the view that there should be no major changes to the organization of public administration, including education, until such times as the local political parties can agree to some political structures for the future of Northern Ireland, and while a number of months ago that may have been a more optimistic view to take, we still take the view that that is not unreasonable. The Minister in many ways has the choice of demonstrating that he is either operating as a colonial master and disregarding completely the views of all the political parties or that he is a statesman, by accepting the vast bulk of informed opinion in Northern Ireland on these issues. I think he has the choice.

Unfortunately, at this stage he is intent on proceeding to implement his decision irrespective of the vast bulk of opinion in Northern Ireland, and we find that regrettable.

I will just leave it there. You do have our document and I hope it is a synopsis as opposed to an elaboration of what we have said.

The Chairman: I have read your document carefully, I find it extremely interesting and it makes a very important contribution. You are really saying that it is for the Minister to be a statesman and let the people of Northern Ireland sort this out. You are not against a review or anything like that provided it is a proper and detailed review?

Mr Campfield: Basically, that is our position.

Mr McMichael: I have a quick question about regionalization. Is it not sound to have this service in a central location rather than having offices duplicating the business?

Mr Campfield: The Department originally identified six areas for regionalization as you are aware, and concluded that savings were only to be made in respect, possibly, of three and that further work has to be carried out even in those three areas. The three areas that they will proceed to do further work on are purchasing, student awards and architectural services. Now the best example, I suppose, from our point of view is student awards. We take the view that student awards is a function which is based in each board area and which requires there to be people on the ground to deal with the public. It is important that the public, students and their families, have direct access across the counter with the public servants who administer the grants system; we think there is a lot of value in that. Even if they were to move to a centralization approach, it is our view that they would inevitably have to have people out in the localities to deal with communities and individual students who have queries because there is no substitute for people being able to go into their local public service office and deal with a public servant directly. It is much more satisfactory than a telephone call to, say, Belfast or Ballymena or wherever a regionalized function might be located. We see major drawbacks in a regionalized service for student awards: it would reduce the service and reduce the direct access that individuals have to board officers who are involved in processing and working out their student grants. That is one example.

In relation to architectural services and, possibly, purchasing, I understand that local schools take the view that close access to people dealing with the architectural services and boards being locally available is preferable to their being more remotely based. There is more work to be done on purchasing, student awards and architectural services and we are certainly very much of the view that student awards should not be regionalized. We are certainly not happy with the proposal for architectural services and purchasing. However, I do not think it is for us to defend the current set-up — if the thing is not broken, we generally take the view that it should not be dismantled and something else put in its place.

There is an obligation on someone to say “Look, this is the better system. This is why it will be better and this is what it will mean in real terms to people on the ground”. The unfortunate thing in this debate is that last year Michael Ancram and the Department produced a document for all the political parties in which he threw the ball back into the political parties' courts and asked them to tell him how to do it more efficiently or better. That was grossly unfair and it represented in some ways a political sleight of hand. He was not able to justify what he was proposing and he wanted the political parties to come up with an alternative system.

It is certainly your responsibility to look at these issues and develop alternatives but not within his timescale or with the restrictions that he was working with, and that is the unfortunate aspect.

The Chairman: Maybe the working parties did come out with those with lowest cost figures, but there is no proof that goods or service could be delivered in accordance with them. Even on purchasing, an expert opinion is very doubtful whether you become any more effective because you become a certain size. There is still a great deal of uncertainty. In other words, there is a fair old difference between theory and practice. But the other point is that quality of service was not really the ball-park figure.

Mr Campfield: A point worth considering is this: if the Minister is saying that the reduced functions that the boards now have justifies his decision to move to a reduced number of boards, and he decides to regionalize or agentize a number of the services within the boards, that assists his argument. It gives his argument additional weight, and there may be some suggestion that the identification of services for regionalization and possibly agentization was part of an overall plan to strip the boards of their functions so that the Department could come along at a later stage and ask whether, since the boards do not really do that much, there is a need for five boards in Northern Ireland to administer the remaining functions.

Mr Hussey: What is your view of the fact that, according to what we can gather, not all the players in education administration have been included in the Minister's deliberations — for example, CCMS and, specifically, the Department itself?

Mr Campfield: Well, we as a union have members within the staff of the Department of Education as well. Our view is that initially, when the Minister announced his complete review of education administration, it was the intention to include everyone, the Department as well, but as it developed the Department of Education was conveniently omitted as were CCMS and some of the other sectors. Our view is that if a comprehensive review is to take place of education administration in Northern Ireland, it has to include everybody and every aspect of it.

It is only by including all the players that you can come up with some balanced and worthwhile decision, because if you do exclude a part, you are inevitably going to come up with answers which fall short of being the proper solutions, so we basically concur that a proper review should include everybody.

Mr Hussey: If the Minister's proposal becomes a decision and is enacted, obviously the five boards will go, and three will be reconstituted and all your members in the system are going to be affected. Have you calculated the potential job losses for your membership?

Mr Campfield: We have been very reluctant to identify a particular number.

Mr Hussey: Would you be prepared to guestimate?

Mr Campfield: Initially we met with officials from the Department of Education at the time the proposals for change were made, and they indicated to us that the number of people working in administration who would be affected would be relatively small. If in fact this decision is implemented, which we hope it will not be, we will be happy to remind the Department that that is what we were told.

From our point of view there is a danger in identifying numbers of posts or people who might be made redundant because that then sets an agenda, and we do not want to become victims of our own propaganda or our own view on these matters. Over time substantial numbers of people would be affected but we are very reluctant to say exactly how many — 100, 200.

Mr Hussey: You would dispute the Department's claim, then, that it would be a small number? You say it would be substantial.

Mr Campfield: We do.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: If it is demonstrated that the effect will be minimal — it is only going to affect the top tier of management — will you be happy with the change from five to three?

Ms Duffy: I am Emer Duffy, the seconded official for the South Eastern Board. We have had a long trip on this, longer than the rest of the boards, and I hope none of the other representatives minds my saying that.

No, the members of my branch would not be happy with that at all because this is not just an issue about the loss of jobs, it is about education and the right to free and properly resourced education. This is not just going to affect the members of NIPSA or any of the other unions involved. This is going to affect every house in Northern Ireland. It is a much bigger issue. Obviously we are concerned about jobs — we would not be trade unionists if we were not concerned for our members — but this is a much much wider issue than that, and there is a danger in being seen only to be looking after our own. We need to take it much more seriously than that.

We do not want anyone to have to lose his job at all, whatever his grade.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: Your union has a specific viewpoint. You would not be happy with the reduction from five to three. But there is a union which would like to see all the boards scrapped. So here we have division even among the trade unions. It is very difficult for the Government to take on board what the unions are saying if all the unions are not agreed about the way forward.

Mr Campfield: The Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the vast bulk of unions in education that are affiliated to ICTU take the view that they are opposed to this current decision. We have had our differences with the NASUWT over the years on some of these issues, but I think I can say that we are both opposed to the Minister's decision. I understand that the NASUWT also accepts that it is up to the Department and the Minister to justify his current decision, irrespective of what the views of NASUWT or some of the other unions like the association of teachers may be.

The obligation and the onus is on the Minister to justify his decision. If other people think that a one-board model is preferable, that is a matter which should be the subject of proper public debate with all the information on the table. But the fact is that all or the vast bulk of unions in the education area are against the Minister's decision. In fact NASUWT is also against the Minister's decision. It does not accept the three-board decision.

Rev Trevor Kirkland: If the Government come to the union and say “Here are all our tables, graphs and statistics to demonstrate the validity of our case”, will you accept it? Your complaint is that you were not consulted.

Mr Campfield: It is not that we were not consulted — it is a much broader issue than just the question of consultation with the trade unions and the impact upon our members. While it is our primary interest to defend our members, we also have social policies and views on public issues like education. We have our annual conference which deals with the wide range of social and public interest issues, and the primary reason we are opposed to this decision is that it has not been justified to date. If the Minister comes to us with overwhelming arguments, we will be overwhelmed. But he has not done that and, therefore, we have to take the view that he really must justify what he is doing. It is not up to us to justify it. The current system speaks for itself.

The Minister is quite adept at moving from the financial arguments when it suits him. Because people are saying that the savings are not going to be as much as £2 million, or they might not materialize for a number of years, he is quite able to move and say that it is not primarily the financial arguments that he is interested in. It is not a matter of redirecting resources to the coal-face or to the classroom, it is more to do with getting a rational structure. Now that is all very fine linguistically, but what does it mean in practice? What he is required to do is demonstrate how the system is going to be better. If it is only going to be the same in educational terms as the current one, there is no point. So he has to demonstrate that the new system is going to be an improved one, and from the information that we have, he has failed to do this.

The Chairman: I thank you again for the thoughtfulness of your presentation. Perhaps what has shocked some members was that it was not along some of the traditional union lines — you were mindful that education is a very valued asset.