|
Mr. Beggs: May I bring to the Minister's attention the situation of a young Vietnamese chef who came to this country with the boat people? Four years ago, he married a Vietnamese girl on a visit back home, and they have a baby. Although he was a British citizen, he could not get permission for his wife to enter the country because he had worked for years in the Chinese restaurant and catering industry in Northern Ireland and he could never get a monthly pay docket to show that he paid tax and that national insurance contributions had been made. He had to come to London to work for 14 months to provide me with the information needed to justify bringing over his wife and daughter. Thankfully, they arrived two weeks ago, but many more people may be in the same position. The multi-agency approach must bear the responsibility of ensuring that people are not being exploited.
Mr. Spellar: That is partly true, but the matter is slightly more complex than that. Some agencies may need to provide the necessary information speedily, but so does the individual. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office will require an individual who wants to bring a spouse into this country to provide evidence of their ability to maintain and accommodate themselves and their families. In some cases that will require a certificate from the local authority that states that it has inspected the premises, that there are a certain number of people there and that, under the legislation, an additional person could be housed. People working in a more irregular, casual business, as the catering business can be, sometimes have difficulty complying with the Home Office's requirement for evidence of a steady income. People on an irregular income are sometimes on benefit as well, and the Home Office naturally inquires about whether they would be able to sustain a family without recourse to public funds, which are obviously one of its prime considerations. Yes, there is a duty on the various state agencies to provide information to the relevant agency, but they have to make sure that the broader rules are complied with. I do not know about the particular case mentioned, but we need to understand the balance that needs to be struck.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North talked about a monitoring system across Europe. We are working closely with Home Office colleagues to ensure that we all gather the same information in the same way, so that we can make comparisons and proper contrasts not only within the United Kingdom but across Europe. We will take steps to ensure that the Europe-wide monitoring system is reflected in our systems.
My hon. Friend also inquired about the powers that we created and about what steps we were taking to ensure that the judiciary utilises those powers. In developing the policy proposals for legislation, we
Column Number: 047
fully included the courts of the wider judiciary in the consultation process. We have issued guidance on the new legislation as part of the implementation, and the Court Service provides training in new legislation for its staff. I should add a rider to that: sentencing in individual cases is, of course, a matter for the judiciary. We would not seek to intervene, nor would it be proper to do so. However, with the Lord Chief Justice we can create the broad ambits within which individual cases are decided.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South asked about the responsibility of employers in relation to recruitment to the health service. The health service in Northern Ireland, as in parts of Great Britain, has relied heavily on a number of countries for the provision of health professionals, particularly nursing staff. However, I am not sure how long such recruitment will be possible. Countries training their citizens to work in the health service are expressing understandable concerns about the number who work overseas and do not support their own country's health service. The health service in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere, has to take into account the fact that that supply may diminish—if not dry up—as a result of those countries' understandable reactions. However, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has produced best-practice guidance for boards that are recruiting from abroad.
I have given a brief survey of a number of issues raised. If I have missed any, I shall write to hon. Members about them. The discussion has been useful. I pointed out our basic dilemma about when to have the debate. I am sure that the issue that we have debated will be discussed again here, and within the political process in Northern Ireland. Today's debate has been a very useful part of that discussion.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the matter of a multi-agency approach to tackling racially motivated attacks and harassment in Northern Ireland.
Common Funding Formula (Education)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Committee do now adjourn.—[Vernon Coaker.]
5.26 pm
Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann) (UUP): I wish to address the question of the proposed common funding formula in education. In principle, we support the idea of a common funding formula, because the previous position of having seven different formulae was less than desirable. However, a common theme to the current proposals is that all sectors in education oppose them. At a recent meeting in my constituency, principals from a large number of schools from all sectors of education—primary, post-primary, controlled and maintained—were all critical. One principal described the proposals as ''a bucket of tripe'', but I am sure he was using the term colloquially and would not have used it professionally.
Column Number: 048
The objections raised come under four headings. The first is opposition to the use of free school meals as a measure to address educational need due to social disadvantage. The second is the introduction of a banding system to distribute targeting social need—TSN—funds. The third is targeting education funding based on perceived social need as opposed to educational need. The final and hugely significant objection is to the policy of robbing Peter to pay Paul—namely, taking money from post-primary education to alleviate the shortfall in the primary sector.
A key thing to bear in mind is that educational rather than social or any other need should be the paramount consideration for the Department of Education. I am sure that the Minister has heard the phrase, ''education, education, education'', but perhaps, as in so many other matters, Ministers think that the people of Northern Ireland are not entitled to the same consideration as those elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
There is a tendency to concentrate wrongly on equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. In doing so, the Department and the Northern Ireland Office are in breach of section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which clearly refers to equality of opportunity. In any basic approach to equality and human rights, there is clear and fundamental distinction between equality of opportunity and of outcome. The law pertaining to Northern Ireland is based on equality of opportunity, so that should be the objective rather than equality of outcome.
That point was underlined in a report on education in Northern Ireland by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights special rapporteur, Katarina Tomasevski. The report states:
''Much as elsewhere, a considerable investment would be necessary to equalise educational opportunities for all children. Such investment requires a clearly articulated definition of equality, the corresponding determination of means necessary for achieving it, and specification of accountability. The political agenda of negotiating power-sharing has influenced the human rights discourse, prioritising equality between 'the two communities' over equality of all individuals. The Equality Scheme for the Department of Education has defined its objective as enhancing 'equality of opportunity between groups in terms of outcomes.' Equality of outcomes has been critiqued by the European Court of Justice, and the Special Rapporteur recommends a review of the definition of equality by the criteria of international human rights law and European Community law.''
I hope that that recommended review is being undertaken. I underline the point that the emphasis should be on educational rather than social need. Indicators of educational performance would be the best basis on which to provide education funding.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Barry Gardiner): The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome. How does he see that fitting in with the other important point that he made, which is that we should use direct indicators such as educational need and underperformance? It is difficult to know what indicator of educational underperformance one would look to, other than an outcome, to assess the
Column Number: 049
different ways of improving performance. There tends to be at least a tension in what he says.
Mr. Trimble: I should like to reflect on what the Minister says, as I think he is getting confused on the matter. I shall come back to him on it.
I want to move on to how the Department is allocating 75 per cent. of TSN—which, as I mentioned, is one of the big problems—on the basis of free school meals. The Minister will recall our recent meeting in which the Department claimed that TSN was allocated on the basis of entitlement to free school meals. It became clear that that was quite wrong, and that the Department misunderstands the meaning of the term ''entitlement''. It was dealing with parental responses on forms that they complete and send in, but not all parents send in a form. Consequently, this is not a question of the entitlement of all persons in terms of their circumstances.
Indeed, there is a variety of practice in Northern Ireland with regard to the forms. In some schools, forms are issued automatically to all parents, but in others they are available only to parents who ask for them. There is clearly a differential in the take-up of the form and of meals. That is not entitlement; it is application, and there is a fundamental distinction between the two.
I am surprised that the Department thinks that application equals entitlement. That is a fundamental mistake, and it is not the only one. I have already mentioned the distinction between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity. That is another point on which one wonders about the intellectual basis of the approach to the policy.
|
