17/10/2013 The View

. Hello and welcome to The View. Tonight, he's extended consult

Australia on school funding for another week, but is Johndude's

proposed Commons funding scheme for our primary schools robbing Peter to

pay Paul? The Education Minister Johns me live in the sty along with

the principal who stands to lose thousands from his budget and the

Head of One of the main teaching unions here.

Under pressure - it's the toughest of all the ministerial portfolios

they say. We profile the Health Minister, Edwin Poots, but is he

always getting the best advice? He wants to remember, as the man who

goes from crisis to crisis, that let him carry on. If he wants to be

remembered for the great things he has done and the good work that he

has done, he should really stop and think. And, analyse that. We are

join bid two familiar faces in Commentators' Corner, Paul McFadden

and Alex Kane. Plus the weekly alternative analysis.

Find out what Stormont's men do all day, plus how I can help Rory

McIlroy improve his golf form. You can follow us on Twitter.

First toppite, primary school funding, consultation on

controversial proposed changes was due to end tomorrow, but this

afternoon, the Education Minister, John O'Dowd, said he's extended it

for another week. Primary schools face cuts, the cuts are aimed at

giving more support to those in deprived areas, with free school

meals used a does barometer. Are they right that it's unfair?

You are all very welcome to the programme. Minister, let me ask you,

a lot of parents and principals are concerned at the impact your

proposals would have on their schools if they're carried through.

Are you prepured to listen to them? Yes. We have not made any final

decisions. This is a genuine consultation. We have had over 6,000

responses thus far and I welcome that. I'm also appealing for

alternatives and public challenge, particularly to the political

parties to come forward with alternatives.

We have to look at the system currently, Mark. I believe it's

unfair that if you are on free school meals, you have only a 34%

chance of achieving a good education. If you are not on free

school meals, you have a 68% chance. We have to crack that. We have to

crack that in terms of education and we have to tackle social

deprivation. There are 832 primary schools here,

deprivation. 669 stand to lose out currently, 163

stand to gain if you adopt this funding formula, so 80% of schools

will be worse off, whatever you are trying to do. That's not working?

First of all, we haven't included the 15.8 million extra that's going

into the system next year, so all schools will see a rise in the

funding. The question we haven't finalised is how we divide up the

monies across the schools. If we were talking about health, we

will have put the most resours unto the hospitals facing the most

pressures. That would make common-sense. We talk about road

safeties, we put road safety measures on the roads with the most

accidents. In our education system, we have schools that face greater

challenges than other schools. That's a harsh reality. We have to

back that up. What is wrong with that? Nothing. I

fully support the principle that the minister is trying to get to, to

address social depravation and social attainment. You cannot do

that and have children in 80% of primary schools across the north

having a loss of reduction to their school budget. So what really we are

looking for the minister to do, and I'm pleased to hear him say that

it's an open and transparent consultation, he wants to hear what

we have to say and we welcome that. What we are looking to do is make

sure that that happens, the principle happens, but that there

are no losers in this. How would your school lose out these current

recommendations are carried through? According to the figures, and I know

the minister said it's ?15.8 million coming in, but we have to work off

the budget figures we were given as part of the consultation process. We

would have lost ?40,000 this year. In the immediate impact of that, it

wouldn't have been felt, but if that was something that happened each

year, eventually when there are cuts, you have to make changes

somewhere and you have to address that, I listened to a principal

today say if she got an extra ?90,000, she would employ more

teachers, cut down class sizes, fan it is a tuck. If that's the positive

outcome of getting more, the opposite of that is even chillily

class sizes rise -- even can chillily. -- eventually.

You think you would have to lose members of staff if this went ahead?

That is a potential outcome of losing ?40,000 each year, year on

year. So the argument is that you are effectively replacing one

inequality with another? No, we are not. I emphasise this again. That

?15 million has to filter through the system. The schools are working

on the figures we give them and Thunderball react to the figures. As

I said earlier, if we recognise an international research reck newses

that the children from a lower social economic background face a

greater challenge in education than those who're not, we have to

resource that and correct that inequality. We have to equip the

schools and the young people to have a good education. If we don't, the

people will more likely be unemploy and we'll pay for it. But he is not

disagreeing with that. He says the problem is, you are doing it the

wrong way? We have to take that from the pot of money we have. I'll

continue to lob which t excelling executives. If a hospital faces a

cry suss, we put more money in. Some schools Faws challenges more than

others so we have to put the money in. What about socially deprived

children in Michael's school. How many are on free school meals? Your

school? 16%. 16% is... We are still going to fund the school. There's

going to be a significant amount of funding going into the school.

There's still going to be a significant amount... The principle

calm down to the consultation event on Monday nights -- principal. Paul

Sheridan talked about a school in Derry, 36% of his children in

receipt of school meals and his budget was going to lose ?16,000.

That makes no sense. The children there with an

entitlement to free school meals are the same as the children in any

other area and in my school... Do you accept that makes no sense? How

do you defend that? I'll cover that point this way. The

consultation covers other areas where we want to make changes. We

want to make changes to funding which is given to the scald for the

size of the school. We also fund currently for sports facilities in a

school. That funding should go simply to pupils. That's thrown up

an anomaly. That's one thing that's arose during the consultation. It's

a fact in certain schools and we have to correct it. The amount of

money coming in to uncrease for the AWPU doesn't match the amount that's

been taken out for building work. Let us bring you in. What do the

teaching unions make of this? Do you agree with what the minister is

trying to do? Do you think he's approaching it in the right way or

do you agree with Michael in that the execution is wrong? We believe

that there should be more money spent as a minister is attempting to

do in this review on children coming from socially deprived backgrounds.

It's a simple case of addressing need. The impact of what's being

proposed here, and we accept that what's on the table here are only

proposals, but the impact of the proposals is that taking primary and

post-primary schools across the entire north here, 62% will find

themselves in a worse financial state than they are currently in.

They are already operating very close to the red line in terms of

the funding that they require. For us, that will translate, as

Michael says, into a loss of jobs, be they teaching or indeed amongst

our non-teaching colleagues in the end. Cumulatively, the cuts are over

a number of years going to result in staff rezhunings which will result

a number of years going to result in in the increase in class sizes.

Breakfast breakfast But you speak for the INTO and you speak on behalf

of other unions who're all in agreement on this? Everyone in the

Trade Union movement are very concerned that the proposals if

carried or modified from what is on the table at the moment will result

in job losses. From a professional point of view, because the INTO is a

professional organisation, we'll see increases in class sizes as well.

That will impact as well in respect to the children's learning. Would

you not see job losses in some schools losing out but recruitment

in some, would it not balance itself out? No, it may not. But it might?

No, I don't accept that at all. Already schools are struggling. Fuad

just downwards across 62% of the sector, the higher education sector,

the net result is a loss in jobs. How do you respond to that? You will

lose jobs and class uses will get bigger? I understand the concerns,

but we'd not lose jobs because you are spending the money in a

different way. We are proposing to spend it in a different way and

share it out in a different way. We'll still require the teachers to

teach the classes, we'll still require classroom assistants and the

additional support. It may be in a different setting than it previously

was, I accept that. Which would mean a lot of upheaval? Well, we have to

challenge this head-on. 34% chance of succeeding in education. Can this

society afford to go down that path? Is that the best way to judge

schools that are in need? Bristol university, as I understand it,

carried out very detailed research and found free school meals to be "a

course and unreliable indicator to judge school performance". Said it

leads to biassed research. judge school performance". Said it

It was carried out on the English model.

There is a much lower brackets for our returns of qualifying for free

school meals in England than there is here.

You are very defunsive. Free school meals will be the un-Kator. That

will remain the case -- un-Kator. It's a blunt instrument. How can it

be? ! Free school meals, I agree with the principle. But children can

have additional needs who're not entitled to free school meals. To

have that as the soul amount of money -- sole amount of money or

usage of how you fund giving additional needs to schools is

wrong. Free school meals does not necessarily e-Kuwait to being needy.

The you agree with that? -- equate. The problem fundamentally here is we

are talking about the adjustment within a tight financial envelope.

What we need here is auditional funding. I heard the chair of the

education can committee and I heard politicians over the course of the

debate this week saying we need additional funding. That's what we

need to do, we need to get more money into the system. Minister, you

said you were getting some more money, but there are clearly a lot

of parents and unit youens -- unions not happy. You said you are

listening. Are you prepared to say on this programme that you may come

back with significantly modified proposals that would see schools

like Michael's not losing out so much? I'm prepared to say that the

principle of targeting social need will remain. How we target that

social need is up for discussion, the consultation responses are

continuing to come in, and I want to be able to ensure that all our

schools are properly funded. I'm here to takele social deprivation

and ensure all people have equal opportunities.

Thank you very much. Now, the controversy over new

abortion guidelines is just the latest to involve the Health

Minister, Edwin Poots. Last week, a High Court judge found against him

over his refusal to allow gay men to donate blood here.

Some argue he's done a good job in one of the most difficult posts.

This report on a minister under pressure sure.

If I broke the ministerial code, it was unwittingly. It's been a not so

quiet week in the life of Edwin Poots, Health Minister, accused of

breaking the ministerial code by a High Court judge and criticised by

gay rights grouped, underided by political opponents. Will the many

now apologise? Will he lift the ban and stop taking idiotic

challenges... THE SPEAKER: Order, order.

Edwin Poots is unbowed. Controversial is nothing new.

There was the time he got thrown out of the BBC for confronting Gerry

Adams on Question Time. Or the time he and Ian Paisley

junior got arrested at a dinner in Washington for heckling the

Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, during a speech. Or the time he took on

pro-agreement union USes on a referendum rally in Lisburn.

This former Sinn Fein councillor and MLA had many battles with Edwin

Poots on Lisburn Council, but later got to work with him more closely.

On the monitoring group that was set up to look at the proposals,

particularly the stadium and the listed buildings in the peace

centre, we worked fairly well together on that there. I think he

realised that if he wanted the stadium brought to Lisburn, he had

to work with Sinn Fein. So he worked that, yes, and I don't think there

were any problems. Support for the stay yum is said to have caused

Edwin Poots his first job. His appointment as Health Minister

showed how much his stock had recovered. Health is widely warded

as the -- regarded as the most difficult job in the executive and

many will tell you Edwin Poots has handed it well, except when it comes

to high profile controversies where critics claim he's allowed his

judgment to be clouded by his fundamentalist beliefs.

He denied his religious principles had anything to do with it.

This is not an issue of religious sty or moral views. This is an issue

of public safety. Others are not convinced.

Edwin Poots is a very bright guy. He's an able minister. He does have

a few blind spots, that's the problem, but he said he'd bring

fresh eyes to health and he did that. You couldn't say he's a badly

performing minister overall, that. You couldn't say he's a badly

when he gets on to the issues about which he

convictions, he can sometimes let his heart rule his head. He for

instance believes the earth was made 4,000 years ago. That's how old it i

helpings, although there's fossil records and scientific consensuses

and no scientists would agree with him. You need to sometimes question

his beliefs. He's a minister who's someone that you don't have to view

his conversations as difficult. He puts his cards on the table Jaysed

upwards and you can hear what he's saying. You might not agree but at

least he's straightforward in discussion. He rubbed some people up

the wrong way? He has some strong preferences. He's not on his own in

Northern Ireland, but he's probably in a minority and that's a set of

circumstances we have to adjust to. What do the health professionals

say? We asked this man, one of Northern Ireland's leading

obstetricians. He's concerned not only about the new abortion

guidelines pub lushed earlier this year, but also the ban on gay men

giving blood. For now he's not blaming Edwin Poots

-- published. If he comes out and says, I decided that myself, that

would be wrong. I would say he was incorrect there. I don't believe he

did. I believe that within his group around him, he must have had people

who've told him that it was wrong and he listened to them.

Maybe he's listened to the wrong people. It would be the same as the

abortion guidelines on gays. He should speak to the right people. So

at the moment, the person to blame, in your opinion, is not necessarily

the Health Minister, but some people that were giving him advice? I'm not

blaming them. I think he's a very hard working man, I like what he's

doing about the thing on major decisions about closing units that

aren't efficient and for redesignating units and for waiting

list initiatives. He's done extremely well. He's taken brave

list initiatives. He's done decisions. I don't know who he's

getting advice from. If I find myself in trouble as much as he

does, that's when I would question it. It depends what way he wants to

be remembered. If he wants to be remembered as a man qho goes from

crisis to crisis, let him carry on. If he wants to be remembered for all

the great things he has done, and the good work that he has done, he

should really stop and think, am I surrounding myself by the right

people and always getting the right advice and am I using it in the best

way possible? Maybe we all need to occasionally think, am I letting my

personal religious, cultural, whatever views, interfere with the

way I'm thinking. On the Kay of his appointment, Peter Robinson said

he'd replace Mr Poots. -- on the day of his appointment.

Edwin Poots was in the spotlight again today with the director of

public prosecutions making it clear that anyone who helps a woman to go

to Britain for an abortion is not committing a crime. A termination is

legal there, but prohibited here, except in a few specific

circumstances. circumstances.

Mr Poots says he's planning to meet Mr McGreerry over the next few days.

We invited the minister on the programme but he declined to take

part. Let's talk to Eileen Fagan who specialises in medical law and

ethics. In term poll terms, what is the law in Northern Ireland

concerning abortion as things stand? There is an Act, but a common law

which means judge-made law, there are exceptions to this, when a

woman's life in danger or when there is a serious, permanent and

long-term risk to her missical or mental health.

Has the intervention from the DPP today helped to clarify the legal

position surrounding abortion or not in your view? It has helped. Last

week, certain cases came up about serious foetal abnormalities that

were income patably with life. There was a lot of sensationalism in the

media about whether women travelling to Britain for terminations there

would be prosecuted or anyone giving them advice and assistance. The DPP

said that's not possible. What he was doing was reaffirming a legal

case of 1992 which the Minister of Health could have cleared up much

earlier by saying that, you are entitled to information about legal

medical services in the rest of the UK. So it is helpful because there

was a lot of sensationalism and a lot of fear generated by the

minister's failure to answer that question.

So the minister, in your view, could clarify the situation, even further,

but there still remains this grey area? The grey area was mentioned in

the guidance. The guidance raised the possibility of a grey area but

did not answer that question. The DPP has answered the question today

very deaf nitsly, saying no-one would be prosecuted -- definitely.

Now, the minister could come out and say that if a woman was suffering

from severe mental health problems as a result of severe foetal

abnormalities in her pregnancy and if carrying to term would cause

those to be permanent or long-term, he could make a statement saying no

medical staff would be prosecuted. Doctors are afraid because the

threatening and, if they are in threatening and, if they are in

breach of the law, remember, it's the 1861 Act saying life

imprisonment. That's an interesting point. Am I right in saying that

pre-the publication of the guidance in March of this year, in fact the

situation arguably for healthed service workers was clearer? There

was less of a threat. There was. There is anecdotal evidence that

doctors were performing abortions. There is no specific case allowing

that, neither is there a case for rape or incest. So there's nothing

clear about that area. The minister could come out and say, if any of

those situations caused a woman to have serious mental health problems,

that would be covered. Of course, we have no clear legislation. That's

the problem. The issue and the context for all

this is the fact that a great many people here are fundamentally

opposed to abortion. That is the case. That is why the 1967 Act was

never brought here. However, when cases such as the women who came to

the media's attention last time was brought up, people start to think,

what would happen if I was in that situation, what if it was my

daughter, granddaughter. They want to be consulted on issues such as

foetal abnormalities. Several UN committees have insisted that the UK

Government issue a public consultation on abortion in Northern

Ireland. They have recommended that they remove punitive sanctions. The

calls have not been responded to at all. It's an interesting debate and

it will be very interesting again to see what happens off the back of

that meeting between the minister and the DPP for sure. Thank you very

much. We have a change of guard now in

Commentators' Corner tonight, Alex cane and Paul McFadden, you are both

welcome to the programme. Let's discuss Edwin Poots and the abortion

debate first. Alex, some of the ministers' critics suggest he's

allowing his personal views to trump, if you like, evidence-based

policy-making. Is that a fair criticism? I think it is fair. There

are three aspects to the debate, the first is his personal and morale

view in this. He's right to be guided by that on some occasions. We

are a generally conservative Northern Ireland and in that

assembly, most of the parties are opposed to abortion as well. The

much more specific issue, which is the equality of citizenship, if you

were saying Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom but certain

key moral issues, nolet just abortion but gay marriage and

adoption, that abortion is a place apart. That argument hasn't been

explored, particularly for someone like Poots who's evangelical about

his unionism. He's somehow saying Northern Ireland is part of the

United Kingdom but not in the same way as many other parts. A

contradiction for many people. How do you see it, Paul? We had the

judge describing his approach on the issue of a ban on gay men being

blood donors in Northern Ireland, it was described as irrational and we'd

end up with confusion and controversy over the guidance on

abortion. It's been a disastrous week. I wonder, as a minister -- I

wonder is the minister accident prone? I think other

administrations, a minister who wound up in controversy might well

have to fall on a sword. He may not have expected to be here because the

speculation that he'd be gone in June. He may have ended up with a

bundle of problems. He's nothing to lose now and ironically, Peter

Robinson might be leaving him there to take the punches before the next

minister comes in. An interesting perspective. Another

minister under pressure, we talked to him earlier, John O'Dowd, the

Education Minister. Alex, he says he's listening on this consultation

on primary school funding. But he maintains a stout defence of the way

he wants to carry things forward? He didn't sound like he was listening

to anyone in that debate earlier. It struck me, the fact he said I will

continue to lobby my colleagues for more money. It might have been

better had he lobbied the executive at the beginning, agreed some son

skins you view -- consensual view. Northern Ireland did some great

statistics for success in one group, but something like 35% of children

still leave schools in Northern Ireland with the bare minimum or no

qualifications at all. The rot, that may be too generous a term, but the

rot starts in primary schools. That is what he is trying to address?

He's taking money from Peter to pay Paul.

The minister says he's trying to tackle it and I applaud him for

that. But I suppose we are talking now about science-based evidence and

so on. There was a school in Derry mentioned where 35% of children are

on free school meals and it will lose ?16,000 based on the figures

which have been supplied thus far. We are hearing the principal saying

that free school meals does not necessarily mean additional need and

children on free school meals will lose out anyway. I think the

minister has a job in trying to sell this to people. My concern is that

somehow some of the schools have been pushed aside as being not quite

as good as others, that's not been addressed. We are talking about

social deprivation. You need a cross cutting issue.

Let's squeeze in a couple of Tweets that caught our eye over the past

couple of days. A great Tweet. That's a satirical

thing on Facebook and a great Tweet. The second one. It concerns Jackie

Fuller tonne. There are some people who if he

wasn't going to sing again would happily pay a fortune for the

microphone. That's almost it for this week.

Before we go, let's get the inside view from the hill.

Stormont security here. Not much happening today. So I ended watching

an episode of that new programme, Northern Ireland Fireman Sam. He

flogs uniforms on the side and drives away in a free Land Rover.

Then somebody blows a whistle and gets suspended. Very far-fetched.

Gerry Kelly is launching a book about the IRA Pru escape. You can

get your book in the peace shops or the reconciliation centre. Hang

on... I see ?150,000 is being paid to some. It's not the salary, it's

having to work with politicians that's the problem.

Rory EBREAK I would buy that violin if I was loaded. The one that was

played at the Titanic before it sank.

I would play it at the talks. That is it from all of us. Join us for

live coverage of the Ulster Unionist conference on Saturday at noon. From

all of us for now, bye-bye.