COMMITTEE FOR EDUCATION

OFFICIAL REPORT

(Hansard)

Education Bill

21 January 2009

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Mervyn Storey (Chairperson)
Mr Dominic Bradley (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Trevor Lunn
Mr Nelson McCausland
Mr Basil McCrea
Miss Michelle McIlveen
Mr John O’Dowd
Mrs Michelle O’Neill
Mr Edwin Poots

It is important that, rather than ESAIT simply consulting the various sectors, the political process be involved as well. We are talking about the legislation in very general terms, but its practical outworking is equally important.

No. The sectoral organisations — as envisaged and set out in the paper that Chris will present to the Committee — do not yet exist. It is a different relationship. Gavin Boyd is talking to people who will move into the ESA as the legislation develops. For example, he is talking to those responsible for catering and asking how they would run a regional catering service. Entirely different discussions will need to be held with the embryonic sectoral organisations. Those discussions are on a different basis and require the policy context to be set before they begin.

The Department will lead the negotiations and will make arrangements for them. When the ESA comes into being they will have a dialogue role with it, as set out in the paper.

Mr McCausland:

It would be useful to have a presentation from Gavin Boyd fairly soon.

The Chairperson:

OK. We will take a note of that and see how we can fit it into the work programme.

Mr McGrath:

I ask Chris Stewart to make his presentation on the sectoral organisations.

Mr Chris Stewart (Department of Education):

Good morning. The Committee asked for more detailed information on the role and responsibilities of the various sectoral organisations under the review of public administration (RPA) arrangements, and I will provide that information through this presentation.

First, I will provide the Committee with some background information and context. The policy for those organisations is set out in policy papers 20 and 21, which the Committee has received; however, it is worth recapping the principles governing the development of the policy. I will not weary the Committee by reading all the principles out, but there are several key points that set the context for addressing the Committee’s concerns. Those are that all the sectoral-support organisations will be small; they will be non-statutory and without statutory functions; they will be modestly funded; and all sectors will be treated on the basis of equality, including what we refer to as the controlled sector.

On the organisations and their roles, the sectors that have indicated that they wish to be included in the arrangements are Irish-medium schools, represented by Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta; integrated schools, represented by the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education; voluntary grammar schools, represented by the Governing Bodies Association (GBA); and Catholic schools — both maintained and voluntary grammars — which will be represented by a new voluntary organisation to be established by the Commission for Catholic Education. As I have said, the controlled sector must also be included in those arrangements; however, a slightly different approach is required for that sector, which I will describe in a few minutes.

The Department has commissioned, and received, initial draft business cases from those organisations and is undertaking a robust and detailed scrutiny of those business cases.

We aim to complete the process within six to eight weeks. At that point, we will be able to advise the Committee in considerable detail on the proposed grant agreements with each of the organisations, including the level of funding and the detailed activities that those grants will support.

The Committee may find it useful to receive the details of the commissioning brief that we gave to the organisations to inform the development of their business cases, which lists the functions in the paper that we asked them to consider. I emphasise that that is the long list — not all organisations will want to engage in all the activities outlined in the paper. The potential functions are grouped under five headings.

The first group comes under the heading of ethos and identity, and the type of functions that we are prepared to support include: the fostering and development of the collective ethos of schools in a sector; the identification of potential foundation or community governors to serve on school boards; and the offering of advice to the ESA on the ethos and content of support and training programmes that have been provided for boards of governors.

The second group of functions comes under the heading of employment. The paper describes the centrality of schemes of management and schemes of employment in the legislation, which will set out, respectively, the governance arrangements for schools and the role of boards of governors in employment matters. In the paper we describe the role of the “submitting authority” in those schemes, including a potential change to the legislation that we are minded to introduce, subject to the Committee’s views.

In that context, the role of a sectoral body might include: the preparation of draft schemes of management and employment on behalf of submitting authorities; providing responses to any consultation by the ESA or the Department on guidance that governs the preparation of those schemes; providing assistance to trustees or owners of schools in the discharge of their role in the preparation and submission of schemes, and general liaison with the Department and the ESA on that matter.

The next group of functions comes under the heading of ownership, planning and procurement. The functions that we could consider are: advising trustees or owners of schools on their roles; and participating in the area-based planning arrangement that the ESA will operate, which might include assessing provision in a sector, future need, consultation with parents and communities, development and advancement of options and proposals. It is important to emphasise that we are talking about a single planning process that the ESA will operate, to which sectoral organisation will provide input — we are not talking about separate planning processes in each sector.

We have also stated that we will support sectoral bodies to enable owners or trustees to discharge their role in procurement arrangements. Again, those procurement arrangements will be operated by the ESA. That will provide the link between owners and the ESA. The last function under that heading is to engage with any other statutory planning processes that exist or come into being, particularly the community planning process that district councils will lead.

The fourth group of functions comes under the more general heading of representation and advocacy and includes liaising with schools in a particular sector; liaising with, and offering advice to, the ESA, the Department and our colleagues in the Department for Employment and Learning, including, through participation in the education advisory forum when it is established; engaging with other education sectoral interests or stakeholders; and responding to any policy consultation processes that the Department may initiate.

The final group of functions comes under standards and performance. I emphasise that there will be only one statutory authority with legal responsibilities for raising standards — the ESA. However, we recognise that a strength of the present arrangements is the interest that sectors and sectoral bodies take in the performance of their schools. In that context, we see the role of sectoral organisations as including: promoting high-quality education; advising and supporting owners or trustees of schools on strategic issues on performance as they arise; advising owners or trustees of schools on data, reports or information that they may receive on the performance of schools in their sector; offering advice and support to owners or trustees when consulted by the ESA on the discharge of its functions; and liaising generally with the ESA on matters related to the performance of schools in the sector.

That is the long list of functions in which we see a sectoral body being potentially involved. We have received business cases from the existing organisations and from the Catholic trustees on that issue.

The controlled sector requires slightly different treatment because the starting point is different and is, in some ways, more difficult than for the other sectors. No existing organisation is well placed to take on the sort of role that we have outlined. It must also be acknowledged that there is no real tradition in that sector of those sorts of functions or that type of interest being taken on behalf of schools.

We must also recognise that the controlled sector is large and serves diverse communities across Northern Ireland. The starting point is different, but we are clear that, on the basis of equality, the end point must be same for that sector as it is for all other sectors and that the timescale must be the same. By 1 January 2010, those schools must have effective sectoral representation and advocacy, and in doing so it is important that we ensure that there is a strong sense of ownership across that sector. The sector must have trust and confidence in the arrangements that are established; the arrangements cannot simply be parachuted in by the Department.

Therefore we have proposed the first steps of a way forward on which we welcome the views of the Committee. As a first step, we suggest the establishment of a small working group to act as interim advocates or champions for the controlled sector. That group will be charged with developing more detailed proposals for the more substantive arrangements that will be put in place. In the interests of effectiveness, we have suggested that that group should be relatively small, perhaps comprising between six and eight members. That group should include education professionals; the Transferor Representatives’ Council (TRC) would also have an important role to play.

In addition, an important element of the group will be representatives from the communities that are served by the controlled schools. The representatives would have a good understanding of their communities, particularly communities that face the greatest education challenges and in which the socio-economic challenges are considerable. The representatives would understand the service that education can provide and the contribution that it can make to their communities.

The group should be asked to undertake a short, focused exercise with the terms of reference that we have set out in the paper; it should be asked to report as quickly as possible to the Department and, through us, to the Committee. The Department will, of course, be prepared to provide support for that group, including a secretariat. I am happy to take questions from members.

The Chairperson:

Members will wish to tease out many issues during this section. You referred to “modest” funding. You said that a sectoral body will be established for the controlled sector and that it will have a different starting point because it is a completely new organisation. Given that you referred to equality of treatment across those bodies, how will you ensure that the deficit in the controlled sector — because there is no sectoral body — will be adequately filled?

The deficit in the controlled sector must be given particular attention and assistance because of its diversity. The controlled sector includes controlled grammar schools, which cover a wide diversity. Can we be assured that objections will not be raised on the basis of equality? There is a disparity, and that inequality must be addressed first. All the sectoral organisations should not be lumped together and treated in the same way because that will cause one sector to lag behind.

Mr Stewart:

That is correct. We have to address the issue that the controlled sector is lagging behind. It is difficult to comment on what the precise outcome will be, because we do not have a draft business case for the controlled sector. However, I assure you that the Department will work with the interim champions — if we can establish them — to introduce as quickly as possible a business case that is fit for purpose and that will lead to a level of grant that will allow the controlled sector representative body to discharge as many as possible of the functions that we have outlined.

The structure and funding for the representative body that is established for the controlled sector will have to reflect the sector’s diversity; it must be fit for purpose and must be capable of discharging its functions.

My question is about sectoral support, particularly for the controlled sector, and I will touch on the Chairperson’s comments. There is some validity in the argument that a sector starting from a standstill position may be disadvantaged; therefore it might need some further departmental or financial support. The Committee would have a role in any evidence-based argument that is developed along those lines.

Will the finances and role of sectors collectively be subject to review? As the ESA develops, will the role of the sectors come together without the loss of ethos or identity about which Dominic expressed concerns? Does the ESA plan hold out that hope?

Mr Stewart:

Yes, very much so. The business cases that we are scrutinising aim at arriving at grant agreements with each sector. Normally, grant agreements would last for no more than three years. That strikes the right balance between allowing an organisation a reasonably stable base on which to plan, but it also recognises the need to review continually such arrangements to ensure that they continue to be necessary and that they represent and provide value for money for the public purse. That is what we expect to happen.

Over time, we envisage that the role of the sectors will evolve. However, we do not foresee a time when the diversity, ethos, character or identity of any type of school or sector will be reduced, and it is not our intention that that will happen. However, the thrust of the RPA is the need for a consistent, equality-based approach that recognises that education is a publicly funded public service from which children and young people in any community are entitled to receive the same provision. We expect and require sectors to operate in the spirit of co-operation more than they have in the past, when they were separate and, at times, antagonistic and adversarial — particularly in the planning of the schools estate and the delivery of the curriculum.

Mr McGrath:

In the round, yes; therefore, in future, language will be needed that does not state that it is a controlled sector support group, because the schools will no longer be controlled.

The Chairperson:

Will that create almost the same situation as that which currently exists in the maintained sector?

Mr McGrath:

We must think about our language around that situation. I would welcome suggestions that are better than “ex-controlled”. When the schools come out of the jurisdiction of the education and library boards, there will be fundamental differences. Many schools have aspirations of autonomy, which we talked about last week. In the future, they may want to see themselves in a broad voluntary grammar sector, rather than in an ex-controlled one. The boundaries between those sectors may move in the future. In a sense, we would want that, because sector support arrangements should not act as a barrier to schools that seek more autonomy.

Mr Stewart:

That is correct; indeed, nor should those arrangements determine the outcome. John O’Dowd raised the issue of the future of sectors. Although we do not intend to reduce sectors, we note that they may change by themselves, and we do not want the autonomy of schools to be determined by anything other than the capability of the school and its wish to have autonomy. That should not be determined by historical accident, resulting from the fact that the school happens to find itself in a particular sector. We want policy to go in that direction, and the Department does not regard that as being incompatible with the existence of sectors, or with the champion or advocacy role that those sectors may have.

Mr Lunn:

The Department’s paper to the Committee on the functions of sectoral bodies states that their roles will be allowed to “prepare”, “respond”, “assist”, “advise”, “assess” “liaise”, “engage” and “advocate”. It does not state that one of their roles will be to “decide”. May I take it that no decision-making powers whatsoever will be left to the sectoral organisations?

Mr McGrath:

They can decide how they run their own business, but they are not statutory organisations. One model that is used in many other sectors is that voluntary bodies perform an advocacy role in the discharge of tasks. Age Concern is one example of that.

The Department is very clear that ESA will have the statutory role. That is the function that it is funded to perform. Accountability for raising standards, for example, must not be blurred by involving too many organisations. Clearly, the sectoral bodies will be non-statutory organisations, which the Department will fund to carry out a range of functions of the nature that are described in our paper. The Department will fund them for what they must do, but no more than that. That is a difficult area.

To pick up on the Chairperson’s point, equality is an issue in the controlled sector. However, the Department is focusing on equality in respect of the support that we give the sector. We will not take a mechanistic, “count the money in” approach, because there is no value in fostering an ex-controlled sector support body if it cannot do its job. That will not serve us in any way.

Mr Stewart:

Mr Stewart:

Equality impact screening has been applied, and consideration has been given, to the review of public administration programme in general, and to the first Bill in particular. I am aware that the Committee has been waiting for the results of that exercise for quite some time, but, although the results have yet to hit the streets, we expect them to come out within the next week or two. We concluded that, subject to consultation, ESA will treat all children equally.

The obvious answer is that the new arrangements will be based on equality. As a public authority, ESA will be subject to the statutory duties that are contained in section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. I suspect that that is not the answer that you are looking for, or perhaps you are attempting to make a different point

Mr McCausland:

We have already talked about the integrated/controlled issue, from which inequalities emerged that had not previously been picked up. Such things can happen, so it is important that all arrangements are checked.

Dominic Bradley mentioned the religious and cultural ethos in Catholic-maintained and Irish-medium schools. Who will determine the cultural and religious ethos of controlled schools?

Mr Stewart:

An ethos will evolve and emerge from individual schools and from the sector, and a test of the effectiveness of the central body will be the extent to which it can articulate an ethos. Perhaps a multi-dimensional ethos will be required to cover such a diverse range of schools and communities. However, one cannot define, or prescribe, an ethos. The Department made a heroic attempt at doing so in an earlier policy paper, and, as a result, we managed to unite all education stakeholders in the view that we had got it entirely wrong. At that point, we recognised that any attempt on our part to define ethos is doomed to failure. An ethos comes from schools and sectors; it is not in the Department’s gift to define or create it.

Mr McCausland:

My point is that the focus for those matters is very much on sectors; whereas, I think that it should be on the rights of individual children. Therefore, it is important that the cultural and religious rights of the child are reflected and accommodated in whatever system emerges. Britain has signed up to international commitments in that regard that are only being partially implemented in the controlled sector; whereas, those commitments are being fully implemented in the Catholic-maintained and Irish-medium sectors. There is now an opportunity to address that matter, and, if the sectoral body has a role to play in that process, it is important that it properly reflects the ethos of the community that it serves. I am sure that we will return to that point.

Mr Stewart:

You are entirely right. Many people associate most schools in the controlled sector with a broadly Christian ethos because they serve predominately Protestant communities, and they associate schools, or parts of schools, in that sector predominantly with a Protestant Christian ethos. However, every grant-aided school must be open to children from any religious denomination or none.

The UK does not have any specific legislative provisions to give effect to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, because, unlike the European Convention on Human Rights, it has never been directly incorporated in domestic legislation. Our contention is that our body of education legislation, and the education system that is put in place thereby, give effect to those things.

If the view is that the legislation somehow falls short in relation to any of those dimensions, we would want to look at that, because, although the convention has not been incorporated, it is, nevertheless, an obligation that applies to the state, and we would want to ensure that that is delivered.

Mr McCausland:

I am merely saying that it happens in Irish-medium schools. They have a clear cultural dimension, and CCMS schools have a clear religious ethos to them. However, that does not necessarily happen in all controlled schools. We have an opportunity now to deal with the issue, while we are reshaping the system.

Mr Stewart:

We welcome the opportunity to explore that issue and tease it out a little further. We recognise, as I think you have done, that the multi-dimensional nature of the controlled sector presents a particular challenge in that regard.

Mr McCausland:

The point that I am making is that it is down to the children who attend a particular school. Therefore, the ethos of a school in one town may be different to the ethos of a school in another town, depending on the children who go to it.

Mr Stewart:

That is true of all sectors, but, on several occasions, I have heard trustees of Catholic schools acknowledging that very fact. A central thread of Catholic education and ethos runs through the sector. However, there are perceived differences in ethos in individual Catholic schools, for the very reasons that you have given.

Miss McIlveen:

We have to recognise that we probably operate in an ‘Animal Farm’ view of equality, in which all animals are created equally, and some are created more equally than others.

I welcome Mr O’Dowd’s comments, because he recognised that there may be a deficit in relation to representation of the controlled sector. However, I am concerned that he is looking for an evidence-based argument when the evidence is quite clear that there is nothing, and we are starting from nothing.

Following some of the comments that you made in response to the Chairperson, it appears that a can of worms may be opening up regarding who will sit on the group that will be created for the former controlled sector. I will return to a comment that I made last week about the ESA board. Will members of that group be chosen by simply being tapped on the shoulder, or will they have to apply for the positions? How will that process work?

Mr McGrath:

The paper highlights the fact that it is not for the Department to create the sectoral support body for the former controlled sector, because it is not a statutory body. It is an advocacy body, but it will not be our body. Therefore, we want to foster that by getting a group of people who will be connected in that sector to begin to do some of the legwork, because it is not our job. We will do our utmost to help to create the body.

The deficit was mentioned, but I wish to make it clear that we will support that work by finding the secretariat. Who the initial key players will be is open for discussion, and that is why we brought the matter to the Committee. In fact, it may be a matter of persuading some people to give their time and effort in certain communities outside the normal TRC and other denominations. Indeed, it will be a broader church than that.

We need to identify people who have some understanding of the issues — particularly those of underachievement — and who want to make a contribution. If those elements of straw form enough of a brick that those people want to constitute themselves into an organisation with the appropriate governance structure and the right legal statutes to produce a business case for us, that is where we want to go.

We will not appoint people; it is not our right to do so. The group will not be a statutory organisation, and it should not be beholden to the Department. It should be as independent as the other sectoral support bodies; otherwise, the general deficit that currently exists in the controlled sector will continue.

Miss McIlveen:

Who, other than the TRC, have you spoken to about that?

Mr Stewart:

We have spoken to individuals in education and library boards and with the TRC, whom I am meeting again this afternoon. We have not gone particularly far beyond doing that. We would welcome suggestions from the Committee as to how we might gather the voices or identify those who might play a role in such a facility. It is difficult, but as John has said, we have to start somewhere.

Mr Stewart:

No one has yet been tapped on the shoulder.

Mr McGrath:

It is in everyone’s interest that we make some progress on this affair — that is why the paper states that we would welcome the Committee’s views on it and on the proposals. We would like to provide some secretariat support for the process, with others taking the lead in identifying people who could become part of the working group. Time is pressing, and it will take some time to establish that working group, have some discussion, gel it together, create a constitution and articles of association for a new organisation, and do a business case. No one has been tapped on the shoulder.

I think that you would agree that having discussions with the TRC is a genuine, valid and appropriate action. However, when casting the net to include more than the usual suspects — if you will excuse the phrase — it would be important to capture the diversity of communities that are currently served by controlled schools. In a sense, we are open to any proposals, suggestions and ideas, and we are happy to proceed with that on a clean sheet of paper.

Miss McIlveen:

I know that, ideally, you want between six and eight members. However, when you start to drill down to identify the number of interested bodies, you could end up with 30 or 50 people in the room.

Mr McGrath:

We are looking for a core group that will proceed with the work. However, you are quite right — I envisage that that will mean lots of people in the room on different occasions reflecting different interests. We will need to be quite careful when establishing how that is eventually distilled down to a sector support group, which will be a legal entity but which will cover many different constituencies. However, that is not beyond the wit of man.

Miss McIlveen:

Will the Department provide a secretariat for that group?

Mr Stewart:

We are talking now about the policies of the day, but we must design a system that is capable of discharging the policies in the future, whether that is in 10 or 15 years from now.

Mr B McCrea:

The Ulster Unionist Party has never been against a more streamlined, coherent and consistent educational administration system. If we felt that ESA would provide that, we would have welcomed it. However, we have fundamental problems with who controls the area planning and who controls policy, because, in the wrong hands, the efficient and effective system that you have introduced is actually a Trojan Horse, which will be used to further legitimise political positions, but not necessarily my position.

The Chairperson:

We have dealt with that issue. We will now move on to the issue of ESA as a single employing authority, which is exercising the minds of a considerable number of people and has raised concern. Members have the Department’s briefing, in which the issue of employment arrangements is covered.

Mr Stewart:

We have provided two papers, both of which cover the range of issues that you asked us to address. You asked for some more detail on the employment arrangements, particularly on the respective roles of the ESA and boards of governors. You also asked for information on the review that the Minister announced on teacher employment opportunities, and we have covered that in a separate related paper.

With your approval, Chairperson, I shall deal with the employment arrangements first, and then move on to the review. The paper on employment arrangements addresses two themes: the first is the respective roles of boards of governors and the ESA; and the second is the concerns that have been expressed to the Committee and to the Department by the Governing Bodies Association about those employment arrangements.

By way of background and context, the paper summarises some of the key features of the current employment arrangements. The points to emphasise there are that 86% of schools are already involved in some form of collective employment arrangements, but the remaining 14% of schools currently employ staff directly. The role of boards of governors at present varies greatly.

For example, in Catholic maintained schools, the boards of governors determine all teaching appointments. In the controlled sector, by contrast, some of the senior appointments are determined not by boards of governors, but by the teaching appointments committee of the relevant education and library board. Those variations are historical. They are not based on evidence of the contribution of that sort of arrangement to effective education.

With that in mind, our aim is to achieve greater consistency and equality across the education system, with all schools being given the opportunity to run their own day-to-day employment affairs on the basis of their desire and ability to do so, rather than of their history of ownership or of the sector in which they happen to find themselves.

Turning to the key features of the new arrangements, it is proposed that all staff in all grant-aided schools will be employed by the ESA. That means that formally, for the purposes of education and employment law, the ESA will be the employer, and all contracts of employment will be between the ESA and the staff. However, the role of the boards of governors, as we have said, is to take the day-to-day decisions on the running of their schools, including on employment matters. In practice, that means that the relationship between the ESA and boards of governors will one in which the boards act on behalf of the ESA and discharge employment functions that are delegated to them by the ESA.

Those delegation arrangements, and the detailed role of individual boards of governors, will be set out in the schemes of employment. The provisions that cover those issues are contained in clauses 3 to 12 of the Education Bill. It is proposed that those schemes will be drawn up by the schools and approved by the ESA. It is for the schools, not the ESA, to decide on the level of delegation. Clearly, some schools will want to carry out the full range of employment functions and leave only a minimal role for the ESA. However, other schools, equally legitimately, may decide that they wish to leave certain functions in the hands of the ESA. Once again, the key point is that that is a decision for the schools.

Our paper attempts to illustrate that in a little more detail by setting out the respective roles of boards of governors and the ESA in relation to several areas of functions. Those are: determining the staff complement of the school; recruiting staff; managing staff, including any necessary disciplinary action; dismissing staff; and managing redundancy.

Taking recruitment as an example, members will see that almost the entire process, from end to end, will be in the hands of the boards of governors. The role of the ESA will be one of providing support and advice, ratification of procedures and the formal action to put into effect the decision of a board of governors, which, of course, in relation to recruitment, simply means issuing the contract of employment.

Members may wish to ask, in such arrangements, how we will ensure that the ESA and boards of governors stick to their respective roles and that they each respect the role of the other. The answer is that clear legal duties will be placed on both, which are covered in clause 8(1) and 8(2) of the Bill. The boards of governors will be under a legal duty to comply with their own procedures, and the ESA will be under a legal duty to give effect to decisions that are made by boards of governors.

The ESA will not be allowed to unreasonably interfere in the day-to-day affairs of schools. Its ratification role will be limited to ensuring that the correct procedures have been followed and that a decision of a board of governors is not manifestly unreasonable. If the ESA were to feel that something had been handled incorrectly, it would be able to refer a matter back to a board of governors to be revisited. However, there is no question of the ESA second-guessing a decision or substituting its own decision for that of a board of governors. In summary, the ESA will not lawfully be able to refuse to put into effect any proper decision of a board of governors.

The paper also attempts to anticipate some of the questions that Committee members may have. The first of those is that if the ESA is formally the employer in law, could it initiate action without waiting for a board of governors? The answer to that is yes, but only in very serious and extreme circumstances. Those functions will be delegated to a board of governors. Therefore, it will not be for the ESA to initiate action unless a board of governors cannot, or will not, discharge its responsibilities.

The second key question is where the legal liability for employment matters might rest if something were to go wrong. That question is normally put to me as “who gets sued?”, and the answer is potentially everybody. If a complaint were made to a court or tribunal about an employment matter, those proceedings would be likely to include any body that has played a part in the matter that is the subject of the complaint. Therefore, in practice, if something were to go wrong, both the board of governors and the ESA would be likely to be involved in legal proceedings.

That is no different to the current collective employment arrangements, and it would not change the fact that liability for actions on boards of governors is collective; it is on the board of governors as an entity and not on individual governors.

That is a summary of the arrangements that the Department has proposed in the legislation. I can either pause at this point or move on to the concerns of the GBA.

The Chairperson:

I think that we should deal with those concerns, because they are all related. Will you deal with those issues now? Members can then raise any questions that they might have.

Mr Stewart:

The GBA, in commenting on those arrangements, has proposed two counter-arguments to the Department. First, it said that the arrangements would, in fact, constitute a loss of autonomy for the schools that it represents, and, secondly, it said that the arrangements would dilute or interfere with the important voluntary principle that exists in those schools.

On the issue of autonomy, the Department recognises that there is a genuine sense of loss on the part of the GBA. However, we question whether there is any real or practical loss of autonomy. That is because the boards of governors of those schools will remain responsible for the exercise of employment functions for those schools, and they will take employment decisions that the ESA will be under a legal duty to effect. As stated, the aim of the Department is not to reduce autonomy in employment matters, but to ensure that it is available to all schools on the basis of equality, rather than to some schools on the basis of historical differences in ownership.

In relation to the voluntary principle as described and set out by the GBA, the Department recognises that the voluntary principle embodies many good features. However, it is not convinced that those are unique to any one sector or type of school, or that it is incompatible with the employment arrangements that we propose.

To begin with, the term “voluntary school” is very broad. It includes schools that are employers in their own right — the voluntary grammar schools — and those that are part of collective employment arrangements, such as Catholic maintained schools. All of those are voluntary schools in law. All grant-aided schools have governors who discharge important and significant responsibilities in a voluntary capacity and all grant-aided schools, including voluntary grammar schools, are funded by the public purse to deliver a public service. They all do so on the basis of significant voluntary input from parents and communities.

Undoubtedly, many voluntary grammar schools are extremely successful, but the Department does not view that success as being limited to that sector, or, indeed, to any sector or school type. The most successful schools in any sector tend to be those that embody the voluntary principle; that is those that have a strong sense of belonging and being accountable to the pupils, the parents and the communities that they serve. The Department values the voluntary principle, but we do not accept that any strong case has been made for any particular group of grant-aided schools to have separate employment arrangements.

The Chairperson:

Thank you. Obviously, that issue continues to be of concern. We want to reach a point where locally delegated autonomy is the reality, and, rather than its being a loss to some schools and a gain to others, every school will gain and will have the sense that they can make decisions. However, there is fear and concern that, somewhere among all of that, the voluntary principle and the schools that have exercised it will have a deficit, although other schools will consider it to be a great opportunity.

To return to the earlier discussion on equity and ensuring that everyone is treated fairly, one matter on which the Committee wants to be absolutely clear and sure is that delegated responsibility does what it says on the tin. We want to ensure that that is what schools get and that the way that they govern themselves will not be hampered or restricted.

Mr McGrath:

Those are fair points. We do not want to do anything else. The general mood music that we are creating is about promoting autonomy for all schools. The extent to which they want to use it — for back up, and so on — is for them to decide. That is quite appropriate. We do not want to constrain any school.

The issues around the employing authority will, in fact, bring little difference for voluntary grammar schools. As Chris explained articulately, no particular sector has or should have a monopoly on voluntarism. In a sense, that is what we aim to promote. Earlier, you made an analogy about controlled grammar schools. There is no reason why a controlled grammar school should not aspire to the same status and want to be in the same area of the pitch as a voluntary grammar school. We are trying to reach a point where all schools can aspire to that standard. Therefore, it aims to bring standards level, not widen them.

Mr Stewart:

Mr B McCrea:

It strikes me that your issue is with the GBA because you have to reassure it that you will not take away its autonomy. If you can sort that out, the basic principles are fine.

Mr McGrath:

We think so. In discussions about resources we have spoken about funding for classroom assistants in voluntary, grammar and grant-maintained integrated schools, because the pay award was for education and library boards, but it has not applied to those schools. The Minister has adopted the principle that those assistants are doing the same work as their counterparts in education and library board schools and, morally, should be paid the same rate. That almost reflects the spirit of a single employing authority and a single set of terms and conditions. If the GBA wanted to be different, one could argue that it should stay in a position where it pays its own rates. Therefore there is a contradiction between the arguments being put in the Committee for the workforce and the view that a different employing authority outside the system would lead to different terms and conditions. Otherwise what would be the point?

Mr B McCrea:

The point is the perceived loss of autonomy. There is nothing more central to the ethos of a body than the staff that it recruits. We acknowledge where the problem lies, and we need to find a resolution.

John made sweeping statements about grammar schools —

I support the general principle of helping schools to select teachers that they believe are in keeping with their ethos and of relieving them of the inconsistencies and burdens of associated legal matters. However, I am concerned that that principle could be perceived as a Trojan horse to allow the Administration of the day to dictate to schools whom they should employ or what they should do. We understand the issue and we must find a way of resolving it.

Mr McGrath:

You said that there is a genuine perception that there has been a reduction in autonomy. As long as they stick to the general parameters of the law of the land and to their management scheme, there should be no less autonomy for a voluntary grammar school in appointing staff. As with all such matters, the difference between perception and reality is critical.

Mr B McCrea:

John, I am in danger of being far too reasonable, but I agree with you.

Mr McGrath:

Thank you. We should quit while we are ahead.

The Chairperson:

Clause 8(3), “Effect of employment scheme”, states:

“Where ESA is of the opinion that a decision of the Board of Governors on any matter which falls to be taken in accordance with such a scheme was taken otherwise than in accordance with the scheme,”

— And this is the important part:

“ESA may require the Board of Governors to reconsider that matter.”

I am not sure that we agree with the figures of 62% and 80%; it depends on the currency that is used. More than 62% of the education budget is spent in the classroom, although the route by which it gets to the classroom is, in some cases, a bit more confusing. The ESA was aimed at making savings in administration, and, already, £20 million will be saved, predicated on the outline business case. We see that the ESA will make further savings, so there is a direct contradiction between the GBA’s view and the Department’s. Those savings are happening, because £20 million is predicated on the outline business case, and the budget settlement envisages that already.

Mr Stewart:

Mr Stewart:

That is a fair point. In attempting to set out our position candidly, I would not want to give you the impression that we simply set our faces against the GBA and that we would not continue to engage with it to convince it of the benefits of the proposed changes. We will try to build in additional safeguards if they are required to deal with the GBA’s concerns.

I contend that we have already done so to a great degree. The employment arrangements that we have proposed are unusual, to say the least, which reflects the fact that we have gone a considerable distance in building in safeguards. That has resulted in a complex model and complex arrangements, but that is legitimate because of the points that the GBA has raised.

Mr O’Dowd:

In general, Basil’s points are fair enough, but there is also an onus on the GBA to approach the matter with an open mind and not from an entrenched point of view of not wishing to be convinced. If there are genuine concerns — and I assume that there are — they must be responded to. If the GBA can develop a scheme or draft guidance of which the Department can take heed, that would be a very good, open proposal. However, there is an onus on both sides to approach the matter open-mindedly.

Mr B McCrea:

Would you permit a response?

The Chairperson:

Yes, briefly.

Mr B McCrea:

The Chairperson:

Earlier, you said that the GBA could, if it wanted, propose recommendations or suggestions regarding the employment schemes. However, the briefing paper says that detailed guidance on model schemes will be developed in the coming months and will be made available to us. Is there still time for that to happen and for an exchange of views on schemes? Is that work ongoing?

Mr McGrath:

Yes, it is ongoing, but it is not set in concrete. The guidance on a model scheme might suggest what its key components might be, but one would still have to decide what the model scheme would be. Nothing is precluded.

There is still scope for iteration and dialogue. Further to Basil’s helpful points, we have to address the real problems and the existing perceptions.

Education has a significant workforce that requires strategic planning, but that is not available to date. A single employing authority will address that shortfall by, for instance, balancing recruitment and supply and demand. One way in which the Minister wants to raise standards is to improve the quality of teaching. That will require strategic drivers for all the workforces that are involved, and that could be planned.

It is critical not to miss the strategic dimension when dealing with the issues at local employment level. Workforce planning, establishing a balance between what teachers and classroom assistants do and deciding whether there is scope to change the barriers or adopt new approaches need to be addressed strategically. If actions are to be taken on those issues, everyone must move at the one time. It is important to keep that dimension. That is one of the pluses of the single employer system, and it needs to be fed into the equation.

Mr Stewart:

The door will not close on employment schemes. Model schemes will be produced, but schools will not be obliged to take them. They can take them off the peg and adopt or adapt them or they can come up with their own schemes — if they wish — provided that they are in accordance with the policy.

The Chairperson:

Chris, you can speak on the opportunities for teaching staff and the review.

Mr Stewart:

I will be as brief as I can, as I am conscious of the pressure on your time. On several occasions, members expressed concern about the exemption of teacher recruitment from the provisions of the Fair Employment and Treatment ( Northern Ireland) Order 1998 and about the related issue of the requirement to possess a certificate in religious studies as an eligibility criterion for some posts in Catholic schools.

It is worth emphasising two important points. Any changes to the Fair Employment and Treatment ( Northern Ireland) Order 1998 will be a matter for OFMDFM to consider. Before any decisions are taken on that matter, the Minister of Education has said that there should be a thorough public consultation and that the matter should be considered by the Executive and advice sought from the Equality Commission.

It is also worth reminding members that even if that exemption were removed and if teacher recruitment were brought fully within the parameters of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, it is likely that the requirement to possess a certificate could continue to be lawfully applied in relation to some posts where it is a genuine occupational requirement of the post.

Nevertheless, the Minister has recognised — and takes seriously — the concern expressed by members about the potential for inequality. Therefore she has decided that there will be a review of teaching opportunities for teaching staff, for which the terms of reference have been suggested, and we welcome the Committee’s views on them. They are set out in the paper. Departmental officials will forecast the number of teaching vacancies that are likely to arise over the next three years. They should be analysed by school-type and sector so that we have good, reliable and robust information about the future.

Officials will also have to estimate the proportion of those vacancies for which a certificate in religious studies is likely to be an eligibility criterion and identify the routes by which teachers might obtain a certificate — either as part of their teacher education or subsequently. Furthermore, officials will identify any barriers to obtaining a certificate that could give rise to inequality and make recommendations, as appropriate, on measures to promote equality of opportunities for teachers.

Members will see that the approach suggested and the terms of reference take as their starting point the recognition of the reality that the requirement for certificates is likely to continue, at least for some posts. Therefore we feel that the best way to address the Committee’s concerns is to examine and ensure that there are no barriers to any teacher obtaining the necessary certificate if they wish and, therefore, being eligible to apply and take up a post in any school.

On completion of the review, the Minister will advise the Committee of the outcome.

The Chairperson:

Are we back to the same argument that we discussed earlier? This is not about the potential for inequality; it is about an inequality that has to be addressed. It is not about removing barriers to obtaining the certificate — nobody is saying that anyone is ineligible to obtain a certificate. It is the use of that certificate, in the generic sense, that could be used to discriminate against people of a different religion who do not have it. For instance, the certificate in religious studies is not specific to anyone who wants to teach geography or mathematics.

An argument could be made that the certificate is necessary for the teaching of religious education, which is a sensitive issue. You referred to the Minister talking about the potential for inequality, but the problem is not the potential for inequality; it is about addressing an existing inequality.

Mr Stewart:

Before we draw any firm conclusions on that, we would like to have much better information to present to the Committee about which posts have such a requirement attached to them, because we simply do not have definitive information. I am sure that, as part of the review, the Committee expects us to present a clear picture of where that requirement is, or might be, applied.

Mr McCausland:

We are told that the certificate is a requirement for some teaching posts in Catholic schools. My understanding is that it is also a requirement for some posts in integrated schools, where children are being prepared for first communion. Why is that not included in the briefing paper?

Mr Stewart:

That is an omission that I am happy to correct.

Mr McCaulsand:

People have come to my office and told me that they had been unable to apply for teaching posts in integrated schools. Of all the things, it seems most bizarre that they were excluded from an integrated school.

I notice that the review will take a year. In the meantime, is it possible for you to supply the Committee with some simple, easily accessible information? For example, information on how the certificates are obtained — the teacher who came to me was able to explain that in about five minutes. We would also appreciate information from CCMS, for example, regarding its estimate of the percentage of teaching posts in Roman Catholic schools for which the certificate is required.

Mr Stewart:

We should be able to bring that information to the Committee very soon and will not dither in doing so. In relation to the routes for obtaining a certificate, I understand that student teachers at Stranmillis can obtain a certificate by distance learning, which is provided, I believe, by Glasgow University. However, it seems that there is a route for teachers in initial teacher education going through Stranmillis.

However, it is not clear whether an already qualified and practicing teacher who, for whatever reason, did not obtain a certificate, has an easy and straightforward route to getting one now. If that is not the case, there would be a barrier for qualified and practicing teachers, and we must consider how that barrier might be overcome.

Mr McCausland:

I was led to understand that the distance-learning route was not as simple as might first appear.

Mr Stewart:

That is why, rather than offering the Committee a bland reassurance that a route exists, we want to get detailed information about how that opportunity is provided, how is it funded, to whom it is available, and whether it is a real opportunity or whether it merely appears to be one. We must discover whether a barrier exists.

The Chairperson:

I would like to deal the motion to extend. Members will remember that the 30 days’ referral stage of the Bill to the Committee that began on 8 December 2008 ends on 15 February 2009. Therefore the Committee must agree an end date for the Committee Stage today so that the Bill can go as a Committee motion for debate in the Assembly on 2 February or 3 February. The end date for Committee Stage is the last date that the Committee must report to the Assembly on its scrutiny of the Bill.

I remind members that the Committee sought a single-Bill approach. We have the unique situation of having two Bills as part of one legislative programme. As the Committee heard from officials on 10 December, they must earn the Committee’s confidence on the first Bill and on the development of the second Bill, which will not be introduced into the Assembly until just before the summer recess.

It is a complex situation. The Education Bill, unlike the Health and Social Care (Reform) Bill, is particularly contentious, and there are strong views on its provisions. Today’s session was helpful in identifying issues. If issues such as area-based planning can be resolved to our satisfaction, it is more likely that the Bill will receive a proper passage in the Chamber. We should not underestimate the difficulties, and therefore we need as much time as possible to hear other bodies’ opinions because folk need reassurances. The sooner we complete that process, the sooner we can finalise a report.

I have stated the Ulster Unionist Party position, which Michelle McIlveen usually refers to as a party-political speech. We oppose the Bill because we fear that unidentified issues might arise; however, if those issues are resolved, progress can be made. A process of engagement provides the best way forward. Therefore we support the Chairperson’s proposal.

The Chairperson:

I want to clarify the position. Issues of area planning and the controlled estate are not included in the first Bill but are in the second Bill; they are tabled for 4 and 11 February. As John McGrath said, I included those issues in the work programme to ensure that the Committee will have commenced that dialogue before 20 February, which is the closing date for consultations on the first Bill.

As Chairperson, I want to ensure that the necessary preparatory work and the scrutiny of the provisions of the second Bill are not delayed until an unknown end date and that the Committee examines the two Bills coherently and holistically. That provides a safeguard. It is not a signal to the Department or anybody else that we intend to drag our feet. The Committee will work hard to address the issues, raise concerns and achieve resolutions. It will be useful if the spirit shown in the past two weeks continues. Do members agree with my proposal?

Mr O’Dowd:

No. Sinn Féin counter-proposes 1 June as the date for extension.

Mrs O’Neill:

John O’Dowd’s suggestion demonstrates an intention to extend to 1 June; however, there is nothing to preclude the Committee from asking for a further extension at that stage.

Mr McCausland:

It is not possible to ask for a second extension.

The Chairperson:

Under Standing Orders, I can request an extension in the House only once. Therefore if the Committee identified problems at a later date, it could not request a further extension.

An extension to the end September will give us all in the Committee a safeguard. We do not envisage that anything will arise, but if it does we have given ourselves that protection. I have only one opportunity, as Chairperson of the Committee, to ask for an extension of the Committee Stage. The protocol is to take a vote on the latter proposal first.

Question put, That the Committee ask the Assembly that the Committee Stage of the Education Bill be extended until 1 June 2009.

The Committee divided: Ayes 2; Noes 7.

AYES

Mr O’Dowd, Mrs O’Neill.

NOES

Mr D Bradley, Mr Lunn, Mr McCausland, Mr B McCrea, Miss McIlveen, Mr Poots, Mr Storey.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question put, That the Committee ask the Assembly that the Committee Stage of the Education Bill be extended until 30 September 2009.

The Committee divided: Ayes 7; Noes 2.

AYES

Mr D Bradley, Mr Lunn, Mr McCausland, Mr B McCrea, Miss McIlveen, Mr Poots, Mr Storey.

NOES

Mr O’Dowd, Mrs O’Neill.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Committee ask the Assembly that the Committee Stage of the Education Bill be extended until 30 September 2009.