COMMITTEE FOR EDUCATION

OFFICIAL REPORT

(Hansard)

Education Bill

25 March 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
Miss Michelle McIlveen
Mr John O’Dowd
Michelle O’Neill
Mr Edwin Poots

Witnesses:
Mr Frank Bunting ) Irish National Teachers’ Organisation
Ms Avril Hall-Callaghan ) Ulster Teachers’ Union
Mr Seamus Searson ) National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers

Mr Chris Stewart )
Ms Eve Stewart ) Department of Education
Mr John McGrath )

The Chairperson (Mr Storey):

I hope that today’s business will be shorter than last week’s marathon session. The Committee will seek to avoid having so many and such protracted presentations in the future.

Today we will have presentations from the Ulster Teachers’ Union (UTU); the Irish National Teachers’ Organisation (INTO), and the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT). We will also hear responses from the Department — on today’s presentation from the unions, and on the issues raised last week by the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS) and the Northern Ireland Commission for Catholic Education (NICCE).

Avril, Frank and Seamus; you are very welcome. Please make your presentation and members will then ask questions.

Ms Avril Hall-Callaghan ( Ulster Teachers’ Union):

We thank the Committee for the invitation to give evidence. The Bill is very important, and we have notified the Committee that there are a number of points on which we wish to speak.

Before I start, I will distribute a joint statement on the Education Bill that has been issued by the five recognised teaching unions in Northern Ireland. The main thrust of it is that we are absolutely convinced that the education and skills authority (ESA) must assume responsibility — as employing authority — for all sectors in education. Everybody must come into the tent, including alternative education provision, which Seamus will mention later. Otherwise, there will not be the equality within the education system that we feel is absolutely vital.

A number of things flow from that in relation to the redeployment of teachers and saving on duplication — we are horrified at the thought of a multiplicity of employers carrying out the same functions. Where would the control mechanisms be? That is the main message that the unions want to get across to the Committee today.

I understand that most of the other witnesses come from the alternative point of view. However, we represent the teaching force that the Bill will affect. Staff who work in schools alongside teachers will also be affected. The unions are certainly not happy about the thought of those staff working under different terms and conditions.

The second point is that we are concerned about the lack of specific reference to nought-to-six years’ provision. The Department of Education is at present working on a review of nought-to-six provision. We are concerned that there has been no specific reference in the Bill, apart from a small mention of materials for young children being produced by the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA). There are rumours that there is an intention to, in some way, separate early-years provision from education, which we totally oppose. The unions feel that the years nought-to-six are a vital stage of a child’s development. Any language, or other, difficulties would be picked up at that stage, and we feel that it is vitally important that an education professional is involved in the early-years provision.

I know that the curriculum has changed at that stage and that some people would argue that one does not need to have a teacher there, but that is not the case. Just because it is a more relaxed environment does not mean that same amount of professional input is not required. Teachers picking up problems at that early stage will help the whole system later.

We also feel that equity in funding for all sectors is essential. The Committee knows that the unions have been campaigning for equity between primary- and secondary-sector funding, because we believe that most resources should be invested in the early stages in order to prevent problems developing later.

Retention of salaries at the centre would be welcomed. There is no point in trying to streamline an education system and then having many different people paying out salaries. The same principle applies to schemes of employment. It would be much better to have uniform schemes of employment. There should be no provision for schools to vary from that scheme.

The unions were interested to see in the Bill that employment for peripatetic teachers should be subject to negotiation with the schools. We certainly believe that it should be subject to negotiation. We favour a model that retains peripatetic teachers from within the teaching force instead of creating compulsory redundancies. A pool of peripatetic teachers of varying expertise should be maintained. In addition, teachers unions as well as the schools should be consulted about the use of those teachers. That is something that is lacking throughout the Bill — teachers’ unions are not being acknowledged as one of the major stakeholders.

At present, the education system relies far too heavily on buying in expertise from outside. Therefore, we were concerned about the reference in the Bill to the commissioning of research. We feel that there is adequate expertise in the system to ensure that any required research is done by the people who know the system. When outside providers come in, they ask the people in the system for their views anyway; so, let us cut that out and put the money put into front line services.

We are concerned that the Bill does not go far enough in trying to rid us of the multiplicity of bodies involved in the education service. We were delighted when we thought that all the sectoral bodies were going, but now there is a suggestion that not only are they being retained, but attempts are being made to create new ones. If we are trying to streamline the system, surely we should be trying to exclude those bodies.

We are not saying that those sectoral bodies should not be able to comment, but they should do so in the same way as teacher unions. We are not funded out of the education budget, and other bodies, such as the Churches and the integrated education sector should fund themselves and leave the education budget intact for the education of children.

The General Teaching Council (GTC) is mentioned in the Bill. That is one of the areas in which there should be a statutory obligation for consultation with the teacher unions. We have no difficulty with the GTC in that regard. Indeed, we have a good relationship with the GTC because the Registrar has placed it as a high-profile, important item. We do not know what the future holds, so we would like to have statutory provision for consultation.

Schools should operate on a multicultural basis. As members know, our society has changed drastically in recent years. There has to be a change of emphasis: schools should be open to all, and a diversity of cultures and opinions, for instance, is to be welcomed.

The governing body — the ESA — will be too small: eight to 12 people is not enough. If a couple of those people are not available on any particular day, then a small number of people could end up managing a huge employment sector. The number should be increased to 15 to 19 people, 25% of whom should be political representatives — which is what you would have wanted within your existing model. There should also be guaranteed places for trade unions at the table.

It is vital that the Department of Education retains the ability to direct the ESA, because we are sure that there will be times in the future when a guiding hand will be needed.

Mr Frank Bunting (Irish National Teachers’ Union):

I will be brief. I want to emphasise that the five teacher unions are of the view that there should be a single employing authority for all teaching and support staff in Northern Ireland. There is a range of reasons for that view, and I can go into those reasons later, if you wish.

With regard to clause 10 and the situation that we are moving into regarding redundancies and pensions, Ms Hall-Callaghan has suggested that there should be a provision in the Bill for the ESA to be able to employ panels of peripatetic teachers. That would be important, particularly for teachers in rural areas who, perhaps, will be subject to compulsory redundancies over the next decade.

Clause 13 relates to the provision of training. The broad thrust of the Bill is the need for accountable autonomy, and that means schools taking the lead. In the current model, professional development and in-service training are provided on a mechanical, statutory basis by the Curriculum Advisory and Support Services (CASS) of the five education and library boards, with funding being diverted away from schools to the boards so that they can do that. I would like to see that changed to a mixed-economy model in which schools receive the lion’s share of the budget. The GTC would have some responsibility for the budget, and there would be a smaller share for the ESA to deal with. That is generally in line with the thrust of accountable autonomy.

We value the role that the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) plays. It is currently under the auspices of the Department of Education, and we advocate strongly that that role be continued and that the inspectorate should not be separated from the Department.

Mr Seamus Searson (National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers):

Our central point is about the need to have a single, central employer. That is crucial to us, because it makes the most sense. It makes no sense for schools to want to be the employer and deal with all the legal situations. Why should they want to do that? They should be guided by the ESA, and that is one of the major messages that I want to get across this morning.

I shall take a slightly different tack and talk about the way in which schools operate. The important part of a school is what goes on in the classroom, whether that is in a field or in a special unit. As you might expect a representative from a teaching union to say, it is important to realise that teachers are an important part of the teaching and learning experience for youngsters. We want to emphasise that, but we also need a system that supports the teacher in the classroom. That is why schools, principals and management need to be able to support the teacher in the classroom; it should not be the other way around. Resources and support staff should be focused on supporting the teacher.

The whole idea of moving away from the current number of employers was to try to streamline the system, and the next step should be to streamline things inside schools. Schools are expected to carry out many duties, and teachers and principals are not the best people to do them. We need to focus on what schools are for, create structures and systems that will support teaching and learning in schools and allow all young people to reach their full potential. The challenge for the ESA is to create an educational support system that allows schools to focus on the activity in the classroom.

Some of the functions that have been talked about in other places do not make any sense. For example, the ESA should be able to relieve schools of bureaucratic and administrative burdens and offer a range of support services. If the ESA is to be the single employer, why is there a need for various employment schemes? That is unnecessary. A teacher working in Bangor should be treated the same as a teacher working in Derry, in the same situation, and that should also apply to support staff. Why would schools want to invoke extra work and extra responsibility? They have enough to do as it is.

Avril mentioned alternative education providers. Education does not simply apply to one school but to a whole range of units and outfits across Northern Ireland, and the ESA should have responsibility for all of those. Outreach centres such as Newstart Education Centre, Conway Mill Education Centre and Lagan Valley Educational Project are working and supporting youngsters who are outside the education system. In some instances, they rely on charitable funding, which does not seem to make any sense because those youngsters are part of educational responsibility and need to be brought back into line.

Finally, provision for 14-to-19-year-olds is straddled across two Departments, and we see potential conflict with that in the future. An important consideration is who will be the lead partner for education of people between the ages of 14 and 19. We agree that the major issue is the importance of having a single employer. Why should we have a myriad of other obstacles in the way?

The Chairperson:

As you are aware, today’s edition of ‘The Irish News’ reports on a conflict between the teaching unions and the Catholic bishops on this issue, because it is central to the presentations that were made to the Committee last week on the single employing authority. The Catholic bishops argued that, as a result of the ESA becoming the single employing authority, there would be a threat to ethos. From a union’s point of view, is that an issue?

Mr Bunting:

I do not think so. The Church is generally responsible for the population of most of the governors of Catholic schools.

Provision has been made in the Bill for the trustees, as the owners of schools, to have a major say in how employment schemes and suchlike are developed. We do not envisage any threat to the ethos of any individual school. Indeed, we were surprised by the thrust of the bishops’ and cardinal’s statement.

Our experience with the CCMS, which is the single employing authority for all Catholic teachers throughout Northern Ireland, is that it shows the benefits for Catholic teachers of having a single employing authority. An example of that was when schools were being closed in the Belfast area and the responsibility for redeployment of staff was undertaken by the CCMS. It was able to redeploy teaching staff across Northern Ireland. Some teachers were moved from central Belfast to Lisnaskea, for example, simply because it also suited them to move back home for a variety of reasons. The fact that the CCMS was a single employing authority meant that it had the ability to do that.

The teachers who suffered most from the fact that there was no single employing authority were those in the controlled sector, because all that education and library boards were able to do, particularly in the post-primary sector, was to redeploy teachers from, for example, one controlled secondary school to another in a limited number of schools in their area. Therefore, there was total inequity in teachers’ prospects between the controlled sector and the Catholic sector.

As Seamus and Avril have said, the creation of a single employment authority addresses that issue. It also enables teachers to be redeployed from post-primary controlled and Catholic secondary schools into grammar schools, and from Irish-medium into integrated schools.

Recently, Armagh Integrated College was closed. Its teachers have a single employing authority, in its board of governors, and do not have the ability to be redeployed elsewhere. Establishing a single employing authority will address such issues. Therefore, from the perspective of teachers and support staff, and in the interests of efficiency, establishing the ESA is basically a dream come true.

The Chairperson:

Frank, I want to tease that out slightly. One of the concerns raised by CCMS and the NICCE — and I believe that some voluntary grammar schools have also raised this concern — is about the redeployment of staff. There is a worry — the reasons for which I cannot fully comprehend fully — about that matter. It seems to focus on the ESA’s ability to take a member of staff who has taught in a maintained school and place that person in a non-maintained school, and vice versa. They argue that that is the big issue.

Mr Bunting:

That can be addressed easily. The CCMS did a fantastic job; everyone accepts that. The boards also did a good job.

The ESA will have the ability to redeploy teachers. However, the actual decision-making for the employment of teachers will remain with the board of governors. Therefore, for example, the CCMS, and hopefully the ESA when it is established, places the names of teachers who need to be redeployed before individual boards of governors. Subsequently, those teachers are interviewed by a subcommittee of the board of governors, which then appoints to the position the teacher whom it believes to be meritorious. If there is not a teacher whom the board of governors wishes to employ, it is under no compulsion to employ or redeploy a teacher who has been placed before it by the central body. The entire thrust of protection of ethos, employment status and rights by the board of governors will remain exactly as it is.

Mr Searson:

I want to start by saying that my interpretation is that there will be no change to what exists at present except that the final decision or control of the final decision will belong to the employer, which will be the ESA.

Boards of governors will appoint and dismiss their own staff as long as they follow the correct legal procedures, and the ESA will be ensuring that they adhere to those prcedures. If a board of governors wants to dismiss somebody for the wrong reasons, the ESA should be able to step in and advise the board that it will encounter legal difficulties and other problems by using incorrect methods. That will be a safeguarding situation. An employer should take advice and guidance from the centre, which knows the law and the regulations. In reality, most boards of governors do not know the law. Schools working alone make up the law and end up in trouble afterwards.

Teachers are not made redundant because they are bad teachers; it is because there are not enough children to teach. That is different from trying to dismiss someone whose teaching standards are not up to the mark. If that is the case, there is a capability procedure, which is the correct procedure for somebody who wants to go down that particular road.

It is not the case that teachers are not fit for one school or another. Under present arrangements, many people who are redeployed are young teachers in their first three or four years of teaching. I do not think that schools will say that they cannot change young teachers and mould them to work a certain way. It is a bit of a red herring and is obviously hiding something else that they are trying to protect rather than coming forward and saying that it is in the interest of all schools.

We spend a lot of resources on training teachers, but we do not do look after them when they leave university and college. Every so often, we put them on a daily rate, and we do not have a scheme for them. The ESA must deal with that problem and find a way for young teachers to gain employment and become inducted into the education service. As I said earlier, if that is not possible, teachers need the support to move on. People have spun the story in an unfortunate way because, as Frank said, governors will have the final say as to whether a person fits in with their staff. If they reject that person, they should do so for good reasons.

The Chairperson:

Before members ask questions, I want to tease that matter out a bit further. You have raised concerns about schools having the freedom to prepare schemes of employment. The Bill, as it stands, proposes different submitting authorities for employment and management schemes. However, we believe that the Minister is considering an amendment that will make the owners/trustees the submitting authority for all schools. Who should be the submitting authority that prepares the schemes of management and schemes of employment?

Ms Hall-Callaghan:

We feel very strongly that there should be a uniform scheme of management. There is no reason for schemes to be duplicated. We are concerned that we will end up with a situation similar to that in England and Wales, where schools are tantamount to private institutions with their own conditions of service, and so on. We do not want to countenance such a situation in Northern Ireland.

The Chairperson:

As regards the phrase “maximising school autonomy and centralisation”, do you believe that it is a case of one or the other, or is it a combination of both? Voluntary grammar schools and maintained schools say that they have autonomy that they do not want to give up. As collective representatives of teachers, should functions be centralised, should local autonomy remain or is a combination of both preferable?

Ms Hall-Callaghan:

Several functions should be centralised, and we have already suggested that —

The Chairperson:

Employment is obviously a key one.

Ms Hall-Callaghan:

Yes. There are other areas that schools need to have control over, such as training, to which Frank referred. It is a mixed package.

Mr Bunting:

It is an interrelationship. I know that many members of the Committee, including the Chairperson, serve as school governors. We believe that the concept of governorship in Northern Ireland, England and Wales is seriously flawed.

There must be a relationship between governors — who are basically unpaid volunteers who receive a limited number of hours of training for undertaking complex education and employment functions — and where their expertise may lead. For example, under the present arrangements, one governor from each school is designated to liaise with the principal about child-protection matters. I believe that as child protection is such an important, significant and difficult area, the person selected must have considerable professional experience in that area. Therefore, it may not be appropriate for a volunteer to assume such a role.

If you are dealing with, and giving advice to, teachers or support staff who are under investigation and, perhaps, suicidal, then you will want to ensure that they receive the best professional support possible. Therefore, the relationship between the central authority — the ESA — and governors is complex, and while we have governors, professional expertise must come from the ESA.

Hopefully, with the Committee’s help, we may move to a more professional model for education, such as the one that exists under the delegated schools management system in Scotland.

Mr Searson:

There is confusion about what the terms the Chairperson mentioned actually mean. They can mean different things to different people. In reality, how many decisions do schools have to make? The bottom line is that they must employ teachers; so, based on their budgets, they must decide how many teachers they can afford to employ, which will determine the curriculum they are able to offer.

Having paid for buildings, heating, meals, transport and all the other factors for which a school is responsible, the major decision left is how to deploy the remaining resources. Ultimately, little is recalled, so a school’s autonomy amounts to how it uses that last piece of money. Autonomy might be exercised by a school deciding to spend money on extra equipment, such as an IT suite, or in choosing to spend money on additional teachers, support staff or materials. Schools must be careful about the decisions they make; however, those decisions should be based on the quality of the education that they provide for youngsters.

Activities such as looking after school buses should be taken away from schools and dealt with somewhere else. Consequently, schools would not have a budget of £4 million or £5 million each; it would be a much smaller figure, which would reflect how much money they actually have to spend. What people mean when they use the word “autonomy” has yet to be teased out and explored further. Otherwise, we will end up with different meanings for different people, and that will cause difficulties in the future.

Mr D Bradley:

I thank the witnesses for their presentation. I agree with Seamus. Last week, during our meeting with the NICCE, three different terms were used containing the word “autonomy”, and we are not sure whether each of those terms means the same thing. Therefore, we require more clarity on that subject.

Initially, one of the major selling points for the ESA was the £20 million per annum savings that were predicted. That money was to be reinvested in front line services; however, as a result of the financial situation, the economic downturn, and so on, we are told that that money might be used to plug various holes in the education budget. Therefore, we cannot be sure that the savings will go to front line services.

The Department’s main rationale for the ESA now is raising standards. You did not mention that in your presentation. How effective do you think the ESA will be in raising standards in schools?

Ms Hall-Callaghan:

That depends on how it goes about doing it. To date, we are very concerned about what is coming out of the ESA and out of the Department with respect to the ‘Every School a Good School’ policy. If the ESA is to be set up with the role of challenging schools — and that is what the chief executive designate is saying — I believe that that is totally wrong. Schools do not need to be challenged; they need positive support.

Starting off with a confrontation — which the word “challenge” indicates — will result in teachers getting nervous, and they will, perhaps, go into a defensive mode. That will not get the best out of schools.

I recently went to Finland, and one of the things that came across most was the fact that professionals there are left to get on with it. No inspectorial process whatsoever exists in Finland, and yet, its pupils achieve the highest results in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) surveys. Therefore, there is something about professional self-esteem and the fact that the vast majority of schools operate well and do the best for their pupils. As Seamus said, there is a small number of problems, but those are picked up by the unsatisfactory teacher procedure and the existing inspection procedure. Therefore, we have concerns.

Mr Bunting:

There are different ways in which to sell the ESA. I know from the experience of the CCMS that we are not simply supporting a central employing authority for teaching and support staff out of ritual. In a place such as Northern Ireland with a small system of fewer than 1,200 mixed-model schools, the only way in which we can move forward to implement the Department’s sustainable schools programme is to have a single employing authority, whereby the actual workforce is being used more efficiently. Really, that is the key benefit that will sustain.

As the chief inspector and everyone else will acknowledge, the key deliverer as regards teaching and learning in schools is the teaching force. Having a single employing authority will be a major boon, particularly for teachers who are currently isolated in grammar schools, integrated schools, Irish-medium schools and controlled schools. Having one single employing authority will bring major benefits for all those sectors.

Shortly, the five teachers’ unions will meet the chief inspector, at his invitation, to explore ways in which standards in education can be raised. That is the first time that those unions have been so invited by any part of the education administrative network.

I share the view that Avril outlined about adopting the English system. The London Challenge and the National Challenge in England, which try to drive up standards through the use of heavy inspections and rigorous accountability, has not worked. Rather, we believe that schools need to build on good practice, and we are keen to explore with the chief inspector how we can do that together.

Mr Searson:

Every administrative post that is created militates against people’s teaching and learning. We would much prefer the money to be diverted to teaching and learning, rather than being spent on creating sectoral support bodies and administrative support staff that will, allegedly, give sectors an advisory role. We do not see the logic in establishing four, five or six sectoral support bodies. We thought that when new education administrative bodies were being established, there would be a simple model in which all players would be members of the education advisory forum and would advise the Department of Education.

Consider a similar model in the Republic of Ireland, where the Catholic Primary Schools Management Association (CPSMA) is a much larger entity than the CCMS. CPSMA performs the same role with about three members of staff who are not funded separately by Government or through public funds, but, as I understand, by the Church. I do not see why such nanny-state support needs to be given to sectoral-support bodies in Northern Ireland — simply because support is given to one Church body, it has to be given to others, which would create other sectoral-support bodies along the line. We could end up with a number of sectoral-support bodies employing more than 100 staff.

The tendency has been for education administrative bodies, once established, to grow like topsy. When the CCMS was established, it employed seven or eight members of staff. It now has approximately 85 employees and, therefore, we must be careful. The Department wants to give additional capability to those particular bodies, but they do not need it. The existing members of staff know that perfectly well, because they receive all the necessary advice and support from within their own sectors.

The Chairperson:

Frank, does that have an adverse effect on education? The worry, or fear, is that the result of raising concerns and issues, and moving away from the debate on efficiency to one on who runs the schools, may lead to a more segregated and Balkanised education system than ever before. The opportunity exists to work together to the advantage of all children, as opposed to all children, but particularly those in certain sectors. The fact that there are so many sectors raises difficulties.

Mr Bunting:

Other major strategies are within the Department of Education’s ambit. For example, learning communities have been established within which post-primary schools from all sectors work more collaboratively. There is a progressive move in that respect. However, we see no logic in additional tiers of education administration being built in as well as the ESA.

The Catholic Church, the transferors, the Governing Bodies Association (GBA), the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education and Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta all have the capability to provide advice to the Department of Education on ethos, and on the education and learning in their particular sectors. Why do they need additional capability, the funding for which would come from the education budget? As Dominic said, that budget is under increasing pressure because of the state of the economy. All available money should be invested in teaching and learning.

Mr Bunting:

He has much more capability than I have.

It is important for the working group proposed by the Department to address those issues.

The Chairperson:

If we could establish that working group, it would be extremely helpful.

Mr Bunting:

I absolutely agree. The only issue that INTO has is that the working group should be built on the existing expertise in the education and library boards. For reasons of exigency, I believe that the Department wants to select people to be involved in consultation with the education and library boards. The education and library boards have been 100% responsible for the development and maintenance of the controlled sector. In my view, they have done a first-class job. There is a body of expertise in the boards that could be used to ensure that that sector is not treated any less equitably than another sector.

Mr Lunn:

I will not take up much of your time, because, for once, I find myself agreeing with almost everything that is in the submission. I want to raise a couple of small points; however, I am more interested to hear the departmental response to your comments.

Your paper states that equity in funding for all levels is essential. Can you tease that out a wee bit for me? I do not believe that you mean equal amounts of funding, but rebalancing of amounts. By “schemes of employment”, I presume that you mean a model scheme that could be varied slightly if necessary.

I am having quite a good week on the subject of the ESA, because, suddenly, the Catholic bishops and unions seem to agree with me. I am delighted. [Laughter.]

How many guaranteed places for trade-union reps do you suggest? In your submission, Frank, it states that the ESA should report to, and be subject to, scrutiny by the Assembly’s Education Committee. Of course, it would be subject to scrutiny by the Committee, although I am not sure about formal reporting.

We already mentioned the GTC, and about being written into that part of the legislation. We represent teachers, who are a huge influence on the education service. So as long as we are written into the legislation, we will not be left out of the process. If a statutory requirement is placed on people to consult, they will do so, but, if we are not specifically mentioned in the Bill, there will be a tendency to put us to one side and talk to us later. We want to be an integral part of the process, in the interests of the children. We bring the perspective of the teacher, who is the front line worker.

Mrs O’Neill:

A lot of ground has been covered, but Frank and Avril mentioned the employment of a panel of teachers. On my reading, clause 10 includes that provision. Why do you think that it is not, or why do you believe that an amendment is needed?

Mr Bunting:

It is difficult to know the legislative and the practical outworking of that. We have been making representations on the matter to the Department for a considerable time and have received no reassurance.

We are moving rapidly towards a situation this year when there must be a panel in place. We would be more than happy to accept an assurance obtained by the Committee that the ESA is capable of employing a panel of teachers, particularly for the type of exigencies that we have outlined. In those circumstances, we would be content to let the legislation sit.

(The Chairperson [Mr Storey] in the Chair)

Mrs O’Neill:

That is something that the Committee can put to the departmental officials.

Ms Hall-Callaghan:

The other thing that we have been working on is a winding-down scheme, which involves teachers at the end of their careers — who have accumulated a lot of expertise and experience — would be able to reduce their workloads and perhaps enter that pool of peripatetic teachers. However, that is another issue about which we have come to brick wall with the Department.

Mr McCausland:

Paragraph 14 of the UTU submission states:

“Whilst the UTU accepts that it may be necessary on some occasions to commission research it would state its very strong reservations about the amount of public funds currently used in employing commercial companies to carry out research.”

Avril, Seamus, and Frank, thank you very much for your submission. You are welcome to stay and listen to the departmental representatives’ comments — or their rebuttal, as it has been referred to. I am sure that you had those in the past.

Mr Bunting:

That is a very polite way of putting it. [Laughter.]