COMMITTEE FOR EDUCATION

OFFICIAL REPORT

(Hansard)

Education Bill - Transferor Representatives Council

22 April 2009

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr Mervyn Storey (Chairperson)
Mr Dominic Bradley (Deputy Chairperson)
Mrs Mary Bradley
Mr Tom Elliott
Mr Trevor Lunn
Mr Nelson McCausland
Mr Basil McCrea
Miss Michelle McIlveen
Mr John O’Dowd

Witnesses:

Rev Ian Ellis )
Rev Trevor Gribben )Transferor Representatives’ Council
Rev Robert Herron )
Rev Trevor Jamieson )

The Chairperson of the Committee for Education (Mr Storey):

This morning I welcome members of the Transferor Representatives’ Council (TRC) to the Committee: its chairman, Rev Robert Herron, Rev Trevor Gribben, Rev Trevor Jamieson, and Rev Ian Ellis. Gentlemen, I invite you to make your presentation, after which members will have the opportunity to ask questions. Thank you.

Rev Robert Herron (Transferor Representatives’ Council):

Thank you, Chairman, for the welcome and also for the opportunity to address the Committee. You have already received some of our papers, which include our response to the Education Bill and, relevant to that, our response to policy paper 20. We have also produced a summary sheet of other points that we want to make during the meeting.

At the outset, I will say that although there are several issues on our summary sheet, our major focus will be on one of them, namely representation. If members have questions on other issues, however, we are happy to take them. Trevor Gribben may comment on religious education. Ian Ellis will discuss our main concern of representation.

We do not want to be negative; we want to make a positive contribution. That said, we have serious concerns. We feel that we are starting off on the back foot. We had to argue our case strongly on transferors’ representation on schools’ boards of governors. We appreciate the listening ear that political parties have given us, and we acknowledge the response to our representations. Ian will address the problem of representation, which must be solved.

Rev Ian Ellis (Transferor Representatives’ Council):

Thank you, Chairman. I will address the fist page of the sheet containing our summary points. I want to say a few words about our vision for education and why we believe that Churches ought to be involved in it. It sets the context of what is important to us as Churches.

The transferor Churches are fully committed to public-sector education; that is demonstrated through our involvement as school governors. At present, schools’ boards of governors are being reconstituted for the next round of four years. The four of us are involved in ringing people who already serve on boards of governors and asking them whether they want to serve for another four years.

In doing that, we have become aware of the scale of governors’ dedication and commitment. Almost everyone we ask says that they will serve again; only a few say that they have done their term and want to be replaced. Largely, we get a positive response. There are some 1,800 governors throughout the Province; that is a big commitment from the Church to provide volunteer governors to schools.

That demonstrates where we as Churches are at grass-roots level in schools by providing that kind of input into education. However, when we transferred our schools, we did more than that and we were given more than that; we were given a role and a voice in the management of the schools estate across an area board as well, and I want to return to that point.

We do not feel that we are in education to dominate or control schools; however, we feel that we have an influence to bring to bear and a contribution to make to what is important in education. We believe that, across Northern Ireland, most parents want their children taught in a context of Christian faith. That seems to be demonstrated in all the censuses and polls.

Across Northern Ireland, 85% of the population declare themselves to be of a Christian denomination; in the controlled sector, some 78% of children are from the Protestant community. There is, therefore, a very strong connection with our own community in the schools that we represent. It is also important to acknowledge that our schools have a diversity of beliefs, but the statistics show that the majority belief is from the Protestant Churches, and the transferors represent about two thirds of those ― 86% of the 78% are from our Churches. It is from there that we get our base.

We are keen to emphasise that we are not in schools to dominate but to contribute a view of education that, we believe, parents share, and to do that with other partners in education and with those who have equal rights to participation. Christianity is still the dominant social determinant in Ireland; there are other faiths, and those of no faiths, and we are able and willing to work them. In our vision statement for controlled-sector schools we say that schools should foster tolerance of and respect for the beliefs of others and also respect the rights of those with no religious belief. It is a subtle influence in education, but it is real and is based on our Christian faith.

I can give an example of that influence: ‘Newsround’ on children’s BBC had an interesting survey this week than showed that children from Northern Ireland say their prayers more than children from other parts of the UK ― 57% of children in Northern Ireland pray as opposed to 22% in the UK generally.

The Chairperson:

Perhaps that is because of the politicians that they have. [Laughter.]

Rev Ian Ellis:

They need to pray for as much help as possible. [Laughter.] That survey is a wee indicator of the kind of people that we Irish are; there is a latent spirituality that sets the tone, I believe, for our schools as well.

However, to come to the substantive point: in the 1920s and 1930s, we handed over control of our schools to the state. It is important to note that we did not hand over ownership of the schools, because when those schools cease to be used as education establishments, there are reversionary rights under which they return to the Churches. To safeguard that, Churches were given a statutory place on area boards to have oversight of the planning and safeguarding of those properties. In later legislation, we were given places on the boards of all controlled schools, not just those that we had owned; therefore, it was recognised that transferors had an oversight role in the management and planning of the controlled-schools estate. We believe that the Education Bill removes that statutory right, which was about safeguarding the schools that Churches established and to safeguard an interest in planning for their future.

Among the proposals in the legislation is one for a separate ownership body. It rejects the idea that the education and skills authority could be the ownership body of the controlled-schools estate because there is a feeling that the ESA would in some way contaminate or be influenced.

However, whatever model is proposed, transferors should have a right to representation on the proposed body.

One of the proposals is a separate ownership body. We had a helpful discussion with departmental officials, including Chris Stewart, who explained some of the proposals to us. Chris was also able to tell us that, because of the application of equality legislation, transferors would not have places by right on any ownership body. It would be up to Churches to apply and be subject to an appointments process. That seems to us to be a serious injustice and a denial of rights that were given to us.

More than that, it is also about parity of esteem, because of how that works out in other sectors. For example, our Catholic colleagues will continue to have a place by right on an ownership body and will continue to have decision-making powers regarding planning of their schools estate; yet the Protestant Churches will no longer have a role by right in any decision making regarding the control of the schools estate or whatever it will be called in the future.

There seems to be a huge injustice and a disparity in decision making and the rights of the Protestant community; we wish to make that point strongly this morning. It is a conundrum. One can see in the policy papers a great struggle with finding a place for the controlled-schools estate and a representation for that estate; a body that will somehow speak for its ownership and its planning for the future. All the models outlined in the policy paper pose problems for us. The basic problem is that there will be no place by right for transferring Churches in an ownership body — a body that will have a say in the planning of the controlled-schools estate in the future.

We are perfectly happy with the idea of a representative body, because we believe that the controlled estate needs a cohesive body to speak for it and to plan for it and to have an input into its ethos. Anyone on that body would need to have a place on an ownership body, because ultimately that will be the body that makes the decisions on new development plans or the disposal of previous estate.

Whatever model is arrived at — and there must be some creativity with ideas; you MLAs came up with a solution to the problem of governors — it must be a solution that enables the two major traditions in Northern Ireland to feel that they have parity of esteem and parity in protection of ethos. A failure to do that would be a denial of parity of treatment to the two major communities in Northern Ireland.

Those are the general points that we want to make at the moment. Trevor wants to make a further comment about support for religious education.

Rev Trevor Gribben (Transferor Representatives’ Council):

I affirm everything that Ian said. The phrase with which he ended is where I would like to begin: parity of protection of ethos. The transferring Churches want to see our ethos as protected as the ethos of any other sector or any other Church. The transferor Churches’ approach to religious education has always been different from that of other Churches; we have never been interested in the concept of religious formation as a part of education, but the concept of religious education has been valued by all our Churches and parents.

Our submission refers to the new role of the ESA in the training and advisory support services for teachers. We wish to make the point strongly that we feel that, under current systems, support for religious education in the controlled sector has constantly diminished. As advisory officers either retire or move on from posts in education and library boards, their posts are often not filled. On occasions, a religious education advisory officer giving support to schools in the controlled sector has to multitask that with perhaps seven other elements of his or her job description.

It is important for religious education to have the protection of an advisory support service, for teachers to receive the necessary backup and for that compulsory part of the syllabus to be given the same support as any other subject. We note the proposal for that support to be transferred to the ESA under the new arrangements, and we want to put down a strong marker that a support service for religious education must be provided.

Linked to that is the issue of inspection, to which we also refer in our submission. Religious education is taught by professionals, and we want them to be trained in the delivery of religious education and to be as professional as any other teacher; we also advocate that they be inspected professionally. The current system whereby boards of governors must request inspections of religious education before inspection is not satisfactory. At its meeting tomorrow night, a board may pass a resolution to inspect, but if a school’s inspection is not for two years’ time, the inspection of religious education may not be take place. Often, religious education is not inspected in controlled schools, even when a board of governors has expressed its desire for that to happen.

At point 6, we raise the issue of inspections by laypersons. We note that legislation provides an opportunity for specialists to work alongside the inspectorate on specialist subjects. Often, the laypeople are teachers, perhaps of religious education, who accompany an inspector whose speciality may not be in that subject. We want parity of treatment for religious education in controlled schools, both in the support and advisory service and inspection. That is a sub-point of the protection of ethos. The continuation of public worship, the Christian ethos of a school and the place of religious education are all part of that protected ethos.

The Chairperson:

Thank you for your presentation and for your detailed submission setting out many of the issues arising from paper 20. I want to pick up on the issues relating to the body that would be established to own the controlled sector. Given the Education and Libraries ( Northern Ireland) Order 1986 and all that flows from it, if you had a choice, on which of the two would you prefer representation: the ESA board or a body established to own the controlled sector?

Rev Ian Ellis:

That would depend on the functions of an ownership body. Our response to policy paper 20 sets out a range of functions for the ownership body, some of which seem to duplicate those of a representational body. At the end of the day, we were not sure which body would have the final say on planning, disposal, area-based work, ethos or the nomination of governors. There seems to be a considerable overlap between those two bodies. Whatever the outcome, we ought to have a place by right. We were told that it is not possible for us to be represented on the main board, which will be made up of technocrats or local councillors.

Rev Robert Herron:

The functions of the ownership body are our main concern; ownership itself is not a major issue for us. It would depend on what functions owners would be given. We wonder about the logic of the situation: how can the ESA be a publicly appointed body and, at the same time, be accused of bias? That implies a problem with the process of public appointments.

The Chairperson:

Speaking personally, there is also an issue about how to deal with equality or inequality.

On the one hand, one group argues that the education system is exempt from certain elements of equality legislation; that group has a case, given the fact that, for example, the Catholic certificate gives a preference to one sector of the educational world.

On the other hand, we have been told that the establishment of a body that is to govern, or be responsible for, the ownership of the controlled estate must be subject to equality legislation. Do you see that as an attempt to perpetuate the inequality in the system?

Is it a fair reflection of school provision in Northern Ireland at present to say that the various sectors are not being treated equally in legislation and in practice? Do you agree that an opportunity exists, if people are willing, to address inequality — which is the Minister’s view — to get it right and to create a level playing field for the first time in a long time in how education is delivered?

Rev Robert Herron:

Some of my colleagues may also want to speak on that matter.

We do not underestimate the complexity and difficulty of bringing about change in the education system, as it has evolved over years and has included compromises and political agreements, and different solutions have been found for the different issues that have arisen. Changing or tinkering with one part of the system will have a knock-on effect on the rest of it.

The Transferor Representatives’ Council is looking for some kind of parity with the Catholic Trustees. The context has changed because, today, all Northern Ireland schools’ capital and revenue are 100% funded. Therefore, I am not sure what ownership means in that context and why it is being used at all as a model for developing the future of the education system.

I could speak at length on the matter. In my experience, vested interests and issues of ownership add to the difficulty of finding solutions for, and agreement on, area planning at local level.

Some of my colleagues and I addressed the issue of teacher appointments at another Committee; the Churches are concerned about it.

Rev Trevor Gribben:

The concept that the transferring Churches cannot be represented in the controlled sector because of equality legislation when other Churches are represented in another sector is totally illogical. The school system in Northern Ireland is 100% publicly funded; therefore, equality legislation should be applied across that system as a whole.

To speak bluntly, if one community is represented in one sector, it is equal for another community to be represented in another sector. That is equality. Under current legislation, the transferring Churches have a legislative right to be involved in the controlled sector; they also have an historic right, because of the transfer and ownership of schools in the twentieth century. Therefore, for those Churches to be told that they can no longer be included because of equality legislation is, basically, discrimination, given the fact that another Church can be involved in another sector.

The equality legislation is being applied through the ownership model. Since every school receives 100% funding, the entire educational community should be considered together. People should look at the whole picture and ask whether it is fair. It is a gross injustice for one community’s Church to be represented in one sector and for other community’s Churches to be excluded from another sector because of equality legislation.

The Chairperson:

This is a very wide-ranging issue, and I want to move to questions from members.

However, on that point, the Minister said that there were “structural” inequalities. The Committee wrote to the Minister last October asking her to set out those structural inequalities; it is mid-April and the Committee has still not received a reply. Transferor representation is an issue that the Committee must get to the bottom of, and we have the opportunity to deal with it. As the Committee endeavours to do that, The TRC’s comments and views will be very welcome.

Rev Trevor Gribben:

As Ian said, we are not the only voice in the controlled sector; we want to state that clearly. However, the statistics that we have given you, which are from the census and from the Department, show that the TRC Churches represent two thirds of pupils in the controlled sector.

Therefore, excluding the TRC Churches from representation in that sector because it is difficult to find how the other third will be represented appears ludicrous to us.

Mr Lunn:

On the matter of equality, it appears that the council has been told that granting it automatic rights of membership to the ESA would breach equality legislation. The Department seems to put that slightly differently by stating in paragraph 3 of its review of public administration response that:

“Appointments will reflect the merit principle, and no organisation will be given automatic membership rights.”

I will be asking Chris Stewart the same question later, but please give me your thoughts on that.

The first qualification for membership for the majority of local councillors — who may not represent an organisation but who do represent a significant grouping — is that they must be members of a body of local councillors. That seems to contrast with your council’s exclusion. Has the TRC anything to say about that?

Rev Robert Herron:

We are talking about a political decision.

Mr Lunn:

I am not asking about the merit of appointing councillors to the ESA; however, there appears to be a contradiction on the basis of equality.

Rev Robert Herron:

That may be the case.

Rev Ian Ellis:

We are not here to bash politicians; we do not want to do that.

Rev Robert Herron:

Politicians, some of whom are members of the Committee, are involved in the Western Education and Library Board (WELB), which I have chaired for a couple of years. I believe that politicians have made a positive contribution to the board. I do not want to take away from that good work — their knowledge has helped to find local solutions to difficulties. I have more of an issue with the ESA’s ability in that area than with its representational make up.

Mr Lunn:

My remarks have been taken up wrongly. I am not asking about the merit of councillors as contributors to the ESA — I am sure councillors with a contribution to make can be found somewhere — I am asking about equality.

If organisations are not given automatic membership rights, how is the word “organisation” to be defined? The organisation or group in question could be the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA). However, a selected grouping of people will have automatic membership rights to the ESA. Yet, historically, I completely agree that the TRC is being denied its rightful place on that authority.

Rev Ian Ellis:

We agree with that analysis. We believe that to be unfair.

Rev Trevor Gribben:

I do not doubt that once a certain number of councillors has been appointed, an attempt will be made to create balances in that group and that it will not consist of councillors from just one section of the community or from a single party. It is not unreasonable to suggest that there should be representatives of the Churches — say two or three — and to have a balance in that group as a way of bringing several Churches into the ESA. There are many creative ways of doing that in Northern Ireland, provided that the will exists.

Mr Lunn:

I am beginning to wonder who the politicians are at the meeting, Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen.

The Chairperson:

We will ask Chris later about the issue concerning definitions. Councillors, for example, are to be appointed on merit and could, therefore, be all unionists or all nationalists. A publicly-owned body would be subject to section 75, and consideration would have to be given to a whole raft of views. Given your comment that you represent 85% of the Protestant community, there is a question about how that circle can be squared.

Mr McCausland:

I welcome the fact that the issue of equality has been placed high on the agenda. The point was made earlier that we have had an ad hoc arrangement whereby certain aspects have been added on over the years and changes have been made. The current system already has inequalities, and there is a danger that we will have a system that has even more inequalities. However, now that we have started to deconstruct the education architecture and put it together again, there is an opportunity to address those inequalities, and it is one that should not be missed.

You said that the Roman Catholic Church is represented on the ownership body for the maintained sector. I would go further and say that the Roman Catholic Church is the de facto ownership body. The trustees are all bishops, and, as a Roman Catholic layman pointed out to me, laypeople cannot get onto that board. There is a clearly a disparity between the situation in one sector and other sectors.

I am interested in your point about legislation, which is a matter that we have raised with Chris Stewart. I would focus more on the ownership and representative body for the controlled sector rather than on the ESA. As you rightly said, the children who attend those schools are overwhelmingly from Protestant churches. Did Chris Stewart give any indication about how to resolve the problem of equality legislation preventing the establishment of a statutory ownership body that reflects the community that the schools serve? Or, did he merely acknowledge that it is a difficulty?

Rev Ian Ellis:

Chris can verify his position but, in our initial conversation with him, I think that he was saying that the ownership body would have to be a non-departmental public body and that equality legislation would, therefore, restrict membership. I think that there was a suggestion that some of the ownership body’s powers may be devolved to a representational body. It would be easier for us to find our way on to a representational body because we are represented in the schools. Considering that option may be a way forward, and that is why I responded to Mervyn’s question about which of the two we wanted by saying that it depends on function. There may be a way forward in undertaking some creative thinking about what roles and functions the two bodies have.

Mr McCausland:

Did Chris come back on the point that shifting responsibilities from one body to the other would create inequality because the ownership bodies would have different powers?

Rev Ian Ellis:

We have not heard anything more since that initial conversation.

Mr McCausland:

Changing the ownership bodies would raise issues of inequality. There would be a high-level ownership body with a lot of powers in one sector and a lower-level ownership body with limited powers in another sector.

Surely schools could effectively thumb their nose at a purely voluntary and representational body — to which powers had been shifted from a statutory ownership body — and tell it to go away because it has no influence. In trying to resolve one problem, we would be creating two new inequalities. The best way to address the matter may be to go back and ascertain what the legislative problem is, because the education system already has equality exemptions in regard to teaching appointments. Perhaps we should consider that.

Rev Robert Herron:

That is partly why, for us, it is an equality and a rights issue. It is about rights of representation.

The Chairperson:

In fairness to the TRC representatives, Nelson, they received the response from the Department only today. They will have an opportunity to respond to that as, obviously, there will be issues. However, it is interesting that in its responses to the issues of ownership and representation — and this is the point that Nelson made — the Department said that:

“each will be associated with separate and distinct functions. In the case of Catholic education, the ownership and representative functions will both reside with the Catholic trustees. This cannot be replicated exactly for the controlled sector.”

A clear issue continues to emanate — we do not have equality. That information has been passed to you, so you will have an opportunity to comment on that.

Rev Trevor Gribben:

In response to that, and to what Mr McCausland said, we feel that the controlled sector is already a weak sector. Whatever comes out of the change must strengthen the controlled sector, give it a strong voice, and make it cohesive. It is vitally important that the sector is able to have an advocacy role with the Department and with the ESA. Whatever the arrangements are, the controlled sector’s voice, and therefore the TRC’s voice within it, has to be as strong as that of any other sector. That is equality. As far as we are concerned, anything that weakens the cohesiveness of the controlled sector, and does not take the opportunity to build on it, is a retrograde step.

Rev Ian Ellis:

We have concerns about the proposal in policy paper 20 that schools could become their own owners. It is not that we are against autonomy, or against schools being given some powers to make their own decisions; however, we are afraid that the controlled sector could become fragmented, with large pieces of it floating off on their own. To re-emphasise what Trevor said: a strong cohesive force is needed to keep the sector together, and that is what a representational body should do. That is an outworking of one of those proposals.

Mr Elliott:

Thank you very much for your presentation and for the information that you provided. Reverend Gribben did, eventually, get to the point that I was going to make about discrimination. From what I have heard and what I have read, I feel that you have a sense of discrimination. When you say that the controlled sector is weak, do you mean that the Transferor Representatives’ Council’s position within the sector is weak, or, that the controlled sector is weak overall?

Rev Trevor Gribben:

Overall, we feel that the controlled sector, as a cohesive sector, is weak. Within the sector, the transferors’ voice — which is a significant, although not the only, voice within the sector — has no support. For example, we are probably one of the only bodies to come before you that has to carry out our role in our spare time. We have to drop other pieces of work and go off and hire solicitors to help us to carry out our role. However, other sectors that come before you have publicly-funded officials to draw up their papers. Already, the TRC’s voice within the controlled sector is weak. There is no one with publicly-funded support that could come before the Committee and speak for that sector.

Mr Elliott:

When we first heard about the Education Bill, we thought that it was going to be all-embracing. We believed that it would take in all bodies and that there would be an end to separate representation for the integrated sector, the Irish-medium sector and the Catholic maintained sector. We thought that everything would come under one remit. Now, it appears that we are moving away from that.

Would you prefer all sectors to be brought under one body or would you prefer each body to retain its own identity and for the TRC to remain as a separate entity and, as Reverend Gribben said, strengthen its position?

Rev Ian Ellis:

There are two answers to that question, one of which is idealistic and the other pragmatic. Given that all schools are, effectively, funded by the public purse, ideally, it would be wonderful if everything was as one. Furthermore, if a funding rather than an ownership model could be adopted, there would be one ownership body, and all sectors would be represented.

Pragmatism dictates that that would never work because the Catholic sector will always want to have a say as the trustees are the technical owners of their schools, and there is a resistance to tamper with that. Pragmatism also suggests that it has worked reasonably well for some sectors to have their own representative bodies. Therefore, the expedient answer is that it seems as though there will be different bodies in the future, and, if that is the case, we want to be part of the support body or the representational body for the controlled sector.

Although we believe that the controlled sector is weak at the moment, it has been supported well in the past by the area boards, and we do not wish to undermine the good work that those boards have done in speaking for the controlled sector. Any boards that I have been associated with have always had a special interest in the controlled sector as a result of their being the technical owners of the schools. However, the area boards have also had to be neutral and provide education provision to all sectors of their work.

To repeat, if we are going to different bodies — and it looks as though we will — there ought to be a strong representational body for the controlled sector. We want to be part of, and contribute to, that body.

Rev Robert Herron:

One of our concerns is that some of the proposals could entrench education in segregated systems forever and leave no room for the concept of a shared future. In the past, as churches, we have made compromises in not providing denominational education in our schools. That has been an agreement between us, but I do wonder where all this will take us.

Mr D Bradley:

What were the reasons for the churches transferring ownership of their schools to the state? Furthermore, what advantages did the churches get from those transfers?

Mr Elliott:

Do any of the witnesses remember those transfers? [Laughter.]

Rev Trevor Gribben:

Ian is the oldest and most senior member. [Laughter.]

Rev Ian Ellis:

The transfers were inextricably linked to politics. We effectively had a Protestant state for a Protestant people, and the churches felt that they were handing over their schools to a state that would be supportive of them.

An economic element was also involved, because the churches realised that they could not continue to provide universal education from their own means. At that time, the theme of universal education was current across the British Isles, and it seemed to be a good idea to hand over our schools to invest in the future in Northern Ireland. Therefore, the churches provided the state with ready-made schools and placed those schools in the care of the state for the future. That was done on the understanding that the churches would have an oversight role and would thus safeguard the future education of children. It was a mixture of those considerations and a belief in the common good, because we knew that those schools needed to be improved and their facilities expanded. Only a state system funded by Government could achieve that.

Our Catholic colleagues took a different view, as you know. They held that they could control the ethos of their schools only by retaining ownership of them. The irony of it all — and I say this without malice — is that the Catholic sector has ended up being 100% funded by the state. It retains ownership of its own schools and has a determining element in the control of its ethos and religious education. As a by-product of that, it also has its children taught in Christian formation, which is paid for by the state.

With hindsight, our Catholic colleagues have come out of it very well. We are in the business of partnership and, as church people with an interest in education, we see it as part of the ongoing mission of the church to be involved in education. We want to be involved in education, but in partnership with others. We live in a more diverse world now, and our views are shared by many; there are those who disagree with us, but we want to work in partnership with them. That is a potted history of what happened and why.

Mr D Bradley:

Thank you for that. The reason I asked that question was to establish the fact that we are working in an historical context. Things change, and people react to that in different ways. Reverend Herron said that plasters have been stuck on here and there to try to repair and improve things, and we are left with this situation. At present, you feel that your voice is not heard to the extent that you want it to be. In the past, county education committees were supportive towards your schools, and in recent times, that has been true of the education and library boards. That support has meant that, as transferors, your voice was behind those organisations, rather than to the fore, and perhaps became lost.

In an evidence session with the Committee, representatives of the Catholic sector made the point several times that they were not asking for anything that they did not expect other sectors to be given. I do not get the impression that the Catholic sector is trying to dominate any other sector. It has stated in its papers and pronouncements that it is supportive of all sectors being treated equally. Unfortunately, historical circumstances may mean — for example with respect to the equality laws that you referred to earlier — that certain difficulties have arisen and we must try to overcome them.

We are talking about some form of ownership body on the one hand, and on the other, a sectoral-support body. What sort of linkage do you see as necessary between those two bodies?

Rev Trevor Gribben:

Fundamentally, we see that as a potential problem. However, if that is going to be the system, the linkage must be something that goes beyond mere consultation of the sectoral-support body. On a particular proposal, the voice of the body may be only one of a potential 15,000 consultees, and it must carry weight. There must be a strong link. As Robert said earlier, it is down to functions. In one possible model, if an ownership body were simply the holding trustee, which operated merely on the instruction of another body, and all the key functions were with the sectoral body, that would be close to giving parity between sectors.

I take the Chairperson’s point that there is a difference if the ownership and representative functions reside with one body. However, in a pragmatic way, if the sectoral-support body had most of the functions of, and the right to be involved with, the ownership body, and not to just be consulted as 20 other groups might be consulted, strengthening that relationship would be important.

To answer your earlier point, we also want to affirm the right of protection of ethos for all sectors. We want to affirm that parity of protection of ethos counts for the Protestant and the Catholic sectors in education. However, the current proposals deny us that parity of the right to protect our ethos.

Mr D Bradley:

When you talked about the link between the sectoral-support body and the ownership body, you said that you would feel more content if the sectoral-support body had the majority of functions. Have you raised that point in your conversations with departmental officials? If so, what sort of response have you had?

Rev Robert Herron:

We were quite surprised by the content of policy paper 20. We were aware of a suggestion that an ownership body and a sectoral-support body should be created as distinct organisations. However, we were surprised to discover that the paper set out the functions that an ownership body would have on issues such as area planning and the nomination of governors. We were even more surprised when we discovered that an ownership body was being created that we did not have membership rights to.

Rev Trevor Jamieson (Transferor Representatives’ Council):

I will simply echo what Mr McCausland said. One of our grave concerns with the consultative role of the representative body would be that, eventually, a body with absolutely no power would be bypassed and become irrelevant; therefore, membership of such a body would be irrelevant.

Mr B McCrea:

Sort of like the Assembly, then.

Rev Trevor Gribben:

You may well say that; we could not possibly comment. [Laughter.]

The Chairperson:

Dominic Bradley said that there are difficulties that we have to overcome. We had difficulties, for example, about policing, and certain parties insisted that legislation had to be changed to overcome those. Some of us were not happy about the legislative method that was used, but it was used to overcome a difficulty.

We cannot simply bypass the challenge that is posed by the Education Bill. The difficult issues must be addressed and resolutions to them must be included in the legislation. If they are not, the Bill will not pass. That is the reality. Inequality is not simply perceived; it is real. As we start to scrutinise the Bill, we can see it clearly. Regardless of what happened in the past — hindsight is a perfect science — we now have the opportunity to ensure that we get it right. That the Committee’s role. If we all say that we are making a new society, those are the issues that we must address.

Rev Robert Herron:

In some ways, the simplistic way of considering this is to say that it is a Protestant/Catholic issue. However, our special schools — which are controlled schools — serve the whole community. It is important that there is Catholic representation in the development of those schools. In some controlled schools in the west, approximately 90% of the children come from the Catholic community. I imagine that those schools are providing those children with a Catholic education.

Mr D Bradley:

Am I right that your main bone of contention is the fact that you will not have a place on that body by right? If it were possible to overcome that problem, how far forward would that bring you?

Rev Trevor Gribben:

That would address the issue of parity among sectors and would be a step towards dealing with the core issue. I want to link the issue to the comments made by Mr Bradley and the Chairperson: when Churches transferred control of the ownership of schools, they reached an agreement with the state that was based on trust and legislation. Policy paper 20 fundamentally ruptures that agreement and attempts to erase its legislative basis. Through devolution, the Assembly now represents the state, and we urge it not to rupture that trust and legislative basis, which is fundamental to us and our community.

Miss McIlveen:

Thank you for your presentation. We heard a lot today about equality, and I have a certain amount of sympathy with your concerns. However, given that you advocate the idea that voluntary grammar schools should continue to employ staff, and so on, I do not understand your comments about the single employing authority. That authority would, surely, ensure equality across all sectors, including your own. Will you expand on your earlier comments about clause 3?

Rev Trevor Gribben:

As Ian said earlier, in an ideal situation, one employing body would secure equality and necessary protection. In clause 3, people in our churches and some others feel strongly that the voluntary grammar sector should retain that employment right. In a pragmatic world, if different bodies will have employing rights, we must ensure equality. In an ideal world, the TRC would not oppose the notion of one employing body. People in the Protestant community and in our churches want to protect the independence of voluntary grammar schools. We are merely reflecting points that have been made to us. However, the TRC would be comfortable with the concept of one employing body.

Some of my colleagues are involved, as individuals, in voluntary grammar schools. The Methodist Church, the Church of Ireland, and the Presbyterian Church have strong links with some schools. Therefore, our community has differing views. However, the TRC would be happy with a single employing authority for the reasons that you stated.

Miss McIlveen:

I wanted that clarification because the issue was included in your submission and had been mentioned previously. Your submission mentions the duty of boards of governors to achieve high standards of educational attainment and how the concept of lay governors challenging professional teachers about their work could lead to a breakdown of trust, and so on. What clarification do you want on that matter? What support would be required?

Rev Ian Ellis:

Everyone supports the concept of raising standards in schools — it would be foolish to say otherwise. We all want our children to do well and to do better, and we want underperforming schools to improve in the future. We support the principle of school improvement. However, we have served as members of boards of governors for many years and have developed relationships of trust and understanding with professional teachers and principals. If Government suddenly gives governors a responsibility for raising standards and challenging the staff performance, those relationships may be breached. It will be difficult for governors to fulfil that responsibility.

In our response we suggest that governors will need substantial support in that challenge role if we want them to be able to perform those duties. At the minute, we are trying to re-enlist governors for the next round, and we are telephoning people and asking them to stand. If I were to tell them that we want them to take on a new role next time around that will require them to challenge the principal on his or her performance and the results and the level of pupils’ achievements, they might decide not to stand because it would bring them into a terrain on which they would be uncomfortable.

We acknowledge that school improvement is a good objective, but we need to be careful about how it is implemented and the expectations that are placed upon governors. We are flagging up a concern about volunteers being expected to deliver a professional service.

Miss McIlveen:

I wanted to ask whether you told the individuals whom you phoned that governors’ roles might change. However, it seems that you did not.

Rev Ian Ellis:

No, we kept quiet about that. [Laughter.]

Rev Robert Herron:

We introduced that issue, because it was raised as a concern by folk at our general assembly. It is a role of governors to ensure that schools are well run and improve. However, sensitivity and professionalism are required, and a great deal of training is required to support and address those issues. Those are the main reasons that we included it in our response.

Rev Trevor Gribben:

The professional support that is necessary to enable governors to take on that role is vital. It is important that lay people, in the educational sense, have educational support if they are to take on such a challenging role. It must be handled sensitively.

Miss McIlveen:

It is critical that capacity building be built in.

Rev Trevor Gribben:

That is correct.

Mr D Bradley:

Boards of governors, individually or even collectively, would not be dealing with teachers on the chalk face; that would go through a principal and a senior management team. Under present circumstances, one could argue that there is a duty on boards of governors to ensure that standards in the school on whose board they sit are as high as possible.

Rev Robert Herron:

That is right. If there are issues involving a principal —

Rev Trevor Jamieson:

May I respond to that? I have sat on a few boards. The proposals cause a fundamental change in the dynamic of relationships. Those of us who are in the real world will recognise that the change in the functions of the boards of governors, with the principal’s guidance, will bring about a complete change in the dynamic of the relationship between the two. There is potential for conflict between boards of governors and principals. The issue of support echoes the second point, which relates to the need for a local presence throughout the system. Although we acknowledge the ESA and the concept that it will provide a comprehensive education system for the whole Province, there will be a need for a dynamic, vital, local presence that provides the support that the boards have provided in the past.

Mr O’Dowd:

I am not sure that the dynamic for boards of governors is changing so much. It may be more emphasised in the ESA, but the role of board of governors is to improve standards in schools and to hold the principal and the senior management team to account on those matters. I agree that there needs to be training and support for boards of governors, but if we are to raise standards in the controlled sector, the boards of governors are key. There is no doubt about that.

I want to return to the issue that has dominated the meeting. You say that the TRC has a right to be on the ownership body, and you base that on legislation. To what legislation are you referring?

Rev Trevor Gribben:

The continuing rights of the TRC Churches to be involved in the wider oversight of education in the controlled sector outside boards of governors. That oversight exists now in our right to be represented on education and library boards, which own and control the controlled-schools sector.

Those rights have evolved through education authorities to the education and library boards. We also have a right on the transfer of the control of ownership ― and Ian’s earlier point on that was subtle, and took me a long time to understand. We transferred control, but we did not give ownership away, because there is a reversionary right that ownership comes back to the Churches if the state no longer needs a school. Our right to guard the ethos of controlled schools was protected by being involved in the ownership body. That right has come directly down to the education and library boards, and the proposals in the Education Bill rupture that right.

Rev Ian Ellis:

The 1986 Order sets out that membership of the area boards is composed of different parties: local councillors, trustees and the transferors; the proportion of transferors on the boards is determined by the population of controlled schools. If the population of controlled schools moves up and down, the transferors’ proportion of seats on the area boards moves up and down slightly. There is, therefore, a direct link between controlled schools and the presence of transferors on an area board.

Mr O’Dowd:

I just wanted to clarify that for my own research. Politics in this society is often driven by the mantra that if one side has it, the other side has to have it. However, the Catholic Church owns its schools, and unless the Catholic Church gives up that ownership or the state nationalises its schools, that is how matters will remain. Therefore the ownership body of the Catholic-schools sector rests on that legal basis ― and it is a legal basis rather than a concession or an advantage given to one side. The Catholic Church owns its schools, and it, naturally, will be the ownership body.

That is why I am trying to tease out the point about ownership of the controlled sector and the transferors’ right to ownership in it. I was not aware ― and it is an interesting point ― that if the state no longer requires a school, it reverts to the transferor Churches. Does a school automatically revert to the Church or is there a procedure to go through?

Rev Trevor Gribben:

There are fewer transferred schools in the system because new schools have been built and old schools have been knocked down. However, one school with which I was involved, and of which the member will know, was Cladymore primary school outside Markethill. When it ceased to be a primary school, a new school was built in Markethill and the small rural schools merged with it. In that case, Cladymore primary school reverted to the ownership of Cladymore Presbyterian church, which was the transferring body. That was a legal precedent, and one of the reasons why the Churches were given rights to be on the ownership bodies: to protect their rights of reversion but also to have oversight of those schools.

We have never argued that we should comprise 100% of the ownership body: we recognise that the trustees own the schools, and that they, therefore, are the ownership body in legislation. Equally strongly in legislation, we are, by legal right, part of the ownership body of controlled schools, and we feel that that should be continued in the new legislation. That was a right given to us by the state as part of an agreement when our schools were transferred, and that right should continue.

Mr O’Dowd:

My last point goes back to what the Rev Trevor Gribben said about religious education: I did not pick up his whole point about the inspection of religious education. You said that if a board of governors passes a resolution, it might not be fully carried out. Could you go over that point again?

Rev Trevor Gribben:

Yes; it links to how the present system deals with religious education, and we fear that the new system might be even worse. Religious education is a compulsory subject, yet it does not receive the same resources as other subjects.

Since the education and library boards’ advisory support service is shrinking, we want to ensure that there will be strong support in the ESA. Unlike other subjects, religious education is not inspected automatically when inspectors go to a school.

A board of governors has to request an inspection; under the present system it has to request it just before the official inspection; a board of governors cannot pass a resolution that it wants religious education to be inspected now and at all points in future. When I was the chairperson of a board of governors, I was utterly surprised that inspectors did not inspect religious education, even though we had passed a resolution to that effect two years previously. That is a flaw in the system, but it is symptomatic of the fact that religious education is not resourced and supported as other subjects are.

Rev Ian Ellis:

Trevor is quite right about the process. In recent years, however, the Department has seen the need to enhance the support that religious education requires. When the new revised core syllabus was implemented, a piece of work was commenced with the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA), for example, to devise some new materials and to support religious education. We acknowledge that. It is not that there is no support; work is being carried out.

However, looking to the future and the way that curriculum support is advancing, we must make sure that religious education does not become the Cinderella subject; it should receive parity of esteem with other subjects in the curriculum.

Mr O’Dowd:

I am surprised, and not just from a religious point of view. Religious education involves a great deal of reading and research, which could be used to improve literacy; therefore I am surprised that there is no inspection to assess how it is delivered.

Rev Ian Ellis:

One of the things that we discovered while working with CCEA is that there are strong links between religious education and other parts of the revised curriculum. Very obvious links can be made in relation to a child’s understanding of the world, relationships, reconciliation and living with others in diverse societies. That links strongly with religious education. Religious education has a strong place in the school curriculum, and we think that the Department is also convinced of that. We want more and more support.

Mr D Bradley:

Religious education is often one of the core subjects. I do not know whether there still are core subjects, but some schools used to designate English, maths and religious education as the three core subjects for GCSE choices.

Rev Ian Ellis:

It is one of the most popular GCSEs.

Mr McCausland:

One of the requirements under legislation for the Equality Commission, for example, is the need for its membership to be reflective of the Northern Ireland community. Should the ESA’s membership be reflective of the community of Northern Ireland since it is serving the entire community of Northern Ireland?

Rev Trevor Gribben:

Yes.

Mr McCausland:

My point is that some matters are in legislation and some are not. If something is not in legislation, it is forgotten about.

My second point is about boards of governors. Not long ago, I attended a prize-giving in a Catholic maintained school. It was noticeable that the ethos was different from a similar event in the controlled sector in that the church, the parish, the school, the business community and the political community were all there very much as one; they were all supportive of one another. All those sectors endorsed education by being there and demonstrating that it was important and should be valued. I know that it is more complex, but what is your assessment of the comparison between that and practice in the controlled sector?

Rev Robert Herron:

It varies from school to school. I recently attended the opening of Lisneal College. The Minister also attended, and she chatted to me about the Church presence. It was very much a religious ceremony, but local politicians and folk from the community also attended.

Rev Trevor Gribben:

As we said earlier, capacity needs to be built into the controlled sector to protect and strengthen ethos, which is stronger in the primary sector than in the secondary sector.

Mr McCausland:

Is it stronger in rural areas than in the greater Belfast area, for example?

Rev Trevor Gribben:

It may be. I agree with Robert that it often depends on the school and its direction and ethos. It is not as universal; it is not as “catholic” with a small “c”.

Mr McCausland:

Who was CCEA working with on developing those new materials, and are they finished?

Rev Ian Ellis:

A working group was established from a wide range of providers: advisers on religious education from the maintained and controlled sectors; representatives from Stranmillis University College and St Mary’s University College; members of the Northern Ireland Interfaith Forum to reflect the input from other religions, and representatives of Queen’s University Belfast and the University of Ulster. That wide-ranging group produced several new materials; one is a compendium of resources for world religions for Key Stage 3; and another resource, based on reconciliation, is designed to help pupils to understand that they live amongst a wide variety of children and how to break down barriers. The working group has provided some useful materials.

Mr B McCrea:

We have talked much about ownership, rights, legislation, and so forth. However, it strikes me as a case of the emperor having no clothes. It is fundamentally unfair for the Roman Catholic Church to have certain rights that the Protestant Churches do not. I do not care whether there is an historical or legal basis for that; it simply is not right. It is a moral question, and I want to put on record that any fudge that does not address that imbalance is fundamentally unacceptable to society.

Having put that on record, and for the benefit of those from the Department who may be listening, if that imbalance is not redressed, our entire society is finished. It is morally questionable that we are even discussing it; we must find a solution. That is part of the argument that you good folk have presented to the Committee, and it is one of the reasons that the Ulster Unionist Party remains opposed to the entire ESA.

Page 3 of your submission on policy paper 20 states:

“The government seeks to use equality arguments to betray its agreement and the principles underpinning its contract with the Churches and the Protestant Community.”

I am interested to hear what equality arguments have been put to you that support that statement.

Rev Trevor Gribben:

We consider it a fundamentally flawed way of applying principles of equality. It beggars belief that the Department often does not deem it necessary to carry out a full equality impact assessment on some of the papers, given the huge inequality that they create, to which you and other members referred. The system applies equality legislation sector by sector: it examined the maintained sector and decided not to apply equality legislation because the trustees owned the schools; it considered the controlled sector in isolation and bluntly said that there should not be so many Protestants on the ESA board because that would be unfair.

However, if equality legislation were applied to all publicly owned schools, the Catholic Church and the Protestant Churches would both be represented in the oversight of education, which would be fair. The basic inequality of equality legislation is the consideration of its application in several narrow parts. Logically, if one considered an entire society in separate small bits, everything could be said to be unfair. Equality legislation must be applied to the entire education community, not sector by sector.

Mr B McCrea:

It would be useful to have a paper or correspondence on that subject, since equality legislation is supposed to be the bedrock of everything that we do. If the legislation is being applied in a way that is not conducive to its principles, that is the biggest gun in your armoury. However, you have not highlighted it sufficiently.

Rev Robert Herron:

That is exactly our point: ownership rather than funding is being used as the model, and that immediately disadvantages us.

Mr B McCrea:

I understand the funding point, because I have heard it made by other members. It will be in the Hansard report that some people said that voluntary grammar schools are 100% funded and will play by the same rules as everybody else. If that applies to voluntary grammars, it applies to the controlled sector too.

We must find a better model — some solution must be found. However, there is a separate issue on which the TRC may want to reflect and that the Committee may want to take up, which is whether equality legislation that affects us all is being applied properly. I have the TRC’s comments and will talk to the witnesses afterwards, but it would be useful for them to write to the Committee on that subject.

Having stated my absolute objection to that inequality, I will move on. The TRC is concerned about the absence of detail in the local ESA service arrangements. Will you expand on that? What principles or characteristics would the TRC like to see included?

Rev Ian Ellis:

I will quickly respond to that, but, as representatives on area education boards, Trevor Gribben and Robert Herron will provide a fuller answer.

From being on a school board of governors, I know how much the principal depends upon the local area board. If, for example, a school’s boiler breaks down, they know whom to ring on the area board. That person not only knows the principal, but knows the school, the boiler and which boiler technician to contact to fix it. The board has detailed local knowledge and understanding.

If there is a question about school finances in planning for the future, the governors can ring somebody in a local board who knows the school’s profile, its staffing commitment and something about the demographic direction in which the area is headed. That local knowledge means a great deal to school principals.

As governors and people who work with schools, our concern is that that local touch could be jeopardised by a centralised authority, and I have tried to reflect that concern in our comments.

Rev Trevor Jamieson:

I echo that, and take the analogy further into support services, teaching, and the work that the classroom assistants’ services have done in area boards, particularly the Youth Service.

A fair percentage of Youth Service work is done through voluntary organisations, many of which are church organisations. As Churches, our contact with local youth leaders and youth officers is invaluable. It would be disastrous for the Youth Service if that local contact were to be hived off to some other body, taken away from education altogether or completely centralised.

Mr B McCrea:

I do not wish to labour the point about change and the need for support — and I hear that the TRC does not have the professional support extended to others — but it strikes me that the TRC is in a good position to outline areas of support or the methodology that people may want to see adopted. If the TRC can find the time, it would be useful for the Committee to receive those suggestions.

It is great to say, in principle, that a course of action will be taken, but, as Ian said, that involves logistics. I do not know whether that is something that the witnesses can do or whether they must feed their knowledge to somebody with the required logistical experience. However, it would be useful to find out.

May I finish on the point almost at which we started? On the subject of putting councillors on the ESA boards, the TRC’s submission to the Committee states:

“The TRC recognizes that politicians believe that this provision safeguards democratic accountability.”

However, it also states that:

“councillors can be caught between… balancing the desires of constituents”.

How would you address that issue? Would including people from the TRC change the balance? How does the TRC propose to deal with the issues that it raises?

Rev Robert Herron:

The added difficulty that councillors have is that some of these issues arise at sensitive times when elections loom. That can lead to delay.

Mr B McCrea:

You can say things that we cannot, so spit it out.

Rev Robert Herron:

It is important that local councils in Northern Ireland develop their roles and responsibilities. Councillors do; there is no question about that and we all agree on it. However, I am not totally convinced that a role in the ESA is a way of doing that.

Rev Trevor Gribben:

That said, we recognise that there is a democratic deficit, caused by years of direct rule. There should be democratic accountability at every level in education; it depends, however, on how that is achieved and what the balance is. We need to find a good way forward. The balance on the education and library boards, where locally elected representatives sit alongside others representing other sectors and interests, works creatively at times, but often gets things done that would be hard for one group working on its own to achieve.

Mr B McCrea:

There are two ways of looking at the democratic aspect. Some suggest that at the next tier up at the ESA main board we should have MLAs, not councillors, represented; others say that that is unnecessary because the ESA can be held accountable through this Committee, the Minister and the Assembly. Have you any views on whether either of those arrangements would work?

Rev Trevor Gribben:

We have enough trouble sorting the Churches out without getting into a war between councillors and MLAs.

Mr B McCrea:

It is so much easier to fix other people’s problems than one’s own.

Rev Trevor Gribben:

Each of us may have private views, but the Transferor Representatives’ Council has no official view on that matter.

[Laughter.]

The Chairperson:

Now, there is a political answer.

We want to turn to the departmental officials, and the witnesses are welcome to stay for that. Rev Robert Herron referred to the fact that the argument is about ownership as opposed to funding. Five hundred schools were transferred in the 1940s, some of which the Churches still own; but the Department cannot identify how many.

Rev Robert Herron:

One needs to identify deeds and transfers and perhaps, as we have recently been led to believe, some of the schools may have been operating under some kind of licensing agreement. It is complex.

The Chairperson:

When a school in my constituency was closed I was told that ownership was not a big issue; the school was simply closed and the detail was left to be sorted out. The North Eastern Education and Library Board was going to close the school, and the question of who owned it was left to lawyers. That is the problem. I want clarity on that point. I noticed that you raised that issue in your paper, and we will ask the departmental officials about it when they attend.

Rev Trevor Gribben:

We will be interested in the answer.

The Chairperson:

You may stay to hear it.

Gentlemen, thank you for your evidence, your attendance and your papers. You will have an opportunity to come back to us about the response to the paper that the Department has given us today in response to your paper.