COMMITTEE FOR EDUCATION

OFFICIAL REPORT

(Hansard)

Education Bill

29 April 2009

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr Dominic Bradley (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Tom Elliott
Mr Trevor Lunn
Mr Nelson McCausland
Mr Basil McCrea
Miss Michelle McIlveen
Mr John O’Dowd
Mrs Michelle O’Neill
Mr Edwin Poots

Witnesses:

Mr Eddie McArdle )
Mr Barnaby Ball ) General Teaching Council Northern Ireland
Mrs Sally McKee )

Ms Alison Millar )
Ms Heather McKinstry ) Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance
Ms Helena McSherry )

Mr Chris Stewart ) Department of Education
Mr John McGrath )

The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Education (Mr D Bradley):

Good morning; you are very welcome. We are joined by representatives of the General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland, who will give evidence. Sally McKee will lead the delegation. Sally, I will give you an opportunity to introduce your colleagues and to make your presentation.

Mrs Sally McKee (General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland):

Thank you, Chairman. I am accompanied by Eddie McArdle, our registrar, and Barney Ball, our planning and corporate services manager. I will start our presentation, and they will make further comments.

The General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland appreciates the opportunity to discuss issues in the Education Bill that affect the teaching profession and, in particular, the council’s work. Before I go into detail, it is important that I explain the council’s role, as it is already established in legislation, as well as its place in the education system.

First, the GTC’s document entitled ‘Teaching: the Reflective Profession’, which we distributed at previous meetings with the Committee, has been endorsed by the Minister of Education and the Education and Training Inspectorate. It sets out, for the first time, the standards that are expected of teachers, both in competence and behaviour, so that all education partners have an agreed language with which to discuss education issues.

Secondly, the GTC decides what qualifications are approved for any teacher who wants to enter the profession in Northern Ireland. Thirdly, as an obvious reflection of approval, the GTC now accredits initial teacher education courses. Fourthly, the GTC has a statutory responsibility under the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 to offer advice to the Department of Education and employing authorities — from which the education and skills authority (ESA) will soon take over — on the following matters: training, career development and performance management of teachers; standards of teaching; and standards of conduct for teachers.

Fifthly, the Bill’s most important provision, from our point of view, is that the GTC will have the role of independent regulator.

In addition, the GTC is the only body capable of tracking teachers’ employment and the movement of teachers from other jurisdictions to Northern Ireland. The annual digest of statistics that is produced by the GTC, which, I am sure, the Committee finds useful, highlights issues of great significance with regard to manpower planning and the provision of professional development; two issues that are of particular concern to the council.

Many people welcomed the decision to establish a regional authority as a way of making savings in order that front-line services could be augmented. Therefore, it is essential that the ESA, when it is established, does not duplicate the work of other bodies, such as the GTC. In any event, the council would not countenance any diminution of its role.

In essence, the GTC plays a significant role, along with other bodies, such as the Education and Training Inspectorate, in safeguarding standards in education. A key part of our role is to provide society at large with a degree of reassurance about the quality of education that pupils and students can expect in schools and colleges. The Bill will enhance that. Having set our concerns in context, I will hand over to the registrar, Eddie McArdle.

Mr Eddie McArdle (General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland):

Chairman, you will have noticed that our submission is brief. It is brief for a simple reason: many issues in the Bill are, we believe, outwith our professional responsibility. That does not mean that we do not have an interest in them; however, we are not prepared to comment on issues that do not fall within our remit. Therefore we focused our submission on our particular concerns.

The first issue to come up was clause 11. Unless the Department has had a Damascene conversion and is about to take salaries out of the local management of schools (LMS) formula, my understanding is that the entire clause is to be reworked. It was interesting to read, however.

I want to discuss our role as gatekeeper, because, in some senses, we are also the Committee’s servants in a tangible way. Part of our responsibility is to ensure that you have some reassurance about the competence, conduct and commitment of teachers as professionals. Therefore, we also consider ourselves to be your servants. The Committee represents the democratic voice.

We believe that teachers are happy to embrace that professionalism and for us to manage it. Our concern is that whatever emerges from clause 13, which deals with the provision of training, will not reflect the reality of what is required to ensure that the profession can rise to the challenges and changes that will come along.

A significant body of research shows that schools begin to improve where they have communities of practice, shared values and understanding, and a shared commitment to a common goal. That cannot be imposed from without; it must grow organically from within. It can be brought about by offering schools the resources that are necessary to undertake such development themselves. In other words, there should not be a Curriculum Advisory and Support Service (CASS) mark II, which is the top-down approach that exists at present.

A mixed-economy approach, which has worked particularly well in Wales, is needed. In Wales, significant sums of money — sometimes, as much as £5 million — are available for which schools and individuals can bid. That is operated by the General Teaching Council for Wales. We do not suggest for a moment that we would necessarily want to take on such a role, although my mother always used to say, “Never turn down work.”

A different approach is necessary. We do not expect clause 13 to address that; however, a mixed-economy approach should be taken in its outworkings. Interestingly, we conducted a survey of teachers — the only one of its kind to be conducted in the past 20 years — which found that more than 65% of them approve of the notion of individual bursaries and a mixed-economy approach. Every year, we run a system whereby we offer £40,000. It is fascinating to see the number of people who are prepared to spend their own money on top of those bursaries.

As clause 13 comes into effect, we should consider an outworking along the lines of a mixed-economy approach.

We are concerned about clause 26, which relates to the ESA’s responsibilities on issues such as the curriculum. Although notions of industry, commerce, the professions and inspection are all interesting, there has been a major gap in the publications that have emerged in Northern Ireland over the past couple of years. One gap is the absence of an overarching understanding of what the nature and purpose of education should be. The irony is that every political party, Church and trades union signed up to the GTC’s charter for education; all parties in the room signed up to the principles in that document.

We need to examine the broader purposes in which education should engage, including utilitarian and economic considerations, which are vital; furthermore, we must consider issues of socialisation, building society and the development of social capital. For example, it is important to consider deprived areas in Northern Ireland, the sense of despair that often exists in them, and the work that must be done to repair people’s self-image and self-concept. Some people may consider that fanciful philosophical froth, but one must remember that education does not merely serve society; it helps to create it. We must be mindful of that important point.

As far back as 2001, Alain Michel, the inspector general of education in France, speculated on the destructive impact of globalisation, and we are beginning to see similar effects here. It is vital that this body reflect on such issues. Civil servants will continue to manage the system, but it is important that such a group take on board where it is going. I will ask Mr Ball to discuss clause 29, which is in his bailiwick.

Mr Barnaby Ball (General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland):

As the registrar said, I will briefly discuss the provisions in clause 29. The council welcomes the inclusion of clause 29 and schedule 6. Members are aware that the Bill will amend the 1998 Order, which contained deficiencies that prevented effective regulation. The Bill will address those issues and will allow the council to assume its regulatory responsibilities and, importantly, allow us to deliver our functions without the danger of acting ultra vires. It is important that we act within our powers.

We welcome the fact that our code of values and professional practice, which has been well received by the profession, is now placed on a statutory basis. That is important, because we can refer to the code for use with our regulatory and disciplinary processes, and the commitments and values that are espoused in the code can influence decisions. As members are aware, the code outlines the underpinning values of teachers’ practice and their commitments to learners, colleagues, and the profession itself.

Schedule 6 outlines the jurisdictions and scope of our regulatory function. As members are aware, our function relates to registered teachers. We receive and consider allegations against registered teachers who may be guilty of unacceptable professional conduct, serious professional incompetence or who have been convicted of a relevant offence.

That will be in keeping with other regulators in the rest of the UK and Ireland, and will take us into line with what they have. We will be able to receive allegations from employers, so an important interface will have to be established with the ESA. Those referrals will be for issues of competence or conduct where an employer would have dismissed a teacher. We will also be able to receive allegations from the general public about teacher conduct. The Bill sets out our powers in that matter, which is very welcome.

It also outlines how we will investigate allegations in a two-stage process in which we set up an investigating committee to establish whether there is a case to answer. If there is a case to answer, we will establish a hearing committee, which will be a public hearing at which the teacher will appear to answer the charge brought by the council. That clarifies our powers on the matter.

Once the Bill has been passed, there will be a need to make regulations. The council will eagerly await the making of regulations, because that will give effect to the provisions in the Bill. We are keen — as I am sure you are — that the Bill be made in a timely fashion. We hope that we will be able to regulate from 1 January 2010.

The Deputy Chairperson:

You said that you wished to raise issues pertaining to the making of associated regulations and the processes of referral. Can you clarify what those issues are, and are you suggesting that an amendment is needed to clause 29?

Mr Ball:

We mentioned it because it is my understanding that the deficiencies in the 1998 Order came to light when regulations came to be made. On further advice taken by the Department, it was discovered that it did not have the power to make meaningful regulations, so no powers were in place for us to hold proper tribunals, and a range of disciplinary orders was not available to the council.

We have scrutinised schedule 6, and over the past few months we raised issues with the Department about possible omissions; however, those have all been resolved. Therefore, we are confident that all the required powers are available and that they can be reflected in regulations.

I want the Committee to note that it is essential for us that the regulations are not only made to be effective but that they are made in a timely way. I understand that there is some uncertainty about when the Bill will be passed. There will be a short period after the Bill has been passed before the regulations can be made, but I am seeking reassurance the Committee that those draft regulations are ready to go as soon as the Bill becomes law so that we can regulate from 1 January 2010. Bearing in mind that it was a considerable disappointment to the council that we were not able to regulate before now, we are keen for that to happen as soon as possible.

Mr McArdle:

When we raised the issue, we were awaiting clarification from the Department’s solicitors. We have received that, and are now content in a way that we were not previously. We wish to use this forum to signal that.

The Deputy Chairperson:

You suggest the inclusion of a reference in clause 13(2) that the ESA should seek advice from the GTC. That suggestion has been considered by the Department, which said that that merely duplicates an existing provision and is not necessary. What are your views on the Department’s response?

Mr McArdle:

It is not for us to second-guess the legislation. The main issue is the extent to which consultation is sought and is meaningful. We were seeking to ensure that, as the independent voice for the profession, GTCNI has a responsibility in that area and that that responsibility is understood. If the Department assures us that that is the case, that is fine. Like most people in Northern Ireland, we will wait to see what the ESA does before we make a final judgement on whether consultation has been meaningful. I know that there can be consultation followed by inaction, but we hope that that will not be the case.

We are simply making the point that there is a statutory responsibility on an organisation to offer advice to the ESA; that is what we are seeking to do. I welcome the response; perhaps that is the best way of putting it.

The Deputy Chairperson:

In their submissions on the Education Bill, some of the education and library boards referred to the need for clear guidance on how GTC disciplinary powers are to be co-ordinated with those of the ESA and individual boards of governors. Has that been drawn to your attention? What are its implications?

Mr Ball:

You are right. There will be an important relationship to be built between ourselves and the ESA and with boards of governors. In discussions with boards and the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS) we stressed the importance of being aware that the role of a professional body is not to replace or supplement employer processes with regard to conduct and competence; those are matters of contract between teachers and their employers.

A professional body would operate in that sphere by providing a wider scrutiny of professional activity by the profession itself; that is the heart of self-regulation. Determinations would be made by employers, because that would be directly relevant, and we would look at the implication of the conduct or the incompetence on the wider profession and the professional issues that may arise. Our processes will sit above and outside employer processes, but employer processes are important sources of evidence for the GTC in making determinations. We make determinations in cases of unacceptable professional conduct or serious professional incompetence. The benchmark or hurdle that we envisage in the regulation is that we would consider only those matters regarding the dismissal of a teacher by an employer for one of those reasons.

Mr McArdle:

We have opened discussions with Gavin Boyd, and we will follow that issue up. We will be issuing guidance to governors and, more importantly, to the profession, because it needs to understand the processes — as do the public — if we are to have a transparent independent process. A plethora of materials will be issued. There needs to be reference to the regulations, as without them we have been unable to issue guidance. However, now that things are moving on apace, we will be able to issue appropriate guidance, and we will do so. That is vital.

Mr Poots:

Where does the GTC come in the discipline process? I assume that, initially, disciplinary cases will be heard by a board of governors and that that will remain the case. Are you saying that the GTC gets involved only when a teacher is dismissed?

Mr Ball:

Yes; that is how the profession relates to those employer processes.

Mr Poots:

Will the GTC get involved in an advisory capacity or in a decision-making capacity?

Mr Ball:

All registered teachers are governed by the codes that we have produced, which feed into practice and are available to employers.

Interplay is equally important because, as a professional body, we cannot seek to replace the employers’ processes. Contractually, they are the arbiters of what constitutes acceptable conduct and acceptable levels of competence.

However, members will recognise that there is a further professional consideration of whether such conduct or competence reflects on the reputation of the profession, and that must be a matter for the council. However, we would not seek to review or appeal an employer process, but to build on it and consider its wider professional implications.

Mr McArdle:

The two elements involved are the set of competences and the code, which will set out for governors what can legitimately be expected of a teacher. If a teacher falls short of what is set out in the code, a board of governors has a legitimate reason to take that into account. However, the council cannot become involved at that stage. If the employer had initiated the issue, our involvement would compromise the integrity of the first stage. When that stage is complete and if an employer has, or would have, disciplined a teacher — unless that teacher has resigned — that is reported directly to us and becomes a case for us to consider. We would then measure the board’s processes against ours, which are independent of, but informed by, the evidence, and we may call on staff from the school concerned to give evidence.

Mr Poots:

Who makes the final decision?

Mr McArdle:

The final decision on an individual’s employment at a school is taken by the board of governors. As the independent regulator, we take the final decision on whether that teacher can remain registered.

Mr B McCrea:

I am interested in the council as the independent voice of the profession. Have you sought teachers’ views on whether they approve of the ESA, given its potential effect on their contracts of employment?

Mr McArdle:

No; other than being the source of the employing contract, there will be no change to the broad terms and conditions of teachers. That is an issue for the trades unions. As a regulatory body, we must make it clear that we do not duplicate the work of our colleagues in the trades unions, which is exactly the appropriate line that we have taken.

Mr B McCrea:

I am not sure whether to resile from that. The thoughts of an independent professional body are of interest to the Committee. Although trades unions play a valuable role, the profession also has a role. Perhaps your approach is somewhat narrow. It is not for me to tell you what you should be doing. Barney is nodding slightly, so perhaps there is some difference in views. It would be useful to hear from you what people in the profession are thinking.

Mrs McKee:

The difference between us and the unions is that a union exists to serve its members, whereas we exist to serve all the interests of the profession. Our council includes 19 teachers, 14 of whom are elected by their colleagues, and representatives from all other education bodies, such as the boards, the Irish-medium sector, the CCMS, the integrated sector, and four individuals nominated by the Department. Ours is a broad church of opinion.

The council must ensure that it represents not only the teacher in the classroom but the wider education body in Northern Ireland. For that reason, we cannot become involved in the political aspects of education. We determine what is fit for purpose in maintaining and enhancing standards in schools.

Mr B McCrea:

I am told by officials that the ESA Bill is the most fundamental review of education, and the most fundamental legislation, that the Assembly will ever bring forward. I would have thought that issues for the profession would have included the change in the employment contract and establishing who the employer is, and so on, because those issues have certainly concerned other bodies. I would have thought that those issues would have been worthy of some discussion.

Mr McArdle:

Interestingly, they have never surfaced in the discussions or deliberations of the council’s 33 members. I think that there is a broad commitment to the notion that there needs to be some sort of rationalisation and reduction in numbers because we are over-administered. That consensus has emerged, but the specificity that the member mentions has not featured.

The Deputy Chairperson:

Surely it should have featured, because the Department is now telling us that one of the major aims of the ESA is to raise standards, and one of your major aims is to raise and maintain standards. Thus, there is a very important interaction.

Mr McArdle:

Very much so, but the issues that are likely to lead to that are those to which we have already alluded: the sense of purpose about what education is about and the fact that there is no real measure of that; and how we will train, develop and re-professionalise or re-intellectualise the profession. Therefore, we have looked at the specific issues that we thought particularly related to how we, as a profession, would contribute to the raising of standards.

I do not think that where one’s employment contract lies makes that much difference to how a teacher will perform in school, or how children will benefit from the pedagogy that they experience or the curriculum that they are taught. I do not think that that matters in one sense or the other. Around 1974, my contract of employment moved from one body to another, but that did not alter how I perceived my role or how I undertook my responsibilities.

That is the essence of where we are coming from. The issues that we think are important are: the extent to which the autonomy of the profession is recognised in the classroom; the extent to which the curriculum is relevant and pertinent; the extent to which the curriculum is not utilitarian but will, in fact, allow people to grow and develop in their commitment to it; and the extent to which we empower teachers. Those are the issues to which we tend to commit ourselves, but I understand the perspective that is being brought to us.

The Deputy Chairperson:

The ESA will also have responsibility for the curriculum.

Mrs McKee:

Of course, we are all — the ESA, ourselves and all education bodies — concerned with maintaining and raising standards. The ESA — and all research — has accepted that standards can be maintained and raised only by the recognising the professionalism of teachers. As Eddie said, we hope that a mixed-economy approach will emerge from the new ESA professional-development issues. Such an approach would give teachers an opportunity not only to develop their school-development plan and curriculum initiatives, and so on, but to develop their personal interests, such as special needs education or an innovative way of teaching science. They would have a resourced opportunity to pursue their own professional development.

We will be calling for a mixed-economy approach that would offer flexibility in resourcing and would allow teachers to have some responsibility for their own development. For too long, teachers have felt that a lot of what is happening in the schools has been done to them, as it were, and that they have not had the opportunity to take ownership of initiatives. As I said, it is only by recognising the professionalism of teachers, and by allowing them to develop continually that professionalism, that standards can be maintained and developed. That is what we mean when we talk about maintaining and raising standards.

Mr McArdle:

We have not been silent on the issue of the curriculum. We have raised our concerns about clause 26, we have made reference to other issues, and we have drawn up a charter for education, which we have made available to the Committee. You are right: we are conscious of the issues involved. We have raised them with the Department, and will continue to do so. Therefore, we have not been silent on the issue.

The Deputy Chairperson:

The ESA told us that its main mechanism for raising standards will be the Department’s Every School a Good School policy. One of the main criticisms of that policy is that it does not respect sufficiently the professionalism of teachers. Therefore, I would have thought that you would have wanted to get involved in that area to ensure that the professionalism of teachers is respected.

Mr McArdle:

We made a very robust response to the initial document. You are right. We have been privy to some subsequent consultations and are quite clear that the Department has moved quite considerably in that regard.

We also had a robust discussion with the then civil servants who were responsible for drawing up the document. It was a difficult meeting, because we thought that there had been some dismissiveness. We made that case, and we think that it has been heard. We made the point that it is a nonsense to mention the Every School a Good School policy without recognising the fact that there is a now an agreed set of competences.

The bottom line is that, for the first time, everyone in this room now has a clear understanding of what the profession is expected to produce as regards competence, commitment and conduct. We had a robust exchange with the Department. I am pleased to say that, as far as I am concerned, it responded positively. However, we will have to wait until the final document emerges before we can be completely sure of that. I can assure you that if it does not take our points on board, we will raise our voices again, and appropriately so.

The Deputy Chairperson:

Thank you for that. You confirmed the point that I made earlier about the need for the General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland to engage with the ESA on the issue of raising standards, particularly when that impacts on the respect for the professionalism of teachers. I am glad that you have had that engagement, and I am sure that it will enhance the policy.

Mr B McCrea:

I hesitate to criticise such an august body —

Mr McArdle:

But you are going to anyway.

Mr B McCrea:

I am. I think that you might do more. It is a mistake to lie back and wait and see what they do to you. Sally made the point that, for quite some time, teachers have been concerned about what others will do to them, rather than feeling that their professionalism has been recognised. That concern should be brought to the fore.

I am interested in the profession’s view on what is the most fundamental change in education. For example, some people say that our school system is failing. Some people in this room will argue that we have a world-class education system, while other people will argue that we do not. Some people say that our teachers are great, and others say that if there is a failing, it must be the teachers. You are in a unique position because you are able to inform the debate. I am disappointed that you are not able to help us more.

Mr McArdle:

I am sorry to disappoint you.

Mr B McCrea:

I am frequently disappointed, Eddie, so do not worry about that. I do not mean that badly. I am just trying to encourage you.

Mr McArdle:

It is an experience that we share.

We have effectively established the professional competences for teachers, which now inform initial teacher education. We have had initial discussions with Curriculum Advisory Support Services (CASS), and we will continue to make the point that the competences must underpin performance review and staff development (PRSD). They will also underpin elements of the support service.

In many senses, the profession is making inroads and is making its voice heard clearly, and when we become a regulatory body, our voice will be even further amplified. The GTCNI also approves the qualifications to teach in Northern Ireland, so people cannot teach in Northern Ireland without passing through the portal of GTCNI. The body accredits courses. All of those duties are our responsibility.

Mr B McCrea:

Where is the education system in Northern Ireland failing, and what would you like to see done to fix it?

Mr McArdle:

The education system in Northern Ireland is not so much failing in the traditional sense that it is a failed entity; however, significant changes need to be made in respect of how we operate selection, which is an issue, and how we deal with the tail of underachievement. There needs to be an understanding that the entire education system does not operate as a system. That is an unfortunate by-product of the situation that we are in at the moment.

Therefore, there must be a clear focus on whether the system post-11-plus is fit for purpose in relation to vocational education and children who have experienced social disadvantage, social capital disadvantage or emotional difficulties. Is it fit for purpose for our brightest children, because we are increasingly preparing people for professions for which there will be no employment?

A whole series of issues has not been addressed but must be addressed if we are to establish what the education sector needs to do. Once we decide what it needs to do in relation to the knowledge economy, etc, it becomes a matter of structure following function. A range of issues is involved. In some senses, we are failing both the economy and society as a whole.

Mr B McCrea:

I will conclude by saying that you have set yourself a task of work, and it has all been recorded by Hansard. I would welcome a submission or a paper from GTCNI on those very issues. You should lead on the debate, and I would like to hear from you on those issues and others.

The Deputy Chairperson:

John, have you a question?

Mr O’Dowd:

My point has been adequately covered.

The Deputy Chairperson:

Thank you very much for attending today, for making your submission and for taking questions. We will expect that paper from you in due course.

Mr McArdle:

We are always happy to do our homework.

Mrs McKee:

We welcome the opportunity to come before the Committee. When the Bill comes into effect, we would like to come back and discuss the specifics of the regulations so that we all have an understanding of where we are going.

The Deputy Chairperson:

Officials will be responding to some of the points raised during the session, so you are welcome to stay.

Mr McArdle:

We have brought you some homework, which you will find intriguing. It is a charter for education, and it would be wonderful if all parties signed up to it and there was a document in this room on which you all agree.

The Deputy Chairperson:

The next item on the agenda is an evidence session with representatives from the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance (NIPSA): Alison Millar, who is the assistant secretary; Heather McKinstry, who is the chairperson of NIPSA’s education panel, and Helena McSherry, who is the vice-chairperson of the education panel. You are all welcome. I invite you make your presentation.

Ms Alison Millar (NIPSA):

Thank you for seeking to take evidence from NIPSA on the Education Bill. You will appreciate that there are many challenges facing education today, but it would be remiss of me not to point out the very low morale among staff in the education sector, particularly in the area of administration, because of the many factors that have impacted on staff over the years.

It is important that the Committee and the Assembly recognise and appreciate the dedication of the staff who work in the sector. Contrary to their portrayal in the media, which has been blatantly untrue, the staff are hard-working and do not waste resources. Over the past few years, they have worked against a backdrop of ever-increasing pressure and with much reduced resources, and the squeezing of those resources must stop.

NIPSA is in a unique position to give its view on the Education Bill, as it is the only teaching union that represents staff from across the entire education sector. We represent all organisations affected by the review of public administration (RPA): the boards, the Youth Council, small and large bodies, the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS), the Civil Service, and so forth. The views contained in our submission are, therefore, representative of members from all those areas.

NIPSA is deeply concerned that the establishment of the ESA is being regarded purely as a cost-saving exercise. Given some of the developments, to which I will refer later, it is clear that the RPA is not aimed at improving the education service, diverting sources to the front line or ensuring that children receive the best education, which they deserve. According to the facts that we have, resources are being, and have been, cut. As members said earlier, special education and children’s services are also being reduced, and jobs are being cut. NIPSA is extremely concerned about the projected loss of 463 jobs, particularly against the backdrop of the failure of the Department of Education and the Minister to commit to no compulsory redundancies as part of the implementation of the RPA.

However, when the job cuts were announced to the Assembly, there was not as much as a blink. Why was that announcement simply accepted? Over the past few months, every political party has sought to support teachers and criticised the private sector for cutting jobs during the current economic crisis, yet they tacitly accepted the announcement of the loss of 463 jobs in education. I ask the Committee and parties to reflect on that.

NIPSA is opposed to the division of the legislation into two Bills. Given the extension to the timeline for the establishment of the ESA, there is no justification for such a division, and NIPSA is deeply suspicious of it. Is it because of the voluntary grammar sector? Will it be included? Will the integrated and maintained sectors be included? We have heard various representations to the Committee on the subject. Although we welcome detailed discussion of the issues, the longer the debate goes on, the more likely it is that the outcome could be simply a merger of the existing education and library boards with a few add-ons, and that would be unacceptable.

One of NIPSA’s major concerns relates to employment schemes. We are extremely concerned about the provision of employment schemes in clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7. If it is deemed that an employment scheme is required, that need should be addressed through the collective negotiating machinery and subsequently disseminated to schools as a model scheme. At best, the legislation, as currently drafted, puts the cart before the horse. If a board of governors wants to deviate from the model scheme, it should have to agree any amendments, but with the ESA and through the collective negotiating machinery. That would ensure equality and commonality across and between schools, and it would guarantee the fair and equal treatment of all staff in relation to pay and terms and conditions of employment, which is not the case across all schools and employers at present. We would welcome the same issues being addressed in all schools.

In clause 9, NIPSA fully endorses the transfer of staff employed by boards of governors from the voluntary grammar and grant-maintained integrated sectors to a single employing authority. However, we suggest that clause 11 be removed in its entirety, as we see no reason for individual schools to continue to pay salaries. If the ESA is intended purely to streamline services, surely no reasoned argument exists for the retention of clause 11, other than to satisfy a particular lobby group or sector. The Committee should reject and remove clause 11, solely because it creates unnecessary bureaucracy. Its removal would streamline the payment of salaries.

NIPSA is concerned about how the school library service, which is a very small service with approximately 50 staff, will be able to develop the necessary skills to improve and provide a first-class service. Historically, there has been movement of staff between the school library service and the public library service under one employer. However, under the education and skills authority, there will be only about 50 staff. Will those staff have the right skills and competencies at all the appropriate levels required for that service?

NIPSA believes that the appropriate level of service can be achieved, and successfully maintained, only through formal links and the sharing of expertise with the public library service through the Northern Ireland Library Authority. The matter should be legislated for, not left to happen by chance through some service-level agreement or other similar arrangement. We have had tentative discussions with the ESA on that issue, but we believe that it needs to be provided for in legislation, otherwise the service may, given the totality of the exercise, be left to wither on the vine. That service is very important.

Some clauses refer to public-private partnerships (PPP) and private finance initiatives (PFI); it will come as no surprise to the Committee to hear that NIPSA is totally opposed to the building of schools and the education estate through PPPs. All the evidence that we have shows that that route does not deliver, in a timely fashion, the rebuilding of schools and the youth estate. I will not go through the litany of failed schools, but there have been situations in which children have left primary school thinking that a new secondary school was to be built in their area. Contracts that last 20 to 25 years tie the Department, the public purse and the ESA into paying for something over the long term. NIPSA urges the Committee to ensure that PPPs and PFIs are eliminated as a methodology for delivering and maintaining the schools estate. The traditional design-and-build model has proved to be much more cost-effective and responsive to need. We need new schools to be ready for children within a very short timescale, not in the five, 10 or 15 years that it has taken under a number of PFI contracts — indeed, sometimes contracts are not even carried forward.

Another issue that we raised in our submission concerns the size of the ESA board. We believe that a board with seven to 11 members would be totally inadequate, particularly given the number of functions that the board would have to fulfil: audit, education, finance, etc.

NIPSA is concerned about representation on the board, as well as about its size. The ESA will be an employer of 60,000 staff. We believe that the appropriate way to reflect that on the board, whatever its final size — although it needs to be larger than currently suggested — is for one third of the board to be made up of elected representatives; one third to be made up of community representatives and one third to be made up of employee representatives. On the board of the Labour Relations Agency, the trade unions and employee representatives have an automatic right to seats, which are appointed through the public-appointments process. I ask the Committee to reflect on that

NIPSA seeks absolute assurance that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations, and all its vagaries, will apply to the transfer of staff to the new organisation, and that staff will be fully protected.

Those are our main issues as regards the Bill. However, there are two other imminent staffing issues concerning the ESA that we want to flag up to the Committee, and they are included in the briefing. With the Committee’s indulgence, I will mention them now.

The first relates to the methodology for the filling of director posts. NIPSA has grave concerns about the process by which staff have been identified throughout the small and larger employers, and about who is eligible to apply for what director post and what grade staff have to be at to apply, and so on. We submitted detailed comments on the recruitment, redeployment and voluntary severance (RRVS) strategy to the consultation, which closes next week. NIPSA, along with the other non-teaching unions, wants to ensure that there is a serious and meaningful engagement on that issue and that the public service guidelines, etc, are fully adhered to.

The second issue relates to the vacancy control policy, which was introduced in October 2006, at a time when it was expected that there would be a short timeline for the establishment of the ESA. It was put in place purely to try to realise the expectation that the unions had about no compulsory redundancies. However, the deferment, on at least two occasions, of the establishment of the ESA has led to large numbers of staff acting up one, two or three grades, and staff who had been brought in on temporary contracts that were supposed to last for six to eight months being in post for over four years.

We received some figures about three weeks ago and are seeking further detailed data from all the employers. However, the Committee should be aware that, in one education and library board, more than 70% of the staff are not in what some would determine to be their substantive posts. Unions can no longer sign up to that arrangement; we have formally withdrawn from it and will be pressing for posts to be advertised on a permanent basis because of the staff detriment involved in transferring to the new organisation. That issue has been raised directly with the Department, and I was extremely disappointed by the Department’s reaction, which was to say that people will have benefited from additional money for a few years and give a shrug of the shoulders. That response will not be accepted, and we will take all necessary action. We hope that we will have the Committee’s support for our efforts to ensure that staff are treated properly in the transfer to the new organisation.

The Deputy Chairperson:

Thank you very much. You said that it is not clear whether the savings that will accrue from the establishment of ESA will be directed to front line services. Have you any evidence to back up that claim?

Ms Millar:

We have looked at the comprehensive spending review figures for the three-year period, including staff costs, maintenance costs and all of the additional costs in the Budget. It is our view that the 3·3%, 5·9% and 4·4% increases will be gobbled up in a standstill process, rather than be diverted to the front line. The mantra is that the money will go from administration into schools. However, if we look at the situation with health, we see that there is no evidence that the savings have been diverted to hospitals and front line services.

The Deputy Chairperson:

You said that you have an issue with the methodology involved in filling director posts. Will you elaborate on that?

Ms Millar:

NIPSA has had discussion with the ESA implementation team about how the posts at director level should be filled, taking on board the Public Service Commission’s view about the need to protect staff. An issue arose because there was an identification of staff down to what would be third-tier equivalents across all the organisations. We believe that the outworkings of that, and how posts have been defined, will exclude some people from applying for posts that we believe would be at least equivalent to their posts, if not at a higher level. For example, some people in human resources posts in the smaller organisations would be eligible to apply for a director post. However, a human resources manager in an education and library board would be excluded from applying for a post at that level.

We have been in discussion since Christmas with the ESA implementation team. We are disappointed that the views that we expressed were not taken on board before the public consultation was launched and have reiterated that in the public-consultation process.

The Deputy Chairperson:

You mentioned the procurement of new buildings through public-private partnerships (PPPs) and private finance initiatives (PFIs). I do not believe that the Bill specifies the use of those methodologies; has that been added?

Ms Millar:

The Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance (NIPSA) understands that the Bill allows for the use of PPPs. That is not specified; however, there is a reference to the fact that different procurement methods can be used for the schools estate, which does not exclude PPPs.

The Deputy Chairperson:

Recent events mean that the Department has had to return to direct contract procurement.

Ms Millar:

Yes, but the economic system will rise and flow and the private sector will again become interested in the public sector.

Mr Poots:

The Deputy Chairperson posed a question about the first paragraph of the submission to which the answer was that rises above inflation for each of the comprehensive spending review (CSR) years amounted to cuts.

That is not the case. Particularly in light of the existing retail price index, the rises happening in each of the CSR years are significant. Efficiency savings that should be achieved as a result of the review of public administration will be redistributed in the Northern Ireland block grant, which is for the public sector.

If the unions are against efficiency savings, they are against providing front-line services, because we are seeking to remove unnecessary administration and move the resources that are saved to front-line services. We want professionals who can assess children with special needs, and we want sufficient teacher-pupil ratios and more classroom assistants. Will the trades unions block that by adopting the attitude that they have demonstrated today?

The Deputy Chairperson:

That probably falls outside the remit of the Bill.

Mr Poots:

Paragraph 2 of NIPSA’s briefing paper specifically refers to jobs that may no longer be required and the consequences of their loss.

The Deputy Chairperson:

Alison, do you want to respond?

Ms Millar:

In relation to my response about the three CSR periods, it is not just about the retail price index.

Employers’ pension scheme costs are due to rise by another 2% this year. The cost of maintenance in schools has fallen over the years as education and library boards have had to cut back drastically, leaving the schools estate in a pretty dire state. If the schools estate is to be dragged back up to where it should be, money must be spent in those areas.

The provision of special education in schools was referred to earlier. It is clear to NIPSA that it is an indictment of our society and the current employers for people to wait three, four, five or eight years, as we heard on the radio this morning, to have a child statemented. It is a question of resources.

I do not believe that any education and library board is saying that it will deliberately not statement children for that period — it is purely down to a lack of staff. Additional staff must be allocated to some areas to allow employers to deliver that service. The ESA will realise that once it has all those staff under its remit.

Mr Poots:

It is not exclusively a matter of resources; it is as much a question of the management of resources as resources per se.

If Departments have a multiplicity of silos with middle managers and a tier of staff below them, competing with one another and giving one another unnecessary work, resources are not being properly managed. Consequently, front-line services are starved of resources that they need.

I want to know whether the trades union is prepared to co-operate with others in ensuring that resources are best placed in front-line services.

Ms Millar:

I can speak only for NIPSA, not for other unions. We believe that the 463 jobs that were mentioned in the outline business case have been more than saved. The data that we received from most employers is that less staff now work in the sector than are required to be saved under the outline business case. During the period of vacancy control, a black hole emerged into which 500 or 600 jobs have disappeared.

The Deputy Chairperson:

Departmental officials told us that the savings from the establishment of the ESA will not necessarily go into front-line services. They said that such savings may help to protect front-line services but, because of deficiencies in budgets in the present economic climate, funding for additional front-line services would not be available, as had been originally intended.

Mr Poots:

Northern Ireland receives a block budget; it does not receive any more than that. Therefore, if additional resources are not made available, there is no point in harping on about the requirement for more resources. If more resources are made available for education, it will mean that fewer resources are available for health; more resources for health will mean fewer resources for another area. There is a budget to work to, and we must decide how to make that work in the interests of everyone, not only those who work in the public service.

The Deputy Chairperson:

That is true. However, my point is that the original predictions will not be fulfilled.

Mr Lunn:

How are the 463 job losses represented as a proportion of the existing jobs?

Ms Millar:

As you heard, there are about 60,000 staff, and, according to the Department’s outline business case, some 4,180 are at risk of redundancy. Four hundred and sixty-three is about 15% or 16%.

Mr Lunn:

I may disagree with the figure of 15%; it is about 12%. You said that many of those jobs have already been lost. Have they been lost through natural wastage or because education and library boards have been actively seeking to reduce the number of jobs?

Ms Millar:

We are seeking data on that from all the employers. It is only when we got the figures from four of the five education and library boards that we found that they did not tally. We are gathering that data, and when we have them I will forward them to the Committee.

Mr Lunn:

Your main reason for existence is to benefit your members. The process will merge five boards into one, and one of the main reasons for doing that is to achieve economy of scale. Is a reduction in jobs of 12% through natural wastage and voluntary redundancy achievable?

Ms Millar:

As we have always said, our bottom line is to get a commitment to no compulsory redundancies. That would give a great deal of comfort to those staff who are feeling vulnerable and who are not sure whether they will have a job and where their job will be when the ESA is established and rolled out. You said that our role is to benefit our members, but our main role is to protect the existing terms and conditions of the staff who will transfer to the new organisations.

Mr Lunn:

Have any of the 500 jobs that have gone been through compulsory redundancy?

Ms Millar:

No.

Mr Lunn:

Therefore jobs have already been lost without any pain.

Ms Millar:

I am not sure that you would say that if you worked in the education sector. There has been significant pain. As political representatives, you will criticise the education employers on many occasions and seek information from them about why certain things have not happened. That is primarily because of diminishing resources and the loss of expertise.

Mr Lunn:

However, so far, no employee has been forced to go.

Ms Millar:

No.

Mr Lunn:

Your submission proposes yet another calculation for the membership of the ESA: one third elected representatives, one third community representatives and one third employee representatives. How do you respond to the Minister’s view that to reserve a place for a trades union representative might give rise to a conflict of interest when union or management matters arise?

Ms Millar:

Our statement refers to the board of the Labour Relations Agency, which includes employee representatives. By and large, boards do not deal with staffing matters. An employee representative would not normally be involved in, for example, a disciplinary matter or any other staffing-related issue. They generally do not sit on staffing committees. There are many other ESA board matters to deal with apart from purely staffing issues. I do not believe that there would be conflicts of interest.

Mr Lunn:

I did not ask that question because I disagree with you. The Minister seems adamant that of the 12 places on the ESA, seven will be local councillors and a chairperson, which leaves room for four other representatives.

Ms Millar:

Having followed the Bill through this, its Committee Stage, I do not believe that the Minister has any support for that position. Most of the groups that have given evidence to the Committee have argued that the ESA should be much bigger. People would have to be employed on a full-time basis to service audit, staffing and other committees; I do not know how a board of seven or eight people could manage that.

Mr Lunn:

What do you mean by “community representatives”?

Ms Millar:

I mean representatives from business and the community sector. Apart from employee representatives, there would be elected members and business and community representatives.

Mr O’Dowd:

Thank you for your presentation. I want to question you in more detail about staff members “acting up”. It was originally hoped that the ESA would have been in place this year, but its establishment has been put back until 2010; indeed, some people want it put back further. How is morale among staff? Your submission says that NIPSA has withdrawn from the vacancy control process; could you expand on that?

Ms Millar:

The ESA was originally due to begin in April 2008; that is when vacancy control was first introduced. The unions agreed to that process and were engaged in it. From where we sat, the aim of that process was to avoid compulsory redundancies so that people could act up — be temporarily promoted — for short periods. However, because of the financial constraints that were placed on the education and library boards over the two to four years before vacancy control, there are staff members who have been acting up — in other words, not in their permanent post — for up to eight years. That is unfair and unsustainable. Those people are in that position because of decisions to defer the establishment of the ESA and decisions by previous education and library boards not to make permanent appointments.

A line has to be drawn in the sand, because the ESA implementation team, supported by the Department, said that the arrangement would continue until 31 August 2010. Our figures are based on January 2009; by the time that the ESA is established, some employers will have no staff in a substantive post. The Department seems to be saying that those staff members have enjoyed three, four or eight years of additional money for the work that they carried out and that they can go back one, two or even three grades lower. That was never what vacancy control was intended for; it was a short-term measure, but it has been allowed to go on for so long that it has become a nightmare.

Over the past couple of weeks, we discussed the matter with our members in all employment areas. People have only just started to realise that the post that they have held for the past six years is perhaps not the grade that they will be guaranteed. Rightly or wrongly, people have got mortgages on what they thought was their salary at the time. Over the past six months, we raised concerns with the Department and the ESA implementation team, but we did not get anywhere. We see this process as trying to draw a line in the sand and getting people to talk to us in a meaningful way.

Mr B McCrea:

There is much with which I agree. It is fundamentally unfair that people who have been acting up are not made permanent in that grade. That is on the record: it is an issue that must be sorted out. Low morale and stress are issues that responsible employers must address. We are failing people in that area.

There is also an issue on which I agree with you and Edwin, which will upset him greatly. I absolutely agree that there have been real cuts. There have been inflationary rises in fuel, in legitimate job evaluations or through agreed pay negotiations — but those factors have increased more than the increase in the budget. Given that that money has to come from somewhere, budgets for maintenance were slashed to make up the difference. The cuts may be hidden, but they exist. We should not avoid them; we should acknowledge that they are being made. Cuts are being made in the least noisy places, and the more vulnerable in our society suffer as a result.

That said, the block grant is unlikely to increase. There is a question about where we will find moneys, and the only way of doing that is by investment and by better co-operation with staff, employees and the unions. We have to find some way of doing that because, quite simply, there is a budget problem. I realise that that was a statement rather than a question, but is that a reasonable position or am I heading off over the hills?

Ms Millar:

I agree with you about the budget: It is a bit like robbing Peter to pay Paul. In our response to the Education Bill and the financial memorandum that was attached to it, we clearly said that we believed that the £20 million would be found from savings in administration and would be redeployed to the front line in education — not into the wider Northern Ireland block. That was the basis on which we made our submission.

Mr B McCrea:

That is a fair point.

The Deputy Chairperson:

I ask you to draw your remarks to a close because we have two sessions after this, and another event after that. Please finish on the point that you are making.

Mr B McCrea:

I will talk afterwards. I have made my points, so I am OK.

The Deputy Chairperson:

Thank you for your attendance today and for your valuable contribution; no doubt we will hear from you again in future.

Ms Millar:

Thank you, Chairperson, and thanks to the Committee.

The Deputy Chairperson:

We now move on to the response to the General Teaching Council and NIPSA from departmental officials. Present today are John McGrath, the deputy secretary, and Chris Stewart, the head of the review of public administration. Neither of those gentlemen requires any introduction, but I introduced them nonetheless. You are very welcome.

Mr McGrath:

I will respond to the evidence given in the two previous witness sessions, and Chris will deal with the detail of the Bill. We welcome the GTC’s support for the Bill and the point was made that their comments were brief because there are not many substantive issues outstanding. With respect to the last point, I hope that the launch of ‘Every School a Good School’ tomorrow will alleviate some of their concerns on that score.

As to the points that NIPSA has made, it is important to reiterate some of them and react to some of the discussion. The ESA has a role in raising standards; that is clear. The main vehicle for that will be the ‘Every School a Good School’ policy and the continuing work and emphasis on standards in school improvement. It will also have a role in squeezing resources so that the maximum is invested in the front line.

I wish to echo the point that Edwin made: there is a budget settlement. The education service must manage within that settlement, whether there is an Education Bill or not. The job losses that have already taken place in the service have been taken into account in the cumulative 3% cut. One cannot make significant savings in a service that is predominantly people-dominated without job losses. However, we must ensure that the job losses are not in the front line and that they are managed as sensitively as possible. By rationalising seven organisations and centralising backup functions over time, the ESA will make the education service better equipped to deal with the efficiency savings that we already have and which have become sharper as a result of the public expenditure forecasts that have been evidenced since the Budget. Therefore, in my Minister’s view and in my partners’ view, the case for the ESA has been reinforced by the increased financial stringency.

I note that 463 job losses are discussed in the outline business case. It is extremely unlikely that there will be any compulsory redundancies because there are almost more vacancies than that at the moment. It is a general principle of the review of public administration that compulsory redundancies should be avoided, and my Minister is keen to ensure that there are no compulsory redundancies if possible.

We have had discussions with NIPSA and other colleagues about vacancy control, which has gone on longer than was desirable, largely due to uncertainty outwith the Department about the timing of the ESA. Many staff have been acting up one, two or three grades above their substantive grades for a considerable time; that is not unknown in the public or private sectors. Nonetheless, NIPSA asked for a guarantee that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) should apply, and the legislation says that TUPE will apply. However, TUPE applies to a person’s substantive grade.

If people have been acting up for some time without the proper competition to make that a substantive post, there should be no understanding that, somehow, in the transfer to the ESA, that position will be regularised without competition. That would be entirely inappropriate and inconsistent with TUPE. We have made that point to trades union colleagues, but we are happy to continue to discuss the issue with them. However, we have reflected that where people have been acting up for a considerable time they have been paid the salary appropriate to those posts.

Mr Stewart:

If it meets with your approval, Chairman, I will pick up on some of the points made by GTC colleagues and then move on to those made by NIPSA.

We welcome the GTC’s positive comments about the Bill; we worked and liaised closely with the council in developing the Bill and we welcome its valuable contribution.

Regarding the small number of specific points relating to clause 11 and the reference to the provisions on the payment of salaries, we note the council’s comments carefully. The Committee is already aware that the Minister recognises the need to amend that clause substantively and that she intends to bring forward an amendment. The purpose of that amendment will be to ensure that all boards of governors in all grant-aided schools will have control over their schools’ budgets for salaries.

On clause 13, which deals with the provision of training and advisory and support services for schools, we note the suggested amendment by the council that the ESA should be required to seek advice from the General Teaching Council. However, the council points out correctly that there already is provision in legislation that gives the council the function of providing advice to employing authorities. Therefore, it is our view that, although we support entirely the suggestion that there should be advice from the GTC to the ESA, there is no need for an additional provision; that would merely duplicate the effect of the existing law. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the suggested amendment is necessary.

On the other point relating to clause 13, we are entirely in agreement with the GTC. It is the Minister’s policy that there should be a mixed economy of provision of training and advisory and support services, including the ESA and other providers, and we are confident and satisfied that the Bill allows for such an approach.

In relation to clauses 25 and 26, which deal with the curriculum, examinations and assessment functions, we note the suggestion from the GTC that the clause ought to include a reference to civic and social well-being. However, although the intention behind the suggestion is laudable and we strongly support it, it is our view that it is more appropriately addressed in another part of the Bill, namely clauses 2 and 23, which have a broader focus and are focused on the general duties of the Department and the ESA, and which are the very thing that Mr McArdle referred to — the fundamental purpose of education. Those clauses already contain references along the lines suggested on the fundamental purpose of education and, therefore, we feel that the suggestion made by the council has already been accommodated in the Bill.

Finally, we welcome the support of the GTC for the important provisions in clause 29 and schedule 6. The Minister fully agrees that it is essential that the GTC have the full range of interventions — every tool in the box that it requires to discharge its role as effectively as possible.

I will move on to the points raised by NIPSA and begin with the membership of the ESA. The Minister and the Department note the views expressed by NIPSA and by many other stakeholders and members of the Committee about the number and composition of the membership of the ESA. The Committee is familiar with the Minister’s view, which is that a membership of up to 12, including the chairperson, is sufficient for effective leadership and governance. The Minister also feels that the proposal for the majority of members to be district councillors is important in ensuring local democratic accountability. However, we are conscious that some stakeholders and Committee members have expressed views on that aspect of the legislation. If the Committee were minded to write to the Minister, she would welcome its views and give careful consideration to anything that it may recommend.

NIPSA also suggested that a proportion of the ESA membership should be reserved for trades union representatives. The Minister stresses that the appointment arrangements for ESA membership will be based primarily on the merit principle. Of course, trades unions’ representatives, like anyone else, may apply for appointment; however, all members will be appointed on their competence and experience rather than in any formal representative capacity. As was mentioned earlier, the Minister feels that formally reserving a proportion of the membership for trades unions’ representatives could give rise to significant conflict of interest issues for those members in management or trades union matters, which, of course, would be significant and frequent, given the role of the ESA as the employer of some 55,000 to 60,000 staff.

Moving on to employment schemes and the role of submitting authorities, the Minister does not agree with NIPSA that the requirement for schools to produce employment schemes is a bureaucratic burden.

In fact, we see the schemes as being an essential element of the employment arrangements in the Bill. They will ensure that there is clarity and certainty on the respective roles and responsibilities of the ESA and the boards of governors, and the Committee has stressed the importance of that issue on a number of occasions. We feel that that is in the best interests of staff.

The responsibility for preparing and submitting schemes will be given to schools, in keeping with the policy aim of allowing schools to determine the degree of autonomy that they wish to have over employment matters. However, the ESA will produce model schemes and must approve all schemes prepared by schools. If a school wishes to adopt a model scheme, it is free to do so, and that will, of course, minimise the administrative burden on the school.

We agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed by NIPSA colleagues on the importance of having close links with, and a close working relationship between, the school library service and the public library service, which is administered by the Library Authority. However, we are not entirely clear about exactly what additional legislative provision NIPSA is looking for, and we would welcome further discussion with NIPSA on the matter. I must point out that clause 18 already contains provisions to allow the ESA to co-operate and enter into formal agreements with the Library Authority.

Clause 15 focuses on educational youth services and facilities. There appears to have been a misunderstanding about the focus of the clause. It is about early years services, which we refer to as educational services, and youth services — it is not about schools. The clause refers to acting together “with any other person” to allow for co-operation and partnership between the ESA, voluntary service providers, and, perhaps, district councils. The clause is not related to the schools estate or procurement policy in any way.

On the issue of potential secondments from the ESA to the Department, the Minister agrees with NIPSA’s suggestion that such an arrangement is desirable, and we want to consider the need for an amendment to the Bill to ensure that that is made explicit.

Finally, turning to schedule 5, which deals with the transfer arrangements for civil servants transferring to the ESA, NIPSA has sought assurances that the legislation will safeguard the employment rights of Civil Service staff. The Department is happy to offer that assurance, because it is entirely satisfied that schedule 5 does just that, thereby providing the assurance that NIPSA colleagues are looking for.

The Deputy Chairperson:

Thank you very much. The Committee wrote to the Department on 19 March with some 10 pages of concerns. When might the Committee get a response?

Mr Stewart:

As soon as possible; and I acknowledge that there are several pieces of correspondence to which we owe the Committee replies. It has taken longer than it should have to respond. We intend to send a very substantive reply, hopefully next week, which should wrap up all the outstanding correspondence. A number of issues has been raised during meetings, and we have picked up on those issues in some of the written and oral evidence that we provided to the Committee. However, as I said, we will wrap all that up in a single reply, which we hope will be a convenient way for members to see the Department’s position on those matters.

The Deputy Chairperson:

John, can you give us an indication of how much of the £20 million savings will be eaten up by efficiencies?

Mr McGrath:

Do you mean the savings in the outline business case?

The Deputy Chairperson:

Yes.

Mr McGrath:

Some of those savings will already have been counted into the current Budget period and redirected back to front line services. As has been said, efficiency savings are required of each Department, and they generate the additional funds that the Executive have allocated for priority areas. That has already happened with a number of developments that the Minister announced last year and this year. You reiterated the point that I made earlier: ideally, people would like efficiency savings to go into front line services, but as the overall budget constraints get tighter —and Basil elaborated on some of the reasons for that, such as pay awards in excess of provision and job evaluations — so individual budgets get tighter.

Our view is that we increasingly need to ensure that efficiency savings do not come out of front line services and that those services are protected as much as possible. It is not quite the same as guaranteeing that every efficiency saving will automatically go into front line services, but that is a product of the wider budgetary constraints that we face, which will get worse in the short to medium term.

The Deputy Chairperson:

Is it possible to say how much of the £20 million is going into front line services?

Mr McGrath:

I am happy to come back to you with a specific figure. I do not want to quote a figure now in case I get it wrong. If Catherine Daly was with me, we could find that out. If the figure was generated within the current three-year Budget period, it will already have been counted in and will have been part of the package of improvements that Caitríona Ruane announced for last year and at the advent of this year.

The Deputy Chairperson:

We look forward to getting a figure.

Mr B McCrea:

I want to deal with GTCNI and then with NIPSA. I may be wrong about this, but I did not take the same sense that you did from the comments made by the GTCNI representatives, which you welcomed as being very positive. I took from their comments that, although they had views on many issues, they thought that some of them were outside their competency, and so they restricted their comments to issues that they thought that they should be talking about.

Mr McGrath:

We are talking about a third party who is still in the room. Perhaps it would be best for us both to offers views on that.

Mr B McCrea:

Although I asked them for more detail, it was not forthcoming, but my view is that some concerns were raised and that it is not appropriate for us to say that they are overwhelmingly supportive of things. I put that on the record as a counter to what you said. Obviously, it is a matter for GTCNI to clarify and deal with, but I put that on the record. The representatives are still listening, so you can see what I mean.

Turning to NIPSA’s concerns, I stated for the record that I think that it is fundamentally unfair to ask people to step up to the mark and act up several grades above their current grade for a prolonged period of time, and then, at a later stage, say to them, “Regrettably, you are not the best person for the job”. We are in a situation whereby we really need people to stay and keep the machine together. Whatever arrangements you come up with for which people should go forward for those jobs — and I am in no way tying your hands on that — we must recognise the contribution of those people. It is about more than just being paid.

Mr McGrath:

On that point, I agree entirely. People have made a significant contribution and are currently going the extra mile, and many vacant posts have had to be filled. That point is well made. Equally, nobody is saying to those people that they are not the right person for the substantive post. We are saying that one cannot wave a wand and put them into the substantive post. I agree entirely: those changes need to be managed. When people move to the ESA, they will still keep their substantive grade, which is the grade that they will transfer under as part of TUPE. On day one, and for a period, they may still be acting up, but then arrangements will have to be made for the filling of those substantive posts in line with proper employment practice. None of that amounts to telling people that they are not necessarily the right person for the job.

Mr B McCrea:

I understand the administrative and legal points that you are making. However, we have agreed on the moral point, and we need to address it. I am not sure how we can do it, but simply asking folk to trust us because we are the Government will not work. We need to find a way of addressing that very serious issue, and, as you well know — or at least I will put it to you — the vacancies in the education and library boards and elsewhere are now causing severe problems. People are not able to get the service that they need.

Mr McGrath:

There is no difference between us here. The situation has to be managed. Those staff are primary assets of the new organisation, and they need to be looked after.

Mr B McCrea:

My position on the composition of the ESA board is known; there is no point in me regurgitating it. However, I will say that there is a fundamental flaw in what we are all trying to do. GTCNI made the point, as did NIPSA, that we need to understand what it is that we are trying to do with education and with the ESA, because, once you have decided what you are trying to do, then the form will follow function. Debate is ongoing about that.

Mr McGrath:

Governance is important. The ESA will employ 50,000 people, oversee a spend of £2 billion and be the custodian of a lot of public assets, so it will require proper governance. Over time, policies will change, and they will come from the Department and the Executive — and we have talked about that already. The ESA’s job will be to implement those policies. We will have to establish a model of governance that will last over time rather than one that will have to be tweaked to suit the policies of the day.

Mr B McCrea:

Mr McGrath, at the risk of agreeing with you again, I accept that. However, the problem is that many people think that the ESA will be a policymaking organisation.

Mr McGrath:

The ESA will be an operational delivery vehicle to implement the policies that are set by the Minister and Executive of the day.

Mr B McCrea:

Many people feel, rightly or wrongly, that they are being excluded. You can say that that is the way in which democracy works, but some people would like a forum in which their interests will be at least heard. That is why we are having this debate.

Mr McGrath:

That is for the political process to deal with.

Mr B McCrea:

I will finish soon, Deputy Chairperson. Those people’s concerns are at the centre of why we are going round in circles in some of these debates. Many stakeholders are concerned that they have a legitimate input to make but that there is no effective forum in which to do so. At the minute, everyone believes that the ESA is the place where they can air those views, and that is why they want to be part of it.

The Deputy Chairperson:

Eddie McArdle from the GTCNI said that education in Northern Ireland lacked an overarching vision. Do you think that the Bill fulfils that need?

Mr McGrath:

That is not the purpose of the Bill. The Bill is designed to reform a lot of the arrangements for the delivery and administration of education. I will not argue that there is a need for a vision.

The Deputy Chairperson:

Clause 2 provides a sort of vision, incomplete though it may be.

Mr McGrath:

There is an architecture for a vision, but a vision is part of the policy that the Minister of the day sets down for educationalists.

The Deputy Chairperson:

Surely the vision should determine the policy. The policy is not the vision; the policy is merely a reflection of the vision.

Mr McGrath:

The vision of the Department of Education is to ensure that every learner fulfils his or her full potential at each stage of his or her development.

The Deputy Chairperson:

That is narrow; it could be one aspect of a vision.

Mr McGrath:

That is the vision. I disagree with you, because I think that it is a broad vision. However, some meat has to be put on it to create a policy. We are doing that by making school improvements, enhancing provision for children with special needs and focusing on the workforce, and through the introduction of the entitlement framework and the revised curriculum. The Minister has identified five main pillars to carry forward the delivery of that vision. They relate to raising standards; closing the gap; investing in the workforce, because standards of education will not be improved if teaching standards are not improved; investing in the infrastructure in which children and youth learn; and transforming administration. The Department needs a vision, and, subsequently, a strategy is required. ESA’s role will be to deliver that.

The Deputy Chairperson:

Will you undertake to read Mr McArdle’s words and to determine whether they can further inform the direction of the Education Bill?

Mr Stewart:

Deputy Chairperson, you got the links of the chain in the right order. Vision drives policy, and, in turn, legislation is the vehicle that delivers policy. You are right that some elements of the Bill, particularly clause 2, create, as John said, the architecture or infrastructure on which the vision sits or through which it will be delivered.

I spent many hours arguing and discussing with legislative counsel which words we might put into clause 2. The view of the author of all the education legislation, and much other legislation over the past 20 years, is that vision or mission statements have no place in legislation. He believes that they are very important in policy and to the work of Departments, but legislation is different. Legislation must be clear, precise and unambiguous; therefore, it is not an easy vehicle in which to place vision or mission statements. The extent to which we have included those visionary words in clause 2 is about as far as we think that we can go.

The Deputy Chairperson:

Time is running out, so I ask members to keep their questions as brief as possible.

Mr Lunn:

That comment should have been made earlier, Deputy Chairperson.

The Deputy Chairperson:

I did make it earlier.

Mr Lunn:

That always seems to happen.

I have two short, succinct points to make. Concern over the projected loss of 463 jobs appears to have gone, because they were secured without the need for compulsory redundancies. Is there any reason why the Department cannot give the guarantee that is being sought by NIPSA about future redundancies?

Mr McGrath:

It is a general principle of the RPA, which was endorsed by the Executive after direct rule, that, ideally, there should be no compulsory redundancies as a result of the RPA. My Minister is also very keen that there should be no compulsory redundancies. The Department doubts whether there will be any, but one never knows what may happen.

I do not see any evidence of the need for compulsory redundancies. There are more vacancies, and there will be funding for severance packages. It is extremely unlikely that there will be any compulsory redundancies, and Mr Lunn made the point that, to date, there have been very few compulsory redundancies ahead of the RPA changes. Therefore, that is a spectre that may not appear.

Mr Lunn:

Mr Stewart talked about the composition of the ESA board. Did I detect a heavy hint that the Minister may be disposed to consider seriously a consensus view from the Committee, if it could arrive at such a view?

Mr McGrath:

We made the point that that issue has been brought up seriatim, not least through the Committee, and, interestingly, Basil McCrea has made the point that people believe that there is no effective forum other than the ESA board; therefore, they all want to get on it. That represents a misunderstanding of the role of the board and policy formulation. Our point is that the make-up of the board is clearly an issue for people here today, and for other people who have given evidence, so the Minister would welcome getting a clear and substantive view on that from the Committee.

Mr Lunn:

I have not heard any organisation, body or individual member express a view that coincides with the Minister’s that a 12-person board is the correct size. However, I thought that I detected a willingness of the Minister to think again.

Mr Stewart:

The Minister would expect me to say that she takes very seriously the Committee’s view on any issue that it raises with her, but specifically that one. It has not gone unnoticed by the Department that the two sets of issues commented upon most frequently by Committee members and stakeholders relate to the membership of ESA and the various aspects of employment arrangements, particularly the need for clarity, certainty and a challenge mechanism around the respective roles of boards of governors and the ESA.

The Department has noted that and has advised the Minister that those issues are raised frequently, and by a very broad range of stakeholders. Therefore, on those matters in particular, and on any other aspect of the Bill, the Minister would welcome and take seriously any view from the Committee.

Mr O’Dowd:

Will the model schemes produced by ESA, which boards of governors may adopt, if they so wish, be produced in consultation with the trade unions?

Mr Stewart:

Yes, we want to consult the trade union movement on those schemes, and it is very important that the Department does so. One of NIPSA’s concerns was that, through this mechanism, we would somehow disassemble the central negotiating arrangements that have been in place for years and that ensure consistency and equality of terms and conditions for staff across education. The Department absolutely would not want to do that.

The model schemes and the guidance produced by ESA will reflect the outcome of central negotiations and agreements between the employer — the ESA — and trade unions. We expect and require schools to give effect to those agreements in their schemes of employment and management, and we would certainly do so in the model schemes.

The Deputy Chairperson:

Gentlemen, thank you again for appearing before us. No doubt we will see you again in the near future.