COMMITTEE FOR EDUCATION
OFFICIAL REPORT
(Hansard)
Education Bill
20 May 2009
Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Mervyn Storey (Chairperson)
Mr Dominic Bradley (Deputy Chairperson)
Mrs Mary Bradley
Mr Trevor Lunn
Mr Nelson McCausland
Mr Basil McCrea
Miss Michelle McIlveen
Mr John O’Dowd
Mr Tom Elliot
Witnesses:
Mr Chris Stewart ) Department of Education
Ms Eve Stewart ) Department of Education
The Chairperson (Mr Storey):
The Committee has heard evidence on the Education Bill from 13 key education stakeholders, and has received submissions from all the major educational stakeholders. The Committee has noted the many issues and concerns that stakeholders have raised about the changes that the Bill will introduce.
After each stakeholder evidence session, and in previous policy sessions, the Committee has had the benefit of briefings and question-and-answer sessions with senior departmental officials. We should place on record our appreciation to those officials, particularly Chris Stewart and John McGrath, for all their efforts to date, along with the staff that they have brought with them on various occasions. I thank them in advance for their assistance in the weeks to come as the Committee’s work on the Bill intensifies.
Having completed the evidence-gathering period of the Committee Stage and its scrutiny of the Bill at last week’s meeting, the Committee agreed that it was an appropriate point for it to take stock of some of the key issues and concerns raised about aspects of the Bill and the Department’s responses to date, notably the mop-up response from the Department on 5 May 2009, and the extent to which the Committee is satisfied with that response.
The Committee has kept the Department fully informed of its concerns and those of stakeholders, and we have followed up our weekly meetings with letters confirming requests for additional information that the Committee considered necessary to enable it to determine the merits or otherwise of those issues and concerns. The Committee shares some of the stakeholders’ concerns. Members will by now have had an opportunity to consider the Department’s response of 5 May to the Committee’s requests for information over the past four months. Although some of those requests have been answered in whole or in part, several of the Committee’s key requests remain to be dealt with. I trust that those issues will be addressed soon.
That begs the question of how, given the incomplete information, the Committee can move forward in its consideration of the Bill. For example, one of the issues that has most exercised some major stakeholders and members is the creation of a single employing authority and the schemes of employment that are supposed to maximise the autonomy of boards of governors. The model schemes and guidance will not be available for several months. However, over the next few weeks, the Committee must decide whether it is prepared to approve the general concept of a single employing authority and leave it to the Department and the Minister to produce guidance and model schemes that will allow for the maximum autonomy of boards of governors.
The Committee finds it difficult to see how some of the arrangements in the Bill will work in conjunction with the second Education Bill: for example, a major issue is finding a mechanism to ensure that the controlled school ownership body will be representative of the community that it serves. That difficulty has yet to be resolved.
All members are concerned about the lack of satisfactory progress in establishing the sectoral body and an ownership body for controlled schools. The Committee has been told that it will receive an analysis of the Department’s controlled schools ownership and representative consultation paper in two or three weeks and, perhaps, a revised policy paper after that. At a meeting on 3 June 2009, the Committee will also hear about the contents of the second Bill, but only its area-planning aspects.
In light of all those issues, the Committee will have to decide whether it has sufficient information to leave such matters in the hands of the Department and the Minister. If the Committee does not get clarity, certainty and sufficient information to gain confidence on certain issues in the Bill within the next three to four weeks, it may wish to consider, for example, mechanisms by which it and the Assembly might retain some measure of control. Such mechanisms might include an enabling provision, clause or amendment, already discussed in broad terms, on the employment issue. That would require the Department to provide model employment schemes and guidance through secondary legislation.
Members will have received my draft letter to the Minister on behalf of the Committee; the Deputy Chairperson and I approved its circulation to members last week. A slightly updated version, to reflect the Committee’s consideration of this week’s rather than last week’s meeting, has been provided to members. I hope that members have had time to read it and the accompanying table. The table sets out some of the Committee’s main concerns according to the relevant clause of, and schedule to, the Bill. It details the information still outstanding and reaffirms that the Committee needs to obtain that from the Department urgently. It lists those clauses and schedules to which amendments may be considered.
I propose that we work our way through the table and consider the relevant paragraphs of the draft letter, including paragraphs 3 and 4, as we go along. After that, we will discuss, as necessary, the remaining paragraphs. Are members content with that approach?
Members indicated assent.
The Chairperson:
We want to approve the draft letter before going to the table. Although we do not want to rush, I remind members of what I said about efficiency and time, so we will take the letter paragraph by paragraph for members’ approval. Do members have their homework books open at the right place?
The title of the correspondence is:
“EDUCATION BILL-COMMITTEE FOR EDUCATION CONCERNS WITH AND POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE EDUCATION BILL”.
I will begin with paragraph 1. I should point out that the Department’s letter does not commit any party to any particular decision; it merely tries to set the context for what members will do over the next few weeks and ensure that the Committee has all the relevant information. I should underline that it is the Department’s responsibility to suggest amendments to the Committee. That is preferable because it enables the Committee, the Minister and the Department, to agree a way forward. That is my attempt to condense what the Committee will say in response to this correspondence.
Are members content with paragraph 1?
Members indicated assent.
The Chairperson:
Are members content with paragraph 2?
Members indicated assent.
The Chairperson:
If members have objections, pleases raise them as we go through each paragraph so that we do not have prolonged periods of silence to which the Committee is not used; although they may not be a bad thing sometimes. I see that Chris Stewart gets a mention, so we will pay particular attention.
Mr O’Dowd:
I am conscious that the letter does not commit parties to a position; however, I am concerned about the wording of paragraph 3, as some literary licence has been used. Part of the substantive paragraph states:
“The Committee discussed this point at its meeting 20 May and agreed it is clear that it would wish to see the draft amendment(s) to the Bill to make such regulations on schemes of employment (subject to Assembly control)”.
That is fair enough, but what does “subject to Assembly control” mean?
The Committee Clerk:
The Committee decides whether regulations are subject to negative, affirmative or confirmatory resolution, which are then approved by the Assembly.
Mr O’Dowd:
I am happy with that. However, after that statement in paragraph 3, literary licence takes flight. It continues by stating that the Committee would wish to see:
“the terms of the draft subordinate legislation as soon as possible. This would be on the basis of the broad content of the regulations…The acceptability to the Committee of the idea of a Single Employing Authority itself depends upon the Committee being satisfied that the model schemes and guidance will explicitly deliver the maximised autonomy officials have rehearsed in Committee and in various papers. ”
That is very definitive and asks parties to sign up to a definitive course of action at this early stage. There is no need for any part of paragraph 3 after the words “1 April.”
The Chairperson:
Do members have views on that? Do you mean that you would amend paragraph 3 by removing the sentence that begins, “The acceptability to the Committee”, and ends with “in various papers.”? Are you content with the last few lines of paragraph 3, from:
“The Committee sees this as an urgent issue, since it has been informed”?
Mr O’Dowd:
I am happy enough to retain the last sentence.
The Chairperson:
Therefore your only objection is to the sentence that begins, “The acceptability”.
The Chairperson:
Will members read over that section of the letter and decide whether they want to amend it?
Mr Elliott:
What is the issue? Surely that sentence merely says that it is up to the Committee to decide whether to run with the idea of a single employing authority. It is just a factual statement, although I accept that I might have misunderstood John’s point.
Mr O’Dowd:
It is much more definitive than a mere factual statement. The sentence reads:
“The acceptability to the Committee of the idea of a Single Employing Authority itself depends upon the Committee being satisfied that the model schemes and guidance”.
There is much more to deciding whether I will accept a single employing authority than simply being satisfied with the employment schemes. I am aware that some political parties around the table have concerns about the idea of a single employing authority, but there is no need at this stage of the Bill’s scrutiny for the Committee to state definitively that it will reject a component of the Bill based on one issue. Therefore, there is no need for it to be included in the letter.
Mr D Bradley:
That is a fair argument, because that point was not put to the Committee, and the Committee has not voted on it.
The Chairperson:
We could remove the sentence beginning “The acceptability” down to “various papers” and leave in “The Committee sees this as an urgent issue”.
Mr Elliott:
We could insert the words “and other matters” after “being satisfied that the model schemes, guidance” so that it would read “being satisfied that the model schemes, guidance and other matters.” That would cover everything.
The Chairperson:
Let us deal with the first issue so that we do not get confused. Are we happy to remove “The acceptability” down to “various papers”?
Mr Elliot:
No. I suggest that we insert a few words into the sentence to make it more acceptable; it would also allay John’s concern. The words “other matters” would not tie us down just to model schemes and guidance. That would leave it open for all the issues to be discussed under the single employing authority.
Mr Lunn:
I hear what Tom is saying, but, having reflected on what John said, I do not think that there is any need to have that sentence at all, and removing it does not diminish the effect of the letter. We could be here all day tinkering with the letter.
Mr O’Dowd:
Dominic hit the nail on the head. The Committee has not voted on this issue nor has it taken a definitive position on anything. The letter merely highlights the Committee’s concerns to the Department. If we start laying down definitive positions, it will be difficult to agree this letter.
The Chairperson:
Tom, are you happy enough with that?
Mr Elliott:
I would have preferred to add the words that I suggested, but I am not going to die in a ditch over it.
The Chairperson:
The last sentence on that point reads:
“The Committee sees this as an urgent issue, since it has been informed that the draft Employment Schemes and guidance are not likely to be available for ‘several months’.”
Are members content?
Members indicated assent.
The Chairperson:
Do members have further concerns with paragraph 3?
Mr O’Dowd:
The wording of the final bullet point of paragraph 3 is unsatisfactory. It states:
“The Committee discussed this at its meeting on 20 May and agreed that the important point here is that a mechanism needs to be found to ensure that the Controlled Sector Ownership Body is to be representative of the community served by the Controlled Sector.”
I realise that that is a major concern for some members; nevertheless, the Committee has not agreed that.
Mr Elliott:
We could agree it today.
The Chairperson:
It is important that members express their concerns. As John said, the Committee has not agreed that, but the purpose of the meeting is to agree whether the issue should be included in the letter.
Mr McCausland:
The first sentence states “The Committee noted the line”; that is just a statement of fact. The second sentence states:
“the Controlled Sector Ownership Body is to representative of the community served”.
If that were not the case, the controlled sector would be different from other sectors, and throughout our scrutiny we have espoused equality as a fundamental principle.
On a grammatical issue, the sentence states that “it is to representative” — obviously the word “to” should be omitted. Since we have established the principle of equality of representation in other sectors, the controlled sector should be no different. That is important. If it needs to be agreed, it can be agreed; however, I have not heard anybody dissenting from it until now.
Mr O’Dowd:
Chairperson, may I remind you of your opening remarks that the letter is not for parties to make definitive decisions but to raise with the Department concerns that were highlighted at the Committee meeting? There are concerns with which I agree and those with which I do not. Why should we pick out a particular paragraph or issue and have a formal vote on it today to ascertain the Committee’s agreed position? We may return to it in a week, a fortnight or three weeks and agree it as the Committee’s position. There is another way of wording the letter to enable the Committee to reach agreement today rather than splitting the Committee on a division.
The Chairperson:
What is your suggestion?
Mr O’Dowd:
I suggest something along the lines of “the Committee has raised and heard concerns”, for example.
Mr D Bradley:
We could leave out “agreed that the” from the sentence; “the Committee discussed this at its meeting on 20 May and agreed that the” so that it reads “and an important point here is that”. Would that be acceptable?
Mr O’Dowd:
It is acceptable as long as we realise that we will return to it in later discussions; my party is not tying itself to any proposal.
The Chairman:
It recognises it as an issue.
Mr O’Dowd:
Which it is.
The Chairperson:
Therefore we will take out “and agreed that”.
Mr D Bradley:
No; we will take out “agreed that the” and replace it with “an” so that it reads “and an important point here is”.
The Chairperson:
Are members content?
Members indicated assent.
The Chairperson:
That brings us to paragraph 4.
Mr O’Dowd:
I have a problem with the style and presentation of the letter; a great deal of literary licence has been used in the writing of it. It is not how a report from a Committee should be presented.
The Chairperson:
It is not a report from the Committee; it is a letter that the Committee Clerk and his staff have drafted as an overview of the concerns that have been raised. We all have personal opinions on the style of various things, but the letter is an attempt to get an overall view. The Committee can make slight changes to it without impinging on any member’s views.
Mr O’Dowd:
OK.
The Chairperson:
Are members content with paragraph 4?
Members indicated assent.
The Chairperson:
Are members content with paragraph 5?
Members indicated assent.
The Chairperson:
Are members content with paragraph 6?
Members indicated assent.
The Chairperson:
On a grammatical point, paragraph 7 states:
With a Bill of the size and complexity of the Education Bill, the Committee will not normally”.
Should that be “would not normally”? Is that correct? The teachers among us can keep me right. Are members content with paragraph 7?
Mr Elliott:
Does paragraph 7 make it clear that we hope that the Department and the Minister submit amendments?
The Chairperson:
Yes.
Mr Elliot:
That is fair enough.
The Chairperson:
Are members therefore content with paragraph 7?
Members indicated assent.
The Chairperson:
Are members content with paragraph 8?
Mr O’Dowd:
I have a problem with the wording of paragraph 8, which states that:
“The major problem we currently have with this Bill, as clearly exemplified earlier in this letter, is that the clarification and information requested by the Committee on some key issues is not forthcoming”.
I assume that we are trying to get across the point that our major problem is with scrutinising the Bill — which I do not agree with. However, even so, the sentence is not worded properly.
The Chairperson:
Do you want it to be amended so that it reads: “One of the problems we currently have”?
Mr O’Dowd:
I assume that the paragraph is trying to get across the point that we have a problem with scrutinising the Bill; I do not agree that there is a problem. We are awaiting important information from the Department; however, I have listened to many, many hours of evidence from the Department that many of the witnesses have repeated. Therefore, we have replicated evidence sessions on several occasions.
The Chairperson:
Do you want the sentence to read: “One of the major problems that we currently have”?
Mr Elliott:
I think that John is making the point that the major problem that we have is with the scrutiny of the Bill.
Mr O’Dowd:
Aye; I want the sentence to be reworded to reflect that.
The Chairperson:
Do you want the sentence to be reworded to reflect the problems that the Committee has in scrutinising the Bill?
Mr O’Dowd:
I realise that I am contradicting myself. It is not my job to defend Department officials, regardless of whether my party has a say in how that Department is run. However, the wording of that sentence is somewhat unfair to officials and needs to be reworded.
The Chairperson:
Do you have any suggestions?
Mr O’Dowd:
Perhaps the sentence could be reworded as follows: “The Committee wishes to scrutinise the Bill effectively, as clearly exemplified earlier in this letter. The clarification and information requested by the Committee on some key issues is not forthcoming within a reasonable timescale, and there appears to be an expectation that the Committee must express more detailed views and proposals to the Department”. Does that make any sense?
Mr D Bradley:
Say that again. [Laughter.]
Mr Elliott:
The basis is OK; I do not have an issue with that form of words.
The Chairperson:
Therefore the sentence will start: “We currently have difficulty in scrutinising the Bill”.
Mr Elliott:
No, I think that John said: “The Committee wishes to provide effective scrutiny of the Bill”.
Mr O’Dowd:
The sentence that Tom said should be followed by: “, as clearly exemplified earlier in this letter. The clarification and information requested by the Committee on some key issues is not forthcoming within a reasonable timescale”. Is that fair enough?
The Chairperson:
Did you get that?
The Committee Clerk:
I hope so.
The Chairperson:
Will you repeat it so that we know exactly what the wording will be?
The Committee Clerk:
Paragraph 8 will now read: “The Committee wishes to provide effective scrutiny of the Bill, as clearly exemplified earlier in this letter”. Did you want to make any changes to the latter part of the paragraph?
Mr O’Dowd:
No.
The Chairperson:
We must be absolutely clear on what we have agreed so that there is no confusion. Can you read the sentence again?
The Committee Clerk:
“The Committee wishes to provide effective scrutiny of the Bill, as clearly exemplified earlier in this letter.”
The Chairperson:
Insert a full stop after “letter” and start a new sentence: “The clarification and information requested by the Committee on some key issues has not been forthcoming within a reasonable timescale”.
The Committee Clerk:
“has not been”?
The Chairperson:
Yes; that makes the sentence grammatically correct.
The Chairperson:
That brings us to paragraph 9.
Mr Lunn:
I take it that the grammar will be tidied up.
The Chairperson:
I hope so.
Mr Lunn:
The start of paragraph 9 reads “the Committee desired approach” when it should read “the Committee’s desired approach”. Paragraph 3 also reads:
“the Controlled Sector Ownership Body is to representative”
It should be “to represent” or “be representative of”.
The Chairperson:
Yes, the word “to” should be taken out. Also, as you pointed out, paragraph 9 should be amended to read “the Committee’s desired approach”.
Are members content with paragraph 9, subject to that change?
Members indicated assent.
The Chairperson:
Are members happy with paragraph 10?
Members indicated assent.
The Chairperson:
Are members happy with paragraph 11?
Members indicated assent.
The Chairperson:
That brings us to the end of the letter. Are members happy to approve the changes that have been agreed?
Members indicated assent.
The Chairperson:
We now move to the table of the Committee’s outstanding concerns about the Bill. I am aware that there is a considerable amount of detail, but we will go through the table item by item. The first item is membership.
Mr O’Dowd:
Given that the Committee has not reached any definitive position on the matter, could we use the phrase “Concerns that have been raised by Committee members” rather than “Committee concerns”?
The Chairperson:
You mean rather than a generic reference to concerns?
Mr O’Dowd:
It could say “have been raised by some Committee members”.
Mr Lunn:
If we do that, we will have to repeat the phrase throughout the whole table.
Mr O’Dowd:
That is what I am suggesting.
Mr Lunn:
It could be covered in one sentence.
The Chairperson:
As the Assistant Clerk suggested, we could put at the top of the page the line, “Concerns that have been raised by some members.”
Mr O’Dowd:
That would do.
The Chairperson:
Is the Committee happy to go through the table item by item?
Members indicated assent.
The Chairperson:
I will give members a couple of minutes to read the paragraph on membership. The format is straightforward: the table lists the clause, the concerns and the implications for the Education Bill, and, where appropriate, any amendments.
Mr Lunn:
The third bullet point states that there were concerns about the requirement for a majority of Members to be councillors because of the small membership of the ESA. Now, this is my view rather than the Committee’s view, but the concern was not about having a majority of councillors on a body with such a small membership; rather it was that there should not be a majority of councillors on the board of the ESA, regardless of its size. If the membership happened to be 21 instead of 11, I still do not think that there should be a majority of councillors. That view was shared by stakeholders galore. I propose that we leave out the phrase:
“with the small membership of the ESA”.
The Chairperson:
And put in the word “and”? So, if the line read “Concerns that the requirement that ‘at at any time a majority of Members are councillors’ and the small membership of the ESA …”
Mr Lunn:
No, I am suggesting that we leave out the phrase:
“with the small membership of the ESA”
and have the line read “Concerns that the requirement that ‘at any time a majority of Members are councillors’ and the requirement ‘that each Member has experience in a field of activity …”
The Chairperson:
OK. Are members happy enough with that?
Mr O’Dowd:
Will you read that back? Well, it is a concern for Trevor, so it is fair enough.
The Chairperson:
We would just remove the phrase:
“the small membership of the ESA”.
Are members happy enough that we do that? OK. I will take silence as consent. Are we happy enough with the page about membership?
Members indicated assent.
The Chairperson:
We move on to the next item in the table, ‘Committee’s and Delegation to Committee’s and Staff’. Are members happy enough? It states that:
“alongside a request for a worked up example of what the envisaged change in structure and approx. staffing levels would look like”.
I think that we all had issues about what the committee would look like and what its functions would be.
Mr McCausland:
Could we remove the apostrophes from the heading ‘Committee’s and Delegation to Committee’s and Staff’?
The Chairperson:
Yes, to keep it grammatically correct.
If members are happy, we will move to the next section, ‘ESA to employ all staff of grant-aided schools’, which deals with clauses 3 to 12. The first line says:
“Concerns to address concerns raised by the GBA, NIVGSBA, NICCE and CCMS etc.”
We have put in “etc”, but is it possible to list everybody who raised those concerns? Is that line all-encompassing?
Mr McCausland:
Those were the only organisations that I can recall.
The Chairperson:
Are there any more? I make that point just in case anybody else raised those concerns, but I am not aware of anyone else having done so.
Mr Lunn:
What is NIVGSBA?
The Committee Clerk:
It is the Northern Ireland Voluntary Grammar Schools Bursars’ Association.
Miss McIlveen:
If that is the list, we should just remove the “etc.”
The Chairperson:
Yes, we do not need it.
The Committee Clerk:
“Concerns to address concerns” could read “Concerns to address issues” if members are minded that way.
The Chairperson:
OK. Are members happy enough?
Members indicated assent.
The Chairperson:
That brings us to page 3, which is still under the heading of ‘ESA to employ all staff of grant-aided schools’. A lot of it repeats the factual report by Hansard.
Miss McIlveen:
Equally, there are those who would not have a problem with that issue and who stated as much in their responses. They were quite definite that they did not have an issue with it.
Mr McCausland:
It may be useful, therefore, to include those groups.
Miss McIlveen:
It is not very balanced.
The Chairperson:
That is a valid point.
Mr D Bradley:
Before the list is completed, can we check the Hansard report to ensure that there are no other groups, other than those that are mentioned, that were concerned about that point?
The Committee Clerk:
Perhaps the Association for Quality Education (AQE) is an example.
The Chairperson:
I suppose the purpose of the table is to raise the concerns that people had. We were then to list all the issues on which people had agreement. That will probably be a fairly long list.
Mr McCausland:
On the other hand, other people’s concern was that the ESA should be a single employing authority. This is a pretty unique issue in that there were strong views on both sides.
The Committee Clerk:
There were 38 submissions in total, members. We had 13 evidence sessions. We tried to highlight the oral evidence and the Committee’s discussions on it. If you want the entire 38 submissions to be reflected, that can be done.
The Chairperson:
Yes, we do, with particular regard to that issue.
Miss McIlveen:
It is a huge issue.
The Chairperson:
It is an important issue. Michelle’s point is about balance. While concerns were raised about that issue, equally, many oral submissions were received from organisations and bodies that have no difficulty with it. Is it easier to include a final paragraph that would state as much?
Mr Elliott:
Yes. That is reasonable.
The Chairperson:
That would be fair. What would be the detail of that paragraph? Again, we do not want to hold onto the issue for much longer. In fairness, we have accused other people of not responding in time. We do not want to drag our feet. I do not want the issue to linger for another week. I want it to be dealt with today. A line could be inserted that states that during their presentations, other organisations and bodies did not raise concerns on that particular matter.
Mr McCausland:
They actually went further than that and said that they support the idea of a single employing authority.
The Chairperson:
It should be stated, therefore, that they did not raise concerns and that they support the idea of a single employing authority.
The Committee Clerk:
For instance, the Transferor Representatives’ Council (TRC) said that it supports it.
Miss McIlveen:
TRC, the unions and the boards all said that they support it.
The Assistant Committee Clerk:
Therefore, the line should state that the Committee is mindful that other stakeholders support the idea of a single employing authority.
Miss McIlveen:
That is fine. As long as there is balance, we will not be accused of taking one side or another.
The Chairperson:
It is a fair point.
Mr Elliott:
To be fair, Chairperson, officials know the line that we are getting at. There is no objection to it. Therefore, I am happy enough to leave that to them and to the Committee staff.
The Chairperson:
Are we happy enough?
Members indicated assent.
Thank you for that.
That brings us to page 4, which is a continuation of the issue. That line would go in at the end of the section that is entitled, ‘ESA to employ all staff of grant-aided schools’, and just before the start of the next section, which is entitled, ‘Transfer of Assets, Liabilities and Staff of Dissolved Bodies’.
We will now look at that part, which starts at the bottom of page 4 and takes us through to page 5. I ask members to reflect on it, please.
Mr Lunn:
I do not understand what is meant by the words at the middle of the final paragraph on page 5:
“but until the matter is satisfactorily resolved”.
Is that what we mean, or do we mean, “in order that the matter can be satisfactorily resolved”?
The Chairperson:
It relates to points that were raised about the representative body. Therefore, it means until that matter is resolved.
The Committee Clerk:
The purpose is to allow the Committee time to come to a decision.
Mr McCausland:
The final sentence states:
“The Committee needs to consider the detail on these options”.
The options that are mentioned include a broader role for the non-statutory representative body. Reference is also made to an element of the education and library boards. Surely we are looking not just at those options but at other options to see how it might be done? Perhaps we should include the words, “on these and other options”. The other option is simply to have a statutory body that would be representative.
The Chairperson:
So, we will include the words “on these and other options”. Are we happy enough with that? Again, that is not being prescriptive.
Mr McCausland:
We are also awaiting information on what can be done to produce a statutory body that is truly representative. The other options are, for some people, second-best options.
The Chairperson:
That will be included in the letter. We have now reached the end of the table. Are Members happy enough?
Members indicated assent.
The Chairperson:
We are almost on time; we are doing well. I appreciate members’ indulgence. So that there is no confusion, members can, if they wish, remove those papers from their folders and return them to the clerks, and new ones can be produced. That is just for the good governance of members’ folders. I know that members have been very good at keeping their folders up to date.
Mr Elliott:
As a matter of practicality, could we have the updated versions of those documents emailed to us?
The Chairperson:
Yes, that is fine.
We move to the departmental briefing on the education advisory forum. Chris Stewart is joining us again, as well as Eve Stewart. You are very welcome. I refer members to the distributed papers.
Mr Chris Stewart (Department of Education):
Good morning. On behalf of the team, I thank you, Chairman, for your kind words on the work that we have done in support of the Committee. We also heard the Committee’s comments on where we could, and should, have done better, and we are mindful that we still owe members some information.
We look forward to receiving the Committee’s letter and will respond to it with alacrity. From your description of it, it sounds as if it will be extremely helpful, because it will make clear to us the areas in which the Committee wants further work to be done. That will help the Minister to respond to the Committee and, hopefully, reach the point where there will be consensus around at least some of the issues.
My colleague Eve Stewart will give a short presentation on our paper on the education advisory forum, after which we will be happy to take questions.
Ms Eve Stewart (Department of Education):
I thought that today you would like to hear a different voice to Chris’s. [Laughter.]/p>
The Chairperson:
We could not possibly comment.
Mr C Stewart:
Same tune, different singer.
Ms E Stewart:
When the RPA programme was announced in November 2005, it was stated that there would be a new statutory education advisory forum. The primary focus of the forum will be the provision of advice to the Department of Education and the Department for Employment and Learning on strategic issues in relation to the policy, planning and delivery of education at a very high level.
The intention is not for members of the forum to lobby for their particular groups. The plan is that members will engage in open and robust debate and will strive to offer advice to both Departments that is representative of the consensus view of the forum. Members will not be there to represent their particular bodies; they will be there as part of a participative culture.
The forum will be established as an advisory, non-departmental public body (NDPB), and it will have all the attendant appropriate governance arrangements. The legislative provisions to establish the forum will be in the second RPA education Bill. It is intended that the power to make regulations to cover more detail on the composition and role of the forum will also be included therein. At present, it is intended that the forum will be established at the same time as the ESA, on 1 January 2010. Of course, that will be subject to the timing of the second Bill’s passage through the Assembly.
I will turn now to the structure and membership of the forum. One of the key considerations was the need to provide a balance between the customer side and the supplier side of education. The Department was also to keen to hear the voices of those who are not heard through any other formal mechanism. To ensure effective communications, we do not want an overly large body. It is proposed that there will be a maximum of 26 core members, along with a chairperson and a vice-chairperson. Neither the chairperson nor the vice-chairperson will have a vested interest in any education organisation here.
The members will be drawn from three groups: the education sectors, the practitioners of education and the customers of education. I will not go into the detail of the proposed membership; that is contained in a table in our summary paper and in the policy paper.
The chairperson and the vice-chairperson will be appointed by the Minister of Education in consultation with the Minister for Employment and Learning. The appointments will be in accordance with the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments (OCPA) principles. The other members will be drawn from the groups that they represent, and it is planned that OCPA principles will also apply to those appointments. It is proposed that members will serve a term of up to four years and that the term could be anywhere between two and four years to allow for a rotation of members.
The ESA will not have membership of the forum, and it will not be involved in the development of the forum’s annual work plan. The forum will develop an annual work plan, which the chairperson will develop in consultation with DE and DEL. The ESA’s involvement in the development of policies will be at an earlier stage, when DE will consult the ESA to try to identify and consider practical implementation issues, which must be taken into account before a draft policy document is passed over to the forum for consideration.
The budget for the forum will be very modest. It is not anticipated that the forum will cost a lot of money. The chairperson and the vice-chairperson will receive an annual allowance, and other members will receive travel subsistence and other reasonable expenses. It is not intended that the forum will have its own premises. It is anticipated that rooms will be booked at hotels and so on.
The Department of Education and the Department for Employment and Learning want to ensure that the forum will bring added value to the policy-making process. When Departments give subsequent policy submissions to Ministers and various other people, they will include a copy of the advice that the forum has given to the Ministers and indicate how that has influenced the development of the policy.
Finally, it is intended that the forum will be subject to informal review during its initial year of operation and, thereafter, at regular intervals to identify areas where changes might be needed, for example, in the groups that are represented on the forum.
The Chairperson:
Thank you, Eve. Obviously, we are aware of the thinking around the establishment of an education advisory forum. Policy paper 19 states that sectoral bodies are expected to highlight how the policies that are under consideration might affect their particular sector but that they are not to represent their sector. Given that, on the other hand, encouragement is being given to maintain sectoral bodies, how can it be ensured that self-interest will not be paramount in the advisory forum?
Paragraph 6 of policy paper 19 states:
“However, it will be a unique source of advice in that it will be the only group mechanism that has a special advisory relationship with DE and DEL, set in statute.”
If a sectoral body raises a concern on a particular policy to the Department, but the advisory forum has met and come to some other conclusion, does the view of the advisory forum take priority over the concern raised by the sectoral body? In simple terms, is it possible for the advisory forum to gang up and leave one sector — whatever it may be — isolated, with its message unheard?
Mr C Stewart:
I think that the answers to both questions are fairly similar. There will always be an understandable tendency, particularly on the part of the sectoral members of the forum, to promote their own self-interests. Clearly, those members will be nominated by the sectors on the basis of their ability to reflect the thinking of those sectors.
We would attempt to discourage that type of behaviour and encourage different types of behaviour by saying that the weight that we would attach to advice from the forum is likely to be directly proportional to the extent to which the forum is able to come to a consensus on matters. Therefore, if there is a broad consensus on an issue throughout the entire forum — which will cover all sectors, a range of practitioners and a range of consumers of education — the Department is likely to attach very considerable weight to its advice on that issue. However, a consensus such as that is not easily or often achieved. On the other hand, if the forum falls into the trap of simply producing a series of sectoral views without achieving consensus, then it is unlikely that the forum, as a mechanism, will add any value to our policy deliberations or that its advice will carry any weight.
On your second point, it is, of course, important to allow room for an individual sector to take a different view if it feels compelled to do so. We would be worried if the forum ganged up on a particular sector, as you have described it, because we do not want there to be any unfair treatment. However, again, when it comes to us assessing the views that we receive, in general, a broad consensus view from the forum is likely to carry more weight than a minority view from a particular sector.
The Chairperson:
This is a personal comment, but if the education advisory forum were to become the Civic Forum of education, how useful and valuable would it be to the education sector? I am not asking you to pass comment on the Civic Forum.
Mr C Stewart:
I am relieved, Chairperson.
The Chairperson:
Given how the Civic Forum worked and the added value that it brought to whatever its purpose was, I think that people will be very cynical about whether a similar exercise in a very defined area such as education will bring any added value to the education system.
Mr C Stewart:
I understand those concerns. Without commenting on the Civic Forum, it is nevertheless an observable fact that on few occasions was the Civic Forum ever able to achieve the sort of consensus that we would want an education advisory forum to achieve. Given that we are dealing with the narrower, but nonetheless complex, field of education, we hope that the risk will be smaller.
It is also incumbent on the two Departments, in setting up the forum and providing it with a secretariat— and I am sure that John and Alyn would agree that the secretariat of any forum or Committee plays an important role — to support the forum. We will not just leave the forum members adrift with that difficult challenge. Without in any way impinging on its independence, the Departments and the secretariat will need to support and advise the forum’s members and help them to reach views on those particular issues.
We recognise that danger, which is why the Department’s policy paper refers to an early review of the forum’s effectiveness. If it fails to provide the clear, consensual advice that we seek, changes to it will be considered later.
The Chairperson:
The forum must demonstrably add value to the policy-making process and it is envisaged that it will hold the Department to account. The forum would have no comeback if the Department and the Minister set aside its views. There is no requirement for the Department or the Minister to take any heed of what comes out of the forum — it can be ignored.
Mr C Stewart:
That is correct, and the Department does not want to create a false expectation. As the policy paper states, the advice would be in no way binding. However, it would be incumbent on both Departments to feed-back to the forum. If the Department disagreed with advice, it would have to explain why clearly. That approach is essential and one to which both Departments would want to commit.
Miss McIlveen:
I want to know about the role of the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL), because the Department of Education is paying for and providing the secretariat for the service, even though Eve said that it will be a modest sum. What will DEL contribute to the forum and what will it get from the arrangement?
Mr C Stewart:
The potential for DEL to contribute to the costs has not yet been raised by the Department of Education, although the Minister may want to take that up with Sir Reg Empey. Our colleagues in DEL have been aware of this development from the outset and are broadly supportive.
It is fair to say that they have not been as closely involved as we, the lead Department, have. However, they remain committed to the project, as they see value in it and regard it as a useful source of advice in areas of policy for which they are responsible. Without pre-empting ministerial discussions, there is an argument that DEL ought to contribute to the costs.
Miss McIlveen:
Is it not incredibly vague? At present, all we have is a requirement in statute.
Mr C Stewart:
That is something that Ministers must pursue. I am not aware that the Minister has formally raised it with Sir Reg, but she may wish to.
Miss McIlveen:
I also note that the Department of Education will have observer status, whereas DEL’s status is not defined in the paper.
Mr C Stewart:
If a member of the inspectorate performs the observer role, they could serve both Departments because the inspectorate works for three Departments — Education, Employment and Learning and Culture, Arts and Leisure. However, in addition to the observer, both Departments will have members formally appointed to the forum; therefore, DEL will be represented in that capacity.
Miss McIlveen:
How often will the forum meet?
Mr C Stewart:
It is envisaged that the full forum will meet six times a year, but that will depend on its effectiveness, on the work pattern that it develops and on the use that it makes of subgroups or subcommittees, which is difficult to gauge at this stage. However, most of the work is likely to be done in subgroups or subcommittees, which may meet much more often during the year, with their work signed off by meetings of the full forum on fewer occasions.
Miss McIlveen:
Are there any costings? Depending on outcomes, “modest” can become astronomical.
Mr C Stewart:
It is difficult to say at this stage. The Department has not produced a business case.
Miss McIlveen:
What about expenses?
Ms C Stewart:
We will have to pay close attention to expenses. A ballpark estimate off the top of my head — and it is no more than that — is £200,000 or £300,000. Even a small secretariat of three staff will quickly take costs into the realm of £100,000. As Eve said, it is not envisaged that the forum will have a headquarters or offices; it will use public-sector facilities or hire them if required.
A budget of between £300,000 and £400,000, or perhaps higher, would not be out of the question.
Miss McIlveen:
Is a scrutiny mechanism proposed for the forum?
Mr C Stewart:
I imagine that the Education Committee would want to scrutinise the work of the forum and its effectiveness.
Mr D Bradley:
Point 8 of your summary of policy paper 19 states that one of the key considerations is to achieve a balance between the customer side and the supplier side of education. However, if children and young people and parents were taken as those who represent customers, only four members out of a total membership of 26 would represent customers. A representation of four customers out of a total of 26 members would mean that 22 members of the board were, with one or two exceptions, suppliers. How can you argue that you have achieved a balance between customers and suppliers?
Mr C Stewart:
That is a fair point. We are at the consultation stage on that, and we welcome members’ views on whether those figures are correct. We recognise the challenge; it is difficult to achieve a balance without making the numbers unworkably large. It is an accurate observation that the proposed number of customers for the board is low. We will have to put considerable thought into ensuring that the presence of children and young people, irrespective of numbers, is in no way tokenistic.
The forum’s raison d’être will be to allow us to hear from those in the education system from whom we do not normally or easily hear. It is not difficult for us to hear suppliers’ views; we talk to them every day. However, we do not find it as easy to create mechanisms to hear the views of parents and children, and that is where the real added value of the forum will be. That adds weight to your comment.
Mr D Bradley:
You said that another key consideration is the need to hear the voices of those who are not heard through any other formal mechanism. On the same point, where is the opportunity for people who represent customers with special needs or disabilities or members of marginalised groups to have a voice in the forum?
Mr C Stewart:
That could be addressed in several ways. If the Committee felt that the suggested membership was not correct, that it was not broad enough or that more groups and participants ought to be identified, we would consider that. We also want to ensure that the mechanisms that we use for the appointments process and to encourage nominations for any composition of membership are broadly based. We want to ensure that people from the groups that you mentioned are aware of the process and are encouraged to make nominations.
Mr D Bradley:
In the designations that are set out in annex A of policy paper 19, there is no designation for special needs or disability or for marginalised groups such as Irish Travellers or the newcomer population.
Mr C Stewart:
That is correct; we have not specifically identified such groups on the consumer side, although we have identified them on the supplier side. We do not want to exclude them, far from it; we want to encourage those groups. If the Committee felt that the composition should be amended in that respect, we would consider that carefully.
Mr D Bradley:
I made that point in light of your comment that hearing the voices of those who are not heard through any other mechanism is a key consideration. Perhaps the Department will give more consideration to that area.
Mr C Stewart:
That is a fair point.
Mr McCausland:
The Civic Forum was mentioned earlier. Having sat through the Bill of Rights Forum, the word “forum” is indelibly etched in my memory — and not in a good way. How will you get two representatives for parents and two for children and young people?
What constitutes “the sector”? A failure to identify was a fundamental flaw in the Bill of Rights Forum. Some small organisations felt that they could represent all the children of Northern Ireland; yet some of them persistently expressed partisan views. If that happened with this forum, it could create difficulties. How would the representatives for parents and children and young people be chosen?
Mr C Stewart:
It is very difficult to ask two parents and two children or young people to represent everyone in those groups. That is why Eve stressed the importance of the forum not only having a representative culture or ethos — if I may use that word — but a participative one. I have had some experience of identifying people who might be nominated to a forum and encouraging them to come forward. When I worked in the Office of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, we had a forum of some 50 children and young people. We cast the widest possible net for nominations by encouraging young people in schools, youth organisations, faith-based organisations and churches to come forward.
Mr McCausland:
We are not talking about organisations that purport to represent the children’s sector.
Mr C Stewart:
I am not talking exclusively about such organisations.
Mr McCasusland:
As long as it is inclusive; that is the key point.
Mr C Stewart:
We want the forum to be as broadly based as possible. We do not want any child or young person to feel that they have been overlooked or denied the opportunity to come forward.
Mr McCausland:
Therefore children from all backgrounds will be able to submit their names.
Mr C Stewart:
Yes.
Mr McCausland:
Who would select the representatives?
Mr C Stewart:
The Department.
Mr McCausland:
Will the same process be used to select representatives from the voluntary and community sector, the voluntary youth sector and trades unions? Will the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) nominate someone or can any trade unionist put their name forward?
Mr C Stewart:
We will have to talk to the trades unions about that. I suspect that ICTU will be the most likely route, but we want to be guided by the trades unions.
Mr McCausland:
I have some difficulty with that, as, in recent months, some trades unions have expressed strong political views on issues that have nothing to do with trades unions: for example, the ICTU pro-Palestinian demonstration in Belfast city centre. That was an offence to many people because of the way in which it was carried out and the actions associated with it.
Would it not be better to let all card-carrying trades unionists apply rather than allow a trade union that has a political aspect and that is not necessarily representative of all trades unionists and workers in Northern Ireland to nominate someone? If you asked a group whether it would prefer to nominate someone or to open the nominations up to everyone, I have a fair idea what its choice might be. If you leave the nomination with that group, you will get a predetermined outcome. Would it not be better to open the nomination up to all trades unions and let people apply in the same way as every other category?
Mr C Stewart:
I understand your point. However, before coming to a conclusion, we will take a view from the trades unions on how a trades-union nominee might be identified. We will make it clear to all potential members of the forum that, whatever their political views, the sole focus and function of the forum will be to provide advice on education policy to the two Departments.
Mr McCausland:
In the Bill of Rights Forum some people brought their political baggage to the table.
Mr C Stewart:
Of course that happens. We cannot expect someone who is nominated to the forum because they represent or have knowledge of a particular sector or component of education to leave their beliefs at the door. Nevertheless, in drawing up the operating rules and protocols for the forum, we will strive to make it clear that we are not interested in creating a body in which people advance or debate sectoral positions with a view to one prevailing over the other.
We are looking for consensus-based advice to Departments. As I said, where that consensus can be found, the advice will carry weight; where it cannot, it is likely to carry very little weight.
Mr McCausland:
Would representatives from the community sector simply write to say that they want to be in the forum and departmental officials would interview them?
Mr C Stewart:
It is incumbent on us to have the broadest possible recruiting and notification arrangements. We would look to our colleagues in various statutory authorities, particularly in the Department for Social Development, where there are networks and channels of contact with a broad range of community organisations to advise us.
Mr McCausland:
The Bill of Rights Forum’s experience was that what emerges through the network organisations may not be representative of Northern Ireland as a whole. One could encourage people in the community sector, not all of whom belong to a network organisation. I regard community organisations as anything from a pipe band to an Orange Lodge, but they may not belong to NICVA. Umbrella organisations have an important role to play, but one cannot concentrate solely on them; membership of the forum should be open to anyone from a community organisation, including Church organisations.
Mr C Stewart:
I agree. There is no intention to be narrow or restrictive in any way.
Mr McCausland:
It should be done in a way that does not allow sectoral organisations to guide the forum in a particular direction.
Mr C Stewart:
I have no difficulty with that. Someone from an Orange Lodge, for example, would be in the forum because they would bring a community perspective on the consumption of education; they would not be there to represent the Loyal Orders or any other organisation of which they might be a member.
Mr McCausland:
I am simply making the point that an Orange Lodge is just as much a community organisation as Ballygobackwards community group.
Mr C Stewart:
Having community organisations on the forum is not to advance the cause of those organisations; it is to find a communication route for consumers of education. It is simply a means of contact or of identifying people who can play a role in a personal capacity on the forum.
Mr Elliott:
If the forum ever comes into existence, I wish it well. The Minister has not taken kindly to advice from other bodies in the Province, and I am not sure that this group will fare any better. I am not convinced that it will get off the ground or that it will be what I want it to be.
Like Nelson, I want to ask about the appointments process. Would people have to apply under individual areas? Would someone from a commercial organisation apply under that area as well as under the area of voluntary and community organisations?
Mr C Stewart:
Yes.
Mr Elliott:
Would they submit two application forms?
Mr C Stewart:
We would not ask them to submit two application forms. We would ask anyone who applies to tell us what they could bring to the forum. An individual who felt that they could bring a commercial, an Irish-medium, community, teaching or parents’ perspective would add to the weight of their application.
Mr Elliott:
It will be interesting to see the appointments criteria.
Mr C Stewart:
I have no doubt that the Committee will want to scrutinise that.
Mr Elliott:
Can you highlight the areas where membership will come from the nominated sectors?
Mr C Stewart:
They are mentioned in table 7, but they are not exclusive.
It is likely that most applicants representing Irish-medium education would be put forward by Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta. However, that body does not have an exclusive right to nominate; others in the Irish-medium sector could put themselves forward.
Mr Elliott:
Therefore just because a sector nominates you does not mean that you automatically represent it on the forum.
Mr C Stewart:
That is correct.
Mr Elliott:
My understanding of point 9 on page 10 was that representatives would be appointed by their respective sectors. Is that not the case?
Mr C Stewart:
No. All appointments will be made by the Department. Nominations may come from sectoral bodies, individual members of the public or, indeed, anyone else; however, appointments will be departmental.
Mr Elliott:
In other words, the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education (NICIE) could nominate a person, but there could still be 10 other applicants from the integrated sector.
Mr C Stewart:
Yes. However, our intention is that the composition of the forum will be broadly based and, as far as possible, will reflect the composition outlined in the table. It is important to draw a distinction between illustrating the composition that we seek and the sources that we have identified as nominees while making it clear that appointments will be made by the Department.
Mr McCausland:
Therefore, even if the Irish Congress of Trade Unions nominates a trades-union representative, that does not stop Jimmy Brown, who is a sheet metal worker and a trades union member, putting forward his own name.
Mr C Stewart:
That is correct.
Mr McCausland:
The Department will consider all those applicants equally.
Mr C Stewart:
That is correct.
Mr Elliott:
Supposedly. I have heard enough, Chairperson.
The Chairperson:
That was not how it was normally done, was it?
Mr C Stewart:
We never had a forum before.
The Chairperson:
The forum is a non-departmental public body. At present, when a non-departmental public body is established, a nominee, say, John Smith, is put forward by the controlled sector’s representative body, for example, as it is one of the sectors that have been identified. However, if someone from the controlled sector put forward his or her own name, he or she would be considered equally.
Mr C Stewart:
Yes; there is no reason why not.
The Chairperson:
Therefore the nominating body does not have preferential treatment over the sector as a whole.
Mr C Stewart:
That is not what we propose. The alternative would be to give certain sectoral bodies or organisations formal guaranteed nominating rights in legislation. That approach is technically more difficult and would require us to give careful consideration to ensure that we do not fall foul of equality legislation or of the oft-mentioned section 6 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
As we point out in the policy paper, sectors and groups change and new interests emerge. A degree of flexibility on the forum’s membership is needed to ensure that it continues to meet its core objective of being broadly based and giving us the broad range of voices that we need to hear. That is why we are not minded to give sectors formal, fixed nomination rights in statute. However, it is possible to do it in that way.
Mrs M Bradley:
Can you explain what you mean by “commercial organisations”? What organisations are you talking about?
Mr C Stewart:
We are likely to phrase that in legislation as, “organisations that represent the interests of industry, commerce and the professions”. Although education is extremely important for its own sake, it is also important because it fuels and drives the economy; therefore we want to hear from those who steer the economy about whether our education policies deliver what they need. For example, we want to hear from chambers of commerce, chambers of trade, and representative organisations from any aspect of commerce and the economy.
Mr B McCrea:
The usual suspects.
Mr C Stewart:
I would not necessarily use that phrase, but it is a pithy description.
The Chairperson:
What autonomy will the forum have to determine its work programme and agenda? Would they be set by the permanent secretary, the Department or the Minister, or will the forum have autonomy to decide the issues that it wishes to address?
Mr C Stewart:
The agenda will be set by the two Departments. The expectation is that the forum will provide advice on matters that are referred to it by the two Departments; therefore it will not set its own work programme.
The Chairperson:
What would the forum do if it wanted to express a view on an issue that had not been referred to it by the two Departments?
Mr C Stewart:
The forum would simply not be permitted to advise on an issue that had not been referred to it by one or other of the Departments; that is not the policy intention. If the forum disagreed with the work programme or felt that it wished to advise on something that the Departments had not referred to it, it would be free to approach the Minister with that suggestion. However, it would be for the two respective Ministers to decide which topics they referred to the forum.
The Chairperson:
Thank you very much, Chris and Eve.