COMMITTEE FOR EDUCATION

OFFICIAL REPORT

(Hansard)

Education Bill

23 September 2009

The Committee’s report records exactly what was agreed at Committee Stage until today and until its publication next Wednesday 30 September.

Mr B McCrea:

Is there a schedule for those dates? Have we been furnished with that information in written format?

The Committee Clerk:

I can bring advice on Standing Orders in relation to the period between the 30 September and the possible dates that the Minister could suggest for Committee Stage.

Mr B McCrea:

That would be useful for the critical path analysis. Have we had clarification about what happens if we do not meet the deadline of 1 January 2010? There has been some discussion about the implications for the education and library boards if the Bill has not been passed by that time. If they are abolished, will they still be able to pay staff?

The Chairperson:

From my recollection of the correspondence, and Chris Stewart can clarify this, the preferred date was 1 January; however, the date of 1 April was mentioned.

Chris, can you join us? You will have to sit in the public gallery when we move to the clause-by-clause scrutiny, as that is part of the Committee’s deliberation. It will be good to get some clarification.

Mr Chris Stewart (Department of Education):

It would not be a Wednesday if I did not get to join you at the table.

Mr B McCrea:

It is good to get your on your own for once.

Mr Stewart:

Support is only a shout away.

As regards Basil’s question, if for some reason the Bill did not become law by 1 January, the education and library boards would not be dissolved; they would remain in existence and could continue to pay staff and discharge their functions.

Miss McIlveen:

The Chairperson mentioned possible amendments being tabled by the Minister, and the time scales around that. We are nearing the end of our Committee Stage.

On the one hand, it is important that we do not anticipate the will of the Assembly; on the other, it is important that we do not cause staff unnecessary concern by painting an unnecessarily uncertain picture. It is the aim of the Executive and the Assembly to establish the ESA on 1 January 2010. We are working as hard as we can to establish that.

The Chairperson:

We are not anticipating failure; rather, we are making sure that there are no flaws. As has been pointed out, the original Bill had major difficulties, problems and mistakes. The fact that there are some 35 amendments and a raft of other amendments that the Committee may be minded to make proves that this process works, albeit sometimes it has been laborious and repetitive. However, that is the nature of the business.

Mr Stewart:

The process has been painstaking and thorough. You are right: that fact shows the strength of the process and the importance of the Department working closely with the Committee to ensure that we get the best possible Bill.

Mr O’Dowd:

People need to be careful about temporary measures. Two years ago, six commissioners were put in charge of the Southern Education and Library Board as a temporary measure; they are still in place and administering the work of the education board. They ensure that staff are paid, that education is provided and that school meals are delivered. No one wants to reach that stage across all the boards. People should not be talking about temporary measures, as, once taken, temporary measures could become permanent. The good work that we have put into the Bill and our engagement with the various sectors would be diminished. Although I have had disagreements with the Chairperson on how we should proceed, in general, I believe that the Committee has done good work on the Bill.

We have teased out stakeholders’ concerns; however, we cannot allay everybody’s concerns. That is the nature of politics. Sometimes, you should not meet everyone’s needs. Politicians are elected to make decisions, but they cannot keep everybody happy.

We should continue to work towards establishing the ESA on 1 January 2010; that will be a democratic process in which the Committee and the Assembly will be involved. As I said, my party has serious concerns about the establishment of temporary boards from 1 January 2010 to whenever. We could end up with a long stalemate, which will do no one any favours.

Let us go through the democratic process of engaging and putting the Bill through the Assembly with whatever amendments we have approved.

The Chairperson:

The Department’s letter of 22 September 2009 comments on tax liability arising from the transfer of property and assets to the ESA. It relates to schedule 3, which deals with tax liability. The letter covers stamp duty, land tax and corporation tax. As regards corporation tax, it states:

“there is a potential for tax liabilities to arise in the other three organisations; CCEA, CCMS and the Youth Council. However, given the nature of the assets held by these organisations, combined with the low valuation of possible relief available, any potential liability appears minimal.”

It does not rule it out.

Mr Stewart:

At present, it is not ruled out absolutely, Chairman. We hope that within a matter of days, it will be completely ruled out. Unfortunately, my colleague in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) who advised me on that has retired. We now liaise with his successor.

As of today, we cannot give the Committee an absolute guarantee that there is no liability; however, we strongly believe that there is not. We hope to confirm that within a matter of days.

The Chairperson:

Primarily, the matter was raised with regard to the assets and liabilities of the controlled sector, because of its nature. It retains £2·3 billion worth of estate. In a sense, the correspondence raises concerns about the assets and liabilities of CCEA, CCMA and the Youth Council. It states that:

“any potential liability appears minimal”.

I am sure that they would be very concerned that there was any potential liability.

Mr Stewart:

As would we, Chairman. We are talking about the transfer of public assets from one public authority to another. A general principle of taxation and public financing is that it really ought not to give rise to tax liabilities, and we are working to ensure that that is the case. If any action is necessary to ensure that that is the case, we will certainly take it.

The Chairperson:

I am sorry to labour the point, Chris, but I want to be clear: if a situation arose, who would pay the bill? Who would be liable for the ownership of both the liability and the properties: the organisation or the body that would come into existence?

Mr Stewart:

If there was a liability, ownership would fall to the ESA. However, I do not want to worry the Committee unnecessarily. We have couched a letter in understated Civil Service language, and we do not think that there is a problem. Although I am 99·5% certain; until I get the other 0·5%, I am not.

The Chairperson:

Chris, this is not a criticism of you as an individual, but according to your comments to the Committee on 9 September, we have had a legal opinion on a particular issue for years; we now discover that there is a different opinion, and some of us contend that that opinion is not correct. I do not want to create a minefield for lawyers; unfortunately, however, that is the ground on which we have to tread. That raises a concern, which has been highlighted or compounded by the fact that we are now not only looking at an issue that may be an issue for the controlled sector but for other sectors as well.

The Committee Clerk informs me that we have already asked for that. We should reaffirm whether we are still looking for that information.

This is not a reflection on individuals, but I am concerned about how much knowledge members of that group have about the sector for which they are to take opinions and on whose behalf they formulate policies. That is a major concern. Dominic mentioned consistency, and from examining the attendance list, I see that people have attended one meeting but not the next one. There has not been a consistent attendance. There are rumblings in the undergrowth from some people who have attended, which are beginning to permeate through to us.

Mr D Bradley:

How is the membership of the controlled sector group made up? How were its members recruited?

Mr Stewart:

At the beginning of the process, the Department attempted to kick-start it by putting together the broadest possible list that we could think of, having taken soundings from sources, including the Committee. Thereafter, it is self-selecting. The group and the sector decide who wishes to take part and who feels that they may have something to contribute.

The challenge, as the Chairperson suggested, is that whoever is involved in the group has to demonstrate to a very large and diverse sector that they are capable of representing its needs and views and of discharging the functions that they have taken on.

Mr O’Dowd:

Is there any suggestion that anybody has been turned away from those meetings or made to feel unwelcome or that their presence or opinion was not valued?

I am happy to support the controlled sector in whatever way we can, and the establishment of any new body will always generate rumblings. However, the Committee must know whether people are being turned away or made to feel unwelcome or that their opinions are not wanted. The Committee’s concerns must be firmly based. Can the Committee even request the minutes of meetings of the working group?

The Chairperson:

The Department established it, so I assume that the Committee can seek the minutes; is that correct?

The Committee Clerk:

The Committee can certainly ask.

Mr O’Dowd:

Have we any authority? I am just teasing out our options.

The Chairperson:

We are not saying that people have been turned away. I may be accused of parochialism, but if a body were established to look at the maintained sector and people from other religious persuasions or other groups had been put on that body — people whose opinions may not be focused on that sector — concerns would be raised by the maintained sector.

The list of attendees — whether attending by invitation or self-appointment — includes people who, without devaluing the contribution that they can make, do not come from a background that suggests passion for that particular sector. There are people on the list who have that passion, and I am glad that they are there because they can make a very good contribution. I see that there are one or two principals who have been in the controlled sector for many years, so they should have a good grasp and understanding of that sector. However, the bigger problem is that the group has been set up two years later than it should have been.

Mr Stewart:

I can offer some information on that. Section 44 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 gives the Committee considerable powers to request whatever information it wishes, but it may not want to use such a sledgehammer in this case.

The Department will endeavour to provide as much information to the Committee as it can about the operation of the working group, but I stress that the group was not established or run by the Department. The Department is there in a consulting and advisory capacity. It recognises the need to take that role, because, unlike the other sectors, the controlled sector is at much earlier stage of evolution in the process and may have a much greater need than other sectors for the Department’s help, support and guidance.

To illustrate what happens: on the day that the working group meets, Department officials will be there, but they leave the room for the greater part of the meeting. They are not present while the group conducts its business, unless the group asks them to come forward to assist it, in much the same way as we do with the Committee.

I do not think that we could be as neutral on the matter as your question implies because we would be as concerned as you if we thought that the group could fail. It is very important that the controlled sector has an effective representative body. However, I think that the Committee would be equally concerned if it received reports from the sector that stated that the Department’s heavy hand was all over the group and that the Department was dictating and demanding that it went in a particular direction or went about its work in a particular way. The Department does not do that with other sectors.

We are there to assist and guide. Certainly, if we think that something is going seriously wrong, we will not be slow to tell the working group of our view. However, that does not mean that it has to slavishly follow every piece of advice that the Department offers or that it will agree with everything that we say; it is quite the reverse. One of the measures of the success of this exercise is that there will be a strong and effective body that feels that it has the capacity to argue with the Department about the future direction of education. If it were not so, I do not think that the body would be effective.

Miss McIlveen:

What bothers me is the fact that there has not been any real progress. The letter from the Minister that was given to the Committee today implies that C na G is so forward-looking that the Minister is contemplating further amendments on behalf of that sector, yet the controlled sector does not even have a body. That is what really bothers me.

Mr B McCrea:

The membership list that we received does not appear to include any people from west of the Bann, apart from the Foyle women’s group. There appears to be at least one councillor who, to my knowledge, sits only on the boards of Catholic maintained schools. No principals of non-grammar controlled schools are represented on the body. There are also some concerns about the way in which the meetings were called. The first meeting was on the last day of school, so there might have been some difficulty in getting people to attend, and then the next meeting was held on near enough the first day of school. The people who we are trying to attract are busy, so the timing is all wrong.

Chris, although you said that the Department was taking a hands-off approach and that you would tell the Committee if you thought that things were not quite going to plan, I am concerned that we are not really anywhere with that body. The needs of the controlled sector must be addressed if we are to address the needs of all the other sectoral interests. I do not think that it is working.

Mr Stewart:

I do not think that the group would share your view, and its view is perhaps more important than mine in that regard. As I have said, we are not in a position to police the membership. We are certainly not in the business of turning away anyone who turns up. If there are gaps, we will certainly pass on those concerns to the group, but the issue is for it to address.

You are absolutely right: the timing of the first meeting was poor. I do not think that we could have picked a worse date for school principals than the last day of term. One or two of them made that point to us quite forcefully. However, the second and subsequent dates were chosen by the group. We asked what it thought would be a suitable date for the second meeting, and that date was identified by the group, including by the school principals.

Mr B McCrea:

When you spoke about the controlled sector, my immediate response was to think not of controlled grammar schools but secondary modern schools, or whatever you wish to call them. The fundamental point is that the principals of those types of schools are not represented on the group. I am sorry to say, Chris, but the emperor has no clothes. The people who will be affected most are not in the group.

I suspect that some of the grammar school principals are considering joining the Governing Bodies Association (GBA) or another voluntary organisation. There are not enough people in the group who can represent the sector about which we are concerned. Those on the group will not be able to carry that sector. Although I am grateful to all the people who turned up, it was a case of omission rather than of rejection. We need to get more representatives from the controlled sector. If we do not do that, I am afraid that the needs of the controlled sector will not be addressed.

Mr Stewart:

With the greatest respect, it is a bit early to conclude that the membership is not representative. Without asking the individuals concerned, none of us can say why certain people were or were not present at a particular meeting. As you rightly stressed, school principals are busy people, and they cannot, therefore, come along to every meeting.

At the first meeting at which I was present, there were principals from non-grammar schools and secondary schools, and a principal from a controlled school. The latter might not have been present at subsequent meetings for reasons I do not know. Your general point is correct: the group must represent all the various parts of a very diverse sector. That is a challenge for the group and is not something that the Department can dictate.

Mrs M Bradley:

I was about to mention the representation west of the Bann, but Basil beat me to it. I am concerned about the lack of representation from the Western Education and Library Board (WELB) area. I recognise only one name on the list, and she is not an educationalist. I am not condemning that woman — in fact, I know her very well, and I would not do that. I think that people who work in controlled schools in Derry would have been keen to be part of the group. However, I do not know whether they applied. I am concerned that the WELB area does not seem to be represented at all.

Mr Stewart:

I must stress again that no one was excluded and no one had to apply to attend. People who wish to attend the meetings and get involved are very welcome.

The Chairperson:

Mr Stewart:

I would have to check that information and come back to you. I think that the original list of invitations may have contained around 40 or 50 names, although not that many people turned up on the first day, largely because we picked a daft day for the first meeting. Attendance at the second meeting was better.

The Chairperson:

I want to conclude this line of questioning so that we can move on.

Mr O’Dowd:

If memory serves me right, on several occasions before summer recess, departmental officials, including Chris, asked Committee members if we had any names that we thought should be included on the invitation list. If any member suggested names and those people were not invited to the group’s meeting, that would be a matter of concern. It has been indicated that, so far, no one has been turned away.

Another aspect that I found interesting is that certain parties here have lobbied, quite correctly, for a sectoral support body for the controlled sector, because there was a demand for that in the sector. It appears from the attendance thus far that there has been a muted response from that sector. If the demand was as high as some people in this room tell me it is, I would have expected people to be kicking the door down to get in. That does not seem to be the case.

If the Department has gone about this the wrong way or made errors in the invites that it sent out, that must be corrected. If the Department can support the group, it must do so in a professional manner. However, I get the impression that some members want the controlled sectoral support body to be a subcommittee of this Committee. That is not what any of the sectoral support bodies are about. They need to be free-standing and independent-thinking. They need to lobby for their sector and have an advocacy role. There is no point in having a subcommittee of this Committee.

To return to my original point; if any member put forward names of people who they felt should be invited to the first meeting and those people were not invited, that situation should be rectified. The debate today has opened questions in my mind about how much of a demand there is in the controlled sector for this body.

The Chairperson:

I think that that is more of a reflection of the way in which the controlled sector has conducted its business. It is more interested in the job that it is doing, rather than a preservation of a particular structure or ethos. Other sectors can become so embroiled in their ethos or structures that they become more important than the business that they are about. It is like comparing apples with oranges. It is a matter of how particular sectors view themselves. That is why a huge amount of work needs to be done with the controlled sector, because it has had to be inclusive. Controlled schools have not had the luxury of saying that they will accept only certain children. That sector is the real integrated sector of education in Northern Ireland, but it has never been given the opportunity to have that reflected in how it carries out its business.

I ask Mr McCrea to ask his question, and then we must conclude this discussion. If we continue at this rate, members will be here until the same time as they were last night. Members, the choice is yours; the matter is entirely in your hands. I can only guide and direct, but if members want to arrive home late two nights in a row, that is fine. They can text home to say that they will be late again tonight.

Mr B McCrea:

I take your point, Chairperson. It may be that we have to put the discussion of the sector on the agenda, because what John has just said shows that there is a profound misunderstanding of why we have to deal with the issue. My response to Trevor’s point will be the same as my response to John’s. In certain other sectors, there are people who are highly focused and highly organised. They, quite rightly, have their own agenda, and they know where they are going. Notably, the Catholic maintained sector was able to amalgamate and reorganise its schools to get a particular level of pupils. The controlled sector refused, was unable to, or could not come together. As a result, when decisions were eventually being considered under the Bain proposals, there was one large, well-organised Catholic maintained school and two or three small controlled schools. Those schools would, therefore, fall foul of the efficiency issues.

The difficulty that arises when trying to organise the controlled sector is that it is so diverse and operates in such a huge range of areas that it is does not have a common position on many matters. The fundamental problem is that the sector will end up being squeezed by other sectoral bodies if it does not organise itself.

I will finish on the issue of whether people from other sectors should be involved in the sectoral group for the controlled sector. One could say that we should accept views from outside and learn lessons from others people’s experience, but, as the Chairperson pointed out, it would be strange if the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools was dominated by people from outside the sector. Equally, I note in the letter from the Irish-medium schools to the Minister that they are concerned that school governors maintain the ethos of their schools. That is reasonable. The point that I am making is that the controlled sector is really large and educates a lot of our young people, but, for historic reasons, it is not able to compete with its sectoral counterparts. We are trying to find a solution to that problem.

I suggest that the problems facing the controlled sector be put on the agenda. Chris uses the phrase “with respect”, and we are being nice and friendly with each other today, but, in my opinion, this group will not resolve the problems that we have with the controlled sector, no matter how hard the individuals work.

The Chairperson:

Chris, could you convey back to the group our suggestion that it would be helpful see either the chairperson of boards of governors or parent governors from the sector among its membership. We know that members of the Transferor Representatives’ Council (TRC) are on the group, as are principals from controlled schools. Concerns have been raised, and the Committee will urgently return to the issue.

We now begin our clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Education Bill. Before we proceed, I will try to ensure that Committee members have in front of them the appropriate documents so that we can make this process as seamless as possible. I know that you have struggled with me as the Chairperson, and I apologise for my inadequacies, but I have struggled with the process as much as you have. Let us try to set the scene.

Destination is lunch for 1.00 pm; how we get there is entirely in your hands.

You told us that yesterday, John.

The Chairperson:

The two documents that you need to have in front of you are the ‘Education Bill Amendments’ — exhibit a — and tab 2, or exhibit b, and, of course, the Bill.

OK. I believe that that is all that we need. Chris, I ask you to take a place in the public gallery. Patricia Casey, from the Bill Office, is present to advise us on any technical issues that need to be addressed. You are very welcome, Patricia. I apologise that I did not welcome you earlier.

I refer members to the Education Bill amendment document. I remind you of the procedure in the Committee Clerk’s note. It advises that in relation to each clause and schedule where there is no proposal to amend, the Committee will state whether it is content with the clause or schedule as drafted.

Where an amendment is proposed by the Minister of Education, the Committee will decide whether it is content with the amendment that is proposed. Depending on whether the Committee is content with the amendment, it will indicate either that it recommends to the Assembly that the clause be amended as proposed by the Minister — or, if applicable, as proposed by the Committee — or that it does not recommend an amendment. In that case, the Committee would indicate that it is content with the clause as drafted.

Are members content that we proceed? Are there any questions before we begin our clause-by-clause, schedule-by-schedule scrutiny of the Bill?

Mr B McCrea:

I want to make a brief statement for the record. The Ulster Unionist Party will attempt to be as constructive as possible in the clause-by-clause scrutiny. It does not wish to be seen to be trying to block the creation of the ESA as a streamlined oversight body.

We will not, however, agree to the Minister’s proposals for a highly centralised, bureaucratic body that undermines the autonomy of boards of governors and sectoral representatives. With that caveat, we will try to perform a constructive role in the clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill.

The Chairperson:

OK. If there are no further comments, we shall proceed to clause 1.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Schedule 1 (The Education and Skills Authority)

The Chairperson:

Members, on this occasion only we will proceed not to the next clause but to schedule 1; we must deal with it before we can proceed to clause 2. The first decision is the number of members of the education and skills authority (ESA). The Minister proposes that schedule 1 be amended as follows: In page 31, line 15 leave out “7 or more than 11” and insert “11 or more than 14”.

If any member wants to propose a higher number, a Committee amendment has been drafted to that effect. We would take a decision on that amendment first. If the Committee decides to recommend a higher range than that which the Minister proposes, the Committee will not consider the Minister’s amendment or the existing wording of the Bill.

If a member proposes a higher range than 11 to 14 members, the Committee’s amendment will be to leave out, “7 or more than 11” and to insert the proposed new number.

Mr D Bradley:

Question put,

The Committee divided: Ayes 9; Noes 2.

AYES

Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr Craig, Mr Lunn, Mr McCallister, Mr B McCrea, Miss McIlveen, Mr Ross, Mr Storey.

The Committee divided: Ayes 1; Noes 8.

AYES

Mr Lunn

NOES

Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr Craig, Miss McIlveen, Mr O’Dowd, Mrs O’Neill, Mr Ross, Mr Storey.

The Chairperson:

John McCallister and Basil McCrea have abstained.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr Lunn:

For the record, does that mean that the amendment will not be noted formally but that it will appear in the record of today’s meeting?

The Committee Clerk:

Yes; the vote on it will be recorded, but the amendment was not agreed.

The Chairperson:

Members will recall the Committee’s discussions on how the ESA membership could be made representative and the request to the Minister to consider an amendment to paragraph 2(2) of schedule 1. The Minister is not minded to propose an amendment to that part of the Bill, and we have a draft wording if Members wish to consider a Committee amendment.

Mr D Bradley:

Mr Lunn:

That is more or less what I was going to say. It could not be left as a one-word amendment; it would have to be developed. If I heard Dominic correctly, he wants political and religious proportionate representation of the membership. The proposed Committee amendment to paragraph 2(2) of schedule 1 does not refer to either of those things; it refers only to skills and geography. The term “a broad geographical range” appears. I do not think that that gets us over the hurdle.

Mr D Bradley:

If the majority of members of the board are to be councillors, I would like that body of councillors to be proportionately representative of political opinion in Northern Ireland.

The Chairperson:

The Minister’s intention has been that those members would be appointed on merit, not on proportional representation of the community that they serve.

The Committee Clerk:

If the majority of the Committee wants that to be considered, we could treat it in the same way as the previous proposal. We could note the proposal and bring it back to Committee after advice about the implications of such words being included. It is a question of whether the Committee is minded, at this point, to accept the current wording. If the majority of the Committee wishes, it could be amended later to include the word “proportionately”. However, we would have to get legal advice, which would be available some time in October, after the Committee’s report has been published. Of course, the point that was raised would be noted in the report.

Mr O’Dowd:

That the Committee recommend to the Assembly that the schedule be amended as follows: in page 33, paragraph 7, line 7, after ‘may’ insert

‘to the extent that the Department may by regulations provide,’

In page 33, paragraph 7, line 8, insert new sub-clause (2) as set out below and re-number existing sub-clauses (2) and (3) accordingly

‘(2) Regulations made under sub- paragraph (1) shall include those functions which may be exercised by each committee.’

In page 33, paragraph 8, line 20, after ‘under’ insert: ‘paragraph 7 and’

The Committee will recall that it also raised with the Minister the option of an enabling provision for regulations on the ESA committees, in the light of the concerns of some members and key stakeholders about local committees. The Minister’s letter of 22 September 2009 makes it clear that she does “not propose to make regulations”. The Committee agreed in principle that it needs clarity, certainty and confidence — those are the three words that were used repeatedly — on this matter. The Committee amendment would place a duty on the Department in so far as it proposes to add the words:

“to the extent that the Department may by regulations provide,”

The issue was that the regulations were required to give that clarity, certainty and confidence.

At schedule 1, page 33, paragraph 7, line 8 we would insert a new sub-clause (2) that would read:

“Regulations made under sub-paragraph (1) shall include those functions which may be exercised by each committee.”

The Question is that the Committee recommends to the Assembly that schedule 1, paragraph 7 be amended as set out in the amendments. Are there any comments? John O’Dowd and Michelle O’Neill have indicated that they will abstain.

The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 0

AYES

Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr Craig, Mr McCallister, Mr B McCrea, Miss McIlveen, Mr Ross, Mr Storey

Question accordingly agreed to.

The Chairperson:

I beg to move

That the Committee recommend to the Assembly that the clause be amended as follows: In page 36, paragraph 22, at end insert

“ ‘Representative of the community in Northern Ireland’ ”

23.— (1) In this Schedule, and without prejudice to the generality of the words, a membership ‘representative of the community in Northern Ireland’ shall in particular include–

(a) persons with experience of the controlled, maintained, grant-maintained integrated, Irish-medium and voluntary grammar school sectors; and,

Some members are content, so we will put it to a vote. If members are not content, that will mean that the Committee amendment will be considered for its legal competency and brought back to the Committee.

Question, That the Committee is content with schedule 1 as drafted.

The Committee divided: Ayes 2; Noes 9.

AYES

We could start again; that is what worries me.

Are members agreed that they are content with schedule 1, apart from the paragraphs that we agreed actions on? I note that Basil McCrea and John McCallister have abstained.

The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 0

AYES

Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr Craig, Mr Lunn, Miss McIlveen, Mr O’Dowd, Mrs O’Neill, Mr Ross, Mr Storey

In her letter of 22 September, the Minister says that she wants to accommodate the Committee’s wishes on the matter and that she will write to the Health Minister. She says that:

“I consider that the best approach would be to place a statutory duty on the ESA to co-operate with the Regional Health and Social Services Board and Health and Social Services Trust in promoting the mental health of children and young people.”

The Chairperson:

Michelle is referring to the final paragraphs of the Minister’s letter.

The Committee Clerk:

The Committee can note that and put it on the record. The Minister may bring forward an amendment in her own right.

Mr O’Dowd:

I would be happy enough to go to the vote.

The Committee Clerk:

A proposal is being put that the word “mental” be added at clause 2, page 1, line 15.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes 9; Noes 0.

AYES

Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr Craig, Mr Lunn, Mr McCallister, Mr B McCrea, Miss McIlveen, Mr Ross, Mr Storey.

The Chairperson:

John O’Dowd and Michelle O’Neill have abstained.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes 9; Noes 0.

AYES

Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr Craig, Mr Lunn, Mr McCallister, Mr B McCrea, Miss McIlveen, Mr Ross, Mr Storey.

The Chairperson:

John O’Dowd and Michelle O’Neill have abstained.

Question accordingly agreed to.

The Chairperson:

I beg to move

That the Committee recommend to the Assembly that the clause be amended as follows: In page 2, line 6, at end insert—

‘(4A) ESA shall ensure that its functions relating to grant-aided schools are (so far as capable of being so exercised) exercised with a view to encouraging and facilitating the development of education provided in an Irish speaking school (within the meaning of Article 3(2) of the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 2006).’

Members will recall that C na G sought an amendment to clause 2 to place a duty on the ESA to encourage and facilitate the development of Irish-medium education.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes 9; Noes 2.

AYES

Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr O’Dowd, Mrs O’Neill.

NOES

Mr Craig, Mr Lunn, Mr McCallister, Mr B McCrea, Miss McIlveen, Mr Ross, Mr Storey.

Question put and negatived.

The Chairperson:

The last Question is that the Committee is content with the clause as drafted.

Mr O’Dowd:

Agreed. No, we are waiting —

Mr B McCrea:

Where are we now?

The Committee Clerk:

The Committee has voted to reject the Minister’s amendment; it is now being asked whether it is content with the rest of the clause as drafted.

The Chairperson:

That is, as the clause was before the insertion. Is the Committee content with the clause as drafted?

Question put, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the Committee’s proposed amendments.

The Committee divided: Ayes 7; Noes 4.

AYES

Mr Craig, Mr Lunn, Mr McCallister, Mr B McCrea, Miss McIlveen, Mr Ross, Mr Storey.

NOES

Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr O’Dowd, Mrs O’Neill.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 2, subject to the Committee’s proposed amendments, agreed to.

Clause 3 (ESA to employ all staff of grant-aided schools)

The Chairperson:

I beg to move

That the Committee recommend to the Assembly that the clause be amended as follows: In clause 3, page 2, paragraph 2(a), line 27, leave out sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) and insert

“(i) in the case of a controlled school, the Board of Governors of the school;

(ii) in the case of a voluntary or grant-maintained integrated school, the trustees of the school or (if the trustees so determine) the Board of Governors of the school; and”.

Members will recall that C na G sought an amendment to the Bill so that the owners and trustees of an Irish-medium school will be its submitting authority rather than the board of governors. Essentially, that is the same arrangement as that which has been proposed for Catholic maintained schools. The Minister proposed that amendment.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes 4; Noes 7.

AYES

Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr O’Dowd, Mrs O’Neill.

NOES

Mr Craig, Mr Lunn, Mr McCallister, Mr B McCrea, Miss McIlveen, Mr Ross, Mr Storey.

Question accordingly negatived.

The Chairperson:

The question is that the Committee is content with clause 3 as drafted.

Mr B McCrea:

We are opposed to it as drafted.

The Committee Clerk:

Could we have a show of hands?

The Chairperson:

Just to be sure. We have not accepted the amendment from the Department. The Question is whether the Committee is content clause 3 as originally drafted.

Mr Lunn:

Having rejected the amendment?

The Committee Clerk:

Yes.

Question put, That the Committee is content with the clause.

The Committee divided: Ayes 1; Noes 10.

AYES

Mr Lunn.

NOES

Mr Craig, Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr McCallister, Mr B McCrea, Miss McIlveen, Mr O’Dowd, Mrs O’Neill, Mr Ross, Mr Storey.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 3 disagreed to.

Clause 4 (Employment schemes for grant-aided schools)

The Chairperson:

I beg to move

That the Committee recommend to the Assembly that the clause be amended as follows:

In page 3, subsection 3, line 19, at end insert

“(4) The Department may by regulations make provision as to the form and content of employment schemes.”

Members will recall the concerns of stakeholders, including NICCE, AQE and GBA, regarding the lack of clarity on the employment relationships that the Bill will create. At the Committee’s request, the Minister has agreed to make provisions as to the form of intended employment schemes by way of regulations. The Department’s proposed amendment introduces the enabling provision for such regulations.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes 4; Noes 6.

AYES

Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr O’Dowd, Mrs O’Neill.

NOES

Mr Craig, Mr McCallister, Mr B McCrea, Miss McIlveen, Mr Ross,, Mr Storey.

Question accordingly negatived.

The Chairperson:

Trevor Lunn has abstained.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 (Preparation and approval of employment schemes)

The Chairperson:

No amendments were proposed by either the Department or the Committee. Is the Committee content with the clause?

Question put, That the Committee is content with the clause.

The Committee divided: Ayes 9; Noes 0.

AYES

Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr Craig, Mr Lunn, Miss McIlveen, Mr O’Dowd, Mrs O’Neill, Mr Ross.

The Chairperson:

John McCallister and Basil McCrea have abstained.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 (Reserve powers of ESA to make employment scheme)

The Chairperson:

This amendment springs from the amendment to clause 4 and gives the ESA a power to make employment schemes when the scheme submitted does not comply with the regulations to be made in relation to the form and content of employment schemes.

I beg to move

That the Committee recommend to the Assembly that the clause be amended as follows:

Page 4, paragraph (1)(c), line 11, leave out

The Department has proposed an amendment to clause 6. The question is whether the Committee recommends to the Assembly that the clause be amended as proposed by the Minister.

The Chairperson:

The reason that the Department gave for putting forward that amendment was to ensure that the submitting authorities should comply with the regulations on employment schemes.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes 5; Noes 6.

AYES

Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr Lunn, Mr O’Dowd, Mrs O’Neill.

NOES

Mr Craig, Mr McCallister, Mr B McCrea, Miss McIlveen, Mr Ross, Mr Storey.

Question accordingly negatived.

The Chairperson:

The Question is that the Committee is content with clause 6 as drafted.

We want to register our objection.

Question put, That the Committee is content with the clause.

The Committee divided: Ayes 9; Noes 2.

AYES

Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr Craig, Mr Lunn, Miss McIlveen, Mr O’Dowd, Mrs O’Neill, Mr Ross, Mr Storey.

NOES

Mr McCallister, Mr B McCrea.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 (Effect of employment scheme)

The Chairperson:

The Question is that the Committee is content with the clause.

Question put, That the Committee is content with the clause.

The Committee divided: Ayes 9; Noes 2.

AYES

Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr Craig, Mr Lunn, Miss McIlveen, Mr O’Dowd, Mrs O’Neill, Mr Ross, Mr Storey.

NOES

Mr McCallister, Mr B McCrea.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 (Transfer to ESA of staff employed by Boards of Governors)

The Chairperson:

The Question is that the Committee is content with clause 9.

Question put, That the Committee is content with the clause.

The Committee divided: Ayes 9; Noes 2.

AYES

Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr Craig, Mr Lunn, Miss McIlveen, Mr O’Dowd, Mrs O’Neill, Mr Ross, Mr Storey.

NOES

Mr McCallister, Mr B McCrea.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 (ESA to employ peripatetic teachers)

The Chairperson:

The Question is that the Committee is content with clause 10.

Question put, That the Committee is content with the clause.

The Committee divided: Ayes 9; Noes 0.

AYES

Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr Craig, Mr Lunn, Miss McIlveen, Mr O’Dowd, Mrs O’Neill, Mr Ross, Mr Storey.

The Chairperson:

Mr McCallister and Mr McCrea have abstained.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 (Salaries, etc, of staff: administrative and financial arrangements)

The Chairperson:

Members will recall that the need for an amendment was highlighted by the stakeholders, notably the Western Education and Library Board and the General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland (GTCNI). The General Teaching Council pointed out that salaries would be drawn from the LMS formula funding regime of any school, which was surely not the intention. The Department recognised that and proposed a two-part amendment to clause 11. I will not read it all out, but members are aware of the issue. Perhaps Chris will clarify the matter.

The issue of teachers’ salaries being looked at as an average has been raised. Older teachers can cost schools more money because of the different promotion points on their salary scales. Why is there a need for that clause?

Mr Stewart:

Chairman, are you asking why there is a need for the clause at all or for the amendment?

The Chairperson:

Sorry; I am asking why there is a need for the amendment.

Mr Stewart:

Without the amendment, boards of governors would not be able to manage the very difficulty that you pointed out. It is a fact that teachers of different ages and experience can give rise to wins and losses and to benefits and costs in respect of the management of staffing budgets.

Without the amendment, boards of governors will not be able to address that problem; rather, the education and skills authority will make those decisions for controlled and maintained schools, while other schools will have the flexibility to manage their budgets to address, among other things, the difficulty that you raised. The amendment will level the playing field, provide equality and ensure that all boards of governors can manage their staffing budgets.

The Chairperson:

I beg to move

That the Committee recommend to the Assembly that the clause be amended as follows: In page 6, paragraph (5) and (6) line 23, leave out subsection (5) and (6) and insert

(5) Notwithstanding any of the previous provisions of this Act, the budget share of a grant-aided school shall include an amount in respect of ¾

(a) the salaries and allowances of the staff of the school; and

(b) the relevant contributions in respect of such staff.

(6) But ¾

(a) in the case of a voluntary grammar school, ESA may set-off against the maintenance grant payable under Article 61(2)(a) of the 1998 Order any payments made by ESA itself in respect of the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1);

(b) in the case of a grant-maintained integrated school, ESA may set-off against the maintenance grant payable under Article 63(2)(a) of the 1998 Order any payments made by ESA itself in respect of the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2).

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes 9; Noes 0.

AYES

Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr Craig, Mr Lunn, Miss McIlveen, Mr O’Dowd, Mrs O’Neill, Mr Ross, Mr Storey.

The Chairperson:

That amendment clarifies the reference to the article in the Superannuation ( Northern Ireland) Order 1972, which is amended by clause 17 of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the Committee's proposed amendment, put and agreed to.

Clause 17, subject to the Committee’s proposed amendment, agreed to.

Clauses 18 to 20 agreed to.

Clause 21 (Dissolution of certain statutory bodies)

Question put, That the Committee is content with the clause.

The Committee divided: Ayes 9; Noes 2

AYES

Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr Craig, Mr Lunn, Miss McIlveen, Mr O’Dowd, Mrs O’Neill, Mr Ross, Mr Storey.

NOES

Mr McCallister, Mr B McCrea.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 21 agreed to.

Clause 22 (Transfer of assets, liabilities and staff)

Question put, That the Committee is content with the clause.

The Committee divided: Ayes 9; Noes 2.

AYES

Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr Craig, Mr Lunn, Miss McIlveen, Mr O’Dowd, Mrs O’Neill, Mr Ross, Mr Storey.

NOES

Mr McCallister, Mr B McCrea.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 22 agreed to.

Clause 23 (General duty of the Department and DEL)

The Chairperson:

I beg to move:

That the Committee recommend to the Assembly that the clause be amended as follows: In page 12, line 8, after

“social” insert “mental”.

Clause 23 concerns the general duty of the Department and DEL. As discussed earlier under clause 2, which we have agreed to, we have approved the insertion of the term “mental”.

The Committee Clerk:

Those amendments relate to clause 2(2)(a) and clause 2(2)(b)

The Chairperson:

That means that we have to amend this clause in the same way in order to be consistent. We would have to agree to that, the same as we did for clause 2.

The Committee Clerk:

That is up to members. It could be seen as a consequential amendment.

The Chairperson:

I note that Michelle O’Neill and John O’Dowd have indicated that they will abstain.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes 9; Noes 0.

I beg to move

That the Committee recommend to the Assembly that the clause be amended as follows: In page 14, line 12, at end insert

That is already covered by the clause.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes 5; Noes 6.

AYES

Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr Lunn, Mr O’Dowd, Mrs O’Neill.

NOES

Mr Craig, Mr McCallister, Mr B McCrea, Miss McIlveen, Mr Ross, Mr Storey.

Question accordingly negatived.

The Chairperson:

I beg to move

Clause 48 agreed to.

Clause 49 (Catholic maintained schools)

The Chairperson:

Members will recall that the Department’s proposes to remove clause 49 as a separate approach to Catholic maintained schools is no longer required. The Minister will give notice of her intention to oppose the Question that clause 49 stands part of the Bill. Are members content with that proposal?

Mr B McCrea:

No, we object.

Mr D Bradley:

Chris, will you refresh our memories on the Department’s reasons for wanting to remove clause 49?

Mr Stewart:

Clause 49 is a carry-over from the existing provisions in the Education Reform ( Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which set up a definition for Catholic maintained schools as part of a much broader provision. That set out a separate set of administrative arrangements for Catholic maintained schools with the aim of moving towards a single set of administrative arrangements, albeit one that would support a diversity of schools.

The Committee must come to a view on that. I reassure you that that would not disadvantage any Catholic schools, maintained or otherwise. The trustees are also of that view.

Chairperson, if you wish to return to clause 26 while I am here, I am happy to do so.

The Chairperson:

Thank you, Chris. We will deal with clause 49 and then return to clause 26.

The Question is that the Committee recommends to the Assembly the removal of clause 49 as proposed by the Minister and set out above. I ask members to indicate whether they are in favour of clause 49. I note that Jonathan Craig, Michelle McIlveen and Alastair Ross have indicated that they wish to abstain, and I also shall abstain.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes 5; Noes 2

AYES

Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr Lunn, Mr O’Dowd, Mrs O’Neill

NOES

Mr McCallister, Mr B McCrea

Clause 49 disagreed to.

Clause 26 (Discharge by ESA of its functions under sections 24 and 25)

The Chairperson:

Chris, can we go back to clause 26 now, please?

Mr Stewart:

Members have asked for a further explanation as to why DEL proposed an amendment to remove clause 26(2)(b). Having checked the background to it, the amendment was based on the advice of legislative counsel and was agreed by our colleagues in DEL. Legislative counsel pointed out that clause 26 refers back to clauses 24 and 25. The focus of those clauses is entirely on what happens in schools. Therefore, it pointed out that the reference in clause 26(2)(b) to further education was simply not necessary and was superfluous, and it was recommended that it ought to be taken out.

Are members content?

Mr B McCrea:

I have no idea.

Mr Stewart:

You will just have to trust us.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the Committee’s proposed amendment, put and agreed to.

Clause 26, subject to the Committee’s proposed amendment, agreed to.

Clause 50 agreed to.

Clause 51 (Regulations and orders)

The Chairperson:

I beg to move

That the Committee recommend to the Assembly that the clause be amended as follows: In page 29, line 16, paragraph (1), at start insert

“Except as provided by subsection (6),”

In page 29, line 24, paragraph 5, at end insert

“(6) No regulations shall be made under Schedule 1, paragraph 7 unless a draft of those regulations has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the Assembly.”

The Committee has discussed the merits of making important regulations or orders under the Bill subject to draft affirmative resolution by the Assembly as opposed to negative procedure. Please, do not go down that road today. The Committee now has the opportunity to recommend to the Assembly such an amendment to the Bill; however, only if the Committee has recommended the amendment to schedule 1, paragraph 7.

The Committee Clerk:

There is one complication, which I will mention in a moment. The Committee may consider three or, perhaps, all four of those sets of amendments. With regard to the third, I will make a slight change to the Chairman’s proposal.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes 9; Noes 2

AYES

Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr Craig, Mr Lunn, Mr McCallister, Mr B McCrea, Miss McIlveen, Mr Ross, Mr Storey.

NOES

Mr O’Dowd, Mrs O’Neill.

Question accordingly agreed to.

The Chairperson:

I beg to move

That the Committee recommend to the Assembly that the clause be amended as follows: In page 29, line 16, paragraph (1), at start insert:

“Except as provided by subsection (6),”

In page 29, line 24, paragraph 5, at end insert:

“(6) No regulations shall be made under section 30(6) unless a draft of those regulations has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the Assembly.”

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes 9; Noes 2

AYES

Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr Craig, Mr Lunn, Mr McCallister, Mr B McCrea, Miss McIlveen, Mr Ross, Mr Storey.

NOES

Mr O’Dowd, Mrs O’Neill.

Question accordingly agreed to.

The Committee Clerk:

The next proposal is a draft affirmative resolution for proposed new clause 4(4), which relates to the regulation on employment schemes. As the Committee has opposed the Minister’s amendment relating to employment schemes, I will adjust the Question, if I may, so that it would read: “The Question is that, should the regulation amendment in relation to bringing forward regulation on schemes of employment be tabled, the Committee recommend to the Assembly that clause 51 be amended as set out above”.

The Chairperson:

That simply means that if the Minister or someone else proposed the amendment, it would be subject to the draft affirmative resolution procedure.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes 9; Noes 2.

AYES

Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr Craig, Mr Lunn, Mr McCallister, Mr B McCrea, Miss McIlveen, Mr Ross, Mr Storey.

NOES

Mr O’Dowd, Mrs O’Neill.

Question accordingly agreed to.

The Chairperson:

The next proposed amendment is still related to clause 51.

The Committee Clerk:

That still applies. If I may clarify, that proposed amendment would have the effect of making clause 12(1), which is the modification of employment law, subject to draft affirmative resolution of the Assembly.

The Chairperson:

I beg to move

That the Committee recommend to the Assembly that the clause be amended as follows: in page 29, line 17, leave out

“section 50(1)” and insert “sections 50(1) or 12(1)”

I note that Mr O’Dowd and Mrs O’Neill wish to abstain from this vote.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes 9; Noes 0.

AYES

Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr Craig, Mr Lunn, Mr McCallister, Mr B McCrea, Miss McIlveen, Mr Ross, Mr Storey.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the Committee’s proposed amendments.

The Committee divided: Ayes 9; Noes 2.

AYES

Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr Craig, Mr Lunn, Mr McCallister, Mr B McCrea, Miss McIlveen, Mr Ross, Mr Storey.

NOES

Mr O’Dowd, Mrs O’Neill.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 51, subject to the Committee’s proposed agreements, agreed to.

Clauses 52 to 53 agreed to.

Clause 54 (Commencement)

The Chairperson:

I beg to move

That the Committee recommend to the Assembly that the clause be amended as follows: In page 30, line 24, at end insert

“(cc) section 29 and Schedule 6;”

This amendment is proposed by the Department. Members will recall that it allows the commencement of the clause on disciplinary powers of the General Teaching Council to be commenced upon Royal Assent, as those clauses are urgently required in order to comply with other jurisdictions. There are six abstentions; Jonathan Craig, John McCallister, Basil McCrea, Michelle McIlveen, Alastair Ross and myself.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes 5; Noes 0.

AYES

Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr Lunn, Mr O’Dowd, Mrs O’Neill.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 54, subject to the Committee’s proposed amendment, agreed to.

Clause 55 agreed to.

The Chairperson:

We now move to the schedules. We have already dealt with schedule 1.

Mr B McCrea:

Do we not have to deal with the schedule in its entirety? We have dealt with individual parts of it.

The Committee Clerk:

We have dealt with it in its entirety.

Schedule 2 (Transfer to ESA of staff employed by Boards of Governors)

The Chairperson:

I note that Basil MrCrea and John McCallister have indicated that they wish to abstain.

Question, That the Committee is content with the schedule.

The Committee divided: Ayes 9; Noes 0.

AYES

Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr Craig, Mr Lunn, Miss McIlveen, Mr O’Dowd, Mrs O’Neill, Mr Ross, Mr Storey.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3 (Transfer of assets, liabilities and staff of dissolved bodies)

The Chairperson:

I beg to move

That the Committee recommend to the Assembly that the schedule be amended as follows: In page 40, line 8, paragraph 5, leave out paragraph 5 and insert—

‘5. -(1) ESA shall make arrangements for a statement of accounts to be prepared in relation to each dissolved body for the relevant period.

(2) Each statement of accounts shall ¾

(a) be in such form, and

(b) contain such information,

as the Department may direct.

(3) ESA shall, within such time after the end of the relevant period as the Department may direct send a copy of each statement of accounts to the Department.

(4) In this paragraph “the relevant period” means the period ¾

(a) beginning on such day as the Department may direct; and

(b) ending immediately before the appointed day.’

That proposed departmental amendment makes arrangements for the ESA to proceed with regard to reporting on its first set of accounts following advice from the Department of Finance and Personnel.

Members will recall that the amendment from the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (DCAL) to line 20 on page 38 is no longer required because those assets or liabilities have already been transferred to the new Library Authority.

Question put and agreed to.

Question, That the Committee is content with the schedule, subject to the Committee’s proposed amendment, put and agreed to.

Schedule 3, subject to the Committee’s proposed amendment, agreed to.

Schedule 4 (Transfer of certain assets and liabilities of CCMS before appointed day)

The Chairperson:

I beg to move

That the Committee recommend to the Assembly that the schedule be amended as follows: In page page 41, paragraph (3)(b), line 16, leave out head (b) and insert -

‘(b) the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Armagh and the Roman Catholic Bishops of Clogher, Derry, Down and Connor, Dromore and Kilmore; and’

This is a departmental amendment. Members will recall that the definition is required because of the proposed removal of clause 49. I note six abstentions: Jonathan Craig, John McCallister, Basil McCrea, Michelle McIlveen, Alastair Ross and myself.

Question put,

The Committee divided: Ayes 5; Noes 0.

AYES

Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr Lunn, Mr O’Dowd, Mrs O’Neill.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Schedules 5 and 6 agreed to.

Schedule 7 (Minor and consequential amendments)

The Chairperson:

I beg to move

That the Committee recommend to the Assembly that the schedule be amended as follows: in page 48, line 25, leave out from

‘for’ to end of line 27 and insert ‘for the words from “has the meaning” to the end substitute “means a maintained school whose trustees are appointed by, or on behalf of, the Roman Catholic Church;” ’

Schedule 7, page 50, line 5, leave out paragraph (6)

Schedule 7, page 51, line 16, leave out paragraph (15)

Schedule 7, page 55, line 31, leave out from ‘and’ to end of line 33 and insert -

‘(aa) in paragraph 1(2) for sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute “the trustees and Board of Governors of the school;” ’

Schedule 7, page 61, line 5, leave out paragraph 18 and insert -

‘18. -(1) In Article 10(3)(aa) and (4)(aa) for “the body constituted by” substitute “a tribunal constituted in accordance with”.

(2) In Article 16(2) for sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute “the Board of Governors of a grant-aided school shall consider any representations made to it by ESA”.

(3) In Article 16A(1) for the words from the beginning to “direction” substitute “ESA shall make arrangements for enabling the parent of a child of compulsory school age to apply to a tribunal constituted in accordance with regulations under paragraph (6) for a direction”.

(4) In Article 16A(2)(a) and (b) for “body” wherever occurring”, substitute “tribunal”.

(5) In Article 16A(5)(a) for “pupil” substitute “child”.

(6) In Article 16A(6) -

(a) for “a body” substitute “tribunals”;

(b) in sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) for “the body” substitute “a tribunal”;

“(cc) may provide for two or more tribunals to sit at the same time;”;

(d) in sub-paragraph (d) for “the Department” substitute “ESA”.

(7) In Article 16A after paragraph (6) substitute -

“(6A) A tribunal is not to be regarded as a committee of ESA.”

(8) In Article 16A for paragraph (7) insert -

“(7) ESA may make payments to members of a tribunal-

(a) for or in relation to their service a members; and

(b) by way of travelling and subsistence allowance.”.

(9) In Article 16B(1)(d), for “the body established” substitute “a tribunal constituted”.’

Schedule 7, page 62, line 13, leave out sub-paragraph (7) and insert -

‘(7) In Article 32(2) for sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute “the Board of Governors of a controlled or maintained school shall consider any representations made to it by ESA.” ’

Schedule 7, page 62, line 21, leave out sub-paragraphs (13) to (17) and insert -

‘(13) In Article 55(3) and (6) for sub-paragraph (c) substitute -

“(c) where the school is a maintained school, the trustees of the school,”.’

(14) In Article 56(1) -

(a) for “the board concerned” substitute “ESA”;

(b) for sub-paragraph (b)(iii) substitute -

“(iii) where the school is a maintained school, the trustees of the school,”

(15) In Article 56(2) for sub-paragraph (d) substitute -

“(d) where the school is a maintained school, the trustees of the school,”.

(16) In Article 60(5) for “all the boards, the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools” substitute “ESA”.

(17) In Article 60(8) and (11) for sub-paragraph (c) substitute -

“(c) where the school is a maintained school, the trustees of the school,”.’

This departmental amendment is neither minor nor consequential because it is as long as the schedule. Members will recall that the Department commented that the most significant amendments in schedule 7 relate to the amendment of the Education ( Northern Ireland) Order 1997. It will place a duty on the ESA to appoint exceptional circumstances tribunals to consider appeals from parents regarding admission to secondary schools for their children. We know that the regulations are going out for consultation.

Question put and agreed to.

The Chairperson:

I beg to move

That the Committee recommend to the Assembly that the schedule be amended as follows: In page 54, line 28, omit ‘ and ’

In page 54, line 29, at end insert ‘and

“(d) the Education ( Northern Ireland) Order 2009”.

This amendment has been tabled by the Department for Employment and Learning.

We know that — passed with flying colours.

Clerk, can you advise us on whether the Committee can accept that amendment?

The Committee Clerk:

If it is the Committee’s wish to do so, despite the late notice.

The Chairperson:

I beg to move

That the Committee recommend to the Assembly that the schedule be amended as follows: in page 64, line 4, at end insert—

“(4) In Article 37(8) after sub-paragraph (c) insert—

“(ca) the Board of Governors of a grant-aided school; and

(cb) the proprietor of an independent school.”.”

I ask members to consider the amendment set out on the last page of the Minister’s letter.

Question put and agreed to.

Question, That the Committee is content with the schedule, subject to the Committee’s proposed amendments, put and agreed to.

Schedule 7, subject to the Committee’s proposed amendments, agreed to.

Schedule 8 (Repeals)

The Chairperson:

I beg to move

That the Committee recommend to the Assembly that the clause be amended as follows:

In page 72, leave out lines 13 and 14

In page 72, leave out lines 20 to 24 and insert ¾

‘Article 25’

In page 73, leave out lines 12 and 13

In page 73, leave out lines 35 and 36 and insert ¾

‘In Article 61(1) the words “situated in its area”.

Article 61(3).’

In page 73, leave out lines 39 and 40 and insert ¾

‘In Article 63(1) the words “situated in its area”.

Article 63(3).’

In page 73, line 47, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 74 and insert

‘Article 70(3) to (7), (9) and (10).’

The Question is that the Committee recommends to the Assembly that the schedule be amended as proposed by the Minister?

Members indicated assent.

The Chairperson:

That brings us to the end of our clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill.

I want to place on record concerns about the way in which the Bill affects the controlled sector, and we had some discussion on that earlier. First, I want to highlight the extremely slow progress that there has been in establishing the controlled sector body. The lack of progress has meant that the controlled sector has not had the same opportunity as other sectors to influence the scrutiny of the Bill. The Minister has been willing to move to address some of the concerns raised by sectoral bodies. That begs the question of what might have been achieved had an effective controlled sector body been up and running six to eight months ago.

I am also concerned that the Department has told the Committee that it has no plans to commence its review of the teacher-employment and fairness/equality issues that arise in that regard through: the fair-employment exemption for teachers; the impact of the requirement to have a certificate in religious education on open access to teaching vacancies in the maintained sector, both now and if the exception is removed; and, in particular, how the latter will affect the respective opportunities of teachers in controlled schools and maintained schools if there is a significant rationalisation and school closures. There is a serious concern about whether staff be treated fairly.

If, as the Bill proposes, all teachers are employed by the ESA, then all ESA vacancies will presumably be open to all teachers who are at risk of redundancy. However, if roughly half of the vacancies are in maintained schools, in the majority of cases, vacancies in maintained schools will not really be open to those teachers who work in controlled schools and who are at risk of redundancy because there may be a requirement for a certificate in religious education. On the other hand, all vacancies across both the controlled and maintained sectors will be open to teachers from the maintained sector who are at risk of redundancy.

Where the teachers in the different sectors were employed by different employers, the employers did not need to look beyond their own employees in trying to find alternative employment for teachers who are at risk of redundancy in their own schools. The ESA’s obligations will be different and will encompass all staff at risk of redundancy in all grant-aided schools and all vacancies across all sectors. It appears that that will mean that there will be fewer alternative employment opportunities open to teachers in the controlled sector than in the maintained sector.

I propose that the Committee’s report include a very strong recommendation that the Minister take urgent action to address all the issues that I have just summarised and find the resources to make immediate progress. That recommendation can be made in the knowledge that the Minister has already indicated to us in correspondence that there is neither the budget nor the resources available to carry out the promised review of the exemption in regard to the provision for a certificate for Catholic education. That ties in with the concerns that we have about the controlled sector, and I ask the Committee for its support on the issue so that the report that goes to the Assembly reflects our concerns in the strongest possible terms and asks the Minister to address them.

Mr O’Dowd:

There are parts of your comments that I have sympathy with and support, but there are parts with which I completely disagree. I am disappointed that you have raised your concerns at this juncture in the Committee’s deliberations. Having heard your comments in the Committee meetings and elsewhere, I know that your concerns are connected to your party. Those matters do not necessarily need to be contained in the Committee’s report to the Assembly. The Committee’s report to the Assembly is a factual report of the deliberations on evidence given, amendments and the Bill in general. On that basis, I will not support the inclusion of those comments in the report.

On the issue of whether we could have heard more from the controlled sector, all five of the education and library boards have appeared before the Committee, as have the educational boards’ representative body, the grammar sector and the GBA. The door was open to anyone who wished to make written or oral presentations to us. Therefore, we have heard from the controlled sector. The thought that was in my head at the start of this morning’s meeting is still there now: representatives in this room told us that there was a need and demand for a body for the controlled sector, but the evidence suggests to me that that may be more of a political demand than a demand from the sector itself.

The Chairperson:

The education and library boards were not tasked with being the sole advocate for, or defender of, the controlled sector. You must remember that when litigation was taken against some maintained schools, and when costs were incurred as a result of decisions made by, for example, CCMS, to amalgamate some schools, who picked up the tab? It was the education and library boards, not CCMS. I repeat; we are comparing apples with oranges. There is a sector that is clearly disadvantaged. In fact — speaking as a member of the Committee and not as its Chairperson — I would go so far as to say that, in some cases, it could be argued that it was not only disadvantaged but discriminated against because of the structures that were in place.

If we are moving into a new dispensation and if, as the Minister continually tells us, she wants equality and a level playing field for all, consideration must be given to the serious concerns about employment opportunities for staff in the controlled sector. They will be seriously disadvantaged when there is a rationalisation of the schools estate. We are not scaremongering; that will happen. There are schools in the controlled sector that will not be in existence in 10 or 15 years, as there are in the maintained sector. Who is going to employ those teachers if such a disincentive exists? Those teachers believe that they do not have the same opportunities as their peers or equals. I am quite happy for the Committee to comment further on that issue.

Mr D Bradley:

It is unfortunate that you raise those issues five minutes before we are due to finish the scrutiny of the Bill. I am not in a position to give my party’s support to your views on that sort of notice. I would prefer to have discussions with my party first before I give you a definitive answer. I echo what John has said; the TRC appeared before the Committee to represent the controlled sector, or at least part of it. The representatives of that body made their case very strongly, and the Committee has acted on the shortcomings that they saw in the Bill and has tried to accommodate their proposals. We had a discussion earlier about the new maintained body.

I also contend that the education and library boards do have a duty to represent the controlled sector’s concerns. There are five of those boards, plus their representative body. There was ample opportunity for a number of bodies to represent the controlled sector. The TRC did that very well, and the Committee has acted upon, and tried to accommodate, its concerns. That is probably as much as we can do at this late stage.

The Chairperson:

I am quite happy to put the proposal to the Committee. I propose that —

Mr Lunn:

I would like to make a comment. Without wishing to repeat a lot of what has been said, on the face of it, I have a lot of sympathy for what the Chairperson has said, but it may be a bit much to expect me to commit to that sort of verbal statement on behalf of my party, especially at this stage.

As I said, that sounds very reasonable; however, I wish to see the proposal in writing so that I can dwell on it for at least a week. I do not understand why it has to be part of the Committee’s report on the scrutiny of the Bill.

The Chairperson:

It is important that it be included in report in order to give confidence to all the sectors. Some sectors will gain certain things and others will not. In fairness to the Minister, she has refused some of the recommendations that the Irish-medium sector made. She made a decision, so not everyone will get what they are looking for. I think that the controlled sector wants to know what it is getting from the process.

Mr O’Dowd:

Where exactly is it saying that? Where is the statement from the controlled sector in which it states that position?

The Chairperson:

We are often told by the Minister that we are representing, or are not representing, the sector because of the debate on academic selection. The principals of controlled primary schools, a considerable number of which are in my constituency, have told me that they just get their heads down and get on with their jobs. The issue for them is not so much the protection of the controlled sector but the fact that it has to fit within defined criteria. Other sectors have had safeguards and guarantees that they felt were necessary for the protection of their sector, but there are still serious concerns about the controlled sector.

It is the same for us all. We have already spent this morning looking at the sectoral body for the controlled sector. That sector is at a clear disadvantage. It does not have a coherent structure in place within the timescale that has been allowed, and I am not convinced that the Department is not leading the controlled sector down a particular road.

The Hansard reports and the minutes of previous meetings will show that the Committee accepted that that sector needed additional resources to bring it close to the levels of other sectors — and we have heard from C na G, Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education (NICIE) and CCMS. Therefore, it would be only right and fair from an educational perspective, not a party political one, to address that. Everybody has agreed that there are concerns; the Committee has highlighted concerns in other sectors, so there is no reason not to do so in this sector. Therefore, we will circulate to members the bones of the proposal that I outlined and the Committee will decide on it next week. Is that OK?

Mr B McCrea:

Chairperson, you know that you have my support. The Committee has not conducted many inquiries because it has had so much legislation to deal with. What are the chances of getting an inquiry into the controlled sector?

The Chairperson:

Will members consider the issue of inquiries for next week? The other matter that I will put on the table is the report by Deloitte MCS Limited, which clearly indicated that there was underachievement among working-class Protestant boys.

Mr B McCrea:

I am wholeheartedly with the Chairperson; the Committee must look at both those issues.

Mr D Bradley:

I have already proposed an inquiry into the funding of primary school education. I was told at the time that that would be put on hold until such time as the scrutiny of the Education Bill was finished.

The Chairperson:

Will the Committee have the Clerk bring back a report on that in light of comments from Basil, Dominic and myself?

The Committee Clerk:

Most importantly, I must mention to the Committee the policy reviews and the likelihood of the second education Bill arriving shortly, as discussed earlier. The important review of special educational needs and inclusion is out for consultation at the moment. The Department has told me that the all-embracing review of early years is about to come back to the Committee. Bearing in mind the volume of work that emerged from the first Education Bill, members must consider whether one three- to three-and-a-half hour meeting each week will cover the workload if a second education Bill, two other reviews and an inquiry arrive all at once.

However, I can bring all of that to the Committee in a paper that will show members what is timetabled for departmental policy scrutiny, which is part and parcel of the Committee’s statutory responsibility.

The Chairperson:

Are members happy with that approach?

May I have some control of the meeting, please? The Clerk will bring forward a paper as agreed.

Yes; we do not want to move back to Friday mornings. You know the difficulties that we had with that.

So, the Committee will meet on Wednesday afternoons from 7 October 2009. Clerk, can you explain the reason for that date?

The Committee Clerk:

We have a long report to clear next week and the deliberations could take longer than the morning meeting. Therefore, I suggest that we meet at 10.00 am next week as usual in Room 144, with the option of going on into the afternoon should we need to. Thereafter, from 7 October, we will move to 2.00 pm on Wednesday afternoons for an interim period.

The Chairperson:

Members must bring all their folders next week. Thank you very much for your indulgence, which is very much appreciated.