Mr Carrick (Deputy Chairperson)

Mr Beggs

Mr Byrne

Mrs Carson

Mr Dallat

Mr Hay

Mr R Hutchinson

Mr J Kelly

Ms McWilliams

Mrs Nelis

Mr A Shannon ) Department of Higher and Further

Mr J Murray ) Education, Training and Employment

I welcome the Permanent Secretary, Mr Alan Shannon, and the legislation liaison officer, Mr John Murray, who are here to give us an official briefing at the Committee Stage of the Department for Learning and Employment Bill. Thank you for the written brief that you provided.

I will make a short introduction. At the plenary session, the Minister explained that the departmental name must be changed because of the length of the current title and the unfortunate acronym which it creates.

Although the acronym attracted attention in the early days, most of us are now used to it, and it does not create difficulties. However, when we are abroad or in other jurisdictions the acronym raises eyebrows, therefore there is enthusiasm for changing the title.

When we were agonising over our choice of a new title, we identified four criteria. The first was to include a reference to each of the three key departmental areas — the Training and Employment Agency, the further and higher education divisions of the former Department of Education, and the employment staff from the former Department of Economic Development.

The Department amalgamates those key areas, and one of our objectives is to create cohesion, therefore it is important that each of the units feel that they belong. That consideration is partly aimed at placing equal emphasis on higher education and further education, while giving equal weight to the training sector and the employment service.

The second criterion was to create a shorter and more manageable title, and the third was to avoid trampling on other Departments by making sure that our new title did not overlap with their names. Our final criterion was to find a more acceptable acronym.

We debated a number of options, including the Department of Learning and Employment, but the acronym for this title would be DOLE. We considered naming it the Department of Advanced Learning and Employment, which would have highlighted the Department’s involvement with higher education, but that would not have done justice to our training activities and basic skills provision. We thought about naming it the Department of Education, Training and Employment, but we thought that the Department of Education might not be too happy if we included the word "education" in our title in this way.

This illustrates how the process involved suggesting options and rejecting each of them for a variety of reasons. We believe that we have come up with the best possible title. We had an informal consultative process in which we discussed ideas for six to nine months and tested others’ reactions.

In our judgement, the title that we have come up with is acceptable to our staff, the universities, the further-education sector and the various political parties. While the acronym is not perfect, it steers away from most of the pitfalls that the others invite. That is the background to why we have chosen this option.

This is a one-clause Bill, and it is difficult to put so many words into a title. Ending the name with the word "learning" hanging in mid-air is not an ideal way to rename a Department. I am concerned that you have completely dropped "training" from the title. Have you considered the Department for Employment, Learning and Training? Learning, after all, can include learning for training and employment. Given that so much of the Department’s work concerns training, it is worrying that the core sense of what the Department does is not expressed in the suggested title.

Our work does not always concern employment; we are concerned with training for many other aspects of life. Much of the new education sector is concerned with that, and this title could narrow that concept rather than broaden it. The title I am suggesting would give us the acronym DELT, which is not the worst option in the world. I am concerned that we have lost ‘training’ — one of the Department’s key roles.

I agree with you that DELT is not an unacceptable acronym, but we return to the question of length: once again, three major areas are included in the title. We had no intention of devaluing the importance of training. After all, a significant proportion of our staff is devoted to training, although most of the budget is spent on education. We felt that the Jobskills and New Deal programmes are well covered by our employment and lifelong-learning strategies, and, therefore, that the different aspects of training were covered by the words "learning" or "employment". We do not want to give the impression that training has lost any of its significance.

The title should have a word which reflects the Department’s involvement with colleges and universities. We have, however, lost the word education because of your concern at the overlap with the Department of Education’s title. You could not include "education". However, a compromise might be to keep the word "training", because that is what goes on in the colleges and universities.

I do not like the suggested title. "Education" and "Learning" are included, but learning for what? We do need a distinctive flavour. Employment is one area, but universities are not just concerned with employment; they cover all aspects of life. A title ending with "learning" gives the impression that learning has been left hanging in mid-air.

Placing "learning" in the middle rather than at the end — the Department for Learning and Employment — would be a matter of deciding on the compromises that must be made to encapsulate all the concepts. The Minister felt that the word "learning" alone encompassed the components of further education and training, especially given our strategy on lifelong learning. In fact, we considered including lifelong learning in the title, but this idea was rejected. Lifelong learning is a fashionable term at the moment, but in five year’s time, another term might emerge.

You can trip over it.

Yes.

Like Ms McWilliams, I have a difficulty with your suggested title. You have just explained why the term "lifelong learning" was excluded, despite your having identified as components for consideration in your Explanatory and Financial Memorandum the factors of lifelong learning and preparation for employment. These considerations are counterbalanced by the objective of creating a shorter title, and I appreciate that. However, the learning process starts at age two, three or four, and continues throughout primary and secondary level. What consideration was given to creating a distinction between primary or secondary education and learning in preparation for work?

The distinction is made through the use of the term "adult learning". However, one of our current preoccupations is a 16-to-19 strategy, which involves people who are not yet adults. We also have a legitimate interest in the curriculum for pupils aged 14 upwards. The Careers Service, for which we are partly responsible, visits schools and deals with younger people as well. We thought that we did not need to make this distinction, especially since it would add to the length of the title.

I share the sentiment that the word "training" should be incorporated in the title. If we are aiming to gear the Northern Ireland economy for the future, the inclusion of "training" is essential. Ms McWilliams suggested the Department of Employment, Learning and Training. Another option is the Department of Learning, Training and Employment, which also incorporates just one additional word. Has the final position on the title been taken, or is it likely that there will be an amendment?

Surely that is what we are here to determine today?

I am reeling myself in, Mr Chairperson.

That is our role at the Committee Stage, which allows for possible amendment.

It allows for the recommendation of amendments.

Strictly speaking, yes.

I agree with the rejection of the words "Advanced Learning and Employment". The word "Advanced" is too elitist. We are trying to upgrade basic skills as well, therefore the inclusion of "Advanced" might be inappropriate. We must cover the complete range of continuing/lifelong learning, as you have said. I have perhaps come to this conclusion through a process of negative reasoning.

I agree that the inclusion of the word "education" might create conflict with the Department of Education, therefore it would be best to omit it. The words "Learning" and "Employment" do seem to encapsulate your Department’s role. Given that young people and unemployed people are learning while they undergo training, surely those two words should cover the concept to the required extent? I do not like wordy titles, and I am not sufficiently opposed to the proposed title, nor have I not come up with a better proposal myself, therefore I accept the proposal.

I agree that we should include the word "training", because we have had so many representations from firms and other establishments that have placed great emphasis on training. If we could include this aspect, this would round up the Department’s recommendations.

The Department has a wide range of responsibilities in many areas, and this is why it is difficult to shorten its title. I fear that the more we tinker about with the name, the more we will add to its length, and I have not yet heard a better suggestion. Ultimately, it is going to be difficult to incorporate everything the Department does in a title of three or four words.

If we come up with a name that suits everyone, is there a time limit within which the name must be incorporated? Will there be a mechanism in place to effect this change?

There is no time constraint. Frankly, I would have liked this change to have taken place a year ago. We took a long time to toss the ideas around, and like the Committee, we heard a different suggestion from each person we talked to.

There is an added complication, and that is that the Executive is working on producing a corporate logo. Therefore, we hope to schedule any reprinting of stationery, or anything like that, to coincide with introduction of the Executive’s logo. I do not know how long the Executive will take to decide on that. If the process goes smoothly we could be finished by mid-June. However, it will not be the end of the world if there are other reasons for delay.

The current title comprises five words: Department for Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment. So far, we have found that title to be awfully clumsy, and very difficult for everybody. We propose to shorten it to two words. Some of the other suggested titles incorporate four or three words, which is better than what we have but still lengthy.

They were consulted, but we did not go through any formal consultation process.

That is the problem.

We did not think that the process lent itself to formal consultation. I shudder to think about how many suggestions would have been made. We sought reactions to options as they emerged. In general, the Minister’s suggestion seemed to be well accepted, however, there are as many views on the title as there are options.

A possible problem has already arisen with the proposed title DFLE. It would be very easy for people to get confused between "for" and "of". Earlier this month, the Minister was quoted by the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ as having said, "we want to have the Department of Learning and Employment". That was obviously a mistake.

I am happy with the Bill as it stands, but with that proviso. I am concerned that people might substitute "for" with "of", thus creating the DOLE slogan. Why did the Department not guard against this by proposing the title of the Department for Employment and Learning? In this way, even if the word "of" is used, the acronym would be DOEL, and perhaps pronounced in a different way.

The Department for Employment and Learning is slightly more difficult to pronounce. The Department originally thought of the acronym DOLE, but that was rejected. DLE was also rejected for the reason that you have just given — people might slip in the "o", and that is what we do not want. Therefore, by including the letter "f", we are preventing people from putting the "o" in.

Our suggested title is analogous to the name of the Department for Education and Employment in London whose acronym is DfEE. The high German script version of "f" is used, almost as emphasis and to discourage the reader from including an "o". In choosing a logo we might be tempted to take a similar step.

Did the figure quoted by the Minister in the House include the cost of the re-design of the logo image?

It did. There are a number of factors which contribute to the cost.

I feel that we have missed a golden opportunity to put aside our paradigms, and to look for something completely different. We should not be striving to dovetail with something that is fashionable in London at the minute. The message that this Department has to sell is probably more critical than that of any other Department. It is particularly critical to the 250,000 people who cannot read or write.

I have a vision that someday the acronyms that have been fashionable for a number of years will be put in the bin. It is now almost impossible to read a document without referring to a glossary to interpret the acronyms. I know that the Department was probably put under a great deal of pressure to restrict the costs. The sum of £10,000 was mentioned. Surely it would have been worthwhile to invest money in creating a name and logo that match, before using the money to create a vision that would attract all the necessary people to the Department.

That might sound a bit glossy, but this process is more important than a "name the doll" competition. I will accept your proposal because I cannot suggest any improvement on what has been suggested here or anywhere else. However, we are missing out on a golden opportunity to create an image, a logo and a message that will influence the people I care about most — those who will benefit most from the services of the Department. I do not think that any of the suggested words cover what we are looking for.

I understand your point. The Department thought that it would be better to do this as economically as possible, because we have been criticised for the amount of money that we have spent on branding and logos in the past. The Minister was anxious not to be accused of doing that again.

On the question of costs, we have felt for some time that a change was needed, therefore only small stocks of stationery were ordered. In any case, a large proportion of the Department still uses Training and Employment Agency (T&EA) stationery. The departmental seal will have to be changed, but that will only cost £150. Much of our material is produced digitally, and stocks are not kept. It is a "just in time" contract.

We are quite well placed to change without any particular cost. If we have to change when the Executive logo is introduced, there will be no additional marginal cost, as that will be borne by the other necessary change.

You mentioned the range of people you consulted, and you said that you had tried out the name change with political parties. What did you mean by that?

During the past 12 months we chatted informally to people like yourselves — in corridors, at meetings and so on. People know that we have been looking at a name change, but we have not had formal consultation. I do not want to mislead you; all I am saying is that MLAs have made comments to us, from time to time, about the title.

If you were to formally start discussions with political parties, the suggestions would be endless. You would create more problems than you would solve. The Department has handled it the best way.

I wanted to give the chief executive an opportunity to clarify what he said, because the session is being recorded.

If political parties can make suggestions, I would be very keen on the name "Special Department for Learning and Practice (SDLP)".

What have we decided?

That is the next stage. I thank Mr Shannon and Mr Murray for coming here today, and for their written submission — both have been very helpful. We wish you well in this exercise, and we will give detailed scrutiny to the Bill.

We did not have to go through the clauses of the Bill in detail today. However, we will have the chance to do so on some other occasion with another Bill. I look forward to hearing the outcome of your deliberations.

We now move to the detailed scrutiny of the Bill. Broadly speaking, we have three alternatives. First, we can agree it as it stands; in which case it moves back to the Floor of the Assembly and then becomes law. That partially answers Ms McWilliams’s questions, as the change would become law from that date. Secondly, we can put forward an amendment to be voted on. That would presumably involve a different name, or a different order of words. Thirdly, we can ask for further information and withhold a decision at that point. How many Members would feel that the best option is to go with the proposed name DFLE?

It is not the best name, but I cannot think of anything better.

The problem is that the clause is OK unless we come up with something better. If we can come up with something better, we will require an amendment. That is what the Committee needs to be examining.

Can we ask the Department whether something relating to training can be included in the title?

No, we would have to propose an amendment, and it would have to fall. I feel so strongly about it that I would like to propose it and if it falls, it falls. I cannot believe that the Department — from headquarters down —has come up with a title that did not include the core part of its work.

What is your proposal to rectify that?

"The Department of Employment, Learning and Training (DELT)". It easy to say and identify with.

OK, DELT.

The permanent secretary indicated, in the Department’s own criteria, that he did not want any undue weighting in any area. Ms McWilliams’s proposal highlights the fact that training has been ignored, and that would correct the situation.

I also propose it on the grounds that I would hate to think that I work in a university or college, which is only about learning. I want to identify what the learning is for — it is for training purposes. Schools and secondary schools have a very different type of learning. We have lost education completely from the title, and it is extremely important that we try to win back identification for those members of staff who are employed right across the sectors. I am saying that "hand on heart", and I am trying to think of a way for them to feel that they own the Department because it deals with employment, learning and training.

I do not want to be divisive. I will go along with anything, but surely it is understood that you move from learning to employment through training, or am I being totally silly?

You may be right, but the issue is whether we want to make it explicit or not — that is the dilemma. Does anyone else want to comment on Ms McWilliams’s proposal?

I am happy to go along with Ms McWilliams’s proposal. Is there any great difficulty with it?

It contains one word more than the Department’s proposal but one word less than the existing title, and the permanent secretary said that they want to shorten it. They are glad they have shortened it quite a lot.

My proposal has shortened it, and has taken out that silly Germanic ‘f’ word. Other Department titles do not have ‘o’ or ‘f’, so they do not need it. If you end up with my title, you will have shortened it, and we will have something that people can say — DELT.

If we are going for that, can I suggest that somebody check the dictionaries in case we discover that we have concocted a German, French or Italian word, which means something horrible.

It is doubtful.

I would not take it for granted.

It could be that DELT could be "DEALT", as that is what it sounds like. Picking up on Mr Dallat’s point, and linking it to Ms McWilliams amendment, DLTE does not roll of the tongue as easily but at least it gets the order — the Department of Learning, Training and Employment.

That reflects the training and employment aspect, and is another possibility — DLTE.

Is that not what it is at the minute?

No. It is the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment.

The current proposal is the Department for Learning and Employment. Ms McWilliams, would you be happy in putting forward the proposal for the Department of Learning, Training and Employment?

I am happy with that, but DELT is easier to say. It is hard to get your tongue around DLTE. As you know, all Departments are known by shortened forms, such as CAL. This one could be DELT, which is much easier to identify. I often teach by trying to get students to remember prompt names. When they get their prompt names, they know where they are going with them. DELT is easy to remember.

It rolls off the tongue nicely, but it is the wrong way round. DLTE is the correct sequence — learning, training and employment. The other sounds nice, but this is the sequence we would hope for.

It is a trade off, as we cannot get both. My personal feeling is that Ms McWilliams is right — the acronym is more important than getting the timed sequence of events correct.

I am prepared to second Ms McWilliam’s proposal.

For procedure purposes, first of all, is the Committee content with the clause as drafted, which is really the Bill? I get the impression that the majority of Committee Members are not content.

Another issue is whether we are agreed on an alternative option.

We cannot go on to deal with the alternative until we have established this.

There is consensus that most of the Members of the Committee would like training in the title, as we recognise the significance of having training in it. It boils down to the arrangement of letters.

I want to get procedure correct. Can I establish that the Committee is not content with the clause as drafted because of the training aspect?

We did have a vote to see how many were content. We are now deciding whether a contrary view should be taken. I am just interested in how many are not content and how many are abstaining.

OK, we will have a show of hands, which will be recorded.

I said that, if there were no better name on the table, I would run with the Department’s proposal. By teasing this out we have come up with a slightly better arrangement of what it should be called — our own version.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 7.

We now proceed to an amendment. In a sense we have debated the amendment, which we are required to do. Normally, we should seek advice as to the technical competence of any amendment, but in this case we are probably safe in assuming that a change in the name will still be technically competent. We will have to subsequently investigate that, but I think that it will be correct.

Question put, That the Committee recommend to the Assembly that the clause be amended as follows: in page 1, line 4, leave out "Learning and Employment" and insert "Employment, Learning and Training".

In page 1, line 9, leave out "Learning and Employment" and insert "Employment, Learning and Training".

In page 1, line 13, leave out "Learning and Employment" and insert "Employment, Learning and Training".

In page 1, line 15, leave out "Learning and Employment" and insert "Employment, Learning and Training". — [Ms McWilliams]

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 2.

We have now completed the scrutiny. On the basis of today’s proceedings, a draft report will be presented to the Committee for our consideration at our meeting on Thursday 10 May. That is the next legally required stage in the process. In order to meet that deadline, two weeks from today, Members will have to turn around any changes to the Hansard report promptly. If you read it and feel that you have not been correctly reported, please tell the Committee Office immediately. Assuming that the Committee agrees the report on the 10 May, it will be printed and taken to the Floor of the Assembly before the summer recess. It all depends on how Assembly reacts, whether they vote for the Committee’s amendment, or for the Minister’s original Bill.

There is also the matter of a precautionary motion. I have to ask the Committee Members if they are content that a precautionary motion be put down to seek an extension of the length of time for this Bill, in case of unforeseen circumstances. This will be needed if the Committee does not agree the report on 10 May. If the report is agreed on that date, the motion will be withdrawn before it appears in the Order Paper, so it never has to be used. However, it is safer to take a vote at this stage. Therefore, I suggest the following motion:

That, in accordance with Standing Order 31(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(2) be extended to 17 June 2001 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Department for Learning and Employment Bill (NIA 12/00).

Are Members agreed?

Mr Carrick (Deputy Chairperson)

Mr Beggs

Mr Dallat

Mr R Hutchinson

Mrs Nelis

The main matter arising is the Committee Stage of the Bill for the Department for Learning and Employment. The Bill proposes to change the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to the Department for Learning and Employment. The indications are that the abbreviated title will be DfLE.

Last week we had the Committee Stage consideration. We took evidence from the permanent secretary, Alan Shannon, after which we had our own discussion. Following that discussion we agreed that the name should change to the Department for Employment, Learning and Training, or DELT for short. On Monday I attended a National Union of Students conference on student support. The Minister was also there and we had a brief conversation about the Bill. The Minister indicated that he would like to talk to myself and, if possible, the Deputy Chairperson about that matter. The following day the Clerk and myself had an informal meeting with the Minister. The Deputy Chairperson was unavailable because of other business.

Basically, the Minister repeated, and in a sense re-emphasised, perhaps even more strongly, the points previously made by Alan Shannon. There is strong support in the Department for the name to be the Department for Learning and Employment. He also gave the grounds for not including "training" in the name. Of course, at the previous meeting a number of Committee members said that the inclusion of "training" would be the obvious thing to do. The Minister argued that by putting "training" in the name there would be a perceived unfairness to the further and higher education side of the Department because "education" is not in the name. The words "higher and further" would need to be put in again, to avoid confusion with the Department of Education. Consequently, the Department would be back to having a long title.

The Minister felt sufficiently strongly about the Committee’s pursuit of the amendment and the presentation of the report to the Assembly to imply that he would withdraw the Bill. The net result of that would be that the Department’s name would stay the same. I put a proposal to the Minister as a possible compromise. It meets some of his feelings, and, I think, also meets some of the points raised by Committee members last week. Some members were concerned about use of the word "for", and, particularly, the letter "f" in the abbreviated title. This is used in London for the Department for Education and Employment, although, according to certain rumours, that Department may cease to exist after the general election; therefore, the precedent may disappear.

Committee members are also concerned with getting a memorable and reasonable acronym — DHFETE is memorable, but for the wrong reasons. I put a compromise to the Minister, and he seemed to react fairly warmly to it. This was that we accept the Learning and Employment name but reverse the word order so that it becomes the Department for Employment and Learning. There are two advantages to that. One is that the acronym is DEL, so the Department, if it wishes, can use that for labels, letterheads and wall plaques. Secondly, the letter "f" does not need to be used, and the danger of the Department’s acronym becoming DOLE is avoided. The Minister did not categorically say that he would accept such an amendment, but I got the impression that he would.

I propose that we go through the process of voting on the new amendments, and also decide on the name of the Bill, if you feel that the amendment that I am putting to you today — Department for Employment and Learning — is better than what we had last week.

It has not changed; the Minister has got exactly the same as before.

No, his new name is Department for Learning and Employment.

He has just changed two words around.

Yes, but the obvious way to sell it to the Assembly is by saying the Minister has put forward a Bill and we agree with much of his reasoning. However, we can say that we feel that it can be improved by simply reversing the word order and then give the reasons. There would be widespread feeling in the Assembly that our arguments are reasonable.

I can see the concern of some members about the word "of" occasionally dropping into the original proposal. The abbreviated title could develop into the word DOLE, by those who want to use the jargon, to represent the Department, which is unhelpful. I can see genuine concern for that.

The Committee needs to be careful of creating a "storm in a teacup". We could end up going head to head with the Minister over a name, and we will not come out of this issue unscathed if it gets to that stage. The Minister will not come out of this looking very well if he withdraws the Bill, nor would we. We have to consider whether this is a life and death issue, and if we want to burn up a degree of goodwill. The Minister would not be getting what he wanted, which is the possible DOLE label, and at the same time the Committee would not be getting our original preference. I see some validity in your proposal and I am willing to accept that.

Last week, Mr Beggs and myself were happy to stay with the ministerial proposal, but I will accept your suggested amendment. I certainly do not want to debate it on the Floor of the Assembly because the work we are involved in, as demonstrated earlier today, is at a higher level than arguing over a title. It is important for the Department to have a name that it can develop, promote and sell in a positive way. There are possibilities with this title, as with the original, but either way I am happy.

You gave me prior notice of this issue when I spoke to you earlier in the week. I do not want to be dogmatic. Nevertheless, I find the Minister’s argument for not including training a little weak, and I cannot follow the rationale. We should try to reach consensus with the Minister. It would not look well if we take this onto the Floor of the Assembly and are seen to labour over it, when there are so many other burning issues.

The impression being picked up is that the Minister is being stubborn, and we tend to see Ministers in this light. He has the job of selling it to the Department. He may not have the final say, but he must be satisfied that it is right.

Perhaps the Minister will not mind being known as the "DEL Boy", but he will have to live with it.

"DEL Boy" is preferable to DHFETE — in fact, anything is preferable to DHFETE. I find it extraordinary that the Minister wants to exclude training even though he has just incorporated the Training and Employment Agency into his Department.

Last week Alan Shannon and the Minister explained to me, at some length, their logic for not putting "training" in the title. While it is true that the Training and Employment Agency is no longer a first steps agency, at arms length from the Department, it will still exist, with its offices in most town centres. Therefore, the argument is that it is not needed in the title of the Department. As Mr Carrick said, we can all have positive or negative feelings about that.

It is also a question of being equitable in respect of the training arm of the Department, the universities and further education side, and how it goes down with the staff who have to live with the title. Some staff may feel that some of their colleagues are being recognised directly in the title, and they are not. There must be a balance across the different arms of the Department, without making it into a huge sprawling title once again.

I do not want to get into the same situation as the last session on student fees. Neither the Minister nor ourselves came out of that with any great dignity. I am prepared to go along with this, without creating any hassle. Last week I felt strongly that it should be incorporated. The only thing that would make me dig my heels in is the Minister saying he will withdraw the whole thing if he does not have his way — that would make me thran, coming from Larne. That would make me want to stand my corner and take him on, but that would not do anybody any good. I am quite prepared to go with the rest, under protest.

Some Members mentioned their reactions to the Minister’s reasoning. The Minister would be keen, if necessary, to come and explain his reasoning. However, given that we are going to have our own consensus around this amendment, which substantially keeps the title that he was initially pushing for, albeit reversing the order, on reflection I am not sure if there is a need for him to attend. It is not absolutely necessary, but he did offer to come. It would have been difficult today because of the Executive meeting. We are trying to avoid using "f" in the abbreviated title. Are Members happy to keep the word "for" in the title?

It is a minor issue.

My inclination would be to leave it in, so that you preserve another word in the Bill.

The word "for" or "of" must be included. Are we talking about the abbreviated version?

We cannot really vote on that now. The spirit of what we are saying is that we hope it will be DEL, but that is for the image consultants to work out. We might want to take a view on that down the line if we felt that they had made a mess of it, but I am sure they will not.

Do we have to formally "unvote" last week’s amendments, or do we proceed to vote now on the new amendments?

You vote that you are not content with last week’s amendments. Then you can vote for the new amendments.

This is complicated, but it has to be done. We must have a vote to rescind what we had last week. Are Members in favour of that?

We now need to take five votes because the title appears five times in the Bill. This includes the title of the Bill, because that also has to be changed.

Are we voting on your proposal, and not that of the Minister? We are not sure whether he is going to accept it.

We are voting on Department for Employment and Learning, which is the Chairperson’s suggestion.

The Clerk and I had a private meeting with the Minister at which we formed a definite impression. You can never guarantee anything in politics, but I got the impression that he could work with this amendment. In other words, he would not oppose it. Can we proceed to agree the new title?

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

In page 1, line 4, leave out "Learning and Employment" and insert "Employment and Learning."

In page 1, line 9 leave out "Learning and Employment" and insert "Employment and Learning."

In page 1, line 13 leave out "Learning and Employment" and insert "Employment and Learning".

In page 1, line 15 leave out "Learning and Employment" and insert "Employment and Learning." —

In the long title leave out "Learning and Employment Bill" and insert "Employment and Learning Bill." — [The Chairperson.]

That concludes the scrutiny aspect for this week. The procedure now is the same as last week. A draft report will be presented to the Committee on 10 May. All being well it will be agreed and will then proceed to the House as a recommendation. Then there will be the Consideration Stage, which could be late May or early June, and I hope, as has been our intent throughout, that there will be consensus between the Committee and the Minister. We can then proceed and by the summer the Department should have a new and, we hope, more manageable and superior name.