I do not oppose this important Bill. We have had several opportunities to discuss the amalgamation of the industrial promotion agencies. All parties in the House have given the matter their full support and wish it every success. The sooner the legislation is passed, the better. Anything that the House can do to encourage that should be taken on board.

The Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment has already met with the new board. However, Committee members have not yet met with the chief executive designate, Mr Morrison, and we look forward to that. I am concerned about the make-up of the board. I am surprised that of the eight members who have been appointed so far, only one is a woman - and a very capable woman at that. The reason we were given was that there had been very few applications from women. I subsequently discovered that at least one very capable woman from my constituency of South Down had applied, and I am surprised that people of her calibre were not considered.

I am also concerned that there is an urban bias in the make-up of the board. I hope that this is a temporary hiatus, and that when new members are appointed an attempt will be made to spread the positions around the Province. We still have this "the world ends at Glengormley" syndrome, or if we are feeling really adventurous, the world ends at Dunmurry. Many might believe that to be true, but there is much talent in rural Northern Ireland.

I would like to see people from Fermanagh, north Antrim or south Down being considered for appointment to this board. I am concerned that the great and the good and the usual suspects will be appointed, and much of the talent that is out there will not be harnessed. I urge the Department, when it considers the additional appointments, to try to ensure a spread.

Apart from that one concern, this is very good news for industrial promotion in Northern Ireland. It is long overdue, and the sooner it is implemented the better.

In common with Dr O'Hagan and Mr Wells, I want to see Invest Northern Ireland up and running and functioning at full speed. We need it badly, and we need it yesterday. In the light of the events of 11 September, we need to redouble our efforts on jobs.

I share the concerns about directors or key executives being appointed without public advertisement. While we must protect jobs, and while the acting director of IDB and the chief executive of LEDU are very worthy and capable people who perhaps deserve the jobs, it would have been better if the appointments had been made after a process of public advertisement.

I am also concerned about the ability of civil servants to join Invest Northern Ireland and then change their minds two or three years later. That might not be in the best interest of Invest Northern Ireland. It might create a situation of instability that would last three or four years. We should be looking to the long term, and trying to ensure that the people who take the jobs today will stay in them as long as they have a contribution to make.

Like Mr Wells, I am concerned about the membership of the board of Invest Northern Ireland. I do not wish to show disrespect to the very worthy people who have already been appointed, but we need to ensure that the very best and most able people in Northern Ireland, or indeed elsewhere, are on that board to make sure that it can engage in business development at a world-class level. If we miss that opportunity, Invest Northern Ireland may not function in top gear. I urge those responsible to appoint to the board the best people available to ensure that the organisation hits the ground at full throttle in April 2002.

Before calling the Minister to do the winding-up, I remind Members that they are here to debate the Further Consideration Stage of the Bill, not its implementation. The Minister may wish to respond to some of the matters that have been raised about implementation, but that is not the main purpose of today's debate.

On behalf of Sir Reg Empey, I welcome the remarks made by Dr McDonnell and Mr Wells on the concept of a single agency and the important role that it will play in ensuring the future well-being of Northern Ireland. The specific issue that Dr McDonnell, Mr Wells and Dr O'Hagan raised is a matter for the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, of which Dr O'Hagan is a member, has already acknowledged that. Sir Reg Empey informed the Assembly during last week's Consideration Stage that he had referred the correspondence he had received on the matter to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister for consideration. I have no further comment to make on that, other than to say that this is not a case of empty rhetoric and empty promises. This is about everyone doing their best to fulfil certain principles of openness and transparency.

As far as equality and fair employment are concerned, all staff are treated in accordance with employment law.

The Department and the Minister have referred one issue to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. When the Minister gets consideration from that Office he will discuss it with the Members concerned.

That concludes the Further Consideration Stage of the Industrial Development Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

TOP

Threshold Assessment (NI)

I beg to move

I shall set the scene by quoting from 'Threshold Northern Ireland'. It states that

It further states that

Those are quotations from the document, but I shall illustrate that none of those statements stand.

I am sure that all Members would agree that the following remarks by teachers sum up the profession. The teaching profession is charged with the education of all our young people to carve them into citizens of the twenty-first century and the demands that society will put on them. It is recognised by us all that teaching is by its very nature a vocation. Teachers in schools are vital contributors to the future. A male teacher said that

while a female teacher said:

That is all very well until one sees how the threshold assessment discriminates against young teachers and does not give them equal opportunity.

To be eligible for the threshold allowance, teachers must be on point 9 of the pay scale for experience and qualifications before or on 1 September 1999. That assumes that long service equals quality teaching. All Members know that that is not always the case. Young teachers who are newly qualified or have up to six years' experience are not eligible for the threshold allowance. The Government have launched a highly publicised campaign to draw graduates into the teaching profession and to attract more male teachers into primary schools. However, the Government then introduce a threshold allowance for which those teachers cannot qualify because they do not have enough experience.

The threshold assessment (Northern Ireland) does not give young teachers the opportunity to apply for the salary uplift. Graduates are being encouraged to join the teaching profession, only to be told that they are too young - that is a nonsense. We need to decide what we want from young teachers. Everyone knows young teachers who are well qualified, and that their inexperience does not inhibit them from being good teachers. That must be recognised, yet it is not.

Some young teachers are studying for professional qualifications so that they can become head teachers. That means that they will be the future leaders of our schools. Despite that, they are told that they cannot be rewarded under the threshold assessment. Young teachers' pursuit of further qualifications shows their commitment. They return to university to obtain diplomas in education or masters degrees, in their own time and at their own expense, because they want to enhance their qualifications. Such people, who are hungry for further educational awards, are being told that they do not qualify for the threshold allowance. This is disappointing to young teachers and has the potential to demotivate them.

We must recognise that the assessment also affects principals and vice-principals, who are not entitled to a threshold payment even though they assess other teachers. A decision by them that a teacher is not eligible for the threshold payment can be overruled by an external verifier. We are paying such verifiers £240 per day to decide whether to pay teachers £2000. We must recognise those points. The reason that I raised the issue of young teachers rather than that of principals and vice-principals - and most people would agree with me - is that the latter case has been well argued. Principals and vice-principals should receive the payment also. We have not focused on young teachers, and we must do so.

As regards redundancy, teachers who reached point 9 by 1 September 1999 can take a redundancy package or qualify for the threshold payment. A long-term substitute teacher can qualify for the payment, but a young teacher cannot. That does not make any sense, and there is no equality of opportunity.

Teachers who have accepted redundancies or who have been substitute teachers for a long time were assessed according to their length of service. It was not about the quality of their teaching, as mentioned in the quotations that I cited from 'Threshold Northern Ireland' earlier. The length of time that a teacher is in a job suggests nothing other than a commitment to that job. One person is not necessarily better than another because he has been in his job longer. We have to examine the matter from the young teachers' perspective and consider why we use this type of assessment.

Four core standards have to be met: core values, understanding of the curriculum and professional knowledge; teaching and assessment of learning; contribution to raising standards through pupil achievement; and effective professional development. When teachers qualify, they sign up to the Jordanstown agreement, irrespective of their age, and each of the core standards is written into that agreement. Therefore, when a newly qualified teacher signs up to the agreement he is effectively stating what he wants to achieve. He has decided to teach in order to achieve those four standards. However, when it comes to giving someone a threshold payment, a teacher is told that because he had not reached point 9 on the salary scale on 1 September 1999 he is not eligible. Once again, this is about length of service; it is not about quality of teaching.

There is the feeling that some perverse judgement is taking place. The Regional Training Unit is seen as having set up the scheme to acknowledge length of service by teachers. Once a person qualifies as a teacher and goes to a school, he signs up to the Jordanstown agreement, which incorporates the four standards.

I want to return to principals and vice-principals, as I know there are several of them in the Chamber. In smaller schools, the wages of a senior teacher can be very close to those of the vice-principal or principal - the difference can be only £200 per annum. It is a disgrace, particularly given the duties and responsibilities of vice-principals and principals. That nonsense must be changed. There is no justice, equality, or opportunity for vice-principals and principals. To add insult to injury, a principal's assessment of applications for threshold payments can be overruled by someone who is paid £240 a day to carry out assessments. We need to value the leaders in our schools - the principals and vice- principals. They are there because of their qualifications and experience. They have shown that they are good teachers and have gone on to become leaders in the schools. We must recognise that by recompensing them appropriately.

Boards of governors, who have the responsibility for managing schools, have no authority in relation to the threshold assessment. They are not asked for their opinions, nor are they allowed to give them. This is a dichotomy, and it raises the question of where the money will come from for future assessments. The Department of Education is funding threshold payments and will continue to do so for a two-year pilot period. After that we do not know will happen.

People are concerned that schools are being run on local management of schools (LMS) budgets - and I know that the Minister is examining that aspect at the moment. However, many schools are strained, and it would be unthinkable to fund threshold payments from LMS funding. Two difficulties would result: first, that of teachers making other teachers redundant, secondly, in many cases the redundancies would be those of young, vibrant professionals who were not eligible for the threshold payment.

I ask the Minister and the Department to deal with the problems so as to recognise the value of the young people who are being educated in our schools and universities to be teachers and leaders. It is a case of denying them £2000 because they were not at point 9 on the scale by September 1999. It is a disgrace that we are not looking at the quality of teachers but simply saying whether they are experienced enough.

I beg to move the following amendment: Delete all and replace with

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Minister of Education has tendered his apologies for his absence. It was his intention to be present for the debate at the time listed, which was 2.00 pm. He hopes to attend, but if he cannot he will read Hansard and will answer Members' points in writing.

In moving the amendment I was endeavouring to highlight the need to deal with the problem facing young teachers. Billy Hutchinson covered many of the points. It is important that those who negotiated to reach this position should take another look at what we are being told by young teachers who feel that they will not receive equality of treatment. They want to know what they should do, and what will happen in a couple of years' time. I would like a review of the matter soon. Talking about the situation might help, but it may not be enough to assist those who have been speaking to us and who wish to be heard.

The current threshold arrangements were agreed last January by the teachers salaries and conditions of service negotiating committee. No doubt, teachers looked forward to a significant pay rise after years of erosion of their salaries. However, several teachers have expressed serious concerns about the agreed threshold arrangement.

Teachers pointed out that the completion of the application form added another bureaucratic task to their considerable workload. In addition, new teachers receive no incentive for the first eight years of their career. Some regard the threshold as a form of performance related pay. That is a dangerous road to go down, because teachers' results depend upon a wide variety of factors, including pupils' social and educational needs at the start of the period under examination, the circumstances of the school and the neighbourhood.

The Department of Education has yet to publish its views on educational added value, which would be useful as a means of measuring the true educational performance of a given school.

Another fear that teachers expressed about the threshold arrangements was the prospect that a quota to limit the number of teachers who would be eligible for the payment might be introduced. They feared that that would lead to jealousy and destroy team spirit in schools. We know how essential it is that teachers work together. Gone are the days when a teacher worked alone in the classroom.

Finally, teachers said that they needed to carry out much more research on the issue, and that the Department should examine where the money would come from to meet the needs of younger teachers, who might otherwise be put off the idea of working at a school at all. We do not want to affect those entering a profession that has such important outcomes. Education influences everything from industry to pupils' well-being and ability to survive in life. Therefore, teachers' jobs are of prime importance.

We have been examining the LMS system in the context of the overall schools' budget. At present, the schools' budget is a so-called flexible budget. However, no matter how flexible it is, the budget comes from the block grant, and it is inadequate. Considerable top-slicing occurs before the funding reaches us. It is a question of money and then value for money.

Members who are on the Committee, or who have an interest in education, must examine the issue from the point of view of the pupils, in particular, and parents and teachers. Delivery in the classroom is of prime importance. It will not happen if teachers are under pressure, if they are jealous of one another or if principals are given total power. The relationship between a teacher and a principal for seven or eight years is crucial, and its failure will have an impact on individual teachers. Many teachers have told me that that is a dangerous road to go down.

We spoke to officials in Scotland about their budgetary provision. Scotland's system for delivering the budget seems to be more in keeping with the needs of the schools and teachers than Northern Ireland's. School principals in Scotland seem to be happy with the arrangements, and the money is ring-fenced. Their whole budget process seems to be much better than ours. Every teacher should be paid on an equal basis. Young teachers feel that they are equal to those who have been teaching for some length of time. They should not have to face the difficulties of keeping things together for eight years until a decision is made about whether they have the right to an extra £2,000. Teachers, and young teachers in particular, will be going through a time of considerable change after the replacement of the 11-plus. Teachers' pay is one thing that they like to be able to rely on, at all ages. They like to know what the outcome will be.

I introduced the amendment to take the Assembly to a point at which we can review the situation. I take into account the fact that the negotiating bodies - the management and the unions - are best placed to decide their own future. However, the interest of the House is the need to look at the matter from the point of view of those teachers who are being neglected at present.

I am unsure as to whether I should declare an interest. I was once a principal, but I was once a young teacher as well.

Did you get any threshold pay?

I did not. I remember starting off as a young teacher in a school in the north of the city. I was envious of a senior member of staff who was paid the wonderful sum of £1,400. He was at the top end of the scale. I was paid just £42 per month. In those days there was no talk of threshold payments.

I have taken many of Billy Hutchinson's points on board. Young teachers are the lifeblood of schools. With the current LMS arrangements that Mr McHugh referred to, the possibility of recruiting and retaining young teachers is diminishing every year. Young teachers have the opportunity to influence people far beyond the walls of the school. However, the benefits of that to the profession, and to education, are being minimised each year.

Young teachers bring several benefits to a school. They are invariably the staff members who are involved in games, who take the children away on trips, who stay behind to ensure that the school choir is on song for Christmas, who work night and day, and who cut up pieces of cloth and turn out those wonderful angels that we see in Nativity plays at this time of the year. They do it because they are committed to their profession. At that point in their careers they are full of enthusiasm and do not seek rewards.

As they grow older, however, marriage and other factors intervene. They have responsibilities. They need money in order to bring home the bacon. Money, therefore, becomes important. I sympathise with what Billy Hutchinson is suggesting. Young teachers do need some financial reward. However, I am not sure what the purpose of introducing threshold payments really is. Is its purpose to retain staff in schools? Older teachers get tired, but they bring experience to schools, and schools need to retain that experience, to blend the enthusiasm of young teachers with the experience of older teachers. Is it to reward staff for outstanding accomplishments, for moving through a threshold, as it were?

My understanding of the threshold was that when teachers reached point 9 - the top of their scale - they then had to apply to move through the threshold. They would then be assessed on whether they bring something extra to the school. If that assessment were positive, they would then be rewarded at that scale. I am not sure that that is the perfect way to reward either the enthusiasm or the expertise of those who have reached point 9 and the threshold.

The assessment has brought to teachers' attention what other teachers are earning. Members of a team, therefore, start looking around and wondering how much their colleagues are getting paid and whether they are earning less themselves. The old green-eyed monster starts to prey. That is not good for education.

Principals and vice-principals are taking on an ever- increasing role. They have held the education system together for the past 15 years. Many of them have grown weary of that task and have retired. Some of them are fortunate enough to still be alive, despite the awful toll on their health. That has not been recognised by the introduction of threshold payments. The differential between the salary of a senior teacher on point 9 of the scale, who then moves on to a threshold payment, and a vice-principal or, in many cases, a principal is minuscule. The outcome - whether it was perceived or not - is that principals and vice-principals are asking themselves if the extra work is worth it and if it is appreciated.

Principals are vital in assessing teachers who are moving through the threshold. Again, they are put in an invidious position. The threshold assessment was badly thought out. I do not know its real purpose, but the outcome has been to cause further dissension in the teaching profession and in schools. That is the last thing that we want.

I will start by stating the obvious: education is a vital element in society, coming close in importance to food and shelter. It is a basic human right. I do not need to tell the House of the key role of education in the development of young members of society. It is second in influence only to the family and the values that are taught there.

Teachers are an intrinsic part of the education system and, as such, are entitled to equality. The threshold assessment exercise most definitely does not provide equality for all members of the teaching profession. It is yet another example of the Department of Education applying English solutions to Northern Irish problems. Education in Northern Ireland is very different to that in England.

The teaching force here is of the highest quality. For example, an entrant to a higher education institution for teachers in Northern Ireland requires 21 points at A level, while the English entrants require 13 points. Teachers here are highly trained and motivated. The slavish duplication of English solutions to English problems merely exacerbates the position of teachers here, yet the Department of Education argues that it must maintain parity of teachers' pay here with England and Wales.

There should be financial parity. Northern Ireland should be given the equivalent resources on a pro rata basis. Surely, the whole point of devolution is that we have the wit and intelligence to spend resources better without sacrificing the "parity at least" principle that is espoused by the Northern Ireland Teachers' Council.

How do teachers reach the threshold assessment? Over 8,000 teachers have been denied access to the upper range or the so-called threshold assessment during their first seven years in the profession. The threshold assessment is supposed to be about the quality of teaching and learning experience that is provided by the teacher. What magical manifestation deprived teachers in the first seven years of their teaching career from crossing the threshold? The exclusion of 8,000 young teachers from the threshold assessment is an affront to equality, decency and justice. On that basis alone, the Assembly should pass this motion.

Other Members said that the introduction of the threshold assessment in Northern Ireland has also led to a major increase in workload and bureaucracy, not just for teachers, but also for principals. The Department for Education and Skills, in its evidence to the School Teachers' Review Body, stated that an average teacher must spend 20 hours completing a threshold application form and gathering evidence in support of it. Principals must then read all the applications and make critical judgements that can quite easily jeopardise the industrial relations in their school if they get them wrong.

The training of principals in a large one-day seminar was plainly inadequate for the task. The process was, and is, bureaucratic. As Billy Hutchinson said, it is expensive both in teaching time and resources. It has succeeded in lowering the morale of teachers in Northern Ireland. That, in our awful circumstances, is a unique achievement.

In previous responses to my questions, the Minister of Education has confirmed that the bureaucracy of the threshold process will cost £1 million. Fifty-three assessors have been employed - mostly retired principals and education and pension administrators - to gainsay the professional judgements of principal teachers. Given the need in our school system for the professional development of all our teachers, the long delays in attending to the maintenance of the school building estate, and the current reliance on public-private partnerships to resolve the crisis in school capital building, is that expenditure not excessive?

The introduction of threshold payments erodes the differentials between the pay of principals and vice- principals and that of teachers. That was not difficult to foresee. One wonders about the judgement of the Department of Education and the employing authorities if they did not realise that the erosion of differentials would cause serious problems with principals and vice-principals.

That unnecessary problem is caused by the slavish adherence to parity with England. The English school system is in crisis, with a massive shortage of teachers and of applications for vacant principal posts. Why is our Department of Education not thinking smart, thinking differently and creating an environment in the Northern Ireland school system that does not replicate the manifest failures in the English system?

In June 2001 the Assembly's Education Committee endorsed the Northern Ireland Teachers' Council's claim for an independent inquiry into teachers' salaries and conditions of service. A similar inquiry was approved by the Scottish Executive to cover teachers in Scotland. I am dismayed to learn, from reports provided by teachers' union representatives, that employers on the management side have been dismissive of the determination of the Assembly Education Committee. At best, that perspective represents naivety. Demonstrably, threshold assessment does not provide equality for the Northern Ireland teaching profession.

I stand by the Education Committee's determination for an independent inquiry into teachers' salaries and conditions of service. That is the best route, rather than to review the inequality of the threshold assessment. I support the motion.

I will not take too long because much has already been said and very eloquently put. There is, however, one matter to which I wish to draw attention. Ms Lewsley made reference to the shortage of principals and vice-principals in England. There is already a shortage of principals and vice-principals here in Northern Ireland. I know of many schools which have advertised for principals but have received very few applications. In some cases, no applications were received.

That shortage may be made worse by the threshold payment. If a senior teacher were earning more - or only a few hundred pounds less - than many vice- principals, a case would arise where many such senior teachers, who logically would wish to progress to vice-principal or possibly principal posts, may well wonder what is the point in progressing. What is the point of their taking on extra responsibility and an extra workload if they are going to be financially worse off than they are now, or perhaps only a few hundred pounds better off? If the situation is allowed to worsen, there is a danger that the filling of vice-principal and principal positions will become even more difficult than it is already. Many members of the teaching profession at that end of the scale are already reluctant to take on the extra workload associated with vice-principal and principal posts.

In reference to Billy Hutchinson's remarks, younger teachers have not approached me about threshold payments. However, many senior teachers have approached me, and next week I will meet with three or four principals and vice-principals from the Strangford area who wish to express concern about their salaries being eroded by the introduction of threshold payments.

Members must take the matter seriously, because teaching is the core element that provides the next generation with an education. I commend Billy Hutchinson for bringing the matter to the House.

The motion states that there is concern about equality in the teaching profession. A Green Paper, 'Teachers: Meeting the Challenge of Change', was introduced in England three years ago. At that time, over 197,000 teachers applied for threshold payments. Concern was expressed, and the National Union of Teachers mounted a legal challenge to the process. The matter was reviewed, and it was only in November 2000 that threshold payments became a reality.

The main objective of threshold payments is to contribute to the overall process of improving the quality of teaching and learning in schools - to use an anachronism, to improve teacher performance at the chalkface. A broad view was, therefore, taken that those teachers who could improve the quality of education should receive rewards.

As other Members have said, it is normal to reward teachers with posts of responsibility. That usually means that a teacher is appointed head of department, or he or she is given the responsibility of an extra-curricular activity. However, threshold payments would reward directly those teachers who are extremely good at their actual teaching duties. In other words, the payments would reward those teachers who could improve outcomes for their pupils. Billy Hutchinson rightly pointed out the core values that currently exist. They are the common core values that one would expect of any teacher.

The application of the process is causing some concern. Under LMS, all money is given directly to a school and is allocated by the board of governors. That includes the payment of teachers' salaries. Currently, the Department of Education excludes threshold money from that allocation. It makes the threshold payment of £2,001 directly to the eligible teachers. There is concern about how that will be handled in the future. Is it possible that threshold money could be included in the LMS budget, thereby limiting the ability of small schools, within their LMS budget, to reward those teachers who perform more than adequately?

Doubts have rightly been expressed about the assessment process. The Department issued a warning recently that

The application has caused some concern. Last year, the teaching unions agreed on the method. It is timely, one year later, for the House to point out that concern to the unions and make it a matter for public discussion. I worked in the teaching system. There was always one young, energetic and genuine teacher who had the ambition to strive to improve his professional standards. Having to wait to reach point 9 of the teaching scale can thwart teachers who have the ambition to be excellent in their field. I ask the unions, the Minister and the Department to examine the concept of the threshold point for consideration for that award.

I thank Billy Hutchinson for bringing the matter to our attention. It is worthy of discussion, and anything that can be done to enhance the position of those teachers who deliver levels of excellence well above the norm should be supported. Such teachers should be properly rewarded. We must take note of the matter and ask the unions, the Department and the Minister to look again for the inequalities, or the deficiencies, that arise in any new introduction. Those must be ironed out as quickly as possible to give the profession every chance in the future.

I support the motion. There has always been a dilemma in the teaching profession as to how to recognise competence among its members. The old system of promotional points had many unsavoury qualities, not least of which was that it often set one colleague against another - it introduced the green-eyed monster that has already been referred to. If someone wanted to achieve promotion they could do so only by taking on more and more administrative duties. The result was that good classroom teachers were often not in the classroom - they were administrators, which was not why they had become professional teachers. After education had suffered the ravages of Thatcherism, many teachers were doing the work of a civil servant rather than the work of a teacher.

However, not all good classroom teachers were rewarded thus. Many teachers complained that there was always an opportunity for the professional, educational whizz-kids to zoom up the promotional ladder because of their ability to sell themselves well in interviews. Quite often, good teachers who did not have those particular skills, or who perhaps were not even interested in them, remained in the low bands of the scale and never got the recognition that many people felt that they were due.

That kind of situation gave rise to the examination of the whole area and the attempt to introduce threshold payments. The Westminster Green Paper which led to all of this stated that the teachers in the classroom were to be placed at the heart of the salary structure by ensuring that the vital importance of their work, as opposed to all the other activities in school, was properly reflected in salary terms.

That system has created considerable problems and, in many cases, has not solved the problems identified with the old system. From my long experience in teaching and in school management, I believe that to ask already hard-pressed principals and vice-principals to adjudicate in that way creates a serious problem and places a heavy burden on teachers. I note that, towards the end of October, some 232 schools had been through the system, and only 10 of those applications were rejected. I am surprised that the figure is even 10 - I would have thought that none would have been rejected as most principals and vice-principals would have been careful not to create problems with staff and morale. I am even more surprised and concerned that many schools must find the money for those already agreed threshold arrangements out of their own budgets. The boards do not, as yet, provide that money. I understand - and I am subject to correction - that the Department has not provided the boards with the funds to supply schools with the budget required to make the necessary adjustment. My information is that that situation is widespread, and it requires immediate attention.

There has also been much concern about the amount and quality of training available to those carrying out the assessment. If the current system continues - and I fear that we must endure it for some time - it should be our top priority to ensure that all those involved are properly trained.

An additional problem has emerged with regard to the backdating of teachers' salaries, in some cases, to September 2000 - the supply of money required to reinforce the LMS budget. Some teachers will also experience tax problems as a result of moving from one tax bracket to another because of excessive back pay. That problem should be more sensibly and sympathetically dealt with.

Members have already mentioned the differential that occurs between principals and vice-principals and the rest of the staff. In some cases that differential is unprotected under the new threshold arrangement. The Department must move to protect it.

The final problem, which has been well covered already by quite a few teachers, is the equality issue - particularly the problem about young teachers articulated by Billy Hutchinson at the outset. There is no doubt that we need a system, and the only credible way to do it is by the creation of a salary scale, high enough to attract able young people into the profession, which progressively rewards teachers as they move on in their professional career. I am not making it a big demand, but I am really concerned about the uncertainty that faces professional teachers. A clear system would remove that, leaving people able to get on with their job of teaching and not being constantly concerned about fighting with each other and worrying about the promotion ladder. In no uncertain terms, this must mean that once teachers have manifestly shown their competence, they can move forward on a clear promotion ladder.

There are things about the amendment that are reasonable, but I am supporting the motion. The amendment detracts from the main impetus of the motion, and I want to be with the motion in this debate. As has already been pointed out, the present system has not been well enough thought out. It causes dissent and is already demotivating teachers. As Ms Lewsley said, it is not particularly applicable to teaching in Northern Ireland.

I hope that the Minister will re-engage with the unions, as he has either started to or is about to, in their call for an independent inquiry into teachers' pay and working hours. Through that we might get a system for teachers in Northern Ireland that could satisfy us - well, maybe not everybody, knowing teachers as I do. It could gain the greatest degree of satisfaction among the teaching profession, and remove this demotivating series of problems from the profession.

Luckily, the Minister was able to speed up and arrive three hours sooner than he expected.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>