12.30 pm

Éamonn ONeill raised the issue of costs. The cost in the current financial year will be approximately £50 million, and that includes the cost of arrears from September 2000. The expenditure is being met from additional funds held centrally by my Department for this purpose. Provision for implementation costs and threshold payments was added to the Department's budget in the comprehensive spending review.

Tom Hamilton and Éamonn ONeill raised the issue of principals and vice-principals. As we all know, the threshold arrangements do not apply to principals and vice-principals. However, the management side of the negotiating committee is considering their salary levels and differentials so that suitable candidates are not discouraged from seeking leadership posts. That is important.

Patricia Lewsley raised the issue of an independent inquiry. I think Éamonn ONeill also mentioned it. The call for an inquiry was made by the teachers' side as part of the 2001 pay claim and is still progressing through the negotiating committee. I have agreed to meet with both sides on 13 December to examine whether I can help advance matters further.

It is important to emphasise that the threshold arrangements were negotiated between the management side and the teachers' side after detailed discussions through their existing negotiating machinery. I welcomed their agreement, which both sides worked hard to reach last January. I want to assure the House that I am committed to ensuring that our teachers are properly awarded for their important contribution to society.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. People may not have entirely indicated their willingness to support the amendment, but its objective was to achieve an outcome. It mentions the serious concerns that have been brought to me by teachers about the threshold assessment. Those concerns include equality issues and urging representatives from both sides to reach a situation where everyone feels equal. That was the thrust of the amendment. If people do not feel that they want to support it, I want Billy Hutchinson's motion to bring the need for a review to the attention of the Department. I accept the points that the Minister has made concerning the meeting that is to take place on 13 December.

Earlier, I stressed the point that both sides have negotiated this position. It will cost a considerable amount of money, and some other area of education may have to lose out - at least that is the way budgets normally work. It is important that all involved take another look at this matter. Negotiation can bring people to a point where everyone is dissatisfied. As far as we are concerned, the issues are outstanding, and they are of prime importance.

The Minister mentioned that equality is central to the Good Friday Agreement and that we are working for the benefit of all citizens. Our Republican belief that we cherish all our children equally is one that we carry strongly. The Minister mentioned raising standards and he spoke about pre-school education. That is where young teachers often start their career. They must wonder where their future will lie, and they must be looking at this particular situation.

Ken Robinson asked whether the issue was about retaining older staff or rewarding people for long service or particularly good service.

I cannot agree with some of the points made by Mr Gibson about the differences in the delivery of service. It is hard to say whether a young teacher is delivering on an equal basis with someone who has been teaching for a long time. Quite often it is about teamwork, and not about an individual teacher working in isolation in a school. Teachers must be able to work in an atmosphere where they are not at odds, and their future is not at odds, with what they do on a day-to-day basis. They want to be able to come up with good, new ideas, and not to have to keep them from others just in case those ideas would end up on the CV of another teacher who would get the extra £2,000 at the end of the year.

Teachers should be left to self-assess and to set their own targets. Female teachers are often overcritical of their own work and need support to self-assess positively. Teachers must be trusted to set targets and to self-assess with appropriate support that is unrelated to the immediate financial award. The outcome of the McCrone report in Scotland offers at least one alternative.

We have had a useful debate. Various issues have been raised, and I want to see them taken on board. I hope that the meetings with the Minister and those involved will achieve that. Go raibh maith agat.

We have had a very encouraging and informed debate, and I thank all Members who took part and those who listened. I accept that the Minister had a reason for being late. I realise that he missed my opening remarks, and I hope that when he has read Hansard he will answer any points that he may have missed.

I am concerned at Gerry McHugh's opening remarks about the amendment. There seems to be some confusion about the debate. There is an assumption that the local management of schools (LMS) is about money only. We have two main problems with LMS. If a school has low pupil numbers and the teachers are on point 9 of the scale, that school is crippled because the top wage has to be paid. If there are 12 teachers and 10 of them are on the top wage, the bill is crippling. Teachers who have been at a school for a long time have to be paid more, and that causes problems with a shrinking school. That must be recognised. It is not just a question of money, but of how we assess where the teachers should be on the pay scale.

Today's debate is not about teachers' pay - it is about the bonus and what that should based on. The bonus is based on the premise that anyone who has reached point 9, because they have served more than seven years as a teacher, is a good teacher, and they are going to bring the four standards that are outlined. My argument is that when young teachers qualify they sign up to the Jordanstown agreement - I nearly said the Good Friday Agreement - and those standards are contained in that agreement. From the day that a teacher starts work, he or she has already signed up to those four standards and should be meeting them.

Éamonn ONeill gave us some very helpful numbers - 232 and only about 10 rejections. A teacher who has been deemed unsatisfactory by the Department of Education can be paid that money - not because he is a good teacher, but because he is on point 9 and has given a certain length of service.

There is an inequality and an injustice here that need to be resolved. A principal can fail a teacher as far as a threshold assessment is concerned, but he can be overruled by an external validator. I know that there are difficulties with principals and vice-principals carrying out this role. However, they know their teachers best, and they know how they are performing on a daily basis. It is wrong that an external validator can contradict a principal.

I thank Ken Robinson for his recognition of young teachers. He gave a graphic description, which I could not give, as I was not a young teacher. I believe that Ken was a young teacher - some time ago. It is important that we understand what young teachers do without remuneration. We should recognise their enthusiasm and their contribution to the lives of many children.

I accept Ken Robinson's explanation of the reasons for the introduction of the threshold. However, once point 9 has been reached, we are effectively saying that there is something different about those people, and that they have reached the standard. If they then take redundancy, they are still entitled to the threshold payment. There is something wrong with that. Long-term substitute teachers also qualify for the payment. Should it be that a threshold is set at point 9, and once a teacher reaches that point and accepts redundancy, he can have his redundancy and the £2,000 threshold payment that he has qualified for? There is a contradiction in that premise, and it must be re-examined.

Ms Lewsley is correct when she says that differentials are being eroded by the exclusion of principals and vice-principals. In my opening remarks I mentioned that in a small rural school, there might be a difference in salary of only £200 per year between a principal and a teacher. As Tom Hamilton commented, who would want to take on all of those responsibilities for an extra £200 per year?

Mr ONeill gave us a timely history lesson. We should remember that the problems in teaching and in our schools go back to the era of Thatcherism. Thatcher destroyed the whole notion of education, even though she believed in "education, education, education". We now have people competing against one another. Education should not be about competition. It should be about producing fully rounded individuals and how we can get teachers to assist in that.

We have gone on about giving people bonuses. If this is a bonus, that is OK, but let us give people bonuses because they are good at their job, and not because they have been there for a long time.

Mr Gibson highlighted my point about improving teacher performance. Talking about threshold assessment in the same breath as improving teacher performance is making the assumption that length of service raises standards. Regardless of profession, excellence depends on the quality of the person and how good they are at the job, and it cannot be measured by experience or length of time in a job. It is handy to have experience, but it does not necessarily mean that you are better at the job than someone else.

Mr ONeill made the valid point that schools have always been in a dilemma about recognising competence. How do we recognise competence? Mr ONeill is correct, as was Ms Lewsley, on the issue of differentials. Differentials must be protected. Mr ONeill's point about using a salary scale as a progressive reward is correct.

The only way to reward teachers is to provide that they may start at a particular point and end up at another. Teachers should be rewarded because of the work that they do and what they achieve in their school. A review of teachers' pay may be the way forward, but progressive reward should be re-examined.