Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Miss M McIlveen): I welcome Jim Clarke, chief executive of the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS), Malachy Crudden, head of educational standards in CCMS, and Father Tim Bartlett from the Catholic commission. Thank you for coming to meet us this morning. I invite you to make an opening statement, and members will follow up with some questions.

Father Tim Bartlett (Northern Ireland Commission for Catholic Education): Thank you very much for your welcome. I will begin by thanking the Committee for its generosity in facilitating the earlier start to our discussion today. As you know, we have to leave as close as possible to 11.00 am to attend the funeral of the late Sheila Lundy, the mother of our colleague Mr Gerry Lundy of CCMS, who would otherwise have been with us this morning in some capacity. I also thank the Committee staff for helping to facilitate that.

I am here on behalf of the Northern Ireland Commission for Catholic Education (NICCE) as a member of that commission. NICCE represents the Catholic bishops and the leaders of religious congregations in their role as the trustees of the family of over 500 Catholic maintained schools and Catholic grammar schools in Northern Ireland. In other words, we are the trustees of the largest sector of education in Northern Ireland. On behalf of NICCE, I welcome the opportunity to engage directly with the Education Committee this morning in respect of our written submission on the theme of shared and integrated education, which, I understand, you have received copies of.

The most important point that I would like to highlight from that written submission is the one made in paragraph 3, which is, in essence, that commitment to promoting respect, tolerance and understanding and, indeed — I do not shy away from using the term as a Christian — promoting love of every person in society is precisely what defines the very purpose and aim of a Catholic school and, for the Catholic Church, the whole mission of the Church in education. This is because Catholic schools are based on the gospel of Jesus Christ, which, as you all know, has at its very heart the message of love of God, of neighbour and of self. This includes a profound duty to love and care for especially those who are most vulnerable, the marginalised and those most in need in any society. A lot of the religious congregations in particular on this island that have involved themselves in education grew out of that interest or concern for the most marginalised and those most in need.

Catholic education also, therefore, implicitly includes a commitment to forming citizens who contribute positively and constructively to the common good of society. Commitment to the common good is a fundamental tenet of Catholic social teaching and doctrine. Essential to that, again, is a commitment to building peace, mutual understanding and reconciliation. If I may be so bold as to suggest it this morning, it is sometimes forgotten in political commentary and, indeed, in general debate in Northern Ireland that these are fundamentally Christian concepts that have been promoted, supported and articulated by Catholic and other Christian Church leaders over the years, not least at times when they were not as popular and as claimed by politicians or secular commentators and groups as they are today. I just want to put it on the table that those themes, which are at the heart of the whole concept of sharing and integration and, ultimately, the task of peacemaking, the common good, mutual understanding and reconciliation, are all the very essence of the Christian message and the Christian Churches' mission. I am not claiming that we have always lived up to them, but they are what drives and sustains us fundamentally. In the case of the Catholic Church, that is also fundamental to the mission and purpose of Catholic schools. Commitment to these values is fundamental to our schools.

Our Catholic schools continue to be in high demand here in the North of Ireland and throughout the world among parents from a very wide range of backgrounds. Indeed, Catholic schools on this island and elsewhere have a very proud record of openness and inclusion, in particular to newcomers to our shores here. I am also mindful, for example, at the international level of the time I visited Gaza in 2008, where the largest primary and secondary school in Gaza City is the Holy Family Catholic School. It is 96% Muslim. The day I was there was the day of their graduation ceremony, which went on for hours. The Muslim children put on a great show on the theme of the prodigal son as a play that was written and developed from the Gospel story by the then parish priest Monsignor Musallam, who, although he grew up and lived only 40 miles away from Gaza, had never been able to get out of Gaza for 20-odd years to see his mother 40 miles away. That was his commitment to peace and reconciliation. I cite that as just one of many international examples of the consistency of a Catholic view and mission of education with the values of inclusion, reconciliation and peace building.

The commitment of Catholic schools to peace, reconciliation and the common good was set out by the Catholic bishops in their nodal document, 'Building Peace: Shaping the Future', which I commend to the attention of members of the Committee. We have copies here to leave with you. In that document, we point out not only the commitment of the Church to the value of sharing and reconciliation in our society and the role of our schools in that but that any such effort on the part of schools involves a wide range of strategies, partnerships, shared activities and curricular initiatives and so on. We are and have always been very committed to engaging with any of those initiatives as part of the fundamental mission of our schools and our commitment to peace and reconciliation.

More recently, we have engaged with the Transferor Representatives' Council and the Department of Education to look at a whole new concept of joint church schools in Northern Ireland. These already exist in GB, and we have always been enthusiastic about the concept of joint church schools. However, what is not always appreciated is the particular development of the systems here in Northern Ireland where, in fact, the Protestant Churches, as you know, handed their schools over to the state. Therefore, it was difficult to engage in a model of trusteeship of a new type of joint church school in a way similar to what has been done in Britain with Anglican and other Christian denominations to have joint faith-based schools. Happily, we have had a very constructive conversation with the Department and the transferors about that, and I think that the transferors mentioned it at their last meeting with you.

I will conclude by saying that Sir George Bain, in his 2006 report — this is in paragraph 8 of our submission — pointed out what I am saying about our commitment:

He then concluded:

As I say in our submission, NICCE supports the general principle underlining that approach. That is a good summary of our disposition and our commitment.

At the heart of this debate, as we suggest in our submission — it might be something we want to pick up in our conversation this morning — there is a wider conversation about what we mean by a diverse and pluralist society. Do we see integration in the narrow sense as some form of homogenisation of diversity, which is essential to a pluralist democracy? We would wish to claim, citing not least the European Convention on Human Rights and other international human rights instruments, that parents have the right to have their children brought up in accordance with their religious and philosophical convictions. The two established conditions on that are, first, that there is a duty on all parents and providers to the common good. I am making the argument that the trustees of Catholic schools are fully committed to the common good of this society through their schools and that we have consistently demonstrated that. The second caveat or parameter is available resources. That is something that, again, the Catholic trustees and CCMS have demonstrated that they are incredibly responsible administrators of, in terms of efficiencies in the Catholic education system. We are at the forefront of area planning at the moment, finding greater efficiencies across the systems as well as opportunities for sharing in new and creative ways.

I want to emphasise this point: our challenge to the general thrust of how the debate tends to go in the public domain is that, in any normal, democratic, pluralist, diverse society, it is totally appropriate and consistent with human rights principles that there would be diverse provision in accordance with parental rights, including provision of faith-based schools where they are chosen in significant numbers. Those schools are also, in terms of the Catholic ethos of education, completely consistent with the common good.

There are a few other points that I may make as the conversation develops, but, Chair, I thank you for the invitation to be here this morning.

Mr Jim Clarke (Council for Catholic Maintained Schools): I will pick up from the base of the philosophical backdrop that Tim has created. Recognising CCMS as a non-departmental public body (NDPB) that has to deliver on the ground, I am going to take a more operational perspective.

When we made our submission to the Committee late last year, the media picked it up as a kind of attack on the integrated sector. I want to state absolutely clearly that we have the utmost respect for the integrated sector, its right to exist, its philosophy of education and, indeed, its philosophy of life. However, we recognise that, over 30-odd years, it has not achieved what people in the mid-1990s would perhaps have expected in terms of outcomes and support. Our comments were a response to the reality, not to the right. Of course, the media want to sensationalise things sometimes, and I can understand that, but it is important that that position is stated. That does not diminish our belief that there are things that need to be changed. Our commitment to shared education is a recognition that there are different routes to the same objective. That objective is a much more peaceful, settled, inclusive society where there is respect and recognition of the rights of others. Education has a role to play in that, but it is not the only player in the game.

There are issues that are practical. One of them is that, anywhere in the world, education — particularly in the early years — is local. It is a community-based activity. If our communities are of one denomination, one class or one ethnic group, there is a likelihood that that will be replicated in schools. How we break that down is a job for schools. It is a responsibility of education, but it is not education's responsibility alone. We have to look at the society that we have, how it is shaped and framed, where it lives and how it lives to understand part of what our education system looks like at this particular moment in time.

If we accept the principle of parental choice — we do — we have to accept that parents make choices for a range of reasons. In those early years, convenience is certainly one of them. If an area is predominantly one grouping or another, there is a likelihood that parents will make that choice. We are faced with what people have chosen. They also choose because they make decisions about the kind of education that they want. On that basis, the right to a faith-based education is one that exists throughout the world and one that we in Northern Ireland ought to respect. I do not think that there is any dispute about that. However, there are times when it appears — maybe this is an external view as well as an internal view for some — that the only way to move forward is to get rid of the groups that appear to be the purveyors of the past: the big sectors — the Catholic and controlled sectors. That is illogical and impractical and is not deliverable. It is on that basis that we look at the issue.

What is deliverable? In our view, the shared schools agenda is a spectrum from very limited association between one school and another to, as Tim has described, jointly managed faith-based schools and, indeed, integrated schools at the apex of that. However, the reality is that that will not be achieved overnight. Indeed, the evidence is that, over the last 30-odd years, it has only been achieved to a very narrow degree. The extent to which the decision of parents to send their children to an integrated school is about integration is open to question, because there is a range of other things that may impact on their decision-making. Education undoubtedly has a role in delivering a shared future for everyone, but so does society as a whole. We have to see it in that broader picture.

There are issues about school size. It is often said that, in a diverse society, we want to bring schools together that balance the community. Again, I make the point that that is achievable where people buy into it. It cannot be imposed; it is a bottom-up model. Parents have to make the decisions. It cannot be something that can be legislated for. On that basis, we have a range of policies around area planning, including the sustainable schools policy, and we have to look at the issues in the context of those policies. In some ways, sustainable schools might create circumstances that allow for a greater degree of sharing — a jointly managed school being an optimum on that strand — but we cannot force that.

The Deloitte report of 2007 or thereabouts identified the issue of the costs to a divergent society in Northern Ireland. In real terms — one of the authors acknowledged this in a radio interview that I was part of — economies of scale are economies of scale. It does not matter from what background people come; it is the economy of scale to achieve the curricular output that young people are entitled to. We have to have sustainable schools that deliver an education service, not schools that are there as preservations of one community or another. If they live within the constraints of funding and the policies, there is every reason for those schools to be retained; if they do not, we have to look at alternative models. Certainly, the integrated model is one; the joint faith-based model is another; but a sharing model with a wider range of choice within the curriculum is another.

If we are going to look at shared schools, we have to ask, "What is the purpose of this?". We see it very much as increased access to the curriculum and to curricular choice for young people in post-primary in particular. We are going through difficult financial times, as everyone on the Committee well knows, and one of the things that have suffered over the last number of years is the degree to which teachers and others have had access to professional development. The context for schools working together on that basis is very strong, and it is being promoted further now by the expansion of the principle of area learning communities (ALCs) from the post-primary into the primary and nursery sectors.

The economy of scale is very important, but we always have to have it in mind that all of us have a role towards the common good and to creating a peaceful society. It is our view that legislation is not the way to do that. By that I mean reference not just to article 64 of the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which gives the requirement for the integrated sector to be facilitated and encouraged but to any legislation around sharing. As the Towards a Culture of Tolerance: Integrated Education (TACOT:IE) report, in 1998, indicated, schools will move forward according to the circumstances in which they find themselves, and not every environment is exactly the same. Therefore, it would be difficult to impose targets. The problem with targets is that you could be pushing towards them for the wrong reasons, and you could create a circumstance where you are not going to be able to deliver because, as I have said, parental choice is a key player in this game.

Of course, in the area of funding, we would encourage — indeed CCMS will set out tomorrow on the first of a series of meetings with principals — interdependence, working with schools and the wider community, rather than simply seeing the delivery of an education as something that is only in that school alone. The wider issues of the school in the community need to be taken into account as well. ALCs are practical responses. We see sharing as a practical response to an educational need to a societal need, but we believe that it is one of those things that do not necessarily lend itself to a Programme for Government target or, indeed, a Department of Education target.

One of the big issues, of course, when we look at sharing is that there is a tendency to see it in terms of religious difference. We have racial difference in Northern Ireland, and we have a significant class difference. Going back to the report on sharing and integrated education, the issue of selection is a key one. The right of people to access schools with equality is a key issue. When we look at sharing, we have to look at it right across the spectrum. Again, I go back to the point that it has to have a practical outcome. We are there to create the conditions and the circumstances where sharing becomes the natural response to dealing with how things move forward in our society and in our education system. In that respect, I will use an analogy that draws on my background. I grew up on a mixed street where Catholics and Protestants lived together side by side, knew each other, worked with each other and were friendly with each other. That is how I see sharing. Sometimes, the purity of the integrated model almost requires everyone to live in the same house and not the same street. The reality is that it is more achievable to live on the same street than to live in the same house.

The Chairperson (Miss M McIlveen): Thank you very much. First of all, can I —

Mr Malachy Crudden (Council for Catholic Maintained Schools): May I conclude by making a few brief points? The commitment of CCMS to shared education is evident in the fact that we are involved in shared education initiatives right across the country. Some of those initiatives predate the shared campus discussions and the shared education initiative coming to the fore in recent years. As Jim said, our approach is very firmly based on the educational principles and how shared education can contribute to providing greater access and greater equality of access to as broad a curriculum as possible, particularly in the post-primary sector.

CCMS has demonstrated its commitment to the shared education initiatives and is especially supportive of them when they come from the bottom up. CCMS is not necessarily proactive in this respect. To date, we have been mostly reactive in supporting initiatives for shared campuses and shared education when those have come from the communities, because, for those to be successful, they must have full community support and full community buy-in.

Where shared education has been successful in the past and where it will be successful in the future, it must be based on respecting difference. We have to accept that we live in a society where we are not all the same. Our aim is to create a mature and inclusive society. That is the goal that we all share. In that society, we must be able to respect and cherish difference. While waiting outside to come in here this morning, I noticed a plaque on the wall for the late Senator Paddy Wilson, and, at the bottom of that plaque, there are three words: equality, tolerance and respect. CCMS is fully committed to those principles, and it is our belief that we can fulfil those principles through diverse provision in our education system.

The Chairperson (Miss M McIlveen): Thank you very much and apologies. I pass on my sympathies to Gerry Lundy on the passing of his mother. I am sure that I speak for other members of the Committee in saying that.

You outlined very well a Catholic education and what you see in your schools, particularly around peace and reconciliation and the feeling of a common good. I visit many schools, and I do not see an alternative to that. I see that in controlled schools and in integrated schools. Could you define the difference between a Christian education and a Catholic education? Is it about control?

Father Bartlett: That is a very good question. There are two dimensions to it. A Christian school is based on the objective document of the Christian Gospel and the message of Jesus Christ. Any Christian ultimately makes the claim that that is their point of reference. We say two things. The values that are articulated there, such as the principle of love of neighbour, love of God or even love of enemy, in that very harsh sense of describing an enemy, are fundamental to what animates the values of the community gathered in that place and the mission behind that educational enterprise.

We say that it is a religious vision but it is also completely consistent with human society and the principle of the common good. In other words, it affirms what is good for society.

I said that this is part of a wider debate about religion, society and the whole concept of what we mean by a pluralist and diverse society. It takes us into a spectrum of issues. In relation to education in particular, what sets a Catholic school apart from a controlled school or, I would even argue, some integrated schools, as I understand it, is this: the defining purpose of that school and the legal protection of the ownership by the trustees of the enterprise and the property guarantee that that is the core driving purpose and objective. In an increasingly secular society, controlled schools cannot guarantee that, because there is no legislative protection or protection of the trusteeship of those schools. I agree that it is there — it is largely there — but that is what I see as the difference. It becomes more stark if, for example, you take Catholic education at an international level. You can see that, in many societies, whether atheistic or otherwise, that protection, that difference and that mission become more distinctive, relative to the society. I think that it is part of the good news, which we can build on, that, as you properly say, all our schools are largely committed to that vision. What makes it different and why the Catholic Church did not hand its schools over to the state is that it guarantees that. As I understand it — I stand to be corrected here — in some of the integrated schools it will depend on your board of governors what the commitment is to a specifically Christian ethos. If human values of peace and reconciliation are what defines them, we welcome and support that and are happy to engage and cooperate with it.

The final thing I would say is that we also have a right to a specifically religious character and identity and to have that reflected in the building and in the delivery of the whole curriculum, as well as in the liturgical and pastoral life of the community. Parents who are taxpayers and even those who are not have the same right, in a publicly funded system, to choose a system that reflects their religious ethos.

The first thing is that it is a response to parents to have a distinctive character to a Catholic school that is Catholic in a religious sense. Secondly, the fundamental values of shared common good, reconciliation and peace, which are central to Christianity, are protected in law by the fact that we own, manage and are trustees of the school. Thirdly, other school sectors in Northern Ireland do not have the same protection, even though I openly acknowledge that the vast majority are fully committed to the same principles, which I welcome. Does that —

The Chairperson (Miss M McIlveen): It strikes me from your response that the issue is about control and that you have the ability, through having ownership of the schools, to ensure that there is a Catholic, Christian ethos in them.

Father Bartlett: Maybe the challenge I would make is that the word "control" has a very loaded sense. It is a responsibility. The word "trustee" is important. We hold, in trust, the responsibility to ensure that the character of that particular Catholic school reflects the choice that parents make to choose a Catholic education system. There is nothing hidden in what we offer or what we do. Management, trust and responsibility: that is how we would see it, rather than maybe in the more euphemistic sense of "control".

The Chairperson (Miss M McIlveen): I appreciate that. You are working with the transferors and looking at drafting a paper on faith-based schools. Your comments suggest that perhaps the barrier is in ownership.

Father Bartlett: No, in fact there is no barrier, in principle, in the discussions. The barrier was in law. There was no model that the Department had available to it in Northern Ireland to date to allow joint ownership and trusteeship. In fact, in the conversations, discussions and responses to the Department, the transferors and the Catholic trustees have said that they would be very willing to engage on a joint trusteeship/joint ownership model in certain circumstances where it can be arranged.

Mr J Clarke: If I can just add to that —

The Chairperson (Miss M McIlveen): Can you tell us how such a school would operate? Who would have ownership of it? Would it be equal partners? How would pupils be engaged in the school?

Mr J Clarke: Those questions are part of the ongoing discussions. I was about to say that we have a very constrained range of governance models, and all through the Education and Skills Authority (ESA) debate, one of the things we wanted on the table was a wider range of governance models to reflect the greater diversity in our society. The questions you ask are the practical questions that the subcommittee, which the Department is managing, is addressing. I made a point about people coming from different perspectives and environments, and that will play into the discussion.

The one thing that it is important for us to say is that CCMS, as a body, does not promote Catholic education. We are the advocate for what is there, if you like, for the sector. I will not go into the history of why we came about, but we came about largely because the Government perceived a need. It is important to acknowledge that, in engaging with the transferors, all of us are trying to exploit the common ground. Once we can close that ground to a point where there is agreement, we will move forward. I think that the willingness is there to achieve that. It is as the old phrase says, "It is a work in progress", but we have to go back to the fact — this reflects some of the things that Tim said — that parents make choices.

To ask why there are Catholic schools, you have to ask why parents want to choose Catholic schools. The same point will apply to people who choose other schools. In some instances, parents choose schools because they regard them as secular. That is a perfectly legitimate position. One of the challenges in Northern Ireland is that the controlled sector, because it is a state system in the broadest sense, has all the nuances of our society. How that is to be encapsulated in an agreement with a sector that is overtly faith-based is a challenge on the other side. We need to look at how we can exploit the possibilities on that spectrum of sharing, as I described it.

The Chairperson (Miss M McIlveen): How do you see joint faith schools differing from integrated schools?

Father Bartlett: Precisely on this very misunderstood point in the general concept of integrated education in Northern Ireland, as opposed to joint faith schools: the legal construct guarantees the religious ethos. As I understand it, most integrated schools are controlled in that sense. In other words, there is no legal protection to a religious ethos in those schools. That is a popular misconception. People often think they are talking about joint faith schools.

I go back to your earlier question. The spectrum of possible modes of implementation for a joint faith school already operates very successfully in GB — in Scotland, England and Wales. We are looking at those models and engaging with the people involved. They tend to have a bit of local variation, depending on the balance of the population and so on, but the fundamental principle is joint ownership and agreed management structures. That is exactly the same thing as has characterised the discussions to date with the transferors and the Department on the new model.

We have actively supported the transferors in reclaiming their space in the education sector in Northern Ireland. We can work with another faith-based Christian entity. People often wondered why the Catholic Church kind of held out. We cannot do that with a secular fluid controlled sector that has no interest in faith, other than in a very general societal sense, but we can do a joint ownership model with other Christian Churches. That represents the bulk of the society in Northern Ireland. That is the difference: it is guaranteed in law.

Mr Crudden: You asked about the difference between a joint faith-based and an integrated school. One of the key differences is that a joint faith-based school has a distinctively Christian ethos, whereas an integrated school is secular. An integrated school should not promote any particular faith.

I will go back to a point that you made. This question is asked constantly: why do we have Catholic schools? I sometimes ask this question: why should we not have Catholic education in Catholic schools? If the argument against Catholic schools is based on economics, we in CCMS have demonstrated through the area planning process that we are very conscious of our obligation to the economics of the argument. Secondly, are Catholic schools exclusive? No, they are not. Catholic schools are fully inclusive and are becoming increasingly so. We also need to recognise the contribution that Catholic education makes to society in general. That contribution is recognised in over 80 countries where a Catholic education system exists. We need to ask why we should not have Catholic schools, as opposed to why we do.

The Chairperson (Miss M McIlveen): You are calling for the removal of the statutory duty to encourage and facilitate the development of integrated education. Would you say that the same duty should be removed from the Irish-medium sector?

Mr J Clarke: Over time, all sectors that have had a start-up, if you like, have to reach the point where they are going to fly or not. Whether they are Irish-medium, integrated or even Catholic schools on a different model or whatever, there is a period when they should have the facility to have that encouragement through some form of support. However, it has to come to an end at some point; otherwise, you distort the system. If we work on the principle that parents make choices, we have to respect when they start to show over a period the trend in their choices. I come back to the point that education is a publicly funded service. It must be efficient and deliver its primary purpose, which is education. On that basis, we think that the integrated sector has had a sufficiently long gestation period. If it came to an end after 30 or 35 years, the same should apply to the Irish-medium sector and to any others. Indeed, you could argue that the legislation that is being considered for shared schools should fall into the same category. You can promote certain things for a certain length of time. As I said, I am not sure that legislation is the best way to promote a shared approach. There is a concept that promotion for a while is useful, but it must eventually stand on its own two feet. It is a pure business model.

The Chairperson (Miss M McIlveen): The requirement for a Catholic certificate to teach in a primary school creates a barrier to the integration of your staffing cohort. Have you given any consideration to changing that from an essential to a desirable criterion?

Mr J Clarke: We have, I think, said to the Committee in the past that we are moving towards increasing access to the certificate. Malachy's point is that parents' entitlement to access a faith-based education requires, by implication, that people are developed in that ethos. Our belief is that people who are committed to the Catholic ethos, whether they are Catholics or not, can make a contribution to Catholic schools. It is not a case of whether we should take the certificate away; it is whether we should extend access to it. That is the approach that we are taking.

Mr Kinahan: Thank you very much for giving us food for thought. I congratulate you on the success of the schools and on a lot of the suggestions in your report.

One of the key questions we have asked everyone is on the definition in the Bill. My concern is that, by making it maintained, controlled, unionist, nationalist or socio-economic, we define people by groups, rather than having a more community-based idea that allows us, through the Bill, to push merging everyone together and sharing through a community ethos. Could you comment on that?

Mr J Clarke: You are talking about the Bill for shared education. Malachy, do you want to answer?

Mr Crudden: I will take you back to the point that the focus should be on delivering better provision for children. Where shared education is proposed, it should not necessarily be stipulated that there needs to be sharing between one community and another. There will be occasions when schools will not have the opportunity to share with a school from another sector because of location. Shared education should be viewed in a much broader sense to include the opportunities that exist for schools, either across sectors or within sectors, to share so that they can provide better education for children.

Mr J Clarke: We should caveat that by saying again what I said, which is that we do not think that this would necessarily benefit from legislation. Clearly, however, a definition of shared education is important. I cannot put my hands on this at the moment, but Joanne Hughes, I think, of Queen's proposed a definition that we are in broad agreement with. Again, it is about parents making choices; we cannot force that.

Mr Kinahan: Thank you. Following up on that, Jim, you, specifically, said that we do not need legislation, yet Father Tim quite clearly says that the basis for Catholic education is that it needs to be legislated for. Part of the reason, as I understand it, for pushing shared education through the Bill is that everyone needs a jolly good nudge to do more. We could argue that some of the things you are now doing with joint faith and shared schools would not have happened had we not nudged and nudged heavily. I look at your excellent schools and see that they are 97% Catholic. You still have the certificate in place, which you want to enlarge, rather than reduce. In area planning, your schools merge, rather than share with others. There are some excellent examples, but they are tiny. What I am really saying is this: the Bill and the push from most of the parties for more sharing are aimed at getting this continuum or the spectrum that you talked about to happen. I am not sure where to go with a question, but do you not see why we need to break down barriers, rather than go for one system?

Mr J Clarke: I do not agree with you that this is happening because there has been a push. One of the risks of putting something into a Programme for Government is that you set a target and fail to achieve it. That then makes the thing look —

Mr Kinahan: If you do not set a target, no one bothers.

Mr J Clarke: But targets are being set, and this is one of the options. It is not in legislation, but we have an objective to create 10 campuses, for instance. We can achieve these things — this is the point we keep coming back to — only if there is a willingness on the ground for people to support them and if the conditions are right. Those conditions are, in some cases, set by government. For instance, there is no point in pulling two schools together to create another unsustainable school; there has to be sustainability to it. We have to remember that education is the primary purpose, not some kind of model that shows that, as a society, we are becoming more tolerant of each other because we are going to be forced to work together.

'Building Peace, Shaping the Future', which we will leave with you, goes back to 2001. It sets out very clearly the Catholic view of sharing. It makes the case that Catholic schools are not schools for Catholics. I think that the same could be said of controlled schools: they are not schools for anyone in particular; they are down to parental choice.

The reason why we do not think that legislation is helpful is that all the steps that have been taken so far have occurred without legislation and without the threat of legislation. I contend that, certainly in the post-primary sector, what has probably accelerated the process most has been the sharing education programme (SEP) through Queen's. There was a practical reason for that, which was to extend the range of curricular choice in schools. It has created an environment where children from different schools, wearing different uniforms, walk up and down corridors in all kinds of school every day and work together. It is those practical steps that will bring things forward, not legislation.

Again, I go back to TACOT:IE from 1998. You have to look at local circumstances. In some cases, these things happen because there is a need; in other cases, you are kind of constructing a need. EMU, I suppose, is an example of constructed need. It has not led to the expansion that would have been hoped for. The point that I make is that we constantly need to change how we can move forward.

The really important thing that you are hearing from all of us — I am sure that you have heard it from others who have sat in these chairs — is that there is now a willingness to work together. Indeed, if I can go back to the practical side of it, the funding situation that we face creates another practical need. We are very responsive to that. Malachy made the point that we cannot go out and promote a particular model, but we can say that, if the circumstances are right, other models may be considered. If we and the board went to an area and said, "This is what we are going to do and there are sufficient numbers to create a school", it is equally possible that the community will say, "Well, that is fine. If you want to do that, you go right ahead, but we are heading off this way to the nearest controlled school and that way to the nearest maintained school". There has to be buy-in. It is not something that can be imposed, which is why we make the point that it needs a bottom-up approach. It is about hearts and minds.

Mr Crudden: Just to go back to your point about a definition, I have found it. The Centre for Shared Education in Queen's University said:

We think that that is an excellent definition of what shared education could be.

There are occasions when legislation is required to ensure conformity. With regard to the consultation at the moment on bullying in schools, we believe that there is a strong case for legislation to ensure that schools address the issue appropriately. Having legislation for something such as shared education brings me back to my point about the location of some schools. If they are not able to engage in sharing, will they be penalised in some form because it is in legislation and they are obliged to do it?

Finally, you made the point that CCMS, through area planning, tends to rationalise schools in our sector first. That is our primary obligation under legislation. We are obliged under the 1989 Order to plan for the development of Catholic schools. That is our primary responsibility. If opportunities present themselves and they come from the community, CCMS is certainly committed to exploring opportunities for sharing in those contexts.

Mr Kinahan: They have to bring the opportunities in front of you, then.

Father Bartlett: Could I add one further dimension to that? It is the concept of the principle of subsidiarity and incentivisation. In other words, law is not always the best way. Law can be quite a blunt instrument, as you well know. It is not always the best way, especially with the principle of subsidiarity at local level, to get communities to engage in the way that you want. Incentivisation, rather than obligation, while it may be a slower, steadier process, is still very important and valid. I suppose that we are arguing that, for the time being, incentivisation is a better way to go than legislation.

Mr Kinahan: This is a very short question. What other groupings are on the subcommittee that you talked about? Are integrated schools, voluntary grammars and Irish-medium schools on it? Is it just the controlled sector and you?

Mr J Clarke: I am not on it, so I do not know precisely. I think that the main thrust here is to develop the model of joint faith schools. I think that it is mainly transferors, trustees and the Department at this stage.

Mr Lunn: You are very welcome, as usual. I had better say at the outset that I regard all three of you as friends, because, by the time that I am finished, that might be open to question. [Laughter.]

Could you pass on my condolences to Gerry Lundy, who I think is a constituent of mine?

Mr J Clarke: We will.

The Chairperson (Miss M McIlveen): Electioneering.

Mr McCausland: There is no limit to it.

Mr Lunn: No, frankly, Chair —

The Chairperson (Miss M McIlveen): No, sorry; it was just —

Mr Lunn: I am passing on condolences.

Having said that, I find your whole attitude to parental choice in particular dispiriting, not to say depressing. You seem to favour the principle of parental choice when it means that parents choose a Catholic school, but you do not apply it when parents decide that they would like to send their children to an integrated school. In particular, you would not apply it if a Catholic school was to opt for transformation or amalgamation with a school from another sector. You would not allow it.

That is pretty clear, Malachy, from what you have said today and in the past. Do you not feel that you are being slightly hypocritical about parental choice as a principle?

Mr J Clarke: The parental choice that we describe is the parental choice expressed by parents when they choose a school. I think that some of what you are saying is about what you might call an area planning approach and giving an incentive —

Mr Lunn: No, I am talking about parental choice: the clearly expressed will of a group of parents in a school or two schools on how they see the way forward.

Mr J Clarke: You are going back now to the 1989 Order and transformation. We have always regarded that as an unfortunate piece of legislation that, as Tim has pointed out, actually diminishes the rights of the trustees. Groups of parents can be mobilised in a range of ways. What we are talking about is individuals expressing a view.

I accept that, in some circumstances, how you create an integrated school may be difficult because, as has been said, there are what might be called the two big blocs there. However, that will has worked, going right back to the very inception of the integrated movement. It is perfectly legitimate for people in a community to lobby for that right, and we would support that. We do not support trying to undermine our sector for that to be achieved. I have made the point that CCMS does not have a responsibility to promote Catholic education; our responsibility is to ensure that we have high-quality Catholic schools.

The other point that I would make — I will not refer to the specific circumstance — is that, if this is going to happen and there is to be transformation, it should be on the basis of the policies that exist. If we are going to create schools, we have to create sustainable schools. We should not come in behind legitimate policy proposals to unnerve a community and create a circumstance that, according to policy, is not achievable.

Mr Lunn: If two schools in an area decide that they would like to amalgamate on an integrated basis and three quarters of the parents in your maintained school opted for that, you would still block it.

Mr J Clarke: If they were choosing to build a school —

Mr Lunn: Tell me yes or no. Would you or would you not?

Mr J Clarke: If they were choosing to build a school, that is a matter for the community to decide. If they want to take over a Catholic school, there is an issue that we would have to address.

Mr Lunn: No, if that were the preferred solution amongst the parents, you would still prefer to close the Catholic maintained school if it was not viable and move the children to the nearest Catholic maintained school, whatever distance away it was.

Mr J Clarke: Malachy has made the point that —

Mr Lunn: That is a genuine position to hold. I just want to clarify that that is your position.

Mr J Clarke: That is our legislative position but —

Mr Lunn: There are no circumstances in which you will countenance the transformation of a Catholic maintained school to integrated status.

Mr Crudden: Could I ask —

Mr Lunn: Do not ask me; I am asking you.

Mr Crudden: I am not aware of any circumstances where CCMS has actually stood in the way of a Catholic maintained school transforming.

Father Bartlett: Can you evidence the claim that you are applying to us?

Mr Lunn: I am asking —

Father Bartlett: You are making a claim, Trevor; you are not asking. You are making a claim. You have said what we would do and what we would not do. Evidence the claim.

Mr Lunn: I am putting it to you. Let us go to the Moy situation; this will be an interesting one. The vote amongst the parents there was actually quite close. Very nearly half the parents across the two schools preferred an integrated option, but it went in favour of the rather bizarre arrangement that we will be stuck with in a few years' time. What would you have done, had the parents opted the other way and said that they would like to see an integrated solution there?

Father Bartlett: So you cannot evidence your claim.

Mr Lunn: I am not making a claim.

Father Bartlett: You did make a claim.

Mr Lunn: I am asking you what you would have done.

Father Bartlett: You told us what we would do in your earlier statements.

Mr Crudden: I am not aware of any vote taking place in the Moy, certainly in our school.

Mr Lunn: The votes that were cast are on the file of the two headmasters in the Moy. Also on the file is your complete opposition to the whole principle until it became obvious that something had to be done.

Mr Crudden: Our opposition to it?

Mr Lunn: Yes.

Mr Crudden: I would be very interested in seeing that documentation.

Mr Lunn: I think that you should. You can read it for yourselves.

Father Bartlett: With respect, Trevor, I would have expected that, if we had come here to respond to something like that, you would have presented us with the detailed evidence, papers and so on to sustain it. You are asking us to deal with very hypothetical situations. We have clearly affirmed our respect for the principle of parental choice. How that works out in a particular local circumstance will be an incredibly complex question. It will also involve responsibility to answer questions such as, to use the scenario that you suggested, if 50% of parents want to go for a particular integrated model, what will happen with the other 50%? Are they going to support that? Will that lead to a sustainable school? A range of complex questions arise in that regard.

We have affirmed consistently our respect for the right of parents to choose and our respect for the integrated sector. We have also indicated our willingness to look at new models where faith-based education can be sustained. There will be new options emerging for communities to consider in those situations. I do not appreciate coming here and being told what we would do when you do not have evidence to sustain it that you are willing to present here in detail.

Mr Lunn: I have asked you what you would do.

Father Bartlett: I would expect a more responsible approach from a public representative.

Mr Lunn: Let me just —

Mr Crudden: May I just make one point before you ask again, Trevor?

Mr Lunn: I am looking at the clock.

Mr Crudden: In the one instance of that situation arising that I am aware of, CCMS advised the governors of the schools concerned of the process that they would need to undertake in order to explore the possibility of becoming an integrated school. We have never stood in the way of any developments in the integrated sector.

Mr J Clarke: May I just make a point, Trevor? These last few minutes have encapsulated the issue that there are difficulties for those who want purity of a model. What we are talking about is how we can take steps forward that our communities will support. There is a range of these emerging. They do not have to be about changing governance or anything like it. It can simply be that you exploit the facilities of a community together to achieve the best outcomes for young people in that community.

Mr Lunn: I am not interested in the purity of the model; I would like to see our children being educated together on a much greater scale. It is not happening in your schools.

Mr J Clarke: Trevor, I have to disagree with you on that —

Mr Lunn: Hold on a minute, I will get to the question.

Mr J Clarke: You cannot have sharing in this society without the Catholic sector and, indeed, the controlled sector, being intimately involved in it.

Mr Lunn: Let me move on just slightly. I am sure that you will tell me that you have all been in an integrated school.

Mr J Clarke: Yes.

Mr Crudden: My first teaching post was in Hazelwood College.

Mr Lunn: You seem to have a problem with the quality of faith education in integrated schools. I must say that that is completely at odds with anything that I have seen in extensive visits to integrated schools. It just is not the case. They deal with religion and faith in a very balanced way. They also prepare your sector's children for the sacraments in a way to which, as far as I understand, there is no objection from the Catholic Church. Is that the case? What is your problem with allowing Catholic children to be educated in an integrated setting?

Mr Crudden: We do not have a problem.

Mr J Clarke: We do not have a problem. Parents make the choice. I will let Tim speak for himself, but the point that he was making is that the commitment to ethos in a Catholic school is very clear. It cannot be quite so clear when — this applies to all other sectors as well — you are dealing with a much broader range of backgrounds, including people from ethnic backgrounds that are not Christian at all.

Father Bartlett: I would challenge your fundamental assumption that integrated schools are religious schools in law: they are not.

Mr Lunn: They are not religious schools in law; of course they are not.

Father Bartlett: That is the point. May I finish?

Mr Lunn: Yes.

Father Bartlett: A Catholic school is a school that is defined, founded and based on the religious mission of that school. It is the fundamental and founding characteristic and principle of that school. There is a fundamental qualitative difference that parents are free to choose between when they make a choice between an integrated school and a Catholic school.

As a person of faith, if I had children and was considering where to place them on that spectrum, a question in my mind would be this: in an integrated school as currently constituted, as opposed to the alternative of a joint Church school, for example, could I rely on the stability of the approach of that integrated school towards the whole issue of religion and my faith and my faith disposition?

That is a movable feast in terms of what boards of governors do at any time in response to society, societal emphasis, change and all the rest of it. A Catholic school remains a Catholic school. That is a fundamental qualitative difference in terms of the religious question that you ask. We are not casting aspersions on the quality of religious education in integrated schools.

Mr Lunn: It sounded that way. I respect your faith schools, I respect the Catholic maintained sector and I respect the right of parents to send their children there. It is the reciprocation of that view that worries me, frankly. I do not get that from you, and I wish, Chairman, that we could have a longer discussion with these guys. It is unfortunate about the funeral; of course, you have to go. I will leave it there, but we need to talk more about this.

Mr J Clarke: Can I make one final point? Trevor, if we are looking at the purity of an integrated school, as I have described it, at the far end of the spectrum, we say that that is not always achievable, particularly within a limited timescale. We say that the commitment to get to a more shared, inclusive, respected and respectful society is through steps that can be taken in different circumstances at different paces. We are supportive of that. We have the same long-term objective, but we believe that, along the way, we need to ensure that certain things are in place because that is what parents want.

Mr Lunn: Yes, that is what parents want.

The Chairperson (Miss M McIlveen): Mindful of Trevor's comment and the fact that you need to leave and that several other members wish to ask questions, would it to be possible to reschedule and come back for an additional session?

Father Bartlett: How much longer would you like? We can arrive late to the funeral. We can accommodate that. We would rather deal with this this morning.

Mr Lunn: I could do with another half hour. Let others have a go.

The Chairperson (Miss M McIlveen): We will see how we get on with the rest of the session.

Mr Sheehan: Thanks, gentlemen, for coming. Tim, you mentioned in your opening statement that the maintained sector is based on Christian values such as the love of God, neighbour and self, yet it continues the iniquitous practice of academic selection. In my view, that is the worst segregation in the education system. I understand that boards of governors are in control of schools and can set the entrance criteria, but, at the end of the day, I have spoken to many principals, former principals, teachers and former teachers, particularly from a non-selective background, and they feel that the Catholic hierarchy has let them down terribly.

Father Bartlett: I challenge that absolutely and unequivocally. The Catholic bishops and trustees — the Catholic hierarchy, as you call it — have collectively been at the forefront of supporting the transition from academic selection. That is their formal stated position, which your party does not fail to claim and point to, so I am surprised that you make that claim this morning. I accept, however, that the trustees' ability to change that matter in law in accordance with their policy is limited because the boards of governors, as you properly say, have that responsibility. Those boards of governors include Department representatives appointed by the Minister, who is from your party, so there is an influence there. They include other representatives, legitimately and importantly, such as parents, teachers and so on. Part of this is clearly about winning hearts and minds and winning the argument, but the position of the Catholic trustees has been unequivocal and clear. Pat, no other sector has moved as much as the Catholic sector has, and we can point to any number of schools that have begun that process and are committed to it. Regrettably, there are others who will take longer on that journey, but the trustees, as trustees, are fully committed to that policy.

Mr Sheehan: I am not going to argue with you about other sectors; our view on that is very clear. I am concerned about the sector that you represent. In spite of the honeyed words about what the Catholic bishops —

Father Bartlett: Which your party quotes regularly.

Mr Sheehan: In fact, you have been very unsuccessful at removing academic selection, apart from a small number of instances.

Father Bartlett: St Killian's on the north Antrim coast in this diocese has transformed. There is also St Patrick's in Armagh and Loreto in Coleraine. There are others in the pipeline. Lurgan is another case in point. These things do not happen overnight, by their very nature.

Mr Sheehan: What percentage is that, Tim?

Father Bartlett: Your own Minister has a role in this.

Mr Sheehan: What percentage is that?

Father Bartlett: We do not have the majority on those boards.

Mr Sheehan: What percentage is it of the overall grammar sector?

Father Bartlett: Your Minister has been very slow in appointing his representatives to those boards.

Mr Sheehan: Tim, what percentage of Catholic grammars have done away with academic selection?

Father Bartlett: I cannot put a percentage on that.

Mr Sheehan: That is the question I am asking. It is very small.

Father Bartlett: Your words were that the Catholic hierarchy or the Catholic trustees — there are more than just the bishops involved; it is the religious orders — were not committed to it. Their repeated public position on the matter is unequivocal, so I challenge your claim.

Mr Sheehan: The evidence is in the outcome. The Catholic bishops or the trustees can say what they wish, but people will look at the evidence of the number of schools that have changed, and it has been a tiny percentage. Some schools have even recently rolled back from commitments to reduce the number being taken into schools through academic selection, so we are moving backwards.

Father Bartlett: Yes, the board of governors of some of those schools — not, in the words you used, the Catholic hierarchy, not the trustees.

Mr Sheehan: Why, then, are so many people from the teaching profession disappointed in the role that the Catholic trustees and Catholic bishops have played in all of this?

Father Bartlett: Because they may misunderstand the legislative responsibility or authority that trustees have to influence that decision.

Mr Sheehan: We are not talking about legislative influence; we are talking about influence of the bishops with people who are on boards of governors.

Father Bartlett: The board of governors has the responsibility, full stop. We can only encourage —

Mr Sheehan: You have no influence.

Father Bartlett: Of course we have influence, and we have sought to use that influence to our best endeavours, just as you do as politicians. Would you like me to litany the areas in which your Minister, your party or politicians generally fail to achieve what they want? We are all in the same boat. We are committed to it, and it would be better if we worked collaboratively, rather than using this as some political point-scoring thing about the Catholic trustees. If that is what you want to do, fair enough. Our position is unequivocal on the matter. It is clear, and we regard it as something at the essence of equality and sharing. It is interesting that the Committee has not made a big issue of it, and, indeed, in terms of educational policy, the issue is not there to the same extent as the idea of promoting integrated schools in that narrow sense. I am sorry, Pat, but I can only say that our position is unequivocal and clear, and, to our best endeavours, we are trying to influence the situation. It is a work in progress.

Mr J Clarke: CCMS's position on this is absolutely unequivocal. I share your frustration. I may have a better understanding of some of the impediments, because we are moving the agenda forward as far as we can, but we do not have the influence over those boards of governors. One of the things we have to remember is that it is outside of policy. If it were a policy matter, you would be deliberating on it and giving us the scaffolding, if you like, to move forward on it.

We have ended up in a philosophical discussion, which is not the way that the issue needs to be handled. As a society, we have to recognise that our economy is very important to us. We create a settled, peaceful society when we have people who have a place and a stake in that society. Education is very important in creating the economy that allows that to happen. My concern is that many of our very able young people are being disadvantaged in society because the view of what our economy needs is not reflected, in many cases, in the curriculum of our schools.

Trevor, just to take an example of how the integrated sector works effectively with the rest of the sectors, there was a piece of work conducted about a year ago or 18 months ago in Hazelwood, where they were making a bid for a joint STEM centre.

Mr Lunn: It is still going ahead.

Mr J Clarke: They canvassed the curricular offer of all the schools in the wider north Belfast area, and the difference between the subject choice available in the grammar sector and that available in the non-selective sector was quite stark.

We have to get an alignment between our economy, our education system and, indeed, what goes on in Nelson's former Department, DSD, to create the circumstances to ensure that young people are included in our education system the whole way through. When I talk about parental choice, I am talking about parental choice that is available to everyone. We have inequality in that some young people are excluded from certain schools. In many cases, their exclusion diminishes the range of choice available to the other young people in those schools.

For educational and economic reasons, we need to put education at the heart of this issue and we need to promote the concept of inclusion and equality in our education system so that we have an economy and a society that is at peace with itself. The steps towards that are steps that the politicians primarily have responsibility for. In the Catholic sector, we are doing our damnedest, against policy, to create those circumstances. So, Pat, I understand your frustration, but I would prefer that we see the steps that have been taken, rather than decrying the steps that have yet to be taken.

Mr Rogers: Thanks, Father Tim, Jim and Malachy; you are very welcome. I want to go back to the point that was raised by the Chair and by Trevor about the Moy campus. Does CCMS support the proposals for the Moy campus as it is now?

Mr Crudden: The proposal for Moy could not have gone ahead without the support of CCMS and the Southern Education and Library Board, so we are fully supportive. The sharing that has gone on in the Moy predates the shared campus initiative and the shared education initiative. We see that as a strength for the Moy, hence our support for it.

Mr Rogers: I am sure that you do not have the figures today, but what percentage of post-primary schools have 10%, say, coming from the non-Catholic community?

Mr J Clarke: We do not have the figures but there are differentials in different areas. There is one school with a very significant non-Catholic population. Our point is that the door is open; it is for parents to make that choice. It is not about counting numbers but asking whether parents are satisfied with the education that is available in the school.

Mr Rogers: I probably should have declared an interest, having spent 30 years in the Catholic sector, which I fully support, and as chair of a CCMS primary school board of governors. I was surprised, Malachy, when you said that, in terms of sharing, you were more reactive than proactive. I am thinking particularly of St Columbanus' College in Bangor.

Mr Crudden: We are reactive in terms of the latest shared education initiatives. The success of a shared education campus, for example, rests very firmly in the community's support for it. As Jim said earlier, we cannot go to a community and say that this is something that we want to impose on it. We have to react to the community coming to us and saying that there is an initiative that they would like us to support. So, in that sense, we are reactive.

Mr J Clarke: We are very proactive in other ways. The spectrum of access to the curriculum is something that we very clearly support through area learning communities and initiatives in individual schools. In area learning communities, it is not just the religious mix but the class mix that is an issue. Many of the constraints are imposed by schools making their own decisions. One of the things that the Committee needs to be aware of, not just in relation to the sharing model but in relation to access to the curriculum, is that schools possibly have too much autonomy in the wrong areas. I am not suggesting that we handle that by legislation when it comes to shared education, but we need to look at governance models and what the rights of governors are with the belief that it is not the school that is important but the child accessing an education through schools.

We do not see area planning as the planning of buildings; we see it as the planning of access to the curriculum. If that means working with sectors outside the Catholic sector, so be it, but that is what we see area planning being about.

Mr Rogers: Finally, Father Tim, supporters of secular education say that religion should be taken out of the school context altogether. When we were in Dublin, one sector there said that, if they wanted to have religious instruction of any sort, they could use the school premises after school. Some people believe that it should be left to the parish. What is your view on that?

Father Bartlett: Catholic schools have evolved in response to a sufficient number of parents wanting their children in a given place to be brought up in a Catholic school environment. So, the Catholic school, in that sense — in relation to the faith formation of a child, which includes its cultural and social formation — is a response, as we said, to that fundamental human right of parents and cooperates with the community of faith in a parish. It is at the service of that community of faith as well, and that is why, particularly at primary level, the link is so close between the parish and the primary school. That is something fundamental to Catholicism. We believe in a community-based vision of Christian faith that you cannot just live a Christian life in isolation; you are part of a community. In that sense, the community has a right also to a space where it can be itself.

That is why I said that this is part of a wider discussion about what we mean by a pluralist and diverse society. You mentioned the secular trend. My personal experience is that, often under the guise of a claim that secularism and secularity is a neutral space, it actually becomes an incredibly intolerant space of religion and religiosity, which, itself, is a human right and fundamental to our human existence. I think that that comes through into this debate a little bit about shared and integrated education. Some secular views that want to get religion out of schools altogether do not recognise or accept the human right of parents to have their children brought up in accordance with their faith. They actually do not respect faith — they really do not — and they go further and make the claim that, uniquely, faith in our world and in our society is a source of tension and division, when we could point to many secular atheistic societies that have had their own bloodbaths on very different axes.

We need to get beyond the simplistic claim that sometimes lurks behind the whole shared/integrated thing and is sometimes a cloak for anti-Catholicism in particular, although not always. It is manifested, for example, when international visitors are brought to Northern Ireland. When President Obama, for example, came to Enniskillen for the G8, they were brought to the integrated school. They passed by the controlled school and the Catholic school. Why? "Well, they are the problem". That is the message that is so often communicated. I say that they never were the problem and that they have a social responsibility that they do their best to live out in contributing to the common good, and we need to end the attitude, which is, frankly, offensive, that faith-based schools are of their very nature divisive. They are completely consistent with and contribute to and are actually a sign of authentic diversity and pluralism, and I will defend the right of those schools to exist in response to the community choice of a group of parents in sufficient numbers.

Mr Crudden: Having taught at a Catholic school through very difficult times, I would go so far as to say that the school that I taught in made a very significant contribution to ensuring that various situations did not become worse.

Mr Rogers: Thank you for that.

Mr Newton: I welcome the delegation to the Committee and thank them for coming, particularly in the difficult circumstances.

I have only one question, Chair, and you have partially dealt with it. You will be aware that the transferors, as represented by the three main Protestant denominations, outlined to us but did not give us any detail of what might be a faith-based initiative that they seemed quite confident was going to go ahead. You referred to it today, and I am not sure whether your confidence is as high as theirs, but you might want to add to that.

You made reference to the Catholic ethos running throughout the school and permeating the operation of the school, how it delivers and, indeed, the whole ethos of the school. If you are supportive of a faith-based school amongst other faiths, that would presumably be limited to the Christian faith.

Father Bartlett: In relation to our schools?

Mr Newton: Yes. If you are committed to moving towards a faith-based school that will involve other denominations, it would be, presumably, a Christian faith-based school. If that is the case and it has the various denominations in it, how can the Catholic ethos run throughout every aspect of school life?

Father Bartlett: That is an issue that we have already dealt with in the examples from GB, in Scotland, England and Wales. Obviously, there is a spectrum of provision in this regard that is permeated through the school. It is completely consistent with Catholic theology that we would share with other Christians in the enterprise of the common purpose of education built around agreed values. There is so much that we agree on, that we can build on, and that we are committed to building on together that we can do that. This goes back to what I think George Bain said. There is a dynamism in education and in faith-based education. We are not stuck in a particular form or mode of Catholic education per se. Part of being Catholic is to be ecumenical and to be involved with our sisters and brothers in the Christian Church. Part of that is also to open up our schools, as they exist as Catholic schools but also potentially as joint Christian schools, to wider society, so that the schools would be welcoming of a diversity of pupils. That is reflected in the experience in GB. The fundamental issue is a negotiated agreement about how the Christian ethos is protected, respected and present and that it is there as the defining character of the school in law.

Mr Newton: If the Catholic ethos is dominant in CCMS schools and you make a move in partnership with others, then one Christian value or ethos cannot dominate.

Father Bartlett: I will try to explain it more succinctly. As it is with another Christian Church with which we already share so many of the basic values that are fundamental to the educational enterprise and because we can then work on so much together and provide a common environment with particular negotiated ways and spaces — this is calibrated slightly differently in each school in the GB context — for the particular identity of the Christian tradition within that to be reflected. In other words, it is precisely because it is another Christian Church with which we share so much in common — or other Christian churches — that we can still make sure that the Christian ethos, where it is common, is the dominant ethos, pervading the whole community and mission of that school.

Mr Newton: I know it is in an international context, but the example you provided of the school in Gaza, which obviously does not have a Catholic ethos, but yet —

Father Bartlett: It does. This is —

Mr Newton: The pupils are not Muslim then?

Father Bartlett: This is why the concept of mutual respect is, as I explained at the very beginning, implicit to what a Catholic school is about. It includes respect for other religious faiths. To cite Monseigneur Musallam, on that visit, he said that they regarded it as a very serious breach if any child — Christian or Muslim — showed disrespect to the other in terms of their religious convictions. This is what people find difficult to get their head round. It is fundamental to the character of a Catholic school that it is tolerant and respectful, which is why it is so hurtful and unjust to claim that we are sectarian and a source of conflict.

Mr Newton: I hope that all educationalists are tolerant of and respectful to children from whatever background.

Father Bartlett: Take the school in Gaza, for example; again, there is mediation. Because it is there as a Catholic school, no one can challenge the idea that there would be a celebration of Mass for the Catholic children in the school or that the seasons and feasts of the Christian calendar would be celebrated and acknowledged. The same school, however, precisely because it is Catholic, will also welcome the Muslim community and give them the space to celebrate their faith and traditions, as long as it is all done with mutual respect. That is fundamental to Catholic schools everywhere. That is the point I am trying to make. Arrangements can be negotiated according to the situation.

Mr Newton: I am then trying to get my head round, in that example — you have taken me to that example — the difference between an integrated school and a shared faith school.

Father Bartlett: The faith dimension is protected in law; it is not a secular state school.

Mr Newton: I am saying that not because I share Trevor's views but because I cannot see the difference from the example you gave.

Father Bartlett: I acknowledge that many integrated schools achieve a similar thing, but that will depend on the board of governors at the time; it is not guaranteed in law. Moreover, how it is allowed for, accepted or tolerated could be subject to — we have international experience of this — the shifting sands of the state or Government of the place. Let us imagine for a moment, that you have an aggressively atheistic, communist Government coming in who did not respect religion. They would have more difficulty in their own legislative process undermining a faith school that was based in law, than they would with one that they controlled and owned. Does that make sense?

Mr Newton: Well, it is a fairly extreme example.

Father Bartlett: Sorry, but we are in the luxurious position, if I may say — as the Chair mentioned at the beginning — that there is actually a great symbiosis in the values that all our schools share. That is a great thing.

The Chairperson (Miss M McIlveen): Thank you. Just to let you know, four further members have indicated that they wish to ask questions. I am just mindful of your time.

Mr McCausland: It has been interesting to hear the presentation this morning. It reflects something that has been obvious in other presentations on other days: once you start to look at shared education, a range of other educational issues suddenly open up, and you start to discuss them. It has therefore been stimulating in that wider regard. First, the figure was quoted that around 2·5% of children at Catholic maintained schools were from, probably, a Protestant background. I was at a Catholic maintained school on Friday that quoted around 10%. Mention was also made of a grammar school up in Portstewart —

Father Bartlett: It is close to 40% — Dominican College Portstewart.

Mr McCausland: The other was Dominican College, north Belfast. Is the one in Portstewart called that as well?

Father Bartlett: Yes, that is Dominican College.

Mr McCausland: They are both called Dominican College. I know that we have not got precise figures, but does it tend to be focused in grammar schools?

Father Bartlett: No. It is primary, secondary and grammar. We could point to examples at every level.

Mr Crudden: Any statistics quoted in our paper refer simply to Catholic maintained schools. They do not refer to grammar schools.

Mr McCausland: If it is 10%, 20% or 30% in a number of grammar schools, that would skew the thing higher, obviously, and the figure must be lower in other schools . My second question relates to Catholic ethos. It is very much the governors who run the school. How do you ensure that the Catholic ethos plays out?

Father Bartlett: First, it is part of the legal ownership structure. Then, it comes down to the trustee representatives and the scheme of management of the school. All members of the board of governors would be expected to respect the Catholic ethos of the school and its fundamental mission in that regard, but, in theory, the trustee representatives are there to ensure that it is presented and mediated, if you like. All members of the board of governors would have that responsibility.

Mr McCausland: What percentage of the board of governors are trustees?

Father Bartlett: Four out of the nine.

Mr McCausland: The other five are —

Father Bartlett: Department representatives.

Mr J Clarke: In the maintained sector, the Department and the board of the Education Authority — the Education Authority does not have a seat in the voluntary sector — and, then, parents and teachers or staff.

Mr Crudden: It is two from the Department, two from education and library boards, four trustees, and then a parent governor and a teacher governor.

The importance of leadership in a school is vital. The governors have overarching responsibility for the management of the school and to ensure that the ethos is evident. The prime responsibility then comes down to the leader in the school, the principal.

Mr McCausland: That brings me on to another question. Would there have to be a change to the current legislation to enable joint faith schools, from the GB model, to happen?

Mr J Clarke: The only model we can use from current legislation is a maintained school model, not a Catholic maintained school model but a maintained school model, which is in legislation. It means jumping through hoops a little bit. I refer to my earlier comments that we want to see a much wider range of governance arrangements in our system. To do it at the present time would mean that it would be a maintained school.

Mr McCausland: You can have a maintained school in Northern Ireland that is not a Catholic maintained school.

Mr J Clarke: Yes, there is a number. I think there are only six or so maintained schools that are not Catholic.

Mr McCausland: So, there would not need to be a change in legislation to create one of these.

Mr J Clarke: No, but it is messy; we would have to jump through a few hoops.

Mr McCausland: Without going into all the technical detail, could you give me a summary of what they are?

Mr J Clarke: It is very technical. On that basis it would be difficult, other than to say that it is legally possible, but it is stretching the forbearance of all the partners, not to mention the law.

Mr McCausland: Maybe we could have a conversation about that separately, because I am curious about how that would work.

My final point is this: I have visited a number of Catholic schools recently that are extremely inclusive and welcoming in their approach, and that is good. I have been encouraged by my visits to them. Nonetheless, there have been a couple of incidents at Catholic schools that, certainly, I felt, were inappropriate. I think, in particular, of the school last year that linked an Irish language event to a hunger striker. I would have thought that, if you have four trustees out of nine, it would be possible to deal with those situations. I would be interested to hear your comment on that.

Mr J Clarke: It is always difficult to deal with an individual situation and say that it is representative of a view. I do not think that it would be appropriate for us to go into the detail of that. The issue has to be how the decision was made and on what evidence basis it was made. I think that the intention of all our schools is to play a constructive part in society within the communities in which they exist. Sometimes, the media can create headlines. I dare say that you have been subject to that yourself, Nelson.

Mr McCausland: Never.

Mr J Clarke: Those headlines give a view of something. Issues become media issues that, on the ground, are actually very different. As I said, I do not think it is appropriate to go into detail, but I think that it proves that these are very exceptional events where things go wrong. The vast majority of schools that you visited — I use your language here — show inclusivity. That is our intention. We can all stumble along the way. What we need to focus on here is that which is positive, unites us and allows inclusivity and sharing to be promoted and sustained.

Father Bartlett: I have just two points. On the wider issue of the difference in the intensity of commitment that you have experienced in schools, it comes back to the earlier point I made about incentivisation and, particularly, maybe resourcing more fully leadership training in schools, particularly but not exclusively for principals, because that is what makes the critical difference in this area. I suggest to the Committee today that it might want to recommend leadership training in schools in this area. That would be very welcome.

In relation to the other matter you raised and without going into any specifics, our schools across society are located in particular communities. It is important that they deal with the reality of our historical, political and cultural issues. They cannot be apart from that. They were very anxious to maintain and did successfully maintain what I would describe as an oasis during the height of our violent conflict over the years, one that was very welcome for everybody. Everybody generally tried to respect that. However, now, in a more normalised political environment, they have a responsibility — I think this is your basic, fundamental thesis here — to be part of the building of a shared, cohesive society. They cannot ignore the political tensions and realities in society. The only thing that we would say then as trustees, if I may, is that it is vital that these issues are dealt with in an appropriate, professional, constructive and agreed way. No matter how localised it might be and how justified with regard to a community's tradition locally, that type of issue should always be dealt with as part of an overall process, the overall process of sharing and how we deal with the past and the future, rather than bouncing people into situations that create difficulties.

Mr Crudden: We all aspire to an ideal. We recognise that there will be times when schools do not reach that ideal. What we try to encourage schools to do with respect to being a Catholic school is to evaluate themselves as Catholic schools in exactly the same way as they would evaluate the standard of literacy, numeracy or whatever in the school. In cases when something goes wrong, we would encourage schools to ask why it went wrong and how that situation could be changed or avoided in the future.

Mr McCausland: I accept entirely Jim's point that we all stumble; it is human nature. The key thing is to learn from the stumble and ensure that we do not do it again.

Father Bartlett: On that point, I would be anxious to say, if I may, that communities and their local histories across our society are part of that school community. They will have a view about their particular history, values, emphasis and so on in this area. All that I am saying is that this has to be respected and thought through. The trustees of Catholic schools would be anxious that difficult and sensitive issues would be part of the mainstream and not something that is bounced on or imposed on, in our case, a Catholic school without consultation or without being dealt with in this more mainstream way.

Mrs Overend: It is good to see you here this morning. I want to continue with previous conversations. I really was not aware that there were many Catholic maintained schools that were welcoming to those of non-Catholic faith. I was not aware of the 40% in Dominican College, which you referred to earlier. Is that a policy direction that the CCMS is now promoting across all schools in Northern Ireland? Are you actively engaging with controlled schools outside the Catholic maintained sector? A lot of them now have a mixture of religions. Are you engaging with those schools to try to get more into them?

Mr J Clarke: Those are two issues. First, with regard to enrolment in schools, I made the point that we do not promote the Catholic sector per se. Schools can promote themselves in their own community. On that basis, the comparative success of the Catholic sector at this moment on all the measures that we have — I am not saying that they are the right measures — shows that the Catholic sector is outperforming other sectors despite higher levels of social deprivation. Parents can respond to that and make their decisions in their own area.

Collaborating with controlled schools is the thing that has moved forward substantially in the last 10 years. I was a member of the Costello group back in 2002-03. As part of the background work that we did, we commissioned the Department to go out and look for examples of good practice of sharing across schools. It actually found very few. Five is probably as many as I can recall, and many of those were quite tenuous. If you were to conduct a similar exercise today, you would see a myriad of sharing across all sectors. I think that is the move forward. That has been led by the schools, whether through such initiatives as the Queen's/Atlantic Philanthropies initiative or other local ones. There are initiatives in the North Eastern Board, for instance, which I think have been very successful. These things are characteristic of our education system as a whole, which is why we think that the sharing agenda is being driven by practical need in response to practical situations that may include funding.

Circumstances have moved on, and we have a society which is much more open to that. Very importantly, that openness is more evident, very often, amongst the young people themselves rather than their parents, many of whom have grown up through the Troubles with concern about safety and all the rest of it. That has had an impact on our system over the years, but we are growing up through that, which is one of the reasons why we feel that we must be full partners in that spectrum of sharing at whatever level we can engage in a community.

Mrs Overend: I take from what you are saying that your priority is to enhance shared education projects across schools in an area rather than to actually encourage people of non-Catholic faiths to come into Catholic maintained schools. Is that right?

Mr J Clarke: Yes. It is an open door. 'Building Peace, Shaping the Future' said it: it is an open door. Schools are there; if people want to avail themselves of the ethos of that school, they are very welcome to do so. What the statistics do not tell us is the number of people from different ethnic backgrounds, such as the Chinese or Indian communities, who, for many years, have been part of the controlled and Catholic systems. It is about people making choices. The key thing here is that we are promoting access to education.

Mr Craig: I apologise for being late, gentlemen. I listened with great interest to what was being said. I want to get to the fundamentals of all this, because it is an inquiry about shared education more than about integration, and I am not getting into that argument.

Father Bartlett, you made that strong argument about the faith-based education that comes with the Catholic maintained sector. That is people's choice. I have no issue with that. In a shared situation, though, that brings forth unique opportunities — I was told never to use the word "difficulties" — and there was a hint from the controlled sector representatives when they gave evidence to the Committee that one of those is the Catholic certificate. How do you operate a school that is shared by the controlled and maintained sectors if there is a need for a Catholic certificate that some teachers just do not have and do not particularly want to have? Will there be a resolution of that? That is what was hinted at.

Father Bartlett: On the wider point, I think that the trustees of Catholic schools, supported by CCMS, in implementation, have demonstrated an openness to the creative spectrum of possibilities for sharing from shared campuses to shared enterprises and all sorts of arrangements within those.

Depending on which calibration you are referring to, all those issues can be worked out at the local level. It is not reinventing the wheel in terms of concept; this already happens in Great Britain. The critical thing, as others have pointed out, is that it is a shared Christian school that we would be talking about. Within that, we argue that the reason why the RE certificate applies at all is that it is perfectly legitimate for parents who wish to choose a Catholic school to expect that the teachers in that school have a verifiable professional competence to support that ethos. The mechanism that we generally use to do that and that, we argue, fits under the concept in European law of genuine occupational requirement exceptions for teachers and so on in schools is the RE certificate. In Catholic primary schools, every teacher is an RE teacher because RE is taught by that one teacher in the curriculum, so they all have to do that. However, they do not have to be a Catholic to have achieved the verifiable professional competence that the trustees apply through having an RE certificate. The real issue is accessibility to the certificate, not the denominational adherence of the person who has it. We would argue that, across the spectrum of possibilities, parents have a right to expect that there is some verifiable professional level of competence in supporting the ethos or presentation of the Catholic aspect of the school and curriculum. Does that make sense, or have I confused it even further?

Mr Craig: It is an interesting answer, because I see that as a practical obstacle in the way of reaching a shared school where you have controlled and maintained in the same classroom. I do not know how you deal with that.

Father Bartlett: Just to be technically correct, we would not be talking about controlled and maintained in the same classroom; we would be talking about a jointly owned and managed Christian school. This is a new model that does not fit. As Jim explained, it would not be a Catholic maintained school, but the legal model would be a maintained school, not a controlled school. It would not be a state school; it would be in the ownership of the Churches collectively in some agreed way. Do you understand? In other words, it is not a mixture. It would be a school owned by the spectrum of Christian Churches: the transferors and Catholic trustees together. The discussions with the Department have been precisely about that and how that could be constituted in the representation on the boards of trustees. We are not reinventing the wheel in terms of implementation in the school environment, because there are examples in Britain. That is part of our commitment to the concept of sharing.

Mr Craig: So, there are tentative talks going on about how you deal with those issues.

Father Bartlett: They are more than tentative. They are formal talks with the Department about how that could be done.

Mr Craig: That is reasonable.

Father Bartlett: And we are committed to the concept.

Mr Craig: There is another issue that puzzles me. I am no theologian, and I do not know where you get into the theology of academic selection not being acceptable. Has the Church some sort of theology that it is not acceptable, and what are the grounds for that? My experience is that all schools use academic selection. It does not matter whether they call themselves all-ability schools or grammar schools, they all do it.

Father Bartlett: Let us be clear: there is no doctrine in the Catholic Church about academic selection or not. However, what is fundamental to the established and verifiable in writing social doctrine of the Catholic Church is that part of being Catholic is that you have, in imitation of Jesus Christ, a commitment to and concern for everyone equally and a particular concern for those who are most vulnerable, marginalised and poor. I mentioned that in my opening presentation before you came in. That is part of Catholic theology and is what is sometimes called the preferential option for the poor. It is our judgement that academic selection militates particularly against that principle and is therefore inconsistent with the ethos of a Catholic school, but that is balanced with the difficult issue of parental choice, even in that area. We are probably all struggling with that.

I will go back to Pat's question about his frustration with the Catholic Church or leadership. Why is he expecting a higher level of leadership? We have achieved more on the ground than his party and Minister have. Why are you applying a higher level to our leadership as a Church? You have failed to get agreement in the Chamber about the issue. We are trying to get agreement around a spectrum of views that exist in the Catholic school community. We are committed to trying to do that. What motivates it is the fundamental concern for the principle that every child should be given the same opportunity in education with the same resources and commitment in our schools through the common curriculum that now exists.

Mr J Clarke: Could I add something to that? You made a point, Jonathan, that there is selection everywhere. There is differentiation throughout our system, but that does not require people to go to different buildings, particularly when you have a common curriculum, to be differentiated. Our schools need a sufficiently large enrolment to offer a range of choice that will meet the needs of all young people. I was a teacher of English, and so one would expect that I should be reasonably good at English, but I might not be so good at maths. I could very easily be in the top set for one subject at a school and in the lowest set for another. Larger schools give you the flexibility to structure according to differentiation, but that differentiation is not absolute. It is not saying that person A is in the top band for everything and that person B is in the bottom band for everything. We have to reflect the fact that we all have different strengths, and one of the things that education does is develop those strengths.

When I was before the Committee in the past, I used a phrase from the Marmot report on health. He talked about a universal entitlement but said that access was proportionate to capability to access that service by oneself or support needed to access that service. The concept of proportionate universalism is very important here in education, particularly from a Catholic perspective, in that those who have greater obstacles need additional support so that ultimately they will hopefully achieve the outcome. Selection does not facilitate that. I made the point earlier that selection inhibits even those who are selected because the option of understanding wider society, accessing a wider range of curricular choice and responding to their learning needs and motivation is easier if you have that access.

I would much prefer that we got away from the philosophical discussion about selection and ask how we can best prepare all our young people to be contributors to the economy and the society in which we live. I think that the Catholic view on education has come to understand and promote that in a way that it possibly did not do in responding, back in 1947, to the introduction of the three-tier system, as it was at that time. Society has moved on. Our understanding has moved on, but, unfortunately, the legislation, which goes back, in various forms, to that time, is still pretty much in place. That is why I think that you as politicians have a responsibility to ask what the role of education is in the big picture. I actually believe that it is at the centre of the development of this society and economy.

Mr Craig: That is a fascinating answer from both of you, because you actually believe that there is an ethos there and an ethical issue around all of it. I find that fascinating, because, from my religious background, we do not see any ethical argument on it at all. That is fascinating. Is the simple truth out there not the fact that parents have voted with their feet, despite what you believe?

Mr J Clarke: A parent will make the best choice, as they see it, for their child from what is available. What we are saying is that, on the basis of parental choice, everyone should have the same choice. What we have at the moment is a system where not everyone has the same choice. That is the equality argument. We believe that, once that choice has been made, it is the responsibility of the school chosen to ensure that that young person has access to all the support that they need to fully benefit from the educational choices that they make.

Mr Craig: Jim, if I get you right, you are on the same path as me. All schools should be equally good. The fundamental problem with that is that — we need to be honest with ourselves; I am honest with myself about it — all schools are not equally good. I will pay you one tribute: you have worked very hard on trying to rectify that issue, which is something that has been missing in the controlled sector and hopefully now will be rectified. Is that not the ultimate solution? Parents make the ultimate decision on where their child goes.

Mr J Clarke: We face significant financial difficulties in our schools, but one of the things that I will say to our principals is that we are still about raising standards. We cannot give up on raising standards, and everyone is entitled to that education. I agree with you that what we should be doing is ensuring that all our schools are as good as they can be. This is the encouragement for the controlled sector. When CCMS came into being, we were behind every other sector in terms of outcomes for young people, our employment practices and our buildings. We have caught up significantly and gone ahead in some areas. Everybody can achieve it, but we need to look at the tools that need to be put in place to ensure that.

Father Bartlett: Can I just take the opportunity to say that the Catholic trustees are as concerned about the underachievement of young Protestant males as we are about our own school system? We have said to the controlled sector and, indeed, to the transferors that we are there. Part of the sharing should be about helping each other to ensure that we achieve the ideal of every school being a good school — an excellent school.

On the selection issue there is no shortage of evidence — I am sure that we do not have time to go into it; it might take a different Committee hearing to go into it — that academic selection, in pure pedagogical terms and whatever about the ethical issue that we believe is there, is not necessarily the best way to provide in our environment for the spectrum of children's abilities and needs in terms of achievement. There is also the idea that you just define educational achievement on some narrow academic base, when we have a common curriculum and a common curriculum duty on all our schools at post-primary level. It is a wider and more complicated subject, but, in so far as that gets us through the initial question that you asked, that is where we are coming from: the commitment that every school in our society should be a good school and that the sectors should cooperate to achieve that goal.

The Chairperson (Miss M McIlveen): We have deviated somewhat from the inquiry at this stage. Mr Lunn is next.

Mr Lunn: Thanks. We do not normally get back in.

Father Bartlett: Round 2.

The Chairperson (Miss M McIlveen): You were so good the last time.

Mr Lunn: Thank you. You mentioned the G8 situation, Tim. As far as I understand it, the president of the United States wanted to visit a Northern Ireland school.

Father Bartlett: He is only one of many examples of this, by the way.

Mr Lunn: He also wanted to visit an integrated school because of his open advocacy of the principle of children being educated together. That is why he went to Enniskillen Integrated Primary School. You also, almost in the same breath, used the term "anti-Catholicism". I can only tell you that, as far as I am concerned, there is no anti-Catholicism involved here. I may well be anti some of the attitudes that you take around the protection of your school system, but that is not an attack on your faith in any way.

I want to ask you a question, first of all. Your paper indicates that you would like to see the protection for integrated schools removed — the facilitation and encouragement protection. Now, that —

Father Bartlett: The duty to favour, not to protect —

Mr Lunn: You would like to see the duty removed. That duty is only really applicable to the setting up of a new integrated school, as with the Irish-medium sector, where certain licence is allowed to set up a very small school. They still have to prove themselves over three years, and, in the long term, if an integrated school is not viable according to the criteria that are laid down, it is subject to the same pressures as any other school. People often talk about the protection or superiority that integrated schools have, but, in fact, they do not have any more protection than your sector and, frankly, your organisation has, Jim. Malachy actually said that the Moy situation could not have gone ahead without the agreement of CCMS. I would like to see NICIE being able to take a similar —

Father Bartlett: You are using a word that is not in the legislation though, Trevor. Protection is not the issue.

Mr Crudden: In terms of shared education, there had to be a lead body, and that lead body had to be CCMS and/or the education and library board. That was part of the regulations around shared education. That was just the way it was. In order for that to be taken forward, CCMS and the local education and library board had to promote it or support it.

Mr J Clarke: One of the things that is important here is that we acknowledge absolutely — I restate what I said at the start — the right of the integrated sector to exist, but equally, we believe that our rights and those of other sectors to exist need to be recognised. Some of the things that were said were about almost everybody else promoting integrated schools. If you look back to the history of the integrated movement, you see that it was a ground-up initiative. We have said that to achieve that spectrum, no matter how far along the track we get, still requires a ground-up initiative. The integrated sector still has the facility and the capacity to grow from the ground up, but we are saying that we, equally, have the right to exist. It is not a case of one or the other; it is a case of everybody having a space and respecting that space.

Mr Lunn: I could not agree more.

Father Bartlett: There are two things. On the issue of anti-Catholicism, I made that comment in the context of somebody asking me about secularism and a secular trend in education generally. I made the point that, sometimes, it can be a mask for a subtle form of anti-faith and, sometimes anti-Catholicism specifically. I was very careful to point out that that is not representative of the general sweep or, indeed, necessarily of integrated schools. However, it is as part of the wider argument that you sometimes get that. I have experienced that very clearly, consistently and directly, so I do not resile from the fundamental claim that I am making.

On the specific point about the legislation, we suggest that, if there is going to be a legislative duty on the Department, it should be precisely around sharing. We have said that it may not be the best thing to put it in legislation, but, if it is going to be there, it should be a duty to sharing rather than a narrow form of the spectrum of possibilities that work and have some verifiable impact in terms of this objective. What you have at the moment is bizarre situations arising where CCMS is being asked at the moment, for example, how it intends to promote integrated education, which completely ignores the fact that it is not there to promote any sector. You get these bizarre things happening. Also, it helps to build this culture that some are more equal than others in terms of the Department's education provision.

We fully support the idea that any sector that is embryonic needs to be supported, encouraged and facilitated, and there need to be honest ways of trying to establish parental views and so on in that context. We support that, but we are just saying that, at this point, we challenge the idea that that duty should still exist.

Mr Lunn: Frankly, I cannot see the difference. The obligation to facilitate and encourage is —

Father Bartlett: Integrated education.

Mr Lunn: — entirely subject to parental choice. It requires the parents of children at an existing school or a group of parents, who act quite bravely at times, to make a decision to try to set up a new integrated school. There have been precious few of them in recent years.

Father Bartlett: Is it not the case that the integrated education movement is claiming that the Department is failing in its duty precisely on the basis of that —

Mr Lunn: Well, absolutely. There have been many instances where the Department —

Father Bartlett: We would prefer to see a more —

Mr J Clarke: The purpose of having the integrated sector is that that sector should be creating the conditions, not the Department or CCMS or anybody else. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that that sector has the right to do that, but it should not necessarily be at the expense of someone else giving up their school. The Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education has a much greater facility on this than we have to encourage people to want to have an integrated school in their community and to move that forward. It is entitled to do that but, as Tim has pointed out, if we interpret Judge Treacy's ruling in a particular way, CCMS and, indeed, the boards have an obligation now to promote integrated schools when we do not have an obligation to promote our own schools. We can advocate for them but not promote them.

The Chairperson (Miss M McIlveen): Thank you very much, gentlemen, for your time. I am perhaps more anxious about you having to leave on time than you were. Thank you very much. Members found that to be a particularly interesting session.