Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Today, we will set out the formal position of the Committee on the clauses and proposed amendments and divide as necessary. All decisions of the Committee will be final. Of course, that does not mean that Committee members will not be free to take whatever view or table whatever amendments they want in the Chamber. I also remind members that there is the opportunity, if the Committee is not content with a clause, although I do not think that there has been any suggestion of that happening, for the Committee to register its formal opposition to the clause standing part of the Bill. The clause would then have to be debated at Consideration Stage. It is anticipated that the Committee will conclude all formal deliberations today and agree the report arising out of today's meeting on 6 January 2016.

I welcome, somewhat belatedly, the departmental officials, who are here to answer any questions. We have Andrew Bell, the head of the shared education and community relations team; Suzanne Kingon, the head of the Irish-medium and integrated education team; Joanne Maxwell, from the shared education and community relations team; and Jacqui Durkin, the director of area planning. We will go through the amendments individually. Do you wish to say anything at this stage?

Mr Andrew Bell (Department of Education): Most of the points that we wish to make were made during last week's informal deliberations. However, it may be helpful to make just a few points at this stage on some of the key areas that members will consider this morning.

The definition at clause 1, as you know, sets out the minimum essential requirements for shared education: the education together of those of different religious belief and those from a different socio-economic background. Ironically, as was previously indicated, replicating all section 75 categories in the legislative definition risks exclusion rather than inclusion. The words "religious belief" have been used in the Bill, as that is the terminology —

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Sorry to interrupt. Are there any points that you want to make over and above what will be dealt with directly in the amendments? On each occasion, there will be an opportunity for you to comment on the amendments individually, and that may be more helpful.

Mr A Bell: That is fine. I am happy to do that.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Is there anything outside the amendments that you wish to speak about?

Mr A Bell: No, it is mostly on the amendments.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Clause 1 provides a common definition of "shared education". We have six or seven amendments that we need to look at. If we include the one from the Department, there are seven.

I direct members first to amendment 1 to clause 1, which would leave out "religious belief" and insert "community background". Does the Department have any comments to make on that?

Mr A Bell: The words "religious belief" are consistent with the policy, and they reflect the wording of the relevant section 75 category. That is why we used "religious belief". Community background information is not routinely collected. To do so would impose further administrative burden on education providers.

Equality Commission guidance and section 75 monitoring guidance indicates that there are two options for monitoring religious belief: current stated religion or community background. What we are proposing is current stated religion. The guidance goes on to state:

By contrast, the statistics that the Department collects are organised under 31 separate categories, including "no religion". That is why we believe that "religious belief" is —

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): To clarify, you collect at present from schools on the basis of 31 categories under the broad umbrella of religion. One of the categories is, effectively, "no religious belief" or "none". Presumably, the other 30 categories are —

Mr A Bell: All the main religions.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): — the different denominations and then the different religions, be that Islam, Buddhism or whatever.

Mr A Bell: You have "no religion". You also have "other Christian", if it does not fit into one of categories given, "other Protestant" and "unclassified". Therefore, the full range is covered.

Mr Lunn: Is humanism in there?

Mr A Bell: Not at the moment, no.

Mr Lunn: I am not advocating it. I was just wondering.

Mr A Bell: It would be —

Dr Suzanne Kingon (Department of Education): Under "no religion". That, presumably, would be the designation.

Mr Lunn: Humanists would argue strongly that humanism is a religion, because they do not have any. You say that "no religion" is one of the categories.

Mr A Bell: I am not sure whether that would be viewed as "no religion" or "unclassified". I am not sure how the schools would record that.

Mr Hazzard: I am just wondering what effect the adding of "or none" after "religious belief" in clause 1 would have.

Mr A Bell: We are considering whether we need to put something into the Bill to make it clear that "religious belief" at the moment does not include not having any religion. We are looking at whether it would be helpful to put that into the Bill. If so, that would be done at Consideration Stage.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Maybe this is overly simplistic. I take the points that have been made by Chris and Trevor. If you are talking about "religious belief or none", does that not clarify it?

Mr A Bell: The advice is that we are better taking the lines as used in the fair employment guidance. It does not use the word "none" in its terminology.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Some sort of phraseology along the lines of "or those of no religion".

Mr A Bell: A clause would go in to say, "'religious belief' as defined in the Bill would include those of a religion and those of no religion". That is what it would state.

Mr Lunn: A lot of the people who do not have a religion would be quite offended at being categorised as having a religion. I hear the argument, but it does not make any sense to me.

Mr A Bell: It follows the Equality Commission's guidance.

Mr Rogers: I find there to be a significant difference between the terms "religious belief" and "different religious belief". To me, "different religious belief" assumes that you have a religious belief. I agree with you that, if you were talking about just religious belief, you could include "or none" there, but to include it under "different religious belief" —

Dr Kingon: It is important to keep sight of the fact that this is a minimum requirement, and that is very much where we are coming from with the Bill. It is about bringing together those of different religious beliefs, including the reasonable numbers of Roman Catholics and Protestants. That is a minimum requirement for shared education, and it is important to keep sight of that. As we have explained before, the policy is very much directed towards bringing all the section 75 groups together and increasing awareness of them all. This, however, is the minimum requirement, and, because of the historical difficulties with the situation here, there is a focus in the Bill on bringing together children from the two main communities. It is important to keep in mind that it is a minimum requirement. It is not the pinnacle. It is not defining what all the shared education activity will be about.

Mr Lunn: I do not want to trivialise this, but, let me put it this way, if you are saying that somebody who has no religion actually has a religion, that is about the same thing as categorising non-smokers as smokers who do not smoke. The legislation does not need this.

Mr A Bell: There is a section on the form for religion, and you can write "no religion" against that. That is what people would do.

Dr Kingon: "No religion" is an explicit category. It is listed there, and you can designate as "no religion".

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): I am aware of the time difficulties, but, Andrew, you indicated that the Department was looking to bring forward an amendment to cover that point.

Mr A Bell: We are considering whether it is necessary to do that just for clarity.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Sorry, I maybe picked you up wrong. You are saying that you may or may not put down an amendment to cover that point. We do not know what the wording would be for that at present, or even whether you are going to do it.

Mr A Bell: If we were proposing to do that before Consideration Stage, we would try to let you see any amendment ahead of then, but it is really about whether we need to have that clarity in the Bill. We are still getting advice on that.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): There seem to be a couple of issues with the amendment. It strikes me that the ground has slightly shifted. There is an issue around how those who do not have religious beliefs are categorised. Specifically, I have not heard anybody argue that "community background" should replace "religious belief". Am I right in thinking that?

Mrs Overend: I wonder whether "different religious belief" should be termed "different religions", with "belief" taken out. You say that is what is called "religion" includes having no religion. You might like to refer in the Bill to the collected data so that, if you change —

Dr Kingon: The data will probably change. There is the potential that the data collection and the fields will change in the future. I do not think that we would particularly want to refer to data collection.

Mr A Bell: We used "religious belief" because that is the section 75 category. As you know, the policy goes on to encourage other section 75 categories. We used the term to be consistent with the section 75 categories rather than anything else. The Equality Commission guidance says that you can use the current stated religion, which is essentially the data that we are collecting, for religious belief.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): There seem to be a couple of options for us. The Committee could table its own amendment, although we would need to agree some form of wording, and, depending on what the Department did, either move it or not move it. The second option is, if the Department is considering this, to hold back on putting forward an amendment and if members are not satisfied with the Department's amendment they can put forward their own. I am happy to be guided by the Committee on what members want to do. If there is an amendment people want to table, they will need to put forward a specific wording for the Committee.

Mr Lunn: Sorry, are we still on amendment 1?

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Yes.

Mr Lunn: It has been a wee bit discredited, has it not?

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): The point I was making is about the term "religious belief". It is clear that, as far as draft amendment 1 is concerned, nobody wants to push the bit about "community background". The point I am making is that, to cover people with no religious beliefs, the choices for the Committee are twofold. We could provide our own amendment and move or not move it, depending on what the Department does. If we are providing our own amendment, we need some form of suggested wording. The alternative, if the Department is considering an amendment, is to wait and see it and decide whether to support it. If it is not moved, there is the opportunity for members to table their own amendment.

Mr A Bell: The only amendment we will be considering is one that makes it clear that by "religious belief" we include those with religious —

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): I understand that. To be fair, that is where the crux of the argument is. The inclusion of "community background" is dead in the water for the reasons that have been stated, and I do not think that anybody is particularly pursuing that.

Chris, do you want to say something?

Mr Hazzard: No, I have a point about the reference to "Protestant and Roman Catholic" in clause 1(2). Do you want to first take the decision on the first part?

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): The problem is that, unless anybody has a specific amendment, we may have to wait to see what the Department brings forward and consider it.

Mr Rogers: We will wait and see what the Department has to say, but I think that we should put in "different religious beliefs or none".

The Committee Clerk: If the Committee thinks that, you could put it in an amendment.

Mr Lunn: It seems simple.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): One option is to put in "different religious beliefs or none", as an amendment, and, if the Department comes up with what we consider to be better wording, we could agree to not move our amendment.

Mrs Overend: Would it be better for it to say, "Those of different religious beliefs, including none"?

The Committee Clerk: I will ask the Bill Office to come up with the exact wording, but the spirit of the amendment is evident here.

Mrs Overend: Very good.

The Committee Clerk: That was not intentional. [Laughter.]

I have got the idea about what you want. It is going to be "or none", "of different religious belief" or similar phrasing.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Can we sign off on the final wording at our meeting on 6 January?

The Committee Clerk: Yes, because it will be in the report.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Chris, you have a separate point.

Mr Hazzard: Is it possible to do this without mention of "Protestant and Roman Catholic"? I have a worry that the long-term unintended consequences will be to entrench the divisions of "Catholic" and "Protestant". Is it possible to do this without mentioning "Protestant" and "Catholic" and talk about those of "different religious beliefs or none"?

Dr Kingon: Obviously, it is possible to do that, but the Minister's decision was that this phrase should be included:

Obviously, from the Department's perspective, any amendment would have to be agreed by the Minister.

As for the rationale, some of the arguments that have been rehearsed before include the fact that the phrase makes it much more explicit that there should be cooperation between different school types and sectors that cannot be referenced in the legislation because "sector" is not a legislative term. The use of the phrase makes the requirement for cooperation much more explicit. It reflects the community here and the historic differences that exist.

For those reasons, the Minister's decision is that it is important that that phrase is in there.

Mr A Bell: It was also to make sure that it was clear that we were addressing the legacy of the past. That was one of the things that came up during the public consultation. There was a lot of concern that, without specifically referencing that, some education providers may decide that it is too difficult or too sensitive an issue to address. That was clearly not what the intention was.

Mr Lunn: Is it possible to consider saying, "Protestant, Roman Catholic or other children"?

Dr Kingon: That is a matter for the Committee.

Mr A Bell: It is possible, because the wording is:

"Including" means that "others" are already included in the religious belief definition. It is just expanding that to make sure —

Dr Kingon: "Protestant and Roman Catholic" is setting the minimum bar again; it goes back to that. It is saying that this has to be, at its very core, about bringing children from the two main community backgrounds together. It establishes that as a minimum requirement in terms of the policy, as I said, bringing all the groups together, including others. It just sets out that, as a minimum, shared education must do this to be shared education. If anything else goes into that clause, it dilutes that as the minimum line of "this must include this".

Mr Lunn: That is for another day.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): It is for another day; OK. We will move on. Before we get to the second potential amendment, there is one other issue that came up a number of times. The Committee feels that the best way is to seek assurance on it. It is about the interpretation of the phrase "reasonable numbers". We have already had informal discussions with the Department. There is a concern about sharing programmes at small rural schools or, indeed, other schools. Can we get an assurance from the Minister at Consideration Stage that the interpretation of that in the judgement on shared education will not be used to preclude anyone because a school does not, overall, have large numbers?

Mr A Bell: The Committee wrote to the Department, and the Minister is aware that the Committee will seek that assurance at Consideration Stage.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): He will do that in his opening remarks or, alternatively, there will be an intervention from me or someone else on the Committee to seek that so that it is on the record.

Mr A Bell: He is aware that the Committee is looking for that assurance.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): OK. We will move on to the next potential amendment, which is to do with the reference to integrated education in the definition of shared education.

Dr Kingon: One of the main reasons why the Department would not support the amendment is that shared education is much wider than just schools. A progression towards integrated education is really only suitable for two schools cooperating. Obviously, we are looking to engage early years providers and youth providers, so the reference to integrated education does not really fit. On our last visit to the Committee, we mentioned that the only legal definition of integrated education is the definition that was set out in the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989. In that sense, it is a distinct concept defined in law. There is not a natural progression in the sense of a legal progression from shared education to integrated education.

A transformation to integrated status or the opening of a new integrated school requires a statutory development proposal. If two schools got to the stage where they felt that they wanted to close and become a single integrated school, they would have to go through the statutory development proposal process. There is no natural progression there. The other thing is that a large number of schools will not see shared education as a progression to integrated education; indeed, the idea that it is referenced in the Bill may put some schools off participating in shared education.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): OK. Do members have any comments?

Mr Lunn: I just want to make the point that it was not me who suggested this. [Laughter.]

That might surprise you, but it was not me. I have reservations about it, because, first, the Assembly would not accept it anyway and, secondly, we could probably come up with something better than that.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Does anyone want to push for that amendment, or are members satisfied with the Department's position?

Mr Rogers: Suzanne, in your explanation, you went straight into talking about integrated education, but we are not necessarily talking about that: we are talking about children being educated together.

Dr Kingon: I appreciate that, but the difference is that the legal definition is such that it is wrapped around the 1989 Order. We talked the last day about the difference between integrated with a capital "I" and integrated with a small "i". I appreciate the spirit of the amendment, but the legal definition is about a grant-maintained school and a controlled integrated school and the meaning of that in law.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): I know that we got legal advice that said that the law is capital blind when it comes to a big "I" and a small "i" and, I suppose, strictly speaking, a big "E" and a small "e".

Dr Kingon: There is only one definition of "integrated" in law, and that is the definition in the 1989 Order.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): OK.

We will move on to amendment 3, which makes explicit reference to further education colleges as relevant providers. We have the legal drafting. The amendment would add in:

Do you want to comment on that?

Mr A Bell: Again, we point out that the Bill as currently drafted provides for the appropriate inclusion of further education colleges in shared education projects. Our concern about this amendment is that it would potentially leave the Department and its arm's-length bodies with a power to facilitate and encourage but without the relevant ancillary means to do so, as we do not have responsibilities for further education colleges.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): I understand that, but, outside of that, do you feel that it would do any harm at all?

Mr A Bell: It is already included. It would —

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Maybe the argument is that it makes something explicit that is, arguably, implicit.

Mr A Bell: It is, and it also gives prominence to further education colleges over any other providers covered by clause 1(3)(b).

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): We do, though, make specific references to youth services, do we not?

Dr Kingon: I think that, the last day, we referenced the fact that a school solely partnering with a further education college is highly unlikely to be able to provide the range and scope of a shared education experience that we would look to provide through the current signature project and future projects. It would be very difficult to extend cooperation throughout the whole school community. It would be extremely difficult to really broaden out the range of curricular cooperation if it were operating solely. The point that Andrew made is that it perhaps gives an undue prominence to the role of further education colleges.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): I am maybe playing devil's advocate on this bit, but if the quality of the application and the project does not make it, is that not, to a certain extent, a self-regulating mechanism, without the need to exclude on that basis? I can think of the reasons why they would count as shared education providers. I was at a prize day yesterday for the sixth form of a secondary school, and I know that there has been very strong working between it and some of the local primary schools, for instance, on a shared project. A lot of that is to do with mentoring and teaching younger children by way of peer intervention. I could see something of that nature being done between a further education college and some schools. Do any members have any comments?

Mr Rogers: I agree with the Chair. If we are not going to draw attention to further education, should we not leave out "including youth services" on the next line? Should we not leave out that bit in brackets completely? If you draw attention to youth services, why not draw attention to further education? I agree with the Chair: it certainly could contribute to a school's shared education and what is happening on the ground. Many young people at 14 go to further education colleges on day release. There is some good work going on in area learning partnerships as well. My point is this: should we not leave out "including youth services" on the next line?

Mr A Bell: Youth services is mentioned because it has a specific role in informal education that the Department has responsibility for. The majority of work with the further education colleges would be through the entitlement framework, so it would be at post-primary. However, it would not include the whole of post-primary; it would be Key Stage 3 and above. Given that shared education covers youth and early years as well as schools, we do not envisage that there would be an opportunity for a youth group, for example, in a further education college to participate.

If there were opportunities like that, certainly the Bill would not exclude them, but I suppose that, as Suzanne said, actually mentioning them brings prominence to them.

Dr Kingon: The important point for us is that, as the Bill is currently drafted, further education colleges are in no way excluded from participation in shared education. Our view is that they do have a role. We do not see a particularly significant role for further education colleges in the same way. We envisage that we will see significant amounts of cooperation between youth providers through the Peace IV programme, providing shared education projects solely by youth providers working together. We do not envisage that for further education colleges, and we feel that a very specific reference to them in the Bill does give them undue prominence.

Mr Lunn: I am just wondering about the definition of children and young persons. If you brought in further education colleges, you would be bringing in adult education as well. What is a "child" or a "young person"?

Mr A Bell: I think that the 1989 Order defines what is meant by "child", "children" and "young person".

Mr Lunn: Can you tell us off the top of your head?

Dr Kingon: We have not got it here.

Mr Lunn: Does it go by age?

Dr Kingon: I think that it does, yes.

Mr A Bell: It does.

Dr Kingon: I think that the age is 24 for a young person, but we can come back to you on the legal definition.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Specifically on amendment 3, do members want to go ahead with the amendment or be guided? Personally, I think that there is a reasonable enough argument to go ahead with it. Does anybody take a different view?

Mr Lunn: I am inclined to go with the Department for once, yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): We will not move ahead with amendment 3.

We will move on to amendment 4, which relates to the issue of whether it is a duty or a power. It is one that has been reasonably well discussed. I suppose that the issue is probably the issue of promotion, to put it on a parallel with the Education Authority. Again, I appreciate that we have had a reasonable amount of discussion on this already. Is there anything else that you want to add to that? This is obviously very specific with regard to the Department.

Mr A Bell: Again, I suppose that the discussion last week brought out all the key points. It is about the sheer number of settings that are covered and the potential magnitude of impact on education budgets and priorities simply because of the sheer number of settings that are covered. By contrast, a power provides statutory recognition of the importance of the concept of shared education within the system but allows the Department, in conjunction with the Executive —

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Andrew, I suppose that there are two issues with regard to the impact on budgets. First of all, I know that it goes wider than purely shared education, but between shared education — probably sharing the funding with integrated education — and shared housing, £500 million is going to be made available separately over a 10-year period. There is the argument that essentially, if you have a duty, this will effectively tie the hands from a budgetary point of view. Presumably, there are particular requirements for integrated and Irish-medium education. That presumably has not so skewed the Department's funding that it has made it difficult to fund other aspects of education.

Dr Kingon: You are not comparing like with like. In total, in the integrated and Irish-medium sectors, there are 62 integrated schools and 30 Irish-medium schools. We are talking well below 10% of the total schools estate. I think that, last week, we explained that it is not just about the budget with regard to actual spend on shared education projects, but about how the Department manages its range of policies. Last week, we talked about reasonable adjustments to the transport policy or the temporary variation policy. It would be very difficult to make reasonable adjustments for something that potentially applies to all schools.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): I am not sure that that all flows from simply having a duty rather than a power in this particular bit. There is a duty on the Education Authority. Will it be —

Dr Kingon: Well, the Education Authority is not responsible for the overall policy framework with regard to how shared education operates.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): I understand that, but presumably it will have to make a range of spending decisions on that basis. I do not see the fact that it is a duty as particularly skewing that. Anyway, we have reasonably rehearsed the arguments. Again, do members have any thoughts on this?

Mr A Bell: It might be worth pointing out that the £500 million that you referred to is capital specifically for —

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): I understand that, but, from a financial point of view, it is still of significance. All Departments' expenditure is a mixture of resource and capital.

Dr Kingon: The majority of shared education activity is non-capital. It does not involve capital; it involves schools cooperating to deliver the curriculum. It is not explicitly about capital investment.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): With respect, whatever is put in here does not make reference to it being capital or resource.

Dr Kingon: The duty will apply across —

Mr A Bell: It is the implications of that.

Mr Lunn: I am sorry that I missed last week's session, then, because maybe I am a bit confused here. We are suggesting putting a new clause 1A to emphasise the duty, but the power is under clause 2.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Maybe the Clerk can provide clarification.

The Committee Clerk: We would then take the Department out of clause 2. That is just over the page.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Trevor, we had a number of groups that made the point about power and duty. To be fair, there seemed to be a distinction between the lobbying that we got from a number of organisations. Nobody seemed particularly keen on making a duty on the arm's-length bodies. There was a feeling that, if CCMS or NICIE or whoever were included, it would be a step too far to impose any duty on them. However, a number of the same organisations that were saying that were also saying that they wanted a duty on the Department. That is where they were drawing a distinction between the two. That is why I think that it is separated out, potentially.

Mr Lunn: In that case, the wording of suggested new clause 1A is factually correct. That is already in legislation. It might irritate people like me, but I is a fact. The only question is whether or not you want to put it in this Bill to emphasise it.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): The Department would probably contend that it is not.

Dr Kingon: Are you referring to there being a duty on the Education Authority?

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): There is a duty on the Education Authority. I suppose that the argument about this is whether this is actually the Department and whether it should then be mirroring what is there for the Education Authority.

Mr Lunn: Is this then imposing a new duty on the Department?

Dr Kingon: The Bill is changing it from a power to a duty.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): It changes it from the Department having a power to having a duty.

Mr Hazzard: On a point of clarity, do all duties on the Department not also transfer to all arm's-length bodies?

Dr Kingon: They do, effectively. That is our interpretation of our statutory duties on Irish-medium and integrated education. We put in a requirement for all of our arm's-length bodies to support us.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Does that mean that the CCMS has a duty to promote integrated education?

Dr Kingon: Yes, it has a specific business plan target to support the Department in taking forward its statutory duty.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): To some extent, there is probably an issue around the interpretation of this. To be fair, what would very much be counted as a duty on the Department will ultimately probably be counted to a lesser extent on the arm's-length bodies.

Mr Hazzard: I may be mistaken, but I think that Justice Treacy found that powers, active or dormant, also spread to arm's-length bodies.

Dr Kingon: Our legal advice is that any statutory duty on us is also applicable to our arm's-length bodies.

Mr Lunn: My brain is going slow here. At the moment, the Education Authority has a duty to promote, encourage and facilitate, but the Department only has a duty to encourage and facilitate.

Dr Kingon: We do not have any duty in relation to shared education. This Bill is proposing that we have a power.

Mr Lunn: We need to have a bit more discussion about this.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Amendment 4 is to place a duty on the Department to promote, encourage and facilitate shared education. Do members want to press ahead with that as an amendment?

Mr Lunn: No, we do not.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): I support the duty.

Mrs Overend: I would.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): We sought legal advice on amendment 5. A number of bodies suggested that they should be in the legislation in some shape or form. A point was raised by the Department, which we checked and got legal confirmation that whereas you could make direct reference to the General Teaching Council (GTC) because it was a creature of statute and there was no problem with that, you could not make direct reference to the other bodies. Therefore, there is the formula which has been suggested by the Bill Office. Do you want to comment?

Dr Kingon: The suggested amendment makes reference to "sectoral body" and then provides a suggested definition of "sectoral body". The Department does not feel that that is an adequate legal description. "Sector" is not recognised in law, and there are a variety of organisations that represent the interests of different schools. The amendment would open the door to a wide range of bodies being listed and giving them a power that was really designed for the Department and its arm's-length bodies.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): You spoke about recognition. The wording used by the Bill Office in terms of "sectoral body" is taken word for word from the Department's own legislation. Clause 73 of the Education Bill says "'sectoral body' means" and then quotes exactly the wording for that.

Dr Kingon: Sorry, I was not explicit. I actually mean what the grants are paid under, because we pay grants to a wide range of bodies under article 64 of the —

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Which, again, is identical to what is in the legislation previously.

Dr Kingon: But then you would be putting a power on those bodies. For example, we make grants to the Integrated Education Fund or the Trust Fund for Irish-Medium Education under the 1998 and 1989 Orders. Therefore, you would be putting a power on those other Irish-medium bodies that we might make grants to. They would then have a power to encourage and facilitate shared education. We would be placing that power on them.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): With respect, it is conjunctive. This talks about bodies that are recognised by the Department and to which grants are made, so you would have to have a two-tier test. Even on the basis that you were providing a power for somebody, it is not providing them with any obligation or duty, as you indicated yourself. There was strong concern raised by NICIE, the Transferor Representatives' Council and the Controlled Schools Support Council.

Mr A Bell: It might be worth explaining that there are other bodies. In the Bill, we have mentioned most of the statutory bodies. The other bodies are non-statutory limited companies for the most part. As a general principle of law, a statutory body has powers conferred on it only by statute. A company, on the other hand, generally has very wide powers, which are set out in its constitution or articles of association. Most sectoral bodies will already have fairly wide general powers in their constitutions to act in relation to their respective sectors. However, if for some reason they did not, it would be a matter of those bodies amending their constitutions to —

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): I understand that, but essentially the argument is that they have fairly wide powers, so they can probably do that anyway. The argument would be stronger if we were imposing a duty on those bodies to offer —

Mr A Bell: The legal advice is that, for all those reasons, it is inappropriate to confer statutory powers on non-statutory bodies.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Yes, but you already have referenced that. You will have a range of powers there anyway. Members, any thoughts?

Mrs Overend: Can I just go through that again? If we are giving a power to the Department, then there will be a duty on the Department. I know we are talking about a relation, but that puts the same duty on statutory bodies. Is that what we are saying?

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Yes, but these are non-statutory bodies that we are referring to.

Mrs Overend: I know, but I am just clarifying that that is already the case.

Dr Kingon: If you amend the Bill to give us a duty, you effectively apply it to our arm's-length bodies as well.

Mrs Overend: OK, so we are talking about the ones that are not. That is OK. Just clarifying that.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): What about non-statutory arm's-length bodies?

Dr Kingon: They are our non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), so we apply the statutory duty in the same way.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): It seems strange that you are saying that, if an amendment goes through that places a duty, it will place a duty on all arm's-length bodies, whether or not they are statutory, but you are objecting to the same bodies having a power.

Mr A Bell: I do not think that it is a matter of placing a duty on non-statutory bodies. It would apply to statutory bodies.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): That is why I specifically asked about non-statutory bodies.

Mr A Bell: The advice is that there is already provision for non-statutory bodies to build that in and that that is the appropriate way to go, rather than —

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Maybe I am little confused. I find it a bit odd that we are saying that there is already provision to build it in but that it is not appropriate that the power be given. That seems to be a contradiction.

Mr A Bell: It would not give them a power. It would alter their constitution to include that as part of their constitution, which is different from giving a statutory power.

Dr Kingon: I appreciate the question that you are asking, but I think that there is a difference between giving them an explicit power in legislation, which the Bill proposes, and the Department's application of its statutory duty via its arm's-length bodies. They are two different concepts. In this amendment, you propose to give explicit statutory powers to non-statutory bodies.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): To be honest, a wide range of sectors are involved in education in Northern Ireland, and, because of the way in which things have developed, some are statutory and some are non-statutory in nature. Given that they provide education and support education to different sectors, I would prefer that the distinctions between the two in terms of powers are as small as possible. I am not sure how appropriate it would be if we were to draw a distinction and say that one body in a certain field will be given a power and another will have to be tackled in a completely different way. Members, do you have any other comments?

Mr Lunn: Instead of having:

why not have "any body not listed above"? We could leave out the next line and then go straight to subsections (3)(a) and (3)(b):

How would that work?

Mr A Bell: That would expand it even more.

Dr Kingon: That could be an even wider range of groups.

Mr Lunn: I thought that I was getting rid of the question of sectoral bodies.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): The amendment contains "sectoral body" because it is a direct lift from previous legislation.

Mr A Bell: In your proposed amendment to clause 2, you also raise a point about the General Teaching Council. Although the General Teaching Council is a statutory body, the existing legislation — 1989 Education Order — provides for it to give advice to the Department and the employing authorities. That includes training, career development, and the performance management and standards of teachers. We believe that that is sufficient for its role in contributing towards shared education. However, the 1989 Order specifically requires consultation with the GTCNI and other bodies and persons as appropriate, prior to conferring or imposing any additional functions. We cannot do that without a consultation, so that could delay the Bill to such an extent that we would be unable to complete it in the current mandate.

Mrs Overend: Say that last bit again

Mr A Bell: The 1989 Order specifically states that it requires consultation with the GTCNI and other bodies and persons as appropriate, prior to conferring or imposing any additional functions. In other words, we cannot give them additional functions without first having a full consultation.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): There are two things about that. To be fair, the GTC was mentioned by organisations, but I do not think that there was a particular pressure for the GTC to be there. From that point of view, I am relatively relaxed about whether it is there. I appreciate that a power could not be conferred ahead of that. I have only one issue. If there was a strong desire to have the GTC on that, all you would need to do is to have it as part of the commencement provisions. You would not enact that bit until that had happened. By the same token, I do not detect that anybody is dying in a ditch over the GTC.

Mr A Bell: We feel that there is already sufficient provision for it to do what we need it to do.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): If we take out the reference to the GTC, are members supportive of or opposed to amendment 5? Do we have a view? A number of folk lobbied us on that, and I thought that it was a reasonable point. I am supportive of amendment 5. Does anybody have a view to the contrary?

Mr Lunn: I do not have a view, Chairman. Sorry.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Are members agreed overall? I appreciate that some people do not have a view, but is everybody happy to take the GTC out?

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): We will go back a little. As it turned out, we did not make any amendments to clause 1. We did not propose any amendments.

The Committee Clerk: Yes, we did. It was about the words "or none".

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Sorry, we did. We have suggested amendments to clauses 1 and 2. On that basis, are members content that I put each of them in turn? What about clause 1, as potentially amended ? We will not be opposing clause 1 or clause 2, notwithstanding the concerns about particular elements. Apologies for that.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Amendment 6, which is the final Committee amendment, is a review clause. We took on board what was said about the timescale because there was a reference to the effect that a review-and-report mechanism could be tied in with the ETI and that we do not want to create any additional administrative burdens. I should also point out that, with the draft that you have in front of you, the Committee is debating the exact wording of one sub-paragraph. Clause 2A(3)(e)(iii), which is about attitudes, will have a slightly tweaked wording, which will read:

Issues were raised about what counts as relevant section 75 groups. There is still a bit of debate about the precise wording — members may want to raise it with you — of sub-paragraph (ii), which is about good relations and whether it is between "participating children" or "participating children in school communities". There could be variations on that. Before we open it up for members to probe, do you have any comments on that new clause?

Mr A Bell: Attitudinal improvement is notoriously difficult to measure and takes time to achieve. It is also influenced by a range of factors such as family, peers and community. It is not solely within the remit of schools. In the report to the Department, the ministerial advisory group recognised that shared education can lead to improvements in the attitudes of young people, but it stopped short of recommending that that be included in the definition. The reason was that it found evidence that engagement in shared education activities among those living in areas where there is low positive contact between communities may result in negative attitudes in the short term.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): I should point out that, in the review and any reporting, we are not seeking to change the definition. It is simply to state that, in any report, those things are reflected on.

Dr Kingon: The Department made the point previously that significant reporting requirements on shared education are already in place at system and individual project level. In the Delivering Social Change project, there are reporting mechanisms for that. There is a robust business case and post-project evaluation, and each project will have targets and measures in the ETI. This just adds another reporting burden on the Department. There are also other mechanisms —

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): With respect, our view was that this could be incorporated into an ETI report.

Dr Kingon: The ETI report is presented to the Committee. It is not laid before the Assembly as such. It would be incorporated into the ETI report in any case. This proposed amendment is very explicit.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Yes, I appreciate that, but, Suzanne, you have to realise that the Committee had a number of options. It could have looked at a change to the definition because there is a range of issues. It is significant, I think, that educational attainment and broader community cohesion matters are regarded as being important. We could have sought to change the definition, but we felt that that would be inappropriate and would muddy the waters. We could have put in a purpose clause, but that would have run risks. Questions of interpretation might arise if you have a purpose clause and a definition clause. The feeling was that a report every two years was probably the minimum to satisfy some of those aspects. We have tried to make it as compatible with the ETI as we can.

Mr A Bell: I do not think that we are arguing with you. Our point is that there is already sufficient provision without any need to refer to it specifically in the Bill.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): I appreciate the point, although I do not necessarily agree with it. Can we tease out one area before we talk about generality? I do not know whether Seán Rogers wants to raise the good relations issue, and, if a clause of that nature went in, what the appropriate tests would be Do members want to quiz the Department on that?

Mr Rogers: In proposed Committee amendment 6, new clause 2A(3)(e)(ii) states:

What are your thoughts on that?

Mr A Bell: In some respects, good relations covers all areas, as the Department has to address good relations. However, the policy under which we mostly deal with it is the community relations, equality and diversity (CRED) policy, as opposed to the shared education policy. One difficulty will be the current wording, because we are looking at the impact of shared education on, for example, educational attainment, good relations and attitudes. The difficulty is that a number of other departmental policies would impact on it, particularly in relation to educational attainment and good relations. Trying to disaggregate the specific impact of shared education could be challenging, because there will be a number of factors. We will measure how attitudes change, but that could be as a result of a number of factors.

Mr Rogers: We had quite a bit of discussion about whether it should be "good community relations" or "good relationships between participating children in schools". What are your thoughts? You used the phrase "good community relations" on a number of occasions. My view is that that is probably a better phrase than:

Mr A Bell: I assume that the Bill Office drafted this for you and that it has used "good relations" as it is referred to in section 75 legislation.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): To be fair, the Bill Office has put a question mark over how exactly to word this. It is clear on the reference to "good relations"; but the question is whether it is simply "good relations", "good relations within the community", or "good relations between participating children and school communities". It is how that is qualified. We seek your views as to what would create difficulties. What would be appropriate?

Dr Kingon: Limiting it to the children and young people who participate is obviously an easier measure than wider communities or groups. How you measure that might present us with more difficulty. If we were pushed on it, we would prefer it to be limited to the pupil population.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): There is, Suzanne, the issue of the wider community and the children. Is it possible to have a reference to "children and school communities"?

Dr Kingon: We take "school community" to mean the whole broad family of a school: parents, governors and the local community. School community is quite a vague term.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): If something were to be put in there, your preference would be —

Dr Kingon: It would be to limit it to pupils.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): OK.

Mr Hazzard: Andrew, you just referred to a policy. What is it? I am sorry, I did not get the full title.

Mr A Bell: It is the community relations, equality and diversity policy.

Mr Hazzard: Is that the overall —

Mr A Bell: That is the CRED policy.

Mr Hazzard: With education, is there an overlap? Do you have to take it into account overall in the Department?

Dr Kingon: We have a specific CRED policy for education.

Mr Hazzard: Can we make reference to that because it takes in the wider community?

Dr Kingon: We would be reluctant to have any specific policies referenced in the legislation because policy titles and policies change over time, and it could render the legislation a bit defunct if we start to reference it.

Mr Hazzard: Is the impact of that policy measured by the Department?

Dr Kingon: It is measured by the Department.

Mr Hazzard: Is that the wider community relations policy?

Mr A Bell: We measure the attitudes of children and young people in particular, but the life and times survey will also measure the impact beyond that.

Dr Kingon: The point that Andrew was making was that, in a sense, there is a lot of cross-cutting. A lot of policies contribute to improvements in good relations; it is not just shared education. There is a whole raft of policies designed to improve educational attainment in particular across our system and, at times, to isolate the particular impact. For example, if you had a school that was in the formal intervention process and receiving intense support to improve standards and attainment, it might be quite difficult to isolate the impact of that support. We had the literacy and numeracy signature project. So, there is a whole raft of initiatives that go into schools, and I think that the point that he was making was that that isolation of the particular impact of shared education, particularly in the short term, may present some difficulties.

Mr Hazzard: It is important, and it has been said publicly with regard to the statistics that are coming out, that we need to know which initiatives are having what effect if we are going to put resources in certain places. So, we would like to know to what extent shared education is improving. It would be great if we could say that, overall, community relations are improving, but we need to know what is working and what is not.

Dr Kingon: The qualitative analysis that the ETI does gives us that, but it is not always easy to isolate —

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Unless you are talking about something that is very statistical in its nature, any monitoring will always be an inexact science and will be more about getting an idea of trends or improvement on that side of things.

Mr Hazzard: So, the Department currently assesses pupils in relation to good community relations.

Mr A Bell: The CRED policy has a range of measures that we use to measure the impact of that policy. One of the ways that we do that is by commissioning a module every other year in the young life and times survey, which gives us attitudinal change of young people. It is a sample, but it is a representative sample.

Mr Lunn: I think that you have more or less answered my question. I am sure that there are plenty of measures out there already, such as the life and times survey, CRED and all the rest, that measure any improvement in community relations. How do you break that down to general education policy and break it down further to see the effect of this policy? It has been going on for many years. This is not a new thing; it is just being formalised. So, I think that we need something in here, given the amount of emphasis and money that will be thrown at this over the next number of years, so that we can clearly identify the benefits of this programme. If we cannot do that, it will wither.

Mr A Bell: We are not arguing that we are not doing that. The issue for the Department is that there is existing provision to do that. That is the point.

Mr Lunn: Does the existing provision in any way try to measure the effect of the sharing between schools that is already going on?

Mr A Bell: There is commitment in the Sharing Works policy that the chief inspector's biennial report will specifically refer to shared education, but we also have reporting mechanisms in the Programme for Government's commitment to shared education and mechanisms in the Together: Building a United Community commitments towards shared education. We are not arguing that this should not be reported on. Our only point is that there are already a number of mechanisms and, essentially, it is not necessary to include it in the Bill.

Mr Lunn: Do the present arrangements in any way try to measure the beneficial societal or community effect of integrated education?

Dr Kingon: Individual projects have measures. So, if there was an individual project on integrated education, it would set measures, but, at a system level, it is not something that we would measure.

Mr A Bell: The range of measures that we put in for this is related to shared education. As Suzanne explained, integrated education is, in legislative terms, different. There are benefits for integrated schools participating in the programme, and their participation benefits other schools also. That is what we want to see.

Mr Lunn: At the moment, would you not attempt to measure the beneficial effects of children being educated together in an integrated school?

Dr Kingon: NICIE does quite a bit of work around that, and obviously we fund NICIE. NICIE does quite a bit of work around the positive impact in reconciliation outcomes for children and young people.

Mr A Bell: In some ways, it is outside the scope of shared education because it is specifically integrated education.

Mr Hazzard: Suzanne, I may be picking this up wrong, but you are saying that the Bill does not have to be explicit because it is underpinned by the Sharing Works policy.

Dr Kingon: Yes.

Mr Hazzard: That policy could change. Where would that leave the Bill? Surely it is better to have strong monitoring and reporting specific to the Bill.

Dr Kingon: It is not just underpinned by Sharing Works. All the projects and programmes have very specific reporting mechanisms built into them. The signature project is reported on at a system level to OFMDFM. It is reported on a departmental system-wide level. Its individual projects have their own targets and measures. There is a whole raft of reporting out there. It is not just based on Sharing Works. Sharing Works provides a framework, but individual projects have those measures.

We do not feel that it is necessary to reference that in the Bill. Because of the difficulty of disaggregating that we have talked about, the shared education measures are very carefully devised and put in place so that we can begin that work of disaggregating. We do not feel that it is particularly helpful to add another reporting mechanism with very broad parameters.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Given the magnitude of shared education, there has got to be some level of reporting mechanism. I think that we tried to make that point.

Folks, I want to bring this to a conclusion. There are possibly two areas that we need to clarify for ourselves first of all, really in relation to subsection (3)(e). The first point is that it has been suggested by the Department that "good relations" between participating children is the best way of monitoring that. Are members content with that? Can you live with that element?

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): I will take silence as acquiescence.

The second bit, then. Just to clarify, we had previously talked about, on point 3, putting a full stop after "own" and removing "social". Are members happy enough with that as the wording?

Mr Lunn: Is that a full stop after "their own"?

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Yes, but also remove the word "social", so it is "from backgrounds other than their own". Are members content to agree amendment 6?

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): The last amendment is the Department's proposal for a new clause — provisionally, I suppose, we might call it clause 2B — in relation to forming a company to look after the ownership of school buildings on a shared campus.

The Committee Clerk: Sorry, Chairperson, this is on the back page of tabled items.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): OK. Again, I do not think that there has been any particular controversy on this. Is there anything else that you want to add?

Ms Jacqui Durkin (Department of Education): As mentioned at our previous appearance, the clause is to provide the Department and the Education Authority with a specific power to establish, form and participate in a company to facilitate the governance and ownership of shared campus schools. It is specifically for shared education projects.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): OK. Does anybody want any final clarification? Are members content to approve the Department's amendment? Are there any dissenting voices?

Mr Lunn: I am not dissenting, but I have only just seen it. I am not dissenting, though.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): I will fly through the other couple of items in relation to this. There have been no suggested amendments to clause 3. I do not think that there is any controversy about clause 3. Unless anyone has anything that they wish to add, is the Committee content with clause 3?

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): There have been no amendments sought in relation to clause 4.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Obviously, any member or party can table their own amendments at the Consideration Stage. Is there anything anybody wants to put forward as a Committee amendment?

Mr Lunn: There is reference to 2015 in the short title. Should it refer to the year in which the Bill is first introduced or the year in which it receives Royal Assent?

The Committee Clerk: The member is right. We have had this before: the Department will probably table a technical amendment at Consideration Stage to make it "2016".

Mr A Bell: We queried that. We have been told that the Bill Office will make that change.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): It probably initially reflects the year in which the Bill is introduced, but, as you said, the year in which it gets Royal Assent is what appears on the face of the Bill.

Mr Lunn: I hope it does better than the ESA Bill or it will be 2021. [Laughter.]

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): That situation is like a clock in a garage that is going round and round.

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): The long title is:

The Chairperson (Mr Weir): Members, that concludes the formal clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill. I thank the officials for their help. Our sign-off of the Committee report will be on 6 January. Everything is meeting the timetable. If you want to sneak a mince pie on your way out, we have even provided cream. [Laughter.]

Thank you.