Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms McLaughlin): I want to set out what our responsibility is today. We will analyse the evidence. There are four options for the Committee, which have been set out clearly in the papers in members' packs. I remind members that the Committee agreed to move through all components of Committee Stage this week. It is a challenge, but we decided that that was the work that we wanted to do. The call for views closed on Monday 7 March 2022. Some 388 responses were received. That is a significant number.

The Clerk has prepared an options paper that outlines the evidence that the Committee considered. I will give a summary of it — the key milestones. On 17 January, the Bill was introduced as a private Member's Bill by Chris Lyttle. On 31 January, the Committee issued a pre-emptive call for evidence. The Committee received oral evidence from the Bill sponsor and key stakeholders; written evidence from stakeholders; written evidence from the Committee for Education; and survey evidence from Citizen Space. A Bill paper was provided by the Assembly's Research and Information Service (RaISe), from whom we have just heard. On 3 March 2022, the Bill passed Second Stage in record time: it did so in 30 minutes, and it was passed unanimously.

We have listed four options for the Committee. Option 1 is to hear further evidence; option 2 is to agree the Bill as it stands; option 3 is to recommend amendments to the Bill; and option 4 is to reject the Bill. Do members wish to raise any issues in relation to the evidence that we have received? Is there further evidence that you have not heard that might change the Bill substantially and that you wish to hear?

Ms Sheerin: I suggest that we go with option 2: agree the Bill as it stands.

The Chairperson (Ms McLaughlin): OK. Pat, you have just come in. Emma has agreed to go with the Bill as it stands.

Mr Stewart: I was shut down, so I hope that you can hear me now.

The Chairperson (Ms McLaughlin): We can.

Mr Stewart: I am minded to side with Emma. Obviously, we had an evidence session with the Department. It is calling for an implementation period of 30 months. I cannot get my head around that. I could not support that level of amendment. Chris has just given evidence. He said that he would be willing to go to 24 months. Even that feels excessive, given what needs to be done. My only fear is that the Department is basically saying that there is a potential that it might not be able to be fulfilled in the current mandate without that amendment. I am interested to hear what other members say, but my initial instinct is to support the Bill as drafted and move on without amendment.

The Chairperson (Ms McLaughlin): Sorry, John, I missed what you said.

Mr Stewart: I support option 2: support the Bill as drafted and move on without amending it.

The Chairperson (Ms McLaughlin): There is also an issue with the fact that we do not have all parties represented here at the minute. Do we proceed without cross-party representation? Diane Dodds is not here. How do members feel about that? That is an additionality issue for us.

Mr Sheehan: I am going to appear very ignorant on all of this, Sinead. Apologies for not being here, but I was in the Chamber for the Final Stage debate on the Integrated Education Bill. There seems to be an issue around the length of time before the Bill's implementation and the Department is talking about 30 months.

The Chairperson (Ms McLaughlin): Yes.

Mr Sheehan: Chris is suggesting a compromise of 24 months. Do we have any word from the Department on the 24 months?

The Chairperson (Ms McLaughlin): The officials were not at liberty to accept that at this point. They were representing the Minister.

Mr Sheehan: Right.

The Chairperson (Ms McLaughlin): The direction that they had been given was that the Department requires 30 months for implementation. We indicated that there is a potential compromise solution from the Bill sponsor of 24 months. In the scheme of things, that would be a small amendment, but they were not in a position to —

Mr Sheehan: Did they indicate when they might be in a position?

The Chairperson (Ms McLaughlin): They said that they would be happy to speak to various parties about that. Our problem is that we want to get through the consideration of evidence and move through, clause by clause.

Mr Sheehan: The fundamental issue is whether we can get it through before the end of the mandate. Would the 30-month amendment in any way jeopardise us getting it through before the end of the mandate, or are we having a discussion about that length of time? I heard John say that he would not be happy with 30 months and maybe not even with 24 months. My thinking is that, if we end up with a delayed process and the Bill falls, we or whoever of us are elected will have to come back at it in the next mandate, so it might be as broad as it is long. That is my view on it.

Mr Stewart: Pat, if I can just come in, what I took from the evidence was that there was a belief that this would not happen in the current mandate and that now, given that it looks like it might, the Department will require 30 months to allow it to bed in and processes to change. My question was about the fact that I could not get my head around why that would take 30 months. When I questioned Chris Lyttle, he thought that 24 months was a compromise. To be fair, I suggested that as well. It feels like a compromise, and I do not know why the Department will not go with it. I would not have anything against the 24 months, if the Department thinks that that is what it needs, but 30 months seems excessive, and no real evidence was presented for why that would be required. The reason that the officials feel that they need more time, however, is that they did not believe that this would happen in this mandate. That is what I got from the evidence.

Mr Lunn: I thought that we had a broad level of agreement on the Committee's point of view on 24 months. That would mean option 3, would it not? That would mean recommending amendments to the Bill to change the 12 months to 24 months. If the Minister or whoever —

Ms Sheerin: Rejects it.

Mr Lunn: — thinks that that is not enough, they could amend our amendment and make it 30 months, if they want to.

Ms Sheerin: Maybe that is the most —

Mr Lunn: The 24-month period is common sense.

Mr Sheehan: I agree.

The Chairperson (Ms McLaughlin): There is real positivity among all of us in all parties. We want this to be completed in this mandate. If that means that extra time is needed to manage the implementation, we should be as open as possible to that possibility.

When you were not here, Pat, we discussed the fact that 30 months seems rather excessive. There was no real breakdown of why that time was required. The officials said that they needed a communications plan around it, they needed systems to be put in place, they needed data gathering and they needed to know — at this stage, they do not know — whether they will have to procure new systems for this. I think that there was consensus that the process was being overcomplicated.

Mr Sheehan: It is a problem if they cannot do it within 24 months. That is two years to sort it out. It is not a big issue.

The Chairperson (Ms McLaughlin): Yes.

Mr Sheehan: I think that we should go with Trevor's proposal.

The Chairperson (Ms McLaughlin): Yes. If we move through the Bill clause by clause, we could put that amendment in from the Committee when we are looking at that clause. I have just been informed that Diane will be with us in 10 minutes. She might have something to add to that, but I think that that would give the best will in the world and give wind behind the Bill. We have all worked hard for it. The Bill sponsor has been working and engaging all around. There was almost an implication — well, it was pretty explicit — that insufficient evidence had been gathered and that there had been insufficient consultation on the Bill. I do not know whether that was a complaint about the Committee. However, there was an understanding that the Bill would not go through. It was only when the realisation dawned, at the last Committee meeting on 2 March, that the Department moved to submitting the letter on 4 March. I think that the Department was caught out of sync rather than the Committee.

We were working positively about something being realised in this mandate. Because we had no substantive objections all along while we were gathering evidence, there appeared to be few obstacles in the way. There was much overt support. The Second Stage took only 30 minutes and was passed unanimously, and that gave us all a sense that this could be done and realised within the mandate.

It is incumbent on us now, as we said last week in Committee, to move through the evidence and go into consideration of the Bill clause by clause. Is everyone in agreement?