Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms McLaughlin): Chris, you are welcome to the meeting. This session is being recorded by Hansard, and the video of the meeting will be available on the Committee web page.

I am sure that you listened with interest to the briefing from the Department. It is really important to us that we hear directly from you, as the Bill sponsor. You have been working on this for a long time. The Bill was brought forth on 17 January, but this has been going on for many years. Your first conversation with the Department was back in April or June last year.

We are where we are. The Department's evidence came as a bit of a surprise to you because we were progressing smoothly. There were no significant bumps along the way. There are bodies, organisations and representatives that, we thought, might have issues or problems with it, but those did not appear at any stage of the evidence gathering.

It is over to you, as the Bill sponsor, for your observations.

Mr Chris Lyttle (Northern Ireland Assembly): Chair, I offer my huge and sincere thanks to you, the Committee and the Committee staff for the hard work that has been undertaken. I recognise that a lot of people have put in a lot of hard work. I saw the witness session with the Department of Education, and I recognise the work that the Department has undertaken on the matter. All that work has allowed progress to be made, to the extent that there appears to be a real opportunity for the Bill to pass before the end of the mandate.

As you said, the journey started a long time ago. The final proposal for the Bill was submitted in June 2021. There has been considerable consultation since then. I can detail that if it is necessary, but I do not think it is.

I acknowledge the progress that has been made. The Fair Employment (School Teachers) Bill received unanimous support at Second Stage recently. The Executive Office Committee has completed a robust Committee Stage, with proactive consultation to allow that to happen. The Second Stage debate demonstrated widespread support from all parties. That is recorded in Hansard, and I will not go through that in detail either. There is a real possibility for the Bill to pass. On Tuesday 8 March, the Business Committee provisionally agreed to schedule the remaining stages that are necessary for the Bill to pass. That is also a really positive development.

As the Department of Education officials confirmed, I met the Education Minister. Having watched the evidence session with those officials, I note that the concern seems to focus on the time needed for managed implementation of the provisions. That relates to clause 3, which says that commencement should be 12 months after the Act is passed. I noted that 30 months was mentioned as a possible amendment to that.

I wish — I will put it positively — the education sector and all sectors and bodies involved to have appropriate time for managed implementation. It is really positive that such a consensus has emerged for removing the exception of teachers from the Fair Employment and Treatment Order. Everyone's collective efforts have been made in a shorter time than would normally have been preferred, but we have worked hard, we have focused and there has been the positive development that consensus has emerged.

I agree with you, Chair, that, whatever that period needs to be, we should make sure that we get it right so that the Bill can pass. That was the first time that I had heard 30 months mentioned, so I am giving it in-flight consideration here. I have tried to look at it from a school year point of view, to be fair, and 30 months would give the next school year and another school year after that. I know how close to the end of term we feel at the moment, and it will probably not be too long before this school year feels like the end of term too.

As the Department of Education officials concluded, perhaps a brief engagement after today's meeting could occur to bottom out what is a reasonable and appropriate period to allow for managed implementation of the removal of the exception of teachers from the Fair Employment and Treatment Order and to deliver fair employment for teachers.

I thank you. Your hard work and that of Committee members and staff and the Department on the Bill, which I never gave up on and never said would not happen in this mandate, gives us a real opportunity to get agreement on the period for implementation and to pass the Bill by the end of the mandate. I hope that that is helpful.

The Chairperson (Ms McLaughlin): Yes. Thank you. I am surprised at the length of time that is being requested in the suggested amendment. That would be nearly four —

Mr Lyttle: Two and a half years.

The Chairperson (Ms McLaughlin): It would be two and a half years, but, in school terms, it would be more like three school years. If a young teacher comes out of university now, this would not be in place for them until they have been working for four years. That is what I am concerned about. The removal would have such positive consequences for our young teachers, yet we would delay that positivity for years into their working life. Those who are in teacher training colleges now would not have the benefits of the end of the exception for many years into their working life. It just seems a bit over the top.

Mr Lyttle: I agree, Chair. I would be glad to engage proactively with the Committee and the Department to make sure that whatever extension is granted by way of an amendment is fair, appropriate and reasonable.

Mr Lunn: Chris, you talked about the number of school years involved. When is the optimum time for the appointment of teachers in our system? Twenty-four months from now would be March '24, which would allow a fair old opportunity for an intake of teachers, with the exemption being in place in September '24. John Stewart suggested 24 months. What do you think of that?

Mr Lyttle: As I mentioned, when I first became aware that the only or main concern about passing the Bill before the end of the mandate was the timescale for managed implementation, my reaction was that a reasonable extension might be 24 months. That was the first time that I had heard 30 months. As I said, we will probably not have that detailed discussion over the Committee Table today, but I am more than willing to make myself readily available to discuss it. Members tried to establish the substance of the 30-month extension. If we can agree on the removal and do it now, I do not think that anybody would wish for progress to be prevented by disagreement about the time that is needed for implementation.

To answer you straight, Trevor, 24 months was what I had in mind as a reasonable extension.

Mr Lunn: Yes. I am not being critical of the Department, but it would naturally err on the side of caution and give itself at least as much time as, it thinks, it needs and probably add a bit on. I really think that an amendment to change the 12 months to 24 months would take care of it.

Mr Lyttle: I acknowledge that it is schools, as employers, that will have work to do to implement the Bill. My aim is very much to get positive delivery for teachers and schools, rather than to impose an excessive burden on schools, not least because of what teachers and schools have done for our community in recent years. I acknowledge and accept that the period for implementation should be manageable for schools and teachers, because it is schools and teachers that we want to get the positive outcome for.

Mr Lunn: OK. Let us say that we went for 24 months, the Bill was passed and it became law. If the Department panicked after 21 months and said, "No, we cannot do it in that timescale. We need an extension of a further six months", would that be feasible in law?

Mr Lyttle: I imagine that it would be possible to amend the legislation. Again, I cannot imagine that anyone would seek to prevent due process if that was necessary. I get what you say: there could be further flexibility.

It is an end period. On the other side, it could be implemented more quickly if people made quicker progress.

Mr Lunn: Yes, I was thinking that, too. You could say "up to 24 months" or "up to 30 months". There are different ways to handle it.

Ms Sheerin: I concur with the remarks that have been made. We sometimes have an oversimplification of things; this seems to be an overcomplication. I cannot understand that position.

The Chairperson (Ms McLaughlin): A school year is eight or nine months, so we would need four school years to get that exception in place.

Chris, we have heard you. Would you like to say anything additionally to the Committee?

Mr Lyttle: I just want to thank the Committee. Genuinely, there has been a lot of hard work and a lot of positive progress. It feels that, if I, the Committee and the Department, which has that contact with the managing bodies, can promptly agree an extension of the implementation period as far as is possible, the Assembly collectively, with all its effort, can pass a Bill that delivers fair employment for schoolteachers. It would feel like a really positive outcome to achieve that by the end of the mandate.

The Chairperson (Ms McLaughlin): Yes. There is a bit of a feel-good factor in the Assembly at the minute because there are some really positive Bills going through. That is a collective legacy, but the beneficiaries will be our constituents. This Bill would benefit all.

John Stewart has his hand up. Can we bring him into the spotlight, please?

Mr Stewart: Thanks, Chair. I thought that you had forgotten about me, but I knew that that was not possible.

The Chairperson (Ms McLaughlin): Sorry about that, John. [Laughter.]

Mr Stewart: Chris, thanks for coming along at short notice. I congratulate you and everyone for getting the Bill to this stage. Last week, we were all calling for the Bill to be expedited in order to get it passed in this mandate. It now feels much more positive than it was. It is still doable.

I do not really know where the Department's contribution today came from. As I was putting my questions to the departmental official, 30 months felt really excessive. I agree with Trevor that, perhaps, the Department sometimes errs on the side of extreme caution. Time and again, we have been told by the sectors that the exception is not even used in employment any more, so I am not entirely sure that many systems and processes would have to change.

Maybe there can be a negotiation between the Department and the Committee to find a middle ground. If you and we are happy with 24 months and if that is what it takes to get the Bill passed in this mandate, given that we do not know where we will be in May — you have made the point in the past about how quickly time can elapse between functioning Governments here — that may be something that we can all agree on. It may be a chat for tomorrow or later in the week. It is just that I am conscious of time. Would you settle for that to get this done?

Mr Lyttle: Do you mean 30 months?

Mr Stewart: No, 24.

Mr Lyttle: Yes. As I said to Trevor, my initial reaction was that 24 months might be a reasonable extension, although I absolutely accept that, given its ease of access and contacts, the Department of Education engages daily with bodies that speak on behalf of schools and teachers. The desire of all of us is for this to be a positive development, not one that puts undue burden on schools or teachers; the latter is definitely not our desire.

You are right about timescales: that might be a day's conversation. I am more than willing to engage with Committee members and the Department to make sure that we feel comfortable and that the Committee feels comfortable — if, indeed, it will be the Committee that proposes the amendment, which would be apt, given that, as I acknowledge, the Committee's work, in no small part, has made this possible.

Mr Stewart: Obviously, you have been corresponding with the Speaker's Office and the Business Committee. In their feedback, have they communicated to you that, with or without an amendment, the necessary bandwidth and timetabling are available to get the Bill through each of the last three stages in the next three weeks?

Mr Lyttle: Yes. I do not wish to speak on behalf of the Business Committee, but a week is needed for amendments. None of those stages has been scheduled for next week, so next Wednesday could be the deadline for amendments. Then, in the final week, we would need to have a Consideration Stage for Members to consider and vote on the amendments or amendment, with Further Consideration Stage and Final Stage to follow.

You will know from your valuable contribution to the Second Stage debate on behalf of the Committee, that it took only 30 minutes, such was the degree of unanimity on the Bill. Feasibly, if collective agreement could be secured on the length of the extension in advance of the amendment being submitted next week, Consideration Stage, Further Consideration Stage and Final Stage could be short, given that there appears to be significant consensus on the Bill's principles and substance.

Mr Stewart: Thanks, Chris, as always.

Mr Delargy: I have more of a comment than anything else, and I declare an interest as a former teacher. I have been contacted in the last number of minutes by a few people who were keeping tabs on what was going on. To be honest, I share their confusion. Before an amendment would be made, I am still at a loss as to why it will take 30 months and why that was seen, first, as acceptable and, secondly, as a minimum. I am totally baffled by it. To be honest, Chris, I think that you have been gracious in accepting and suggesting 24 months. I certainly would not have come to the same position. As has been said by all members of the Committee, there has been consensus on it. All the organisations that were represented by the previous group told us that they have no issue with it, so it is not good enough that we are now expected to put down an amendment at their behest when they click their fingers and tell us that they need an amendment within the next two weeks but it will take 30 months to do what is essentially basic legislation.

When you look at the amount and the scale of the legislation that has passed in the last number of weeks and months in the Assembly, you will see that there has been no issue from any other organisation in bringing that about. On what has been a positive day for education, particularly on the back of the progressive politics that we have seen through the Integrated Education Bill, I am just baffled by it. Before we come to any position on an amendment, speaking for myself anyway, I would really like to see an outlined written rationale for why it will take 30 months and where that has come from. I am still unclear and am actually more unclear than I was before the briefing as to how that could even happen.

Mr Lyttle: I was looking for my notes from the previous evidence session about what was set out that needs to take place. There is registration and work to be done around declaring community backgrounds and things like that. It would be remiss of us not to acknowledge that there is a body of work that will need to take place. As other members have alluded to, that is why, under clause 3(2), the provisions of the Act come into force at the end of the period of 12 months, if they have not already done so. Twelve months was a genuine attempt to make sure that there was a period to allow for managed implementation.

I am willing to hear from the Department and to work with the Committee as well around what extension to that would be reasonable. I think that the Committee is meeting tomorrow, so there is a time sensitivity around those decisions. With the Committee's meeting tomorrow, it probably would not have met again before the deadline, unless you have another meeting, which I am loath to suggest for you, before next Wednesday, which is when, I presume, the deadline for amendments might be. We may need to consider it overnight, before your meeting tomorrow, but I am sure that that could be done expeditiously with the Department to try to bottom out if and why 30 months is necessary, or it is the Committee's prerogative to make a different proposal. I have a genuine desire for it to be an extension that gives schools and teachers whom you are in contact with the appropriate timescale to do it properly. Whilst it is a simple Bill, it would be a positive development that, I do not think, any of us would like to see not legislated for because there was a disagreement over six or 12 months in the implementation.

Mr Delargy: Definitely. If the rationale is there with the Department for why it needs to happen, it should be a clear case of putting that in writing. I imagine that that has already been done by the Department on some scale. I would like that to be communicated to the Committee and to you, Chris, if possible. It strikes me as blatant bureaucracy that it will take 30 months to do something that is extremely simple.

Mr Lyttle: The team has my contact details. I can make myself available for the rest of today and in advance of tomorrow's meeting to respond to any of those matters.

The Chairperson (Ms McLaughlin): Thank you very much, Chris, for coming in, as I said, at short notice. It was an evolving platform. It is now up to us, as a Committee, to put our heads together. Today is an important day for the Committee, because it is the day on which we consider the evidence. We need to progress through the consideration of that evidence if we are to have any hope of meeting the tight timeline. After we go through the evidence, we will go to the clause-by-clause consideration. At that point, we will need to consider whether we, as a Committee, support an amendment to provide that extension. That would then have implications for the time frame for the amendments to go forward. I am conscious of the fact that the Business Committee meets next Tuesday, so we do not even have until the next Committee meeting on Wednesday. In order for us to meet —

Mr Lyttle: You may have to make a decision today.

The Chairperson (Ms McLaughlin): Today is the day on which we need to make those decisions. We do not have the luxury of moving about. Again, we are being forced into this because of the lateness of the Department in alerting us to its concerns. It was only at the oral briefing that we heard about its concerns and the intent for the 30 months. We are no further forward, and to delay it any further, perhaps by waiting for the Department to come back, would really put the legislation outside the mandate.

Mr Lyttle: It is for the Committee to decide, obviously. However, as for technicalities that may assist, on which the team can better advise you, perhaps you could draft two amendments with — you are not allowed to respond to this — two different lengths of time. That would give you the opportunity to move one of them and not the other. You could seek technical advice on those.

As I said, it seems as though there is real consensus on passing the Bill before the end of the mandate. The question is the length of time for implementation. I set it at 12 months, because, at the time, I considered that to be a reasonable time. However, if schools and teachers are suggesting that that needs to be extended, we should heed that. If 30 months is, seemingly, deemed to be excessive, perhaps 24 months might be more reasonable.

I am so grateful for the time today and for the opportunity that seems to be there as a result of your really hard work and that of the Committee and the proactive way in which you have responded to this. It looks as though there is a real opportunity for me, the Committee, the Assembly and the Department to work together to pass what is a simple yet significant reform.

The Chairperson (Ms McLaughlin): Absolutely. Rest assured that we will give it our due consideration this afternoon. Thank you very much again for coming in and sharing your thoughts with us.

Mr Lyttle: Thank you.