Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you all for joining us; you are welcome. I will go through the details of the witnesses. If I get any job titles or details wrong, please correct me. We have Mark Bailey, the director of education workforce at the Department of Education; Alan Boyd, head of the General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland (GTCNI) interim sponsorship team at the Department of Education; and Leanne Johnston, who is also from the interim sponsorship team at the Department. We are looking forward to your briefing. We will be picking up with you a number of questions that have arisen from the couple of evidence sessions that we have had already.

It is over to you to make your opening presentation on the Bill and to work us through any clause-by-clause commentary that you want to make, and then we will move into questions and answers.

Mr Mark Bailey (Department of Education): Thank you, Chair. You got the names and job titles correct; thank you for that.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That is not always a given.

Mr Bailey: Chair and members, thank you for the opportunity to brief you further on the General Teaching Council Bill. My introductory remarks will pick up on some of the issues that have been raised, primarily those that were raised by the Northern Ireland Teachers' Council (NITC), a couple of weeks ago, and, in particular, issues around the independence of the GTC, the proposed board appointment process and the fee that teachers pay to GTCNI. Alan will then pick up on the structure of the Bill and the subordinate regulations that, together, aim to provide a framework that enables the new GTCNI to discharge its functions effectively but is not overly prescriptive. I know that you want to explore that area in more detail.

The Committee recently heard from members of GTCNI's senior management team on their progress on overcoming the numerous historical challenges that they inherited. That broad progress underpins our view that GTCNI remains best placed to deliver its functions in support of the wider education system.

You have also heard the concerns of our teaching unions. They oppose the Bill in its current form, because they seek a body that is wholly independent of the Department and has a board composed of elected teachers and of lay members who have no links to any teaching employer or similar group. While we understand the aspiration for independence, we remained puzzled by their singular focus on that issue and uncertain as to what tangible difference it would make.

The Bill establishes a new board with the same degree of operational independence as any other non-departmental public body (NDPB) in Northern Ireland. The new board will have the same independence in decision-making as that enjoyed by the previous GTCNI councils, on which the elected teachers and union appointees always felt able to serve.

It was suggested that the Bill would constrain GTCNI and make it subservient to the Department; we completely reject that assertion. The Department's interests are simple: we wish to see a strong professional body delivering effective teacher registration and fair and proportionate regulation and setting standards that will strengthen the profession. We believe that those interests should be seen as shared goals and aspirations for anyone involved in education, so we cannot see how our proposals represent a controlling agenda that needs to be opposed. On the contrary, the Bill has been developed specifically to provide GTCNI with more, rather than less, autonomy.

Within GTCNI, the board's role is to ensure efficient operation and provide strategic direction while meeting the governance standards expected of all public bodies. It should be first and foremost a business management board. Were GTCNI to provide policy input to government, it would be expected to do so on the basis of consultation with teachers and other stakeholders. While we agree that the board absolutely should be representative of the profession, the skill sets required to manage GTCNI will differ significantly from those of most classroom practitioners.

The 2021 independent board effectiveness review highlighted a lack of skills and experience as one of the key factors in the past dysfunction, and it recommended that no single group should hold a majority in future board decision-making: the Bill reflects that. Registered teachers will form half of the new board, ensuring a strong teaching perspective while avoiding dominance. Public appointments will guarantee that all members, teachers and non-teachers, bring the skills and competence needed for effective leadership. That approach is standard across most Northern Ireland NDPBs, and we consider it essential to GTCNI's future stability and success.

To reject public appointments and ask that we revert to the mechanisms that fed past dysfunction seems to defy common sense and wilfully ignore some of the uncomfortable conclusions of the 2021 independent review. I remind the Committee that, based on council members' self-assessments, the review concluded that GTCNI was the worst-performing board of the 645 boards that the consultants had evaluated. That should stand as a stark warning against repeating old mistakes.

The unions also argued that, unless GTCNI were wholly independent, teachers should not be asked to pay for it. Professional bodies exist to regulate entry and uphold standards and to protect the public and the good reputation of the profession. Those are collective benefits and not individual benefits. Such bodies are, generally, self-funded through registration fees. As one example, the Department points out that a social worker in Northern Ireland pays £65 a year, which is significantly more than a teacher, to maintain their registration with the Northern Ireland Social Care Council (NISCC). As, I am sure, you know, NISCC is a Department of Health NDPB, and one where the board members are ministerial appointees and selected through a public appointments process. Therefore, it is not an uncommon proposal that we are suggesting.

To suggest, as the unions have, that teachers should be exempt from professional fees is, in the Department's view, unjustifiable and a step that would only add to the current financial pressures on the Education budget. Moreover, GTCNI's fee is the lowest of any teaching regulator in the UK or Republic of Ireland and has remained unchanged since it was introduced in 2005, while the entry-level salary for a newly qualified teacher has risen very significantly during that time.

I will hand over to Alan, who will pick up on the Bill and the subordinate regulations.

Mr Alan Boyd (Department of Education): Thank you, Chair and members. You have heard from GTCNI officials that they are already planning for the introduction of teacher regulation, but, as they pointed out last week, the detailed processes that will underpin that will require both additional time and consultation with the profession. That is true of several other elements of the Bill. We have deliberately excluded much operational detail from the primary legislation. That is intended to allow GTCNI greater flexibility in setting its own qualification rules, its own codes of conduct and its own professional standards, while requiring it to operate within the confines of the Bill and the supporting regulations that we will mention shortly. We recognise that ownership of standards, alongside the visible delivery of regulation, will be essential for GTCNI to rebuild some of the confidence in the body that has been lost through recent years of ineffectiveness and infighting. Over prescriptiveness on the Department's part in defining the Bill or the subordinate regulations would only, in our opinion, tie GTCNI's hands and limit its future effectiveness, and that is why we are proposing a balanced approach in the Bill.

Our written paper, which we submitted ahead of today's meeting, addresses some of the concerns raised during the Second Stage debate. Why should we retain GTCNI? Why reform its leadership in the manner that we have proposed? Why seek to introduce any new powers at this time? In short, the Department wishes to fix GTCNI's leadership structures, which have proved to be so flawed; to strengthen its legislative base, addressing known weaknesses; and to end the interim governance arrangements, which have now persisted for over four years, far beyond their originally intended lifespan. While those arrangements have proved to be effective, as you heard last week, and have allowed its staff team time to demonstrate their capabilities, they were never intended to be a long-term solution, and, in our opinion, they are not sustainable. GTCNI should be operating within the same governance and accountability standards expected from all NDPBs.

Maintaining the status quo, therefore, is not helpful for either GTCNI or the profession itself, so we have drafted a very focused Bill of just 16 clauses, seeking to make targeted, practical changes and to introduce new provisions that will strengthen the workforce. We are conscious of the limited time in this mandate, so we have also sought to keep the Bill small to maximise its chances of successful passage before the next Assembly election and to avoid another four-year hiatus before GTC will have the legal ability to fully regulate the profession. Such a delay would only continue to erode confidence in GTCNI as a body.

Among the most critical elements of the Bill will be clause 11, which creates a new schedule to the 1998 Education Order and sets out the new disciplinary powers and sanctions that GTCNI will exercise. We would particularly welcome the Committee's views on that clause, which is, as I said, fundamental and sits at the heart of our efforts in the Bill.

We have referenced the need to provide subordinate regulations to support the Bill. Those would provide GTCNI with a more detailed framework within which it will be free to set its own internal rules and procedures. The draft regulations are already at a relatively advanced stage and are with the Departmental Solicitor's Office (DSO) for consideration and feedback. We intend to share them with the Committee at the earliest possible opportunity, and we will be more than happy to provide a further detailed briefing session on their content at that time.

We trust that, in the interim period, the Committee will find the summary of the regulations, which is in today's tabled papers, to be helpful and interesting and, we trust, reassuring, because we believe that they illustrate the amount of careful thought that has already gone into their preparation. The regulations will address many of the issues that MLAs — indeed, Committee members — have raised in connection with the Bill. We would just caveat that statement, however, and caution you that the regulations remain very much a work in progress.

We have a need to take more input from GTCNI itself to make sure that the disciplinary processes that are set out in the draft regulations will, in fact, prove to be practical, deliverable and useful to it as it seeks to work through real-life scenarios and complaints. To that end, we would also welcome any views that Committee members might have, even at this early stage, on the proposed shape and content of the subordinate regulations.

The Department remains convinced that the Bill builds on GTCNI's recent successes, seeks to address all its historical failures and seeks to provide it with the powers to strengthen the profession directly. With those changes and supported by a suitably skilled and collegial board pulling in one direction, we are confident that GTCNI staff can continue to deliver for our teachers, as they have done in the past four years, but can also evolve to become the effective professional body that our teachers deserve.

Thank you for your attention, and we are more than happy to take your questions at this time.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you for those introductory remarks and the focused commentary on the Bill. I have a range of questions, but I will not go through them all, because I want to make sure that all members have a chance to come in with their issues.

I will go right back to the first principles of this. We know that there has been a slight change in policy. The previous Education Minister, Michelle McIlveen, was clear that the GTCNI needed to be completely wound up and a new body created. That is where we were at the end of the previous mandate. The Minister now in post has decided that it is better to use the Bill to reform the structures of the GTCNI. We understand that there was a business case with a range of options. Can that be shared with the Committee to help us to understand the rationale behind the Minister's decision or even to form a view on whether we think that the first principle of the Bill is appropriate?

Mr Bailey: Absolutely, we will provide the business case, Chair. If you are content to write to us, that is not a problem, and we will respond. We have already provided it to the information advisory service. You might be speaking to its representatives next week.

The rationale for the change of ministerial decision was based on a number of things. I will not go through the detail, but, in essence, it was the passage of time and the reform that had already taken place within GTCNI during that time. The GTCNI senior management who were here last week explained the changes that they had made to the settled staffing structure, the new system that they had, the new processes in place and, indeed, the internal audit review of all the issues, virtually all of which have now been resolved. That was why there was a change in approach, but we would be happy to provide the business case, which goes through six or seven options and assesses them.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That would be helpful. It was welcome last week to hear of the progress made with the GTC under the interim arrangements. When we hear them say that their powers at the moment are so limited that they can take action or do nothing on a professional standards issue, that does not seem to be appropriate, so there is obviously a need for change there. The question is whether the Bill is the right way to do it.

First, I will pick up on the open-ended nature of clause 9. We have said that subordinate regulations will follow this — I might pick up on what sight the Committee will have of that. Clause 9 states:

That reads very open-endedly when it comes to what power the Department may acquire to direct the GTCNI. The phrase "authorise the Council" to do things seems to be in keeping with the sense of wanting to create an independent body and giving it the freedom to deal with matters around professional standards. However, there is also the requirement aspect.

On clause 9, does the Department have a view on what sorts of things it anticipates requiring GTCNI to do? Is there a reason for that being so open-ended? Might it speak to some of the concerns that the unions have around independence?

Mr Bailey: The issue here is that you have not seen the draft regulations and what sits underneath that. That would help to inform that. We will come on to that in a moment.

Alan, would you like to pick up on the specific point on clause 9?

Mr Boyd: Clause 9 comes under the heading, "Matters relating to the registration of teachers". Our legal draftsperson has said that the convention is that anything under that heading relates only to the registration of teachers. Therefore that general-seeming provision is general within the context that it can be used only to make regulations that impact on how GTC will register teachers. It is not, therefore, as open-ended as it appears to be at first glance.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): On that, does the Department have anything in mind that it will seek to require GTC to do around the registration of teachers? Do you anticipate a specific provision being in place?

Ms Leanne Johnston (Department of Education): Rather than us being prescriptive, clause 9 removes a section of article 36 of the 1998 Order, which is quite prescriptive. We are taking that out because it was outdated and granted the Department wide-ranging powers for the regulations. The inclusion of clause 9 provides GTC with more freedom to decide on its eligibility criteria.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Your view is that it is enhancing independence and removing powers from the Department.

Ms Johnston: Yes. It gives GTC the power to decide. However, we would have to bring in the regulations for GTC to do its rules on that.

Mr Bailey: It goes to the heart of what the interim chief executive of GTC talked about last week: it can either completely bar someone or do nothing. This is trying to give GTCNI the ability to define the rules and have different sanctions that they can apply.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Moving on, you mentioned the creation of a new schedule 1A, in clause 11. Regulations will follow, which will make provision on that. Schedule 1A is framed as a schedule from which regulations that follow "may make provision" for all of that very, very detailed material around disciplinary powers and investigatory powers. Do you anticipate that the regulations will look like schedule 1A? Or should we anticipate something else? It is hard for us to get a sense of whether we are content with this when it is framed as, "We might do this, or we might not".

Mr Boyd: It may help to reassure you to hear that, as the draft sits, 74 individual regulations are being proposed, of which 44 will deal with disciplinary functions. They are largely around clarifying what the notification requirements would be for someone facing allegations, what their rights of appeal would be and what is an appropriate period in which GTC should move forward and take action. Again, we are not intending to be prescriptive. We intend to place some boundaries or scaffolding around GTC's actions, which respect teachers' rights as much as anything else.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): At what point do you anticipate that the Committee will have sight of those subordinate regulations and any other subordinate regulations arising from the Bill? Will it be before Consideration Stage? We have been through this with guidelines, and we would like to avoid any similar debacles with regulations. These are powers that could have quite a serious impact on a teacher's future employment, professional standing, reputation and financial stability — all those things. They are, therefore, serious powers. Will we get sight of them before the Bill comes to the Floor?

Mr Bailey: Yes. I genuinely understand the questions about disciplinary matters. As Alan said, the regulations have so much detail around them that help to provide the framework. The two steps that we have to go through over the next two or three weeks — I hope that we will be able to do something within the next two or three weeks — is that the draft regulations are currently with DSO, as Alan referenced, and we are trying to get final confirmation from DSO. Obviously, we had input from the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) in the development of them in the first place, but we want to get DSO's comments. Furthermore, as we referenced, we are working through with GTC some of the processes that will sit around that to make sure that the draft regulations will align with the anticipated processes in that regard. That will also provide protections for teachers, because there is a genuine concern, particularly where there is an allegation that is not based on anything, and the worst thing is when that sits for months and months and is hanging over the teacher's head.

All those things will be incorporated into it, but it is a fine art to try to get regulations that set the scaffolding and the framework but do not become so prescriptive that they tie GTC's hands. I hope that we are able to get you a copy of the draft regulations, subject to the Minister's approval. The intent — it is the Minister's intent too — is absolutely that we will share those with you, because you need to see them in conjunction with the Bill. I hope that that will happen within the next two to three weeks, if possible, and we will then be happy to come back and talk through them when you have had sight of them.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That would definitely be helpful.

Finally, do you have a sense of what resolution procedures the regulations will be subject to? Will it be affirmative, draft affirmative or negative?

Mr Boyd: There will be a small separate set of regulations around the new offences, and those will clearly be affirmative. The rest of the regulations will be negative. It may offer you some small additional reassurance when I say that a lot of the regulations, as currently drafted, are bringing across current regulations that we are proposing to repeal because we want to produce a single set of regulations for everyone's ease of reference. Where we are giving GTC new powers, such as around the new disciplinary sanctions, we are drawing heavily from the existing regulations used in other places, such as Wales. Again, we are not reinventing anything entirely off our own bat. We are looking to see where there are established practices that are working well, and, where we can, we are looking to mirror those. Very little of the content will be entirely new, and, should you wish to get a flavour for what might be coming, I suggest that, if you look at the Welsh main functions regs, that will give you a very good starting point.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you.

Mr Sheehan: Will there be anyone on the board with expertise on the unique challenges in the Irish-medium sector when it comes to the recruitment of teachers and professional development?

Mr Bailey: The criteria for the selection of board members have not been fully defined yet, Pat, but the intent is to get members on it who are representative of the teaching profession. The unions are very keen on that, and that includes the full span of the teaching profession. We want to have representatives who represent all the sectors, including the Irish-medium sector. There will also be representatives who have board skills, including business management skills. We will go through a process of defining exactly which criteria are required, and, of course, there will be an additional skill set, including leadership skills, for the chair. We definitely want it to be representative of all the sectors. It is probably fair to say that it has not been.

Mr Sheehan: Mark, I am looking for a more definitive answer. Has consideration been given to the unique challenges in the Irish-medium sector?

Mr Bailey: It is fair to say that consideration will be given to the challenges in all the sectors, Pat.

Mr Sheehan: I did not ask you whether consideration "will" be given: I asked you whether consideration "has" been given.

Mr Bailey: Your question started, Pat, with the selection of the members. We have not yet defined all the criteria for the selection of the members. I am not trying to be evasive; I am just saying that we need to make sure that that reflects the concerns that you raise and that others will raise about making sure that the board is representative.

Mr Sheehan: I understand that, but my concern is that, again, the Irish-medium sector will become an afterthought: "Oh right, we didn't think about the unique challenges in the Irish-medium sector". That is why I asked you whether consideration has been given to that.

Mr Bailey: The Irish-medium sector is definitely considered along with everything else. You will be aware that the Irish-medium sector has developed its own set of competencies, and core competencies are a key part of that. A separate process is going on in parallel to establish those core competencies. The answer to your question is yes; the only caveat is that we have not yet defined the criteria for the selection process for the posts.

Mr Sheehan: When do you expect to have the criteria ready?

Mr Bailey: Assuming that the Bill goes through in the mandate, we intend to have the board up and running by April 2027. We want the members to have been selected in advance of that, so I imagine that the selection process will run a number of months prior to that, probably at the end of this year, depending on the Bill's progress.

Mr Sheehan: OK. The teachers' unions were before the Committee last week, and it was clear that they have concerns about the new iteration of the board. Does it matter whether the teaching profession has confidence in the board?

Mr Bailey: It is important to us that the profession has confidence in the board. As you know, the teaching unions are an important part of the process. I spend a lot of time engaging with the teaching unions, not so much on GTC but certainly on teachers' terms and conditions and pay. It is important that the teaching unions are with us. Two weeks ago, the unions mentioned that we had engaged with them, but they have been upfront that they are not content with the public appointments process. They have never wavered from that position. To be honest, I do not expect the teaching unions to move from that position in the short to medium term. However, we are sure that the public appointments process is the right way to go for the board, in line with most other NDPBs, because we cannot repeat the mistakes of the past, as I said in my opening remarks. That is our fundamental concern. We will do everything that we can to ensure that the teaching unions are with us and support the process, but they clearly have some fundamental concerns, particularly around the make-up of the board. The teaching unions have openly stated that they would prefer to have elected members on the board as opposed to those who have gone through a public process, but that was the past mistake that caused the very issue that brought us to where we are. We need to be careful not to repeat that mistake.

Mr Sheehan: Are discussions taking place with the unions?

Mr Bailey: Yes. We have had two or three formal meetings, but I regularly speak to the unions, and they have been involved. To be fair, the unions are consistent; they have not changed their position. Our concern is that the unions have not given any alternative solutions other than saying that the board should include elected members and be independent of the Department.

Mr Sheehan: You mentioned the fee issue earlier. Why should teachers pay a fee to what is essentially an extension of the Department? The situation in the South is different: the teachers pay a fee to the Teaching Council, but that is a genuinely independent statutory regulator established by an Act, with the clear legal authority to regulate registrations, standards and fitness to teach without ministerial direction in individual cases. In contrast, the GTC will be an arm’s-length body of the Department and will not be independent. Can you understand why teachers might be concerned about paying a fee to a body that is not an independent regulator?

Mr Bailey: It is common for independent regulators and regulatory bodies to apply a fee to members. In medicine, social services or any profession, it is the most common outcome. The key thing is the independence of the body's decision-making. We have just talked about the regulations and how we want to give the GTC the authority to make its own rules and determine its own procedures, and that is still the intent. The fact that it is an arm's-length body does not give the Department control over it. The body will have powers, through the legislation that we propose, to make determinations, including the fee level. The Department will not determine the fee level; the body will take that forward.

In all the other jurisdictions except England, the professional body for teachers is paid a fee. All the teachers pay a fee that is higher than the fee here. Down South, I think, it is €65. It is £46 in Wales and £75 in Scotland. It is normal practice that, we believe, is in line with many other regulatory professional bodies. As I said, the Social Care Council was set up in a similar manner, so what we are proposing is not unusual.

Mr Sheehan: Thanks for that.

Mr Burrows: Thanks for that. We have heard from a number of witnesses about the GTCNI Bill, so I will take a slightly different approach. What assurance can you give me that the new body will be subject to ministerial accountability? When I ask the Department about teachers, I sometimes get a detached response. What ministerial accountability will there be for the body?

Mr Bailey: Do you mean accountability to the Department?

Mr Burrows: Yes.

Mr Bailey: As an arm's-length body, it has to operate within the processes, rules and regulations of such bodies. The Bill and the regulations set out the framework for it to operate in. The Department has an oversight arrangement with all NDPBs. It engages with them to make sure that they operate within their appropriate protocols and authority. There will be accountability to the Department, but the Department will give the body the authority to develop the detail of how it conducts its processes, particularly for registration rules and other procedures, provided that it operates within the regulations. I am not sure whether I have answered your question, Jon.

Mr Burrows: Yes. I have seen tension between the accountability and the operational independence of bodies in other branches of our government where that has not worked effectively and, in effect, there has been no accountability. I will move on; maybe I will write to the Minister about that one.

The sister body in England is widely seen as looking over the shoulder of teachers — that is one of the bits of feedback that I have heard from English teachers — which is a cultural thing. Are you sure that the culture will be set so that there is no overreach and we will not be looking over the shoulder of teachers and second-guessing them?

Mr Bailey: That is absolutely not the intention. GTCNI will operate very much at a strategic level in dealing with professional standards and registration and will get involved in individual teacher issues only if there is a likelihood of dismissal or a significant sanction is required. As the interim chair explained last week, there are 15 staff; it is a small organisation. With the new responsibilities, we will want to grow that a little, but we are not talking about an organisation that can, in effect, police the minutiae. The internal disciplinary processes in the education system will deal with the detail.

Mr Burrows: We are talking about gross misconduct and serious things at the upper end of the scale, not day-to-day misdemeanours.

Mr Bailey: Yes.

Mr Burrows: OK. We will keep an eye on that.

An issue with trainee teachers that I have picked up is that schools are hiring PGCE students for sub cover in May and June, before they have been registered.

Mr Bailey: That should not happen, because teachers need to be registered with GTC in order to work in a school.

Mr Burrows: Are you aware of that happening?

Mr Bailey: I am not, to be honest. It is a clear, black-and-white rule that they must be registered with GTC to teach in a school.

Mr Burrows: OK. I will follow that up.

This is my final question. As you know, principals were recently advised to hold back on substitute cover in order to balance the books. Do you agree that the new body should not permit classroom assistants to be used as teaching cover to save money and that it should deal with any instance of that?

Mr Bailey: I agree that there are clear differences between what a classroom assistant and what a teacher should be expected to do. There is always an overlap, obviously, but no school should expect a classroom assistant to teach a class: that is black and white. If that is an issue, it should be dealt with through the normal school procedures or through the employing authority. Obviously, the GTCNI will not get involved in every individual case, but, if that became a general problem, we would need to deal with it. The unions have raised such issues with us before, Jon, and we have followed up through the employing authorities with the individual schools. There are mechanisms to deal with that.

Mr Burrows: Thank you for your answers.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you, Jon. I do not think that we have any other indications. Cathy, did you want to come in?

Mrs Mason: It is just to clarify something. Mark, you said that GTCNI will have the independence to make decisions but that its members will still be appointed by the Department and will still be accountable to the Minister.

Mr Bailey: The board goes through a public appointments process, and, in line with other NDPBs —.

Mrs Mason: Sorry. This is just for my own clarity. It is still appointed by the Department.

Mr Bailey: Yes. The board members are.

Mrs Mason: They have the independence to make decisions, but they are still appointed by the Department and accountable to the Minister.

Mr Bailey: Yes, but they are selected by an independent panel that will make sure that they meet all the criteria that are required. Ultimately, the Department determines, as it does with all NDPBs, who is on the board on the basis of those who came through that selection process.

Mrs Mason: Thanks for clarifying that.

Mrs Guy: I have a couple of points to pick up. You referred a number of times to other professional bodies and equivalents. What professional bodies did you look at and what elements of those are being brought into this? Are they equivalent in being teaching bodies or just in being public bodies? You mentioned a number of different ones.

Mr Bailey: My colleagues can probably give more detail on that. It is both. We looked at the other teaching regulatory bodies in local jurisdictions, and we also looked at other professions. Alan or Leanne, do you want to comment on that?

Mr Boyd: In planning for this, we took advice predominantly from officials in the relevant regulators and from their counterpart sponsor Departments in the other jurisdictions. We were keen to pick up on practices that were working effectively for them and to learn from any areas where their current systems were creating difficulties for them. We engaged with those bodies, and, in our desk research, we looked at the structures of wider bodies and the fees that they charge for membership of their regulated profession, including the GMC, the Nursing and Midwifery Council, NISCC, which we have already referenced, and the Health and Care Professions Council. In England, a lot of the professional bodies have their board appointments made through the Privy Council, which, as far as we can see, in essence, still gives a government body the final say on those appointments. As Mark said, that is not an uncommon practice. It has been done widely and seems to work widely. If it did not work well, we would not have proposed it.

Mr Bailey: It is worth saying that GTC and the interim chair have close relationships with the equivalent bodies in other jurisdictions. They meet in person regularly and share a lot of best practice. There is a lot of connection between all the teaching councils around all the local jurisdictions.

Mrs Guy: Is it fair to say from what the unions said that there is a real problem of trust here? I do not know whether those other bodies have the same problem to deal with. It has been mentioned today that there is a lack of trust between unions and the Department, and it seems that, ultimately, the issue is with the Department. Does the Department or the Minister make the final appointment, or does the Minister rubber-stamp it? You said that an independent body will select the people who meet the standard: have you given any thought to those people being put forward for election? Maybe that would bridge that concern.

Mr Bailey: We consulted the Commissioner for Public Appointments for Northern Ireland (CPANI), as the adviser on the public appointments process; that was a recommendation in the independent review from Baker Tilly Mooney Moore (BTMM). In the process that it recommended, the panel that will select individuals and ensure that they meet the competencies will probably be a tripartite panel that includes somebody from CPANI, somebody from the Department and AN Other layperson. We have not yet worked out the detail. The panel will come up with a list of names, and, ultimately, the Minister will have to approve who is on the board.

The whole thrust behind it is that we cannot repeat what happened in the past. That is the real concern here. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. A leap of faith may be needed. We will keep engaging with the unions. It is about getting the right people on the body so that it operates properly. The body will have the discretion to make all sorts of decisions under the regulations, and that is what will make it independent. The key problem is that "independent" is a very loose term. The unions have not clearly said what they mean by "independent". To be frank, when I listened to the evidence two weeks ago, the "independent" claim felt a bit like a veiled cover for, "We want our elected members to be part of it". That is how it came across, and that is not how we see independence. An NDPB should have some level of governance and control from the parent Department and some accountability to it, whichever Department that is, but, given that it has expertise in the area — in this case, teaching — it should have the freedom to do the best thing for the profession within those constraints or that framework. That is where we are trying to get to.

Mrs Guy: Ultimately, it has to have the confidence of the people. That is the challenge that you will have to overcome.

Mr Bailey: I agree.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): No other member has indicated.

I want to pick up on the fees. The Deputy Chair raised the issue, but I want to make sure that I have understood properly how clause 12 is framed. I am happy to stand corrected, but it reads as though clause 12 gives GTCNI the power to charge a fee above the cost of running the organisation but that there is a clear requirement that the fee "must" cover the costs of GTC. I want to check, first, that I have understood that correctly and, secondly, why there is a provision to charge over and above that. When we know that teachers are concerned about being hit with a fee increase, which seems likely from GTC's evidence last week, why are we giving that extra power with no controls on fee charging at all?

Mr Bailey: That is a fair question. GTC will never be a profit-making body. It will not be able to make money for profits, to pay bonuses and all that. As an NDPB, it will never do that. My understanding is that clause 12 is there to allow some flexibility, because there may be times when, for particular purposes, a bit of a reserve has to be built up for something that is likely to be an extra cost; for example, a new IT system. Money needs to be gathered up as a reserve in advance to pay for something that will be more expensive in the future. It is to give a level of flexibility. The intent is to raise just enough money to allow the organisation to operate and no more, but, because of timing, it may need to have slightly more for a period to build up a reserve. Is that a fair comment?

Mr Boyd: The only other point that I will add is that, when we get into the regulations, you will see that we propose that GTC be required to consult the profession before increasing its fees, so, again, there will be no surprises. It will have to make the case for why the fee increase is necessary, demonstrate that the body is still running efficiently and explain that the new step is desirable but will cost x, so it needs to increase the fee by y.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Is that not all covered by new article 39A(2), under clause 12, which, in effect, states that the fee must cover the organisation's costs? New article 39A(1) seems to say that there is no upper limit.

Mr Bailey: It goes slightly further in requiring that —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Can you understand the teaching profession's concern that that feels very open-ended?

Mr Boyd: I am aware of one example. GTC is holding a large pension liability reserve. It had to secure that money from somewhere. It sits within the Northern Ireland Local Government Officers' Superannuation Committee (NILGOSC) pension scheme, and the rates and reserves that it is required to hold are dictated largely by NILGOSC. It has had to build up that reserve over a number of years. Currently, it is not in a position to supplement the reserves at all year-on-year. We therefore need to give it that flexibility, but it will never seek to overly extend the fees unless there is a clear rationale for why that is absolutely essential. As I said, as an additional safeguard in the regulations, there will be a requirement for it to engage with and consult the profession before doing so.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): There are some slight concerns. I am not sure how the teachers listening to that will feel about the fact that their fees will secure government officials' pension pots. I am not sure whether they will feel that that is what their fees are there to cover. It should be about what it gives to the profession.

Mr Bailey: As with any professional organisation, it has staff, and they have terms and conditions. Your points are valid, particularly Michelle and Pat's point about bringing the unions with us. We will continue to work on that. However, it is wider than that: we need to bring the teachers with us as well as the unions.

The last time that we were here, we said that we would have a job of work to do, as the Bill progresses, to raise the profile of the GTCNI and what it can do for teachers, so that, when their fee is deducted, they feel that they are getting value for money. That will be a difficult trick, because of the history. We have a long way to go on that, but we are fully conscious of it and plan to do all that we can to bring the unions and the teachers with us.

By way of reassurance, it will never be a profit-making body. Any fee should only cover its costs. We can look further at that clause. It is a timing issue more than anything else, as I understand it, to make sure that its hands are not completely tied and that it has all the money in the bank to pay for everything in a particular year. Things sometimes span the years, and it evens out.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I understand that, but I have a slight concern around the two elements to that clause. One seems to permit a fairly open structure whereby you can charge over and above the costs of running the body, and the other states that you must charge a fee that covers the costs. If it is not there to build up a surplus or make a profit — I am not suggesting that anyone in the Department is trying to create a profit-making organisation — it is about having a sense of protection for teachers.

I do not know whether there is scope to take that away to see whether we really need that provision. If it is to cover costs, can that not cover the exceptional additional costs that might arise? We are talking about confidence. Teachers will want confidence that they will not be hit with repeated fee increases, with consultation or otherwise.

Mr Bailey: That is a fair comment. Do you want to comment on that, Leanne?

Ms Johnston: Clause 12 also talks about setting charges. That is something that we have considered, along with the other teaching regulators. Some teaching regulators may charge for a letter of professional standing for those who are registered or are looking to register from outside the jurisdiction. That is what happens in Scotland. That is common practice. It allows the freedom for the extra work that the GTC may have to do to give extra consideration to those qualifications. That was built in following consultation, so that it might be able to look at that area in the future.

Mr Bailey: Chair, you make a fair point, and we will consider it. We need to convince people of the rationale behind it. That is the whole point of what you have been and will be doing over the months, scrutinising the Bill and the regulations. That is all helpful to provide reassurance to teachers that it is appropriate for their professional body.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Nobody wants to repeat the dysfunction of what went before. That is clear, regardless of what perspective you are coming from, and that includes teachers.

Thank you for your time and for taking us through the Bill today. No doubt, we will be in touch as the process continues.