Peter Weir
Strangford · Ulster Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“Funding was secured for that scheme, and we have been able to take further steps on it. As highlighted by my colleague Diane Dodds, we have seen my successor, the current Minister, be able to implement it at the beginning of September 2021 and funding be made available for it.”
“One of the great fears — I saw it particularly, as Education Minister, from the point of view of children and the domestic setting between partners — was what was going to happen in families when the doors closed and the locks went on. What was happening behind closed doors?”
“There is another significant element of the Bill. I have spoken about it in the Chamber on a couple of occasions. There is always a slight danger that we, as legislators, see legislation as being the end of a process and think that we can pack it away, put it on the shelf and forget about the problem because it has been solved.”
“I welcome the passage of the Bill's Final Stage and commend all the campaigners who have pressed so hard for it and the Bill sponsor. For Pat Catney, hearing some of the tributes must be like hearing eulogies at your funeral, without having to go through the indignity of dying, which is always a double advantage.”
“As highlighted by a number of Members, the impact of period poverty, though not confined to it, has been particularly acute in young women's education. We know that the impact can lead to the missing of education and constraints within education, and that it does so in a disproportionate way.”
“I support the Bill's Final Stage, and I commend the Bill's sponsor for introducing it. I thank the Minister and the Department for the positive attitude that they have taken towards it.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,831 lines we hold for Peter Weir, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 77.
“If we look at applications to change to integrated status, we see that a lot of them are merited and the bulk are genuine. However, particularly in the context of wider pressure on budgets and the need to transform area planning, there will be schools that do it. The first headline that came out today was about EA's broad assessment that roughly 200 primary schools in Northern Ireland have fewer than 105 pupils. Rightly or wrongly, a lot of those schools will feel threatened and that the axe is poised over them. If they see that a particular badging of their school — unfortunately, it would be a form of badging in some cases —”
“I can think of at least one example — I am sure that the Member will agree — where a proposal for transformation to an integrated school was directly opposed by NICIE. I suspect that that is not unique. Yet, all those proposals — whether for an integrated, controlled or maintained school or on the basis of amalgamation, closure or changes in numbers — should always be treated entirely on merit. However, if the Education Authority is looking over its shoulder and knows that it has a duty to monitor the success of applications, that would clearly colour the approach that is taken. That is a flaw.”
“Consequently, when the Education Authority looks at any proposal, it will say, "Is this helping us to meet our targets? Is it helping to increase figures?", rather than looking at the merits of the case. <BR /> <BR />I agreed with the Bill sponsor yesterday when she talked about ethos. She expressed a concern coming from within the integrated education sector that there would occasionally be some false converts to the cause of integrated education. From that perspective and given the different development proposals that I and the current Minister have looked at, some proposals for individual integrated schools have had merit and have been approved, and some have fallen short.”
“That is not simply a matter of facilitating parental choice; it is saying that one sector is good and the rest are clearly less so and that there must be promotion of that sector. What are the implications of that for area planning and for the Education Authority? It suggests that it will come to any decision looking over its shoulder at what legal challenges could be made. That could lead to a minefield of legal challenges. That will, undoubtedly, influence the Education Authority's decisions. <BR /> <BR />The Education Authority is meant to encompass all sectors and every child in Northern Ireland. It is supposed to take an objective and neutral view and then decide and put forward proposals for area planning that are based on the merits of the individual application, but it will not be only that. Clause 5(1)(a) places a requirement of:”
“The problem with what is being put forward, particularly in clauses 4 and 5, is that it takes a step back from that and takes education in the wrong direction. In the same way, as we mentioned yesterday, dealing with one sector ahead of a broader review of education compartmentalises it and gets it the wrong way round. To have something that is focused purely on delivery for one sector and moves that sector outside the concept of area planning is a retrograde step. <BR /> <BR />Let us look again at the implications of clauses 4 and 5. Clause 4 is based on the idea of support for integrated education above all other sectors, as mentioned. There is a fundamental flaw there. Clause 5 is simply looking to meet demand, but, as part of that, it also places a duty of:”
“Obviously, they have to be advocates for their own sector, but, when it comes to the distribution of schools and school places, it is often said that the sectors operate with that silo mentality. Area planning is beginning to break that down, and it does so because every sector has a direct place at the table. That was made clear from the start, and it has been put into practice. It was in practice in 2016, when I was Minister, and it is in practice under the current Minister. She is driving an area planning process in which everyone is represented and in which we can, therefore, look for area solutions rather than sectoral solutions. We look for what is best for all the children in an area, and that, surely, is something that we should encourage.”
“It is clearly and implicitly admitted that, when you have an additional duty that is not applicable to any other sector, you are not creating that level playing field that, surely, all of us should look for; rather, you create a situation in which one sector is advantaged over the others. That is the fundamental problem with the amendments that have been tabled on that matter and with clauses 4 and 5 in particular. <BR /> <BR />I turn to those clauses now. I should say that area planning has been one of the slow-burning success stories. We have started to see work going on between the sectors. For many years and not without a level of merit, there has been criticism that the education system has a silo mentality and that the sectors look after themselves.”
“Parents make their choices. Some schools will be oversubscribed. For instance, as the Minister in 2020, I saw the implications of the oversubscription of post-primary schools. A range of schools were oversubscribed, including those that had gone down in numbers and those that had gone up, and that was across all sectors. Indeed, there was a controlled school in Belfast that probably had the biggest single increase in demand for places, so there will always be schools that are oversubscribed. Again, to those who argue that "support for" rather than "promotion" is a softer landing zone, I point out that no one has made the argument for why there should be any distinction.”
“As highlighted by the Minister, it leads to real resource implications for schools. Given where the schools budget is and the way that funding formulas go, an advantage for one sector or school and additional funding because of that will be at the expense of other schools. There is no other way to do it; we cannot have a virtuous circle.”
“Everybody should be treated equally. I mentioned yesterday that no child should be disadvantaged because of the school gates that it goes through. No child should be disadvantaged because of the choices made by its parents. The choices made by different parents will be equally valid, but, if we say that some are more equal than others, that is fundamentally wrong, and it goes to the very heart of the Bill and the amendment. <BR /> <BR />The amendments that replace "promotion" with "support for" are, in many ways, neither here nor there, because I am yet to hear anyone clarify the difference in law or in real meaning between the two. They give a distinction to one sector by comparison with any other and create a clear level of inequality. That inequality is not simply some form of debating-point semantics.”
“I do not suggest that a ruling is needed, but the Member said, "Neither was the intervention". The intervention was an intervention, not a point of order. That contrast was the whole point, and I thought that the Member would be aware of that. <BR /> <BR />To deal with the points that were raised, our focus, in budget and provision, should be on the most disadvantaged in our society, and the provision of places for those with special educational needs should be at the forefront of our thinking. Mr Lyttle raised the issue of sectors for which there is already encouragement and facilitation and asked what the problem would be if anything was added to that. If we have a situation in which one sector is advantaged because it has additional provisions, will adding further advantages make the situation better? No, it will not.”
“I will deal with the points of information, as, I suspect, the point of order was not a point of order, but that is by the by”
“OK. I will give way, and then I will deal with a couple of points.”
“There does not appear to be any particular indication that there is a difference between their legal meaning; it is a semantic change. Where support is given to one sector and there is an explicit legal duty to support that sector — it is not simply the intention of a particular Minister but is in primary legislation — and that support is not available to other sectors, that undoubtedly creates imbalance.”
“OK. I would hate to think that some of my words might be missed for posterity, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I will resolve to speak into the microphone. <BR /> <BR />A theme has run through each group of amendments, as highlighted by the Minister and some of the other Members who have spoken. Indeed, even some Members who supported the legislation did so with caveats. They say that they are happy to support particular clauses but that they cannot be to the detriment of any other sector. It is undoubtedly the case that the Bill as drafted and, indeed, some of the amendments will lead to a level of inequality. <BR /> <BR />A number of amendments substitute "promotion" with "support for". As highlighted by my colleague Mr Stalford, however, the definitions of the two seem to be fairly interchangeable.”
“I wish to refer to some of the areas that are contained in the second group of amendments. As the Minister highlighted, there is some read-across with the third group. The principal concerns that have been raised on this side of the House focus on clauses 4 and 5. While it was right to point out the flaws and the dangers in those clauses, it is also important that solutions be provided. That is why it is significant and important that, in getting the wording right and getting something that is fit for purpose, the Minister's amendment introducing new clause 5A does not leave us simply with a vacuum but creates a situation in which solutions are provided.”
“There are a couple of points relating to that. I am not suggesting that a lot of the recommendations are not without merit. The point is that we are saying that if a report is produced, one of the two authors of which is the president of NICIE, that will create a particular viewpoint. There is nothing wrong with somebody having that particular viewpoint, but let us not pretend that it is something which has simply come out of the ether entirely independently. <BR /> <BR />A number of the recommendations that were put forward were implemented. A few were felt to be inappropriate, and it was felt that a better way of looking at them was for them to be considered as part of the wider review. That does not necessarily mean that the wider review will accept, reject or implement them, but rather that it will give consideration to them.”
“It became a wish list, as well as identifying issues that everyone could genuinely embrace.”
“I appreciate that. I have been following the proceedings. The Member referred to the fact that I was not physically in the Chamber. Obviously, that was to do with the restrictions on numbers. The Member referred to me with regard to the report on integrated education in 2016. While many worthwhile things came out of that, we should bear in mind that it was published and written by two people, and one of the authors was the president of NICIE. To my mind, that suggests that, in terms of pure independence as opposed to someone making a strong argument for a particular sector, you have to query how independent that was. Many worthy things were produced by that report, but it is not the same as somebody looking objectively from outside. That has to be borne in mind as a caveat.”
“In and of itself, the Member's amendment is more restrictive than the Minister's amendment.”
“The Member says that she will not support the Minister's amendment because she regards it as restrictive. However, the current wording of the clause, and the wording in amendment No 6, which retains the definition, is conjunctive in nature because all three of those aspects must be met for a school to be counted as integrated. For instance, a school that meets the reasonable numbers test for a religious mix but does not meet one of the other two tests cannot be counted as an integrated school. Consequently, rather than being restrictive, the Minister's amendment ensures that the definition is focused on the community background. The proposal in the Member's amendment restricts because it reduces the number of schools that can be regarded as being integrated.”
“The Member has had his opportunity to speak. I am making the point that the independent review is the better route to take. We can try at least to ameliorate the Bill by accepting the amendments, particularly those tabled by the Minister. We can cherish our children equally or we can create disadvantage for some and advantage for others, which nobody in the House should be embracing. It is therefore important that people read and consider the amendments and make those changes.”
“The point that I am making is that the review was not truly independent. Its two authors were people with direct links to the sector, which they were perfectly entitled to have. It was effectively a wish list on behalf of integrated education. It produced some good stuff and some stuff that was not as valuable. The point, however, is that we could put forward sectional changes that benefit or have an impact on one sector over another, but a position has been taken across the board — in NDNA, by the Executive and by both Education Ministers in this mandate — that the best way of dealing with the very important structural changes in education that need to be examined is through the independent review. That is the route by which we can make a strategic decision and, hopefully, begin to cherish our children equally rather than —”
“<BR /> <BR />We would be a lot better first accepting the amendments that the Minister and others have tabled and then dealing with the structural issues of education through the independent review. Otherwise, we will deliver something that gives sectoral advantage rather than equality to our children.”
“Some were impractical or, indeed, on a couple of occasions, did not find favour even with the integrated sector itself, and NICIE did not think it appropriate for them to be put in place. <BR /> <BR />A number of other measures need to be dealt with strategically. That is why they were put into the independent review of education's wide-ranging terms of reference. The remit of that review was endorsed by every party in the Executive. Every single party came to the conclusion that the independent review was the right place in which to deal with those matters strategically. The Bill and many of the clauses that are dealt with in the first group of amendments simply undermine that position.”
“I do: it is. The golden thread that should run through any strategy that we adopt on education should be that equality and opportunity are there for all. I do not believe that the Bill does that. The amendments, particularly those that the Minister and Mr Allister tabled, claw back at least some of the unfair advantages that are potentially in the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Mention has been made of the broader strategic direction for education. The Member raised the proposals that were put forward out of the previous audit of the integrated sector. That report was drawn up by a couple of people who were appointed, as they were perfectly entitled to be, from the integrated sector. That is a fact. It is also the case, however, that a number of measures were put in place by the Department of Education.”
“I will give way in a second. In the same way, the CCMS will fight for the position of maintained schools. However, the Bill would place a duty on all education bodies, without definition, to support and promote integrated education.”
“I note that it is not an amendment that the Member tabled. The best way to deal with that directly, as Mr Allister and others have indicated, is to remove in its entirety clause 12, which creates that presumption. <BR /> <BR />In clause 6, there is a lack of definition of "education bodies". It is natural and correct that NICIE will fight the corner of integrated education.”
“I will give way in a moment. However, it is difficult to make a case for a presumption in favour of one sector and then say that there is equality in that.”
“Still, left untouched, at clause 12, is the presumption that any new school will be integrated. Will parents who are making a choice between sectors see a level playing field? If this is about trying to make sure that there is a level playing field, no one has any objections to that.”
“However, by definition, that clause implies that those values are shared uniquely by integrated schools. That is, in many ways, deeply insulting to those outside the integrated sector. <BR /> <BR />Again, how are all these things to be judged? Will we do some sort of ethos audit of each school, with a barrier that has to be overcome? The Member nods her head: the ethos police will inspect every school to ensure that it meets the criteria suitably. Again, at what cost? How are we to judge that element? As I have said, there is not a school in the country that does not aspire to those values. Therefore, it is superfluous and potentially insulting. <BR /> <BR />I have mentioned the test of equality. Other aspects of the issue of new builds fall into later groups of amendments, so I will not transgress by describing those.”
“The current formula in the Bill, which the sponsor would not see adjusted, introduces elements that will either render it meaningless or inadvertently — I am sure that it is not her intention — act to make it difficult for some schools to be counted as integrated. <BR /> <BR />I turn to the proposed amendments to clause 2. There is a fundamental problem with clause 2. No one could disagree with any of those elements being the ethos of a school. However, as schools in the controlled, maintained and Irish-medium sectors have asked, what school in the country does not seek to embrace those values? There is an implication in having those values as a pure definition of integrated education. There are Members who can support every jot and tittle of the Bill and argue that they are not in any way disparaging controlled or maintained schools.”
“If we were to judge ability at primary school level, how would we judge the ability of those who are coming into P1? Have we a handle on their academic ability or their qualities? The point is that that can be looked at narrowly or widely. Either way, it makes it fairly meaningless from the point of view of a definition. <BR /> <BR />If the principal aim is to embrace, broadly speaking, a cross-community ethos, I very much support the formula that has been suggested by the Minister, which refers to the two main communities but also takes account of those who have different religions or none, as being the proper test of integration.”
“I am sorry. I thought that the Minister was looking to me to give way. Alternatively, it becomes utterly meaningless. <BR /> <BR />How are the differences to be judged? Are we going to do an audit in each school of its socio-economic background or, indeed, of the different levels of ability it has in order to make a judgement? It seems to me that that means a very stringent test or a loose test. Either way, it renders the thing —.”
“We are all of different abilities, so either this is very exclusive — Members have raised the point of whether, for example, a post-primary school that bases its intake on academic selection is potentially excluded from being an integrated school — or it means that we take a general approach that simply says that, if there is any difference in level of ability, there is”
“I am sorry; my microphone has gone a bit awry again. Either we are saying that, in those communities, a primary school of that nature cannot ever really be considered an integrated school, or we take the view that this is something to which lip service is to be paid, and it becomes meaningless. <BR /> <BR />Similarly, with regard to different abilities, there are very different backgrounds. There are Members in the Chamber with high levels of ability to which I can only aspire.”
“I will take Members through them in turn. <BR /> <BR />Let us take the basis of the socio-economic background requirement that there has to be a mixture of those who are from socio-economically deprived backgrounds and those who are not. The natural catchment of most post-primary schools is a relatively wide geographical area that will sometimes mean that there is a mixture of socio-economic backgrounds, but approximately 80% of mainstream schools in Northern Ireland are in the primary sector. Such schools are often very much drilled into their local community. In many cases, they will draw from a specific geographical area, which may well have provision for specific demographics if, for example, you are in a strongly working-class area. Whatever the community, it will tend to be very working-class or middle-class”
“I know that an alternative amendment has been tabled by the sponsor of the Bill, but the fundamental way that the Member diverges from the SDLP amendment, which would remove paragraphs (b) and (c), means that integrated education is not, in the original text and as it would remain if amended, defined simply on the basis of community background, if I can put it that way, and of religious denomination. The Bill sponsor seems to introduce two other elements that are not alternatives to but are in conjunction with that by proposing to put in place a requirement for a mixture of socio-economic backgrounds and abilities. The Member is perfectly entitled to do that, but one can draw only two conclusions from those proposals. Either they establish a high bar that will prevent schools becoming integrated schools, or they are a meaningless test.”
“I understand that. I know that Members have raised amendment Nos 27 and 29, which are rightly part of the thing. I was referring to the opposition to clause 12, which is one of the group 1 amendments, and to the reference to that clause. I have tried to keep my remarks to that, and there will be other opportunities in the later stages to deal with it. <BR /> <BR />I will deal with a few of the amendments that have been tabled. Amendments in the Minister's name, particularly amendment No 2 and others in the group, would correct the definition of integrated education.”
“Unfortunately, they do not entirely. Amendment No 29 is a good amendment by my colleague. Amendment Nos 27 and 29 both sort of bring in new clauses, but they leave the contents of clause 12 untouched, namely the presumption that any new school will be an integrated school.”
“From what the Member has said so far, the Ulster Unionists have not addressed many of the amendments, which is surely what the Consideration Stage should be about. I am really none the clearer on which of the 71 amendments he will back and which he will not, even those in group 1. However, the Member has made his position clear. <BR /> <BR />The Member from Strangford wanted to come in.”
“I am happy to give way in a minute. If I can just address one point first, I will be happy to give way to the sponsor of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />On what the Member said, first, he is clearly aware of the fundamental principles of Bill stages. The opportunity to make major changes lies at Consideration Stage; Further Consideration Stage is for only a very minor level of tweaking beyond that. If we are saying that, even with what passes today, there is further work to be done, it seems that the opportunity is fast running out. <BR /> <BR />I am still a little confused. The Member said that are 71 amendments — plus, presumably, the opposition to particular clauses — and that it will become clear what position the Ulster Unionists are taking on some of them.”
“I thank the Member for his clarification, as far as it went. I have to say that I am still a little bit —.”
“I am happy to give way to Mr Butler first if he wishes to —.”
“I am not sure whether that was more directed at Mr Butler than at me, but I am happy to give way to Mr Butler if he wishes to clarify his position on clause 12 and where he feels that sufficient changes have been made to the Bill to change it from its unacceptable earlier format. If the Member is saying that he believes that the amendments tabled by the Minister are of benefit, that would be of worth, but I am happy to give way. <BR /> <BR />The silence suggests that he is not in a position to answer that question.”
“OK, sorry. I thought that I was about to get some information from the Member; obviously not. <BR /> <BR />Amendments to clause 12 are among the group 1 amendments. Clause 12 makes specific reference — I know that this is qualified elsewhere — to the presumption that any new school will be integrated and that any new school that is built will be integrated. On the basis of what the Member has said, I presume that he will support the amendment tabled by the Minister and Mr Allister, which opposes clause 12, and we can take it that the Ulster Unionists will vote against that clause. One assumes that all the details of that have been read.”
“Clearly, however, an advantage is given, and the Bill contains a presumption that integrated education is a more virtuous choice than other choices made by parents. We need to fundamentally guard against that. We should look at any amendment through the prism of whether it delivers equality or makes a distinction. <BR /> <BR />Mr Butler said that part of the objective of the Ulster Unionist Party is to ensure that we have a level playing field. I will try to make what I say not too much of a criticism of the Member. He talked a little about the generalities. He mentioned one specific area of the Bill — the reflection of demographics — but did not address others. I assume, therefore, that he takes the view that equality and a levelling up —”
“The flaws have been highlighted very well by the Minister, and the amendments that she has tabled today seek to at least ameliorate that situation. They do not entirely address it, but they at least seek to reduce the problems that would be created, potentially, by elements of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Similarly, parents are entitled to make choices about their children's education, and we should not take a view that one choice is naturally better than any other. We should not, for instance, say that choosing an integrated school is virtuous or that it benefits parents. We should not say that a different choice is, somehow, secondary in nature. Members who support the Bill and some of the amendments have been at pains to point out how they really do not see this as any form of slight on the controlled or maintained sectors.”
“<BR /> <BR />As we consider the various amendments, the overriding element must be the extent to which they deliver on the basis of equality. For our families, our schools and, above all else, our children, the key litmus test is to what extent they are treated on a fair and equitable basis. No child should be advantaged or disadvantaged by the school gates that they go through. Whether a child goes through the gates of a controlled school, a maintained school, an integrated school, an Irish-medium school, a school that embraces academic selection, a school that does not embrace academic selection or a school that focuses on special educational needs and makes specific provision for those, they should have equality of treatment. Indeed, all those schools should be treated equally. Therein lies one of the fundamental flaws of the Bill.”
“If we simply move in a piecemeal fashion that does not address where we aim to be in a wider context, we do ourselves a disservice. That is why it was right, in line with the commitments in NDNA that have been taken forward by me and the current Minister, to establish the independent review. <BR /> <BR />Mrs Kelly, I think, talked about previous reports gathering dust. Unlike the various reports that have been produced and brought forward by a Minister without reference to anyone else, the independent review of education, which has wide terms of reference, is Executive-led and is taking an Executive-approved approach. To, in effect, pre-empt that by introducing legislation that, from a structural point of view, deals with only one aspect of education is therefore a fundamental mistake. We should await the full report.”