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 64 of 77.
“<BR /> <BR />Having set out that spirit of comradeship across the Chamber, I will now devalue all of it by obviously opposing the Minister's position, really on two grounds. As a degree of background, I was not quite sure where the previous Member who spoke would end up. He ended up eventually supporting it. It does seem as though he could just as easily have gone against it. Nevertheless, he does at least make one valid point on the issue of timing. I have two particular concerns with these regulations. I should say in deference to a previous Member who spoke that these are regulations, not amendments. Nevertheless, I have two particular problems with the Minister's position. <BR /> <BR />First of all, there is an absence and missed opportunity to provide something a little bit more objective by way of a panel.”
“First of all, I would like to associate myself with the latter remarks of the Member who spoke previously. Some time ago, I managed to find an escape route out of the Committee for the Environment, but, for many years, I served under the chairmanship of Ms Lo and alongside Mr Maginness. While today, as on other occasions, I do not find myself in the same position as them on the debate, I certainly pay tribute to the efforts that they have made, particularly on environmental issues down the years. I suppose that this may be the closest that either of them will be able to get to going to their own funeral without the inconvenience of dying beforehand. From that point of view, I wish them well in whatever path the rest of their lives take. The Assembly will be the poorer place for the loss of both of them.”
“I appreciate and have some sympathy for the concerns raised about CCMS. However, if this legislation were to pass, would that preclude any council from including other bodies involved in the Education Authority? As I understand it, and it was an issue that we dealt with in a different way on the shared education side, CCMS was a body in statute and some of the other representative bodies were not. Would the Minister indicate whether, for example, if a council wanted as one of its planning partners the likes of the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education (NICIE), the Controlled Schools' Support Council or any other body of that nature, there is anything to preclude them from doing that? I suppose the only issue is that it is not named in the legislation.”
“I suspect that the House can unite on that. <BR /> <BR />I think that we have a good Bill. I welcome the work of the Committee in seeking to strengthen it where possible, and I think that it is a good example of cooperation between the Committee and departmental officials in trying to reach this virtuous outcome. It was a good Bill to start with, but it improved during the process. On behalf of the Committee, and as a DUP MLA, I commend the Bill to the House.”
“<BR /> <BR />Finally on objectives, which are in the clause on purposes, another key driver in shared education will be that improvement in educational attainment is at the heart of it. Part of the definition in the Bill is that sharing should be not only on a societal but on a socio-economic basis. The hope is that cooperation between schools will help to lift standards, which we should aspire to for all children, whatever their background. If that is a positive outcome of shared education, we can also greatly welcome it. <BR /> <BR />The Bill is a positive step forward. As with all legislation, the key test will come in the next mandate as we move to implementation and how it works on the ground. It is important that the same effort and attention given to the Bill be applied to the delivery of its objectives by the education system.”
“We have to recognise, given where Northern Ireland has come from and the layout of schools at present, that we are not starting from a blank page. Consequently, where progress can be made, and it may be in different areas and in different locations, it should be able to happen at different speeds. That is to be embraced. <BR /> <BR />The focus in shared education is not always on the benefit of providing greater resource efficiency, although the Committee had a strong focus on that. We all know that the cuts from Westminster put pressure on the broader budgets when trying to deliver the best possible education. If shared education is a road to using resources in the most efficient way, it should be welcomed.”
“<BR /> <BR />Similarly and, I think, understandably, particularly as we moved to Consideration Stage and Further Consideration Stage, some had a genuine concern that the Bill might be an attempt to replace integrated education by providing a new sector to undermine it. That is not the concept of the Bill, which is about providing shared education within the broader framework of education. It is not about creating a new sector or further fracturing the education system; it is about trying to build it together. <BR /> <BR />I believe strongly that the progress that we are making in shared education is good. Quite often, the focus has been on the benefit to society as a whole and to community relations, and rightly so. Creating much more sharing between schools and individual pupils can only be good.”
“Critics of the Minister, with some level of paranoia, will see anything he does as having some sort of sinister or Machiavellian undertone. Perhaps they are right nine times out of 10, but, on this occasion, that paranoia is ill-founded. <BR /> <BR />The concern has come from two fronts. First, at Second Stage, concerns were raised by Members who, like me, support grammar schools and academic selection, that this was a Trojan Horse meant to wreck the current system. I am sure that if the Minister could build a Trojan Horse he would be happy to do so, but he would acknowledge that the accusation is completely false in that regard. That is not what the Bill is about.”
“At times, we are very keen to criticise the system and to see where things are going wrong, but let us acknowledge that, on the ground, within and between a lot of schools, there is a lot of good practice and a considerable amount of sharing. I, as Chair of the Education Committee, and, indeed, others see good practice happening daily. I believe it is important that we have this step change in shared education to give us a definition and to put the duty very much on a statutory footing. <BR /> <BR />It is, perhaps, unsurprising, that, during the passage of the Bill, some concerns were raised, probably coming from two sources. As the Minister reiterated, when you are dealing with a concept, rather than a new sector, that is then being put into legislation, there is, naturally, going to be a certain level of nervousness.”
“If it is not too early to talk about the next mandate, I trust that whoever is on the Education Committee and in the Minister's place will continue to make use of the productive relationship that has been established between the Department and the current Education Committee. <BR /> <BR />On behalf of the Committee, I commend the amended Shared Education Bill to the House and indicate, I think, the assent of the majority of Committee members that the Final Stage do now pass. <BR /> <BR />I will turn now to speaking as a DUP Member. Again, I welcome the passage of the Bill. In many ways, it provides a statutory definition and clarity. In part, things are already happening, and we are looking to build on those.”
“The Assembly did not quite do that, and the House did something a little bit more radical, which the Committee had been persuaded to reject. The Bill, consequently, now includes a so-called purposes clause, which neatly summarises all the things that we expect shared education to deliver: educational benefit; respect for identity and diversity; good relations; equality of opportunity; and efficient use of resources. I, therefore, commend the House on its sagacity and ingenuity. <BR /> <BR />I indicated at earlier stages of the Bill that the Committee's exchanges with the Department and the Minister could be characterised as professional and cooperative, and I am happy to reiterate that today.”
“<BR /> <BR />This Bill is an important piece of legislation. Primarily, it provides a statutory definition of shared education. During our recent inquiry into shared and integrated education and on a number of occasions during this mandate, stakeholders called for formal legislative duties to be placed on the Department for shared education. The Committee very much supports the principle of greater sharing between schools. However, members did not want to see the application of legislative duties until the Department provided clarity on the meaning of shared education. I am pleased to say that the Bill clearly does that. <BR /> <BR />I think Members wanted to include in the Bill the definition of shared education that we had determined during our inquiry.”
“As indicated, there will be an opportunity, potentially today, to discuss that issue, and I certainly know that the Minister is appearing before the Committee to deal with other education issues. Unsurprisingly, I will concentrate on the Final Stage of the Shared Education Bill. I will speak initially as the Chair, and then I will make some remarks in a party capacity. <BR /> <BR />We are here again at the conclusion of yet another education Bill. As the House is aware, this is the second time an education Bill has successfully gone through Committee Stage and reached Final Stage, and we may reach a third education Bill next week. On behalf of the Committee, I congratulate the Minister, his officials and, indeed, Committee members and Members of the House for achieving this milestone.”
“I thank the First Minister for her answer. Will the First Minister update us on the commitments for victims and survivors in the Stormont House Agreement and the Fresh Start Agreement?”
“There will not necessarily be that same consistency of recording if you simply have a brief description, as opposed to a direct reference to what the method is.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. One concern that I have with amendment No 1 is that, at present, we have certain statistics that can be drawn together. The idea is not to punish or highlight a particular school, but to see the trends of where there are problems. One advantage of having a list of motivations, for example, which is already concluded, is that we can see whether there is a trend happening throughout Northern Ireland or within particular areas. Similarly, the advantage of having a direct reference to the methodology is that it can show where there are trends in methods. Whereas, by definition, a brief description could be a sentence, or it could be 100 words or it could be longer.”
“If we keep the current legislation as drafted, which refers to the method, there may be an opportunity in guidance on how these are recorded, for instance, to encompass something from amendment No 1. I await to hear what is said in the rest of the debate, but I remain to be convinced of the merits of amendment No 1. On balance, I prefer what is there, at present, to the potential change from amendment No 1. As I said, had it simply been a question of adding a brief description to the method, that would have been the case, but the amendment actually deletes the reference to the method. <BR /> <BR />With those remarks, I will conclude.”
“I would have no problem with that addition. The problem, I suppose, is that we supported, at Consideration Stage, a direct reference to the methodology of the incident. Is that encompassed by "brief description"? The problem is that we are moving from something that is quite explicit in referencing the method to something that leaves out the reference to method. As such, I think that that, potentially, is a retrograde step. I think that it is important. Having spoken to some of those who are involved and who are experts in this subject, I found that there was concern about the removal of the reference to method. As such, I think there may be a different way of doing it.”
“I will take them in reverse order. Amendment No 2, which has been put forward by the Minister, makes a technical change to subsection (6). We have no problem with that. That seems to be sensible and, indeed, a preferable route to the previous amendment No 14. However, I have concerns with amendment No 1. It may be an element, across the Chamber, of dancing on the head of a pin, but it may be of significance. If amendment No 1 was proposing to simply add:”
“From that point of view, Committee members will want to listen carefully to further contributions before deciding accordingly. <BR /> <BR />I now turn to the two amendments as a DUP Member.”
“I apologise to the House for being a little bit late. Business has moved a little bit quicker than I anticipated. I will speak initially on behalf of the Committee on the Further Consideration Stage of the Addressing Bullying in Schools Bill, and then make some remarks in my capacity as a DUP Member. <BR /> <BR />At Consideration Stage, the Assembly agreed 10 out of the 14 amendments. I indicated then that the Committee generally took the view that this was a good Bill. With the amendments that have been made since, it is now a bit better. The Committee has not taken a formal view on the two amendments before us. The Minister has indicated that they are either technical in nature or largely do not alter the Bill's content or import significantly.”
“The Committee has consistently found the Employment and Learning Committee's reports on careers advice and other subjects to be welcome and informative. I think that there has been a good working relationship between the two Committees. I commend members of the Employment and Learning Committee, particularly my former colleague Pat Ramsey, who is missed today, on their diligent scrutiny, not only in this inquiry but during this mandate. I wholeheartedly support the recommendations of the Employment and Learning Committee report.”
“<BR /> <BR />As this might be the last time that we hear about a Committee for Employment and Learning report, I conclude my remarks as Chairperson of the Committee for Education by thanking the Chairperson of that Committee and his colleagues for the report. Robin, you can bank that while you have the chance to.”
“I accept that. Whilst we accepted the assurances we got from the Department of Education, I think that members of the Committee will not have any difficulty with the spirit of recommendations 2 and 3, which call for better transition practices and a continuation of support beyond school. We recognise the need to make sure that the right people are at the table at any one time. That links quite well with the Committee's view on the importance of sharing transition plans between education providers so that, when a child starts a new school or transfers to another school, the provider is not starting from scratch. It is important that those lessons are learned.”
“It further indicated that the education transition coordinator's role included cooperation with the Department for Employment and Learning and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. The Department also suggested that wider linkages, including with the Department for Social Development, were planned. Also planned is work with the Education Authority and other partners to strengthen transition performance. At the time, the Education Committee accepted those assurances. That said, I expect that members will have no difficulty with the spirit of recommendations —”
“<BR /> <BR />The inquiry report also refers to transitions, and, for education, that can mean from and to primary schools but also from post-primary education to further or higher education or employment. During the Committee Stage of the SEND Bill, a number of stakeholders suggested amendments, which were designed to improve support for children undertaking educational transitions, particularly between schools and FE and/or HE institutions. There were lots of ideas on the subject, including extending statements to age 21 and beyond. <BR /> <BR />As the inquiry report indicates, legislation makes provision for the preparation of transition plans for young people with SEN statements over the age of 15. The Department of Education advised that there is already a well-embedded statutory transition planning process in our schools.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Education Committee, in its consideration of SEN support in schools, strongly advocated formal statutory obligations on DE and Health to cooperate. A key part of that duty was the inclusion of a robust review mechanism. The inquiry notes that, and recommendation 15 appears to replicate not only the Education Committee's thinking on the matter but its initial amendments to the SEND Bill. The final version of the SEND Bill differs somewhat, but in principle it is the same as the relevant findings of the Employment and Learning Committee. I expect that the Education Committee members would have no difficulty in giving their support to that recommendation as well.”
“It referred to poor or inconsistent information in respect of SEN statemented children in mainstream schools. The Committee also noted with disquiet similar findings in the review of special schools, where it was suggested that the level of special educational need amongst children was not just as well understood by the Education Authority as might be expected. It was those kinds of concerns that prompted the Committee to include explicit reference to information sharing in its recent amendments to the SEND Bill. Therefore, we have no difficulty in supporting the Employment and Learning Committee's recommendation 26, with the usual caveats relating to data protection and the consent of parents and, where appropriate, children and young people.”
“I rise to speak on behalf of the Committee for Education in order to comment on the relevant findings of the inquiry report. The Education Committee has not taken a formal position on any of the recommendations. However, the Committee recently considered many similar issues during the Committee Stage of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill and its scrutiny of special schools area planning. The relevant inquiry findings fall into two groups. The first relates to cross-departmental working and information sharing. Several recommendations apply, particularly recommendations 15 and 26. <BR /> <BR />On the subject of SEN information, the Committee was quite surprised by the recent findings from the report on phase 2 of the review of allied health professions.”
“It is good to see that we are ending in a spirit of bonhomie. I will try not to give the Minister a multiple-choice question. He indicated that the initial proposals came from the teaching unions. Will he outline the discussions he has had with the unions since the announcement of the scheme to try to find a way through this to provide a reasonably satisfactory answer about a final scheme?”
“I appreciate, as I make this comment, that I have not been particularly involved in the process, but it seems that there has been widespread criticism of the Bill in a lot of its aspects. The Member seems to suggest, essentially, that we rummage through the Bill, pick out the bits that are reasonable and ditch the rest. The Member made a very valid point when he talked about a joined-up approach. Given that the Member himself actually opposes a wide range of clauses, would it not be better, if we are looking for a joined-up approach, to effectively scrap the Bill today and bring something back that is well thought through, has been properly consulted on and that stands in a coherent way, rather than rummage round for the bits that are OK and the bits that are bad?”
“The Department briefed the Committee on these regulations on 13 January 2016. As the Minister explained, the statutory rule is required to protect increases in guaranteed minimum pensions, following the abolition of contracting out. The rule appears to be beneficial and has been consulted on, with no objections being raised by stakeholders. Consequently, the Committee agreed on 27 January 2016 that it was content for the rule to be affirmed by the Assembly. The House may also wish to note that the Examiner of Statutory Rules had no comment to make on the draft rule. <BR /> <BR />Speaking as a DUP MLA, I say again that this is a fairly uncontroversial change that will be seen as being largely beneficial. Consequently, my party has no issue with the statutory rule and is happy to support it.”
“I appreciate that there is a separate argument in relation to amendment No 3. I also appreciate that the Member was not in for the earlier part of the debate. Amendment Nos 2 and 3 are not seen either as alternatives or, indeed, as in any way particularly interrelated. Amendment No 14 actually covers the point in a much more technical way than amendment No 2 does.”
“But I think that the point is well made that we want something that is about genuine sharing, as opposed to a few boxes being ticked to ensure that funding arrives at a range of schools.”
“I agree with the Member very much that we have to ensure that what is there is not tokenistic in nature. That is something that was discussed at Consideration Stage and that the Committee looked at in depth. <BR /> <BR />The old stereotypes where you go to sports days twice a year or where on one Wednesday you play rugby and on the next you play one of the Gaelic sports — those sorts of things — are not what it must be. It has to be whole curriculum-based. The important thing to say is that assurances were given — I look forward to the Minister confirming this — that guidance will partly be the best way in which to deal with this, rather than to straitjacket it through legislation.”
“If there are to be legislative changes in integrated education, they should be on the back of whatever outcome emerges from that. That is the proper way of doing things. <BR /> <BR />To that extent, I believe that amendment Nos 8, 10 and 11 may be the inappropriate legislation for this, and it is also an inappropriate time. From that point of view, therefore, I do not find favour with amendment Nos 8, 10 and 11. It might be something that we could come back to at a later stage when there is a detailed report, but it is, at most, premature on that basis. I suppose, in summary, therefore, that my party will support the ministerial amendments, but I do not find favour with the other amendments that have been brought forward today.”
“<BR /> <BR />Perhaps more importantly, when the Committee, prior to my time, brought forward a report on shared and integrated education, one of the key recommendations was that there needed to be a strategic review of integrated education. It may well be that whenever that review is completed, one of the proposed changes will be something similar to the amendments that have been put forward, but I cannot prejudge that. It seems to me to be a slightly ridiculous position that we have the very welcome action that has been taken by the Department and the Minister to create that detailed focus, reassessment and study of integrated education, but then to start that process and immediately change the legislation around it. That, to my mind, seems to be putting the cart before the horse in relation to that.”
“It may, in certain circumstances, lead to integrated education, but it can also be within and between sectors. From the Committee's point of view, and certainly on the DUP's behalf, we sought in the Bill to try not to make judgement calls between different sectors. We tried as much as possible, through the amendments that the Committee tabled at Consideration Stage, to say that there should be more of a level playing field between all the sectors. That is why we tried to include the various governing bodies of the different sectors. Therefore, to shoehorn one sector in at the last minute to put it on a different plane from the others is the wrong way of doing it.”
“If there is to be a reconciliation between the two largest communities in Northern Ireland and therefore a community benefit as a by-product of shared education — something that has been recognised in a number of places in the Bill — we will dilute that. I have to say that I do not support the amendment that is being put forward on that front. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 8, 10, and 11 are similar in many ways. I have two problems with this. First, it is a question of whether this is the right place in which to place integrated education. The Minister has already alluded to the fact that there is direct legislative provision for integrated education. Shared education is not the same as integrated education.”
“It is not a question of that. Again, this is missing the point. Without going into the broad thrust of the Bill, there are a number of drivers to shared education. One of the key elements is the strong cross-community element along what might be described as the main Protestant-Roman Catholic fracture line in our society. There is certainly a strong place for people who find themselves outside that definition. However, if we simply ignore it and allow the box of shared education to be ticked by almost any combination that can be provided, we go against the spirit of what is intended by shared education.”
“It could involve Protestants and others, Roman Catholics and others or Protestants and Roman Catholics, and I think it muddies the waters and dilutes the Bill's intention as regards shared education. From that point of view, I am not sure that amendment No 3 is in any way an improvement on what is already in the Bill.”
“On that basis, I think that, because it is rooted in the 1998 Order, it is probably better from a technical point of view. I would certainly be inclined to go with amendment No 14 rather than amendment No 2. <BR /> <BR />Turning to the other four amendments — three from Mr Lunn and one from Mr Agnew — I will talk about amendment No 3 first. To be fair, there has been an attempt to pursue the issue of Protestant, Roman Catholic "and other" originally and now "or other". While, in one sense, this is a slight improvement on what was there before, shared education should have a strong cross-community element to it and, when one makes it a gamut of choices between all of those, that does not guarantee a cross-community element.”
“This, effectively, shifts it into a separate clause and is probably a neater way of doing it. I have no problem whatever with that. <BR /> <BR />Then, we get into an overlap between the Minister's amendments and, in particular, those of Mr Lunn. The Minister's amendment No 14 and Mr Lunn's amendment No 2 cover the same issue, more or less, in trying to encapsulate those who are registered as having no religious belief. From a technical point of view, the Minister's amendment is the better of the two. We had a sort of benign Mexican stand-off at Consideration Stage, where Mr Lunn, the Committee and the Minister all agreed to withdraw their amendments for further consideration. We have had the opportunity, as a Committee, to discuss amendment No 14 and have it explained to us.”
“Turning, first, to the ministerial amendments, I think that a number of them, as indicated, are relatively technical in nature and are, largely, tidying-up amendments, either through some tweaking needed in the Bill or as a response to some of the amendments that went through at Consideration Stage. Again, as a DUP Member, I have no problem with them. <BR /> <BR />Two amendments from the Minister are slightly more substantive in nature. First, amendment No 1 creates a new clause, "Purpose of this Act". This is somewhere between substantive and technical. It reflects what was put through the House at Consideration Stage There was a clear determination by the Committee, which felt that it was important to spell out the purpose of shared education on the face of the Bill.”
“Members generally welcome the policy in respect of shared education and, thanks to the amendments previously agreed, the roles and duties of the Department and the arm's-length bodies. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the Minister and his officials for providing clarity to members on the amendments before us. <BR /> <BR />I turn to the amendments as a DUP MLA. As indicated by the Minister, the amendments fit largely into two categories: a range of ministerial amendments and private Members' amendments that have been tabled by either Mr Lunn or Mr Agnew.”
“The Committee has not taken a formal position on those amendments. However, it would be fair to point out that somewhat similar suggestions were made during the Committee Stage and that the majority of Committee members agreed at that time that, rather than further legislative change in respect of integrated education, a strategic review was required. I am pleased to note that the Minister has recently commissioned such a review. I anticipate that the majority of Committee members may not, therefore, choose to support the related amendments, but time will tell. <BR /> <BR />As I said at Consideration Stage, the majority of members feel that it is a good Bill.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Department kindly provided an explanation for its revised "no religious belief" amendment and on the other somewhat more technical amendments that apply to the new purposes clause, the review of shared education and the powers of sectoral bodies. The Committee did not agree a formal position on those amendments. That said, no formal objections were set out by the Committee in that regard either. I note that, in respect of the "no religious belief" amendment, we again have a number of choices. Mr Lunn proposes amendment Nos 2 and 3, and the Minister proposes amendment No 14. I am sure that, across the Chamber, Members will listen carefully to the debate and decide accordingly. <BR /> <BR />Other amendments that have been tabled by Mr Lunn and Mr Agnew relate to integrated education.”
“At Further Consideration Stage, we are in a situation in which the amendments have been somewhat narrowed, so I will keep my remarks relatively brief. I will speak initially on behalf of the Committee and then as a member of the DUP. <BR /> <BR />Since Consideration Stage, the Committee has received an update from the Department on the contentious amendments. There were a couple of areas where clearly there was no resolution at Consideration Stage. I think that members were generally happy with the Department’s assurances in respect of the participation amendment that was previously proposed by Mr Lunn. That amendment has not been tabled, and there are other ways of dealing with that.”
“If it sows some level of doubt, creates an additional hurdle and means that, in a small number of cases, the bullying is overlooked because there is not perceived to be an imbalance of power, that would be wrong. That is why we are opposed to amendment No 2.”
“As in all things in life, we have to cover all eventualities. There may be a teacher out there called Weir who does not arbitrate well in a situation. There may be some, depending on their perspective, who would accuse a teacher called Weir of encouraging a bullying situation between pupils called Overend and O'Dowd. There are others in the House who would, perhaps, accuse my party of being keen to facilitate a situation where Pupil O'Dowd was bullying Pupil Overend. It is a question of perspective in that regard. <BR /> <BR />Setting aside the broader situation, in those circumstances we want to ensure that no genuine incident of bullying does not get properly recorded.”