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 66 of 77.
“I suspect that the Minister will want to announce prior to dissolution how that money will be allocated among schools, and work on that is ongoing in the Education Authority. We all hope that the money will be spent in the best possible fashion, in the right place and in an equitable and equality-proofed way. <BR /> <BR />I sound a small note of caution. Mention was made of the very good work done on minor works, but we should put that into context. During this Assembly term, 56 major works have been announced. For a variety of reasons, including planning and procurement issues, work on the ground has started on only 21. The Committee will want to ensure that, when capital builds are announced, there is a quicker follow-up.”
“We wait with interest to see what the Minister prioritises in his budget. Perhaps it would be wrong to comment in too much detail at this stage. Suffice it to say that the desire is that there will be as much protection as possible for the aggregated schools budget to ensure that the money is spent on the front line. That would find resonance across the Chamber. <BR /> <BR />Finally, I want to touch on capital spend, and there is, potentially, a good news story, particularly in education. I will explain why. The capital budget reduced from £182 million in 2014-15 to £145 million this year, but it will move up to £193·7 million next year, which is very welcome. Mr McCrea and others referred to schools in their areas, and I suspect that we could all have a long list of schools, as is often the case with a capital budget.”
“Some £14 million of that is directly for the potential redundancies of 300 teachers, and £25 million has been set aside for non-teaching staff. In certain respects, that will ease some of the pressures in the overall Education budget. Before Mrs Cochrane left, she referred to efficiencies. We should look at the non-teaching side of the Department of Education, where there is an opportunity for a level of reduction. In recent years, there has been a 6% increase in staff and a 10% increase in savings, so perhaps we are not starting from a position of the highest efficiency. <BR /> <BR />Last year, the Committee expressed concern about cuts made to the Curriculum Advisory and Support Service (CASS), the promotion of STEM and home literacy programmes such as the Book Trust.”
“It is true to say that there is some concern in the Education Committee about whether the balance on that has been got right, but, undoubtedly, in respect of the £33 million, there are also figures that suggest that that will generate a certain level of savings for schools. That also needs to be taken into account, but I think that the Committee will want to hear more on that scheme. Hopefully, we will soon have the opportunity to quiz the Minister on that. The Committee will want to assure itself as to whether the detail of that has been got right. <BR /> <BR />The focus at times has, therefore, been so heavily on the £33 million that what has been ignored is the other £39 million in the budget for changes in redundancy.”
“There is the removal of a certain level of pressure, which gives a little headroom to the Department. <BR /> <BR />With regard to the transformation fund, the Department of Education, through a number of schemes, is the largest single beneficiary, with three schemes totalling around £72 million. Part of that — probably been the most controversial aspect — has been the proposal from the Minister of a £33 million scheme for teachers who are over the age of 55 on the condition that schools employ someone who has under three years' experience. At the bottom end of that, there has been a level of controversy about that.”
“A lot of that is due to the fact that problems arose last year when money had to be found to meet additional teacher pensions. It was welcomed at that stage that not only was the £35 million found for that but that has now been put in the baseline of the Department. That, at least, relieves a degree of pressure in the Department. <BR /> <BR />In addition to the money that has been made available, it should be noted that, when some of the redundancies, particularly teacher redundancies, were met last year in the Department of Education, some of that effectively had to be found from the pre-existing Department of Education budget. The fact that that is not having to be found this year creates a degree of relief of pressure because you are not necessarily comparing like for like.”
“It is in that context that we need to look at the overall Education budget. Undoubtedly, there will be pressures in that budget. I suggest that they may not be quite of the nature that, at times, has been suggested by the Department, but, undoubtedly, there are pressures on the budget. One looks, for instance, at the pressures of an additional £30 million for National Insurance changes, which will impact on the departmental budget. <BR /> <BR />In actual figures, the revenue budget for Education sits now at just under £2 billion. One of the things that needs to be welcomed within that is that at least we have seen a small overall increase in the budget in actual terms but possibly not in real terms. The budget compared with last year is up £40 million.”
“When we look at the Education budget or, indeed, any of the other departmental budgets, we have to realise the constrained circumstances that we are in. Looking around the House, I do not see anybody who has been here since 1998, but I am one of the few people who, as if in some sort of latter-day Canaan, lived through the days of milk, honey and plenty in the early days of the Assembly under the high level expenditure under Gordon Brown, where revenue budgets went up each year by a considerable amount. In many ways, it was a relatively easy job for any Assembly to decide how to spend that money if you were looking at a 5% rise in real terms. The task of dividing up that revenue is perhaps easier than when you are looking at what are effectively real-terms reductions.”
“As such, all we can really do is look at the overall Budget position. What some others would see as a criticism of partial protection of Education would be seen by the Education Committee as having at least some level of virtue.”
“To be fair, there is at least some opportunity for that in Education and Justice, because the changes to those Departments are very minimal. There is a de minimis type approach to Education, so you can look at a degree of read-across there. There is clearly some difficulty in going too much into the detail of the Education budget because, as with other Departments, we are awaiting the detail. I think that there will be key issues for the Minister to look at in terms of the prioritisation within that budget.”
“There is always a slight sense of déjà vu with finance debates, particularly those on the Budget, because we quite often have the Budget debate on the back of the debate on the Supply resolution. As somebody who spent many years in different guises on the Finance Committee, probably as punishment in the first mandate and possibly as closer to a reward in latter days, I totally empathise with the sometimes frustrating difficulty when you are effectively dealing with the same subject for the second or third time but are trying to find a new and novel spin on it. I congratulate Members on doing that. <BR /> <BR />On a broader level, one of the challenges of this Budget is the readjustment of Departments, which makes any degree of read-across difficult. Therefore, it is very difficult to compare like with like.”
“I will be speaking as Chair of the Education Committee, so obviously it would be totally wrong and remiss of me to mention that, in terms of any budgetary allocations particularly to Education, priority should be given to the Holywood schools project in my constituency, which would impact on Priory College, Holywood Primary School and Holywood Nursery School. It would be equally remiss of me to indicate the need for new school builds at St Columbanus' College and Bangor Central Integrated Primary School, given the high pressures there and the fact that both are in dire need of long overdue capital investment. So, I will not mention those in the speech. <BR /> <BR />Although speaking as Chair of the Education Committee, I must admit that I have some sympathy with what Mrs Cochrane, Ms Hanna and others have mentioned.”
“I am a little bit perplexed. The Member seems to indicate that we are stuck with two extremes, that he is choosing the lesser of two evils, and, essentially, that it is all the Minister's fault for not being able to get this through the Executive. What was to stop the Member, if he has a particular issue, bringing forward an amendment himself? I have not seen him submit any.”
“I thank the Minister for her answers so far. While there has been a welcome improvement in Transport NI's dealing with street lighting and potholes in north Down, there is obviously still quite a considerable backlog with regard to potholes. What is Transport NI's inspection process for potholes and the criteria that would apply for roads services?”
“In the spirit of the outbreak of harmony: not moved.”
“I also believe that, depending upon what views the House takes on the amendments, we will have an improved process that has refined the good work of the Second Stage through the Consideration Stage.”
“As we look forward to the Further Consideration Stage and to teasing out the couple of remaining issues, there seems to be at least a greater consensus, albeit that we will divide on some aspects of this. I think that the Consideration Stage has been worthwhile. I certainly commend all those who contributed to the debate and to the consultation and, indeed, who gave evidence to the Committee. I reiterate our thanks to them, because I think that it helped to focus our minds on a range of issues and that it has improved the legislation. I believe that, whatever the outcome of the various amendments, there is nothing that will be, in the Minister's words, "fatal" to the Bill.”
“It was important that, perhaps, this was an alternative way to ensure that focus was maintained on those issues. Therefore, I believe that, largely speaking, the House can unite around amendment No 14. <BR /> <BR />Finally, on amendment No 15, which I have already dealt with, I think it is a positive step forward and I welcome it.”
“I appreciate the Minister's argument that we do not want to have review mechanisms on everything, because that would overburden things, but one complaint that is sometimes made about the House is that we pass legislation and do not have enough regard for its implementation or to ensure that it meets the needs that are there. We had looked at this at one stage, in particular, but we think that this is a different way of doing it. I indicated in my opening speech that, ideally, the Committee would like to have seen a definition that reflected what was in its report. The definition in the proposed legislation is shorter and may be less widely drawn. We felt it was important to place in the Bill a level of review around things like educational attainment, good relations and a range of other issues.”
“Therefore, there is a filter mechanism. <BR /> <BR />On amendment No 13, again, we have dealt with the specific situation involved. Obviously, it is to deal with the specific situation of the shared campus. I acknowledge the legal and technical reasons why this amendment needs to be brought forward, and I have no issue with that. <BR /> <BR />On amendment No 14, we probably came relatively close to consensus, at least. Reservations were perhaps more about the need for it. When the Committee brought this amendment forward, we indicated that we did not want to add to the layers of bureaucracy. As regards timescales, we felt that there were ones that could fit in with reports that would be produced by the Education and Training Inspectorate anyway, but this amendment gives specific focus.”
“I appreciate that amendment No 12 comes from the wording of a piece of draft legislation that did not make it the full way. the amendment is drawn very directly from that draft legislation. From that point of view, we want to see more of a level playing field and equality in education. The distinction is sometimes drawn between a statutory body and a non-statutory body. We need to see in what way that can be broken down. I think that this is quite a clever form of words. The concern expressed that this would simply lead to Pandora's box being opened and that we would be left with a wide range of bodies suddenly appearing under this seems to somewhat ignore the provision under subsection 3(a) in the amendment, which means that any of these bodies has to be recognised by the Department of Education as such.”
“<BR /> <BR />There is a reasonable level of belief, certainly in my view and Mr Lunn's, that amendment No 10 is a sensible way forward but that its wording is not right. I think we have got to ensure that we do not box ourselves in entirely while ensuring that we have something that shows that there is a sufficient level of participation. It cannot simply be a tick-box exercise. We need to ensure that we do not have words that would facilitate a tick-box exercise. I am certainly happy to work with the Member if there is broader consensus that a better form of words could come forward at Further Consideration Stage. It would be one that I would be willing to support. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 11 is obviously tied in with amendment Nos 1 and 8.”
“The two are of a different nature, but they are both indeed entitled as a duty, because it is duty on education bodies. I think that, if this were a boxing match, even the proposer of amendment No 9 would have thrown in the towel a little bit earlier, when he said that, having looked at them again, he regarded amendment No 15 as the slightly better one. On that basis, and in the spirit of growing harmony that is ascending across the Chamber, I suspect that the Member may not move amendment No 9. I understand that the amendments are mutually exclusive. In any event, amendment No 15 is slightly more widely drawn and is certainly the one with which I would find greater favour.”
“To my mind, though, the idea that it would be horrific if the duty were to be imposed on the Department is slightly undermined by the fact that there will be support for amendment No 15.”
“The only issue on it, which was considered at Committee level, was whether it was absolutely necessary, but I think that it is reasonably desirable. Indications of a purpose subsection in this clause seems to be a reasonably sensible way forward. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 9 is dependent upon amendment No 8. The contrast between amendment No 9 and amendment No 15 has been used. Again, broadly speaking, I could live with either of those amendments. I think that the Member has conceded that amendment No 15 goes a little bit wider. It perhaps slightly undermines the argument of some opposite on amendment No 8 that amendment No 15 then imposes a duty on the Department, albeit of an admittedly lesser nature than what is being put forward in amendment No 8.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 3, 4, 6 and 7 will not be moved today, so there is probably no point in saying a great deal more on them, other than to say that we need to find some form of solution. I appreciate what the Minister has said about technical certainty. It might be a moot point now, but, to my mind, simply saying "or none" provides a certain level of certainty. It would be preferable to find something that we can find common agreement on. <BR /> <BR />Mr McCallister can be happy that amendment No 5 seems to be one area on which there is complete agreement. There was one issue, which, I think, was dealt with at times by the Education Committee. From that point of view, I do not think that we had any problem with an amendment of this nature.”
“If you simply have it that it can be counted as being within a school, it might, in many ways, create a situation where schools that perhaps would have most to offer to shared education are not sharing their experiences. Again, a definition of sharing has to be about sharing between providers, and those providers can be from within the same sector. An integrated or shared education school is almost at an advanced stage in meeting the criteria of what counts as sharing as part of an overall process, because their mix of Protestant and Roman Catholic pupils will already tick the box, generally speaking. So, I do not see that as a barrier in that regard, but I think that it would create a situation where we would effectively move the goalposts on what counts as shared education in a way that, I think, goes beyond what the intention is there.”
“Where you draw the line on what a school is, where there is a reasonable level of mix, and what might be super mixed is, perhaps, a little bit more of an artificial barrier. Again, I say that none of this is actually precluding any of those schools. <BR /> <BR />I have listened to all the evidence in this debate and during the Committee Stage. I had a reasonably open mind towards the issue when I came in. I find myself, for once — maybe the second time — being in agreement with Mr Lunn in this regard. If we are talking about trying to show sharing or innovative work, we should ask, as Mr Hazzard put it, "Sharing with whom?".”
“Again, it seems to be something that can be, from that point of view, reconciled. To impose what is being proposed in amendment No 8 is, I think, a reasonable step forward. Consequently, from a Committee point of view and a party point of view, we are happy to go with that. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 2 is in the name of Mr McCallister. Again, this is something that has been repeated on a number of occasions. Let me place on record that very good work is being done on a range of levels, in integrated schools and in the super-mixed schools, in this regard. Integrated schools are clearly there by a definition, but there is more of a question about super-mixed schools. If you are talking about super-mixed schools, we can identify some of them.”
“<BR /> <BR />First, there is already a pre-existing duty in relation to integrated and Irish-medium education. However, that has not meant that the Department has interpreted that in such a way that all money is given to the integrated sector, for example, or, indeed, that all schools are effectively told, "We are forcing you to go integrated". Albeit, some Members might be sorry that that is not the case. There have been sensible ways of doing that. The argument has been used, and it is right that there is an argument, that there are different speeds in different parts of the country. This is not imposing a duty on individual schools or individual areas in that regard; it is a wider duty on the Department and, potentially, its arm's-length bodies. So, I am not convinced of that situation.”
“Turning to the first interlinked set of amendments, the substantive amendment in terms of the duty is amendment No 8, although there are obviously technical amendments that relate to that, namely amendment Nos 1 and 11. <BR /> <BR />I have listened to what the Minister and others have said and I am still not convinced about why a duty being placed on the Department is such an appalling prospect. Why do I say that? The Committee felt that there needed to be some greater level of empowerment than a power simply being transferred and that there needed to be greater impetus. The argument that that will skewer everything so much in the Department that there will be a massive impact on budgets and all considerations is undermined by two things.”
“I am happy to proceed on that basis. Obviously, because it is a Committee amendment, I will be guided by the Committee. In light of what seems to have been offered in terms of the Minister's position and the position of the Alliance Party, if anyone has a dissenting voice with regard to us not moving amendment No 3 today, on the understanding that we will find a formula for Further Consideration Stage, I am more than happy to give way to them. I take the silence as a sign that no one does, but I appreciate the point that was made. <BR /> <BR />Just in case anyone is concerned that we are lapsing into eternal harmony across the Chamber, there are some areas where there is at least some level of division.”
“Yes. I do not which one you are about to concede on, Danny.”
“A note of harmony. Mr Lunn, as we were talking about religion and no religion, I avoided using the phrase, "singing from the same hymn sheet", because of the connotations in that. It strikes me that, whereas there are different levels of emphasis and different levels of what is considered to be the right or wrong move in some of the other amendments, there was a slightly false argument over the issues in amendment Nos 3, 4, 6 and 7, because their intentions and what they hoped to bring about were more or less the same. On that basis, I will not move —”
“Very much like the football game that broke out at Christmas during World War I, I am certainly open to that suggestion. If the Minister is happy to give an assurance that he will not move amendment No 6, I am happy to not move amendment No 3. We could reach that situation, because amendment Nos 3, 4, 6 and, consequently, 7, come from a similar angle. I appreciate that amendment No 2 is in a slightly different category, although I still have some concerns. If the Minister indicates that he will not move amendment No 6 and that we can find something for Further Consideration Stage, I am happy to not move amendment No 3.”
“If, as an Assembly, we are failing to play exactly the same tune, to slightly paraphrase Eric Morecambe, we are playing exactly the same notes but not necessarily in the same order. That has meant that there has been a divergence of opinion on the impact of a number of the amendments. <BR /> <BR />Turning to each of the amendments —”
“They want a system that is flexible, they want to see a commitment to shared education that is empowering and they want this to complement the other work going on. I suspect that the different opinions on the amendments arise because, where one Member sees an amendment as increasing flexibility; another sees it as increasing inflexibility. Some see an amendment as empowering; others as restricting the Department. Particularly on integrated education, some Members saw amendments as complementary to what is being provided; others saw them as encroaching on that. However, the broad theme of what people want to achieve through the amendments has remained the same.”
“<BR /> <BR />Like the Minister, I will avoid reciting a long list of "He said" and "She said" as often happens in this place in a winding-up speech, but I want to single out one element before going into greater detail. On behalf of the Committee, I welcome the Minister's remarks in response to the assurance sought, not by way of an amendment but by way of a ministerial assurance, on reasonable numbers and the flexibility of approach. That is critical to how well this will work. <BR /> <BR />I think that everybody is agreed that they want to see, as a result of the Bill, a change in our society and our education. We unite on community relations, educational attainment, efficiencies and resources. A number of buzzwords sum up what people see as the benefit or otherwise of the amendments.”
“I echo the Minister's comments by thanking all who took part in the debate. I said at the outset that I expected the contributions to be able and eloquent throughout. They have been focused. I will perhaps leave it to posterity to judge whether the debate generated any eloquence. That might be a matter of opinion, ultimately. <BR /> <BR />When focusing on the issues, there was, as the Minister said, broad consensus. There will be a range of opinions on specific aspects. We find ourselves, after three hours of debate, in such vigorous agreement that we may have narrowed the number of Divisions from eight or nine to six or seven. Eventually, progress has been made.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. Just to clarify his point about taking a flexible approach, this was obviously an issue that was raised in Committee in terms of the flexible interpretation of "reasonable numbers" so that it does not act as some level of unnecessary exclusion of projects, particularly when dealing with small rural schools coming together, where the overall numbers may be relatively low. Can the Minister give an assurance that a relatively flexible approach will be taken by the Department in its interpretation of that?”
“I thank the Minister for his response. Moving beyond simply the current financial year to the more strategic direction of the next Assembly mandate, what level of increase in funding does the Minister believe needs to happen during the next Assembly?”
“The Member then left the school with a pint of blood less, so it was not necessarily the best experience for him.”
“This is about there not being a definition of a sectoral body, but the wording in amendment No 12 is, word for word, in the Education Act (Northern Ireland) 2014. The definition provided is already in legislation.”
“I thank the Member for giving way on amendment No 12. I appreciate that sectoral bodies should adopt that position. However, there seems to be an imbalance, which is that, unless amendment No 12 is made, there is a specific reference and requirement on one sectoral body — the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS) — but not on the others. Indeed, whether the sectoral bodies should get their own houses in order — for want of a better phrase — we should also remember that not only did the Committee support amendment No 12 but its genesis came from the sectoral bodies that are not named wanting to be directly referenced in the legislation, whether or not on the same basis as CCMS was named. This is maybe an alternative way to do that, but it is about trying to provide a level playing field.”
“I have some sympathy for the position. The problem is that, as drafted, we could not necessarily accept it from these Benches on that basis. I do not know whether others will take that view. If you have something that is put of this nature, which is not particularly workable as worded, but I think there could be different wording. However, the problem is that if the amendment were put to the House today and rejected, it would tie our hands as to what could be put at Further Consideration Stage. So, I express a preference that a better form of words is simply brought forward at Further Consideration Stage rather than it being put to a vote today.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I understand the need for flexibility, and there will be different approaches taken in different parts of Northern Ireland for a whole range of reasons. Surely, we are talking about a duty on the Department; it is not a question of a duty being imposed on individual schools or a one-size-fits-all or one-speed-fits-all approach. Surely, a duty gives a level of flexibility to the Department to apply it in slightly different ways in different parts of Northern Ireland. I do not see how that necessarily handcuffs individual schools or forces particular things in particular areas.”
“<BR /> <BR />In conclusion, I think that we have a worthy Bill that can be of advantage to our education system and our society as a whole. I have highlighted concerns over some of the amendments. There will, almost by necessity, be certain divisions because we have a situation where some of the amendments are mutually exclusive. The gap, at least in terms of the intention, is not all that great in the amendments, so I look forward hopefully — maybe it is better to travel in hope than experience — to an eloquent and able debate in which there will be an elucidation of the various arguments. I commend the amendments that I support to the House, and I look forward to the debate.”
“I also have a concern that the current wording talks about participants. It is a little bit unclear whether that means the individual pupils participating or the schools participating. The sentiments of amendment No 10 are good, but the wording is clunky, so we, as a party, are not in a position to accept and support it today. However, if the proposer did not move it and an alternative form of wording were brought forward at Further Consideration Stage that indicated some level of minimal participation being required so that we have whole-school involvement, we would look very favourably on that. I accept the sentiments, but, on that issue, I urge the Member not to move the amendment today and to seek a better wording that might create a greater level of consensus at Further Consideration Stage.”
“However, this is meant to lead to genuine levels of change in our society and improvements in our education system. Therefore, the idea or principle of having some minimum level of involvement enshrined in the regulations is a good one. However, I take exception with some of the wording within that on two grounds. To tie it in on the basis of a specific number of hours rather than a general level of participation may be a little bit too prescriptive and drag us back to a tick-box exercise.”
“Consequently, we would be happy to support the Member's proposal in amendment No 5 on that. <BR /> <BR />Finally, I turn to the Alliance Party's amendment No 10. The spirit of that amendment is very worthwhile. One of the things that kept coming up in our evidence was a desire that, if we are to have a definition of shared education that leads to funding in some way, this cannot simply be some degree of tick-box exercise; it could not be a question of having a very minimalist position to ensure that a couple of schools qualify. The example was given of two schools coming together and playing a GAA match one Wednesday afternoon and a rugby match the following Wednesday, and then saying, "We are sharing; give us the money." I am sure that schools would not be as utterly cynical as that.”