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 67 of 77.
“We would be comfortable supporting either. I will point out the only implication of amendment No 15. If, as is likely, amendment No 12 on the wider sectoral bodies is accepted, there would probably have to be some consequential amendment at Further Consideration Stage to bring that into line, but we will cross that bridge when we come to it. <BR /> <BR />There are two other amendments, apart from a technical amendment on behalf of the Minister that would flow from amendment No 6 being accepted. The first is Mr McCallister's amendment No 5, which provides not a definition but, for want of a better term, a purposes clause essentially. From a DUP perspective, we are comfortable with that. At times, the Department has made an argument that it may not be absolutely necessary, but we feel that it is reasonably desirable.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 9 and 15 are contrasting. We are comfortable with both of them, although I appreciate that they are mutually exclusive. They both look towards the idea of a duty. Amendment No 9 places a duty purely on the Department; amendment No 15 goes beyond that in taking these issues into account. I say to our colleagues across the way there that we are pleasantly surprised by amendment No 15, given the fact that there seemed to be little bit of scepticism from the Department about moving in that direction on it. We think that both those amendments are good. Amendment No 15 is drawn more widely than amendment No 9, and, to that extent, the initial preference may be for amendment No 15 rather than amendment No 9. However, I am more than happy to listen to what arguments are made on both of them within that.”
“<BR /> <BR />In amendment No 14, the intention is not to be obstructive. However, if this is to have meaning, it has to be monitored. Many things were identified in the Committee report in terms of the impact on community relations and efficient and good delivery of education. On the broader levels of cooperation, we believe that those are key elements in shared education as well. Therefore, we support the reporting mechanism. <BR /> <BR />I turn to some of the other amendments. The point has been made, and we are willing to accept, that, to cover the Strule situation in Omagh, for example, amendment No 13 seems to be a reasonable way forward. We want to make sure that in no way does that grow legs, but we think that it is necessary that it is put in place. So we have no problem with amendment No 13.”
“We appreciate that amendment No 12 has a slightly tortuous form of wording to try to get round the issue that one sectoral body is enshrined in legislation and the others are not. However, we believe that those involved with the other sectors — the controlled sector, the integrated sector, and the Irish-medium sector — should all be put on a level playing field with the maintained sector as much as possible. Indeed, very specifically, the Committee received evidence from both the Transferor Representatives' Council, which was effectively operating on behalf of the Controlled Schools Support Council, and the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education (NICIE). They wanted to be included in the legislation. While we could not actually name them, amendment No 12 reflects that sense of having a degree of level playing field.”
“<BR /> <BR />Turning to the other Committee amendments, I was certainly persuaded by the idea that we needed to see a greater duty on the Department and that simply moving beyond a "power" toward a "duty", in line with amendment No 8, is appropriate if we are to properly give this some teeth and backing. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 12 deals with the sectoral bodies. My party makes no apology for the fact that we believe in, and one of our key values is, equality within education. As such, we were struck by the various representations made about this.”
“As any legal draftsman would tell you, to qualify as a shared education programme, it would be necessary to tick the box not only for a reasonable number of Protestants and a reasonable number of Roman Catholics but for a reasonable number of others. I think that makes the situation that you are trying to promote, particularly the cross-community side of things, more difficult, especially for small schools. So, while I have some sympathy for the intention behind amendment No 4, I think that amendment No 3, which the Committee put forward and which is mutually exclusive with the others, is better. We will therefore oppose amendment No 4.”
“It basically comes down to what is understood by sharing between schools in the context of shared education, and I think that goes beyond that. From that point of view, the preference is in that context. <BR /> <BR />Turning to the Alliance amendment, which is amendment No 4, again, I understand the rationale behind it. It would widen out the definition from, essentially, Protestant and Roman Catholic to Protestant, Roman Catholic and other. The problem is that it would have some unforeseen consequences — maybe they are reasonably foreseeable. Once you add in "other", you are putting in a three-limb, rather than a two-limb, test of the mix.”
“Do not forget that there is a duty on the Department already to promote integrated schools. From that point of view, assistance would be given. I do not think it would act as a discouragement. It strikes me that a situation where schools of different characters are sharing is not that difficult to bring about. Indeed, one of the advantages for a school that would, for example, be considered super-mixed, is that, to qualify for that definition, it is fairly open house, in that it could go to pretty much any other school in Northern Ireland. That project, at least from the point of view of reasonable numbers, would probably meet the test. In that sense, the path for schools that are already super-mixed is an easier one.”
“<BR /> <BR />Whereas I entirely accept that a range of those schools are doing a very good job of sharing, the Committee and I were persuaded to the view that we should look at innovation in sharing between schools. If it was simply within a school, that, in many ways, would simply reinforce what is happening at present. An indication has been given — indeed, we are likely to hear from the Minister — that, when we are talking about reasonable numbers, the concept could be widened out to so many schools and projects as to make it meaningless. So, whereas I have some sympathy for the position, I am not persuaded, particularly as it is a degree of —”
“I understand what he is saying. In A Fresh Start — I appreciate that other discussions may have to take place on that — there is a large pool of money for a range of projects, the bulk of which are probably geared towards shared and integrated education. If we are to encourage new projects, I think it goes against the grain of the definition to say that a single school or provider can by definition provide shared education. It strikes me as a little bit of a tortuous indication that we get one definition of "shared education" in the Bill and then, when looking at projects through a different scale from a funding point of view, use another. That does not seem to me to make sense.”
“There is provision for support for integrated education, and there should be support for a range of other schools, the super-mixed schools, in that regard. However, shared education should be between providers. It is about trying to find imaginative ways of sharing, finding new ways of doing things and cooperation between schools. While I have some sympathy for Mr McCallister, I think that his definition goes well beyond that, to mean that individual schools themselves should be counted as sharing; effectively that they would be accredited for potential projects simply because of what they are doing already and without any external linkage. I think that schools that are doing that find it relatively easy to find that level of good relationship with other schools in that regard.”
“It seems to be a slightly tortuous analogy to refer to religious belief as including those who do not have any religious belief — that seems to be a little bit of a contradiction in terms. However, there may be a technical reason for this, and I am sure that the Minister will expand on it. <BR /> <BR />Related to that, as indicated, there are two other amendments which are mutually exclusive. First, to deal with Mr McCallister's amendment — if indeed, by the look of him, he survives to move it — he has provided an attempt at a definition of shared education to which I am not unsympathetic. However, I think that, fundamentally, while I understand where he is coming from, there is at least one fatal flaw in amendment No 2.”
“In looking at the amendments, I find that, in many ways, a lot of them are trying to achieve the same ends. The gap between all sides on these issues is not that great. <BR /> <BR />First, the DUP supports the Committee amendments that have been put forward. I will come to the detail of the other amendments in a moment. We have all been trying to crack the issue of how to define those who come from a background to which no religion can be attributed. The Committee put forward, in amendment No 3, the words "or none". Ultimately, if the Committee amendment is defeated, we could live with the ministerial amendment on religious belief. However, we wait to hear the explanation given by the Minister. As a party, our preference is for amendment No 3, because we think that that better encapsulates it.”
“<BR /> <BR />I am sure that, in the ensuing debate, we will hear eloquent and able defences of all the amendments before us, so as Chair of the Committee, I encourage Members — and there appears to be a degree of dissension from some Members as to the level of eloquence that may be employed — to listen carefully to all that is said, and particularly to the remarks of the Minister and the other sponsors of the amendments, and deal with them appropriately. <BR /> <BR />I now turn to the amendments before us, in my capacities as an MLA and as DUP spokesman on education. In dealing with a number of these particular points, one thing that strikes me is that there will be, I suspect, divisions in the House. We may well have a number of votes on these matters.”
“<BR /> <BR />From a Committee point of view, I do not particularly want to touch on the amendments that have come from other parties, because the Committee has not taken a formal view on them. I would simply say that a number of the issues raised in the various amendments brought forward — and I will speak a little bit more about them in a different capacity — were considered by the Committee. In some cases, we were persuaded by the Department that an amendment of that nature was not necessary; however, that does not necessarily mean that the Committee is particularly hostile to these amendments. Members will treat them on their merits.”
“Further to the objective of promoting more sharing between schools, the Committee also agreed to support ministerial amendment No 13. This will permit the Department of Education and the Education Authority to establish and participate in a company which can act as the owner/manager of school buildings and facilities in a shared education campus. I suppose that the particular focus has quite often been on the Lisanelly situation. We had a briefing from departmental officials on school ownership, and the Committee understands that this will facilitate fairness and parity of treatment for participants in shared campuses like that in Omagh. Therefore, the Committee is happy to support that amendment.”
“The Committee accepted that it might be difficult to write these measures into a definition of shared education. Members therefore decided to include a "review and report" clause, which is in amendment No 14. The Committee felt that this is a neat solution that reflects the importance of the significant investment being made in shared education and the expectation of stakeholders that the policy would lead to real and measurable change.”
“If Members require clarification on how these things might be determined, I refer them to the measures recorded in the young life and times surveys, and used as performance monitors for the CRED policy, the Peace IV programme and the Delivering Social Change shared education signature project.”
“The Committee, therefore, tabled amendment No 3. The Minister has tabled amendment No 6 and a consequential one, amendment No 7. I understand that Members from the Alliance Party have tabled a third version, which is amendment No 4. The Committee has made clear its position on where it sees its preference. I am sure that Members will listen carefully to today's debate on those amendments. <BR /> <BR />I will deal with amendment No 14, which is the last of the Committee amendments. The Committee feels that shared education should be about educational attainment, good relations and improving attitudes.”
“<BR /> <BR />To be clear: the Committee wants to see the widest possible participation in shared education, and it consequently accepted the Department's arguments on this. However, in order to guarantee the involvement of small, rural or other schools in high-quality shared education projects, the Committee has agreed to seek a ministerial assurance that the "reasonable numbers" aspect of the definition would be interpreted flexibly by the Department. I hope that, when the Minister responds today, he can give that assurance. <BR /> <BR />Members also highlighted the growing numbers of children whose parents designate as being neither Protestant nor Catholic, nor being of any other religion. The Committee wanted to ensure that the definition of shared education reflected this growing pupil group.”
“The Committee recommended that shared education should always foreground improvements in educational attainment, while also enhancing good relations and improving attitudes of children and young people in respect of persons of different backgrounds. The Department assured the Committee that this level of detail was better left to a policy document than be included in legislation. It was even suggested that wording of this kind, or references to section 75 groups or schools from different sectors, might conceivably serve to exclude certain shared education projects. The Department also advised that determining compliance with the inclusion of a wide range of section 75 groups might be nearly impossible to achieve, given the very limited section 75 profiling of pupils that currently takes place in schools.”
“The difficulty arose, however, firstly, in trying to make reference to certain organisations in the Bill, and, when this proved to be impossible, including a general definition of a sectoral body. The Committee then turned to the Education Bill from 2012 and adopted the wording — I think, word for word — that had been proposed by the Department at that stage. Amendment No 12 allows the Department discretion in the identification of sectoral bodies, which will, we believe, avoid any legislative difficulties while also ensuring inclusion for a wider range of bodies. <BR /> <BR />I turn to the other amendments. As I indicated previously, the Committee undertook an inquiry into shared and integrated education.”
“The Committee has been keen throughout the mandate to ensure that there is fairness and a level playing field for the different education sectors. It is for this reason that the Committee unanimously welcomed the establishment of the controlled schools sector council last year. It was in this spirit of fairness that members considered amendments that would give equal powers to all sectoral bodies in respect of the facilitation and encouragement of shared education. <BR /> <BR />What was desired by the Committee proved to be a little bit trickier than was expected. The Committee simply wanted to ensure that sectoral bodies would have the same level of access to shared education policy decisions and support as CCMS, which is specifically identified in the legislation at clause 2(2)(b).”
“The House will be interested to learn that the initial assertion was incorrect, and I think that that has been acknowledged by the Department. There was also some debate about the wording of the amendment itself, particularly the meaning of the word "promote". Some witnesses to the Committee insisted that this might lead to a hierarchy of obligations, with unspecified and undesirable effects for integrated schools, but the majority of members decided that the amendment was clear and that it would not lead to unfair and preferential treatment for shared education over integrated education. Therefore, the Committee was content to support amendment No 8 and, allied to that, is supporting amendment Nos 1 and 11. <BR /> <BR />That brings us to amendment No 12, which is about the power of arm's-length bodies.”
“First of all, amendment No 8, is on the duty on the Department. As I have indicated, stakeholders have been calling for a duty on the Department in respect of shared education for some time. A majority of Committee members felt that in order to consistently encourage, facilitate and promote shared education, there should be a new duty on the Department in respect of shared education. There was some suggestion that a new duty might have unexpected and unwanted consequences for arm's-length bodies. Indeed, it was initially indicated by the Department that the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools might have been given an obligation to facilitate and encourage integrated education. The Committee sought advice on these matters and received clarification from the Department.”
“The role of the Department and other education bodies in the encouragement, facilitation and promotion of shared education is a little more complex, and I will deal with that in a moment. <BR /> <BR />I believe that Committee members would have liked to have seen the definition of shared education that was provided in our inquiry report incorporated into the Bill. However, members accepted that that was not necessarily practical at this stage. Again, I will come back to that in a moment. First, I want to deal with the Committee's amendments.”
“During the Committee's recent inquiry, and on a number of occasions in this mandate, stakeholders have called for formal legislative duties to be placed on the Department to encourage and facilitate shared education. The Committee very much supports the principle of greater sharing between schools. However, members previously did not support the application of legislative duties until the Department had provided clarity on the meaning of shared education. <BR /> <BR />The Department’s recent policy paper 'Sharing Works', coupled with the provisions of the Bill, has provided a degree of policy certainty. Consequently, the Committee is now generally happy to see the commencement of relevant duties on the Education Authority.”
“Owing to the time pressures associated with the legislative programme, it was not possible to receive oral evidence from every organisation that made a submission. However, I can assure all our stakeholders that we studied their views and suggestions, whether oral or written, carefully and we greatly valued their input to the Committee Stage. I would also like to thank the Department for attending a number of oral sessions and for providing written responses and clarification to Committee queries in quite a short timescale. <BR /> <BR />Before dealing with the amendments, with your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I will make a few general remarks as Chair on the provisions of the Bill. The Bill provides a statutory definition of "shared education".”
“I am happy to be speaking, initially on behalf of the Committee for Education, in opening the debate on the Consideration Stage of the Shared Education Bill. I will then make some remarks in my capacity as a DUP Member. <BR /> <BR />During the Committee Stage of the Bill, members considered written evidence from over 40 organisations and undertook seven oral briefings and five formal meetings. The deliberations were also informed by the Committee’s recent inquiry into shared and integrated education. It aided the Committee that we had that recent background information. <BR /> <BR />I would like to take this opportunity to thank the many stakeholders who wrote to the Committee or gave oral evidence.”
“The key test of this Bill will be how experience changes for pupils and parents throughout Northern Ireland. With this Bill, we have made a very positive step forward, and it provides a platform for improved practice. Hopefully that help is getting to parents and pupils throughout Northern Ireland. Therefore, as Committee Chair and an individual MLA, I commend this Bill, at Final Stage, to the House.”
“Inevitably, while the Bill provides a very positive platform for a way forward, much of the crucial detail will be brought about in regulations and the code of practice. Given the nature of the subject, that is both inevitable and not to be feared. There will be a critical job, I suspect, in the new mandate, given the timescale, for the Education Committee to try to ensure that we get those regulations right — and there was good cooperation with the Department in being able to get early sight of those regulations — and ensure that there is delivery on the ground.”
“From the perspective of families throughout Northern Ireland, the impact of special educational needs is critical to their lives. As the Minister indicated, getting your head around the complexities of the issue is always quite difficult. It is not a simple case of a child either having a special need or not having a special need. There is a very broad spectrum and a wide range of issues that affect children and, indeed, where the levels of help are required is critical. <BR /> <BR />As we move ahead, it is crucial that we translate the Bill into good practice. There is no doubt that a lot of the frustration out there has been over the lack of early intervention and the breakdown in cooperation on the ground. We have taken very positive steps to address those issues in the Bill.”
“Members of the House have demonstrated their willingness to overcome obstacles where that is for the benefit of all our people, and particularly for our children. It seems to have gone so well that we may be able to complete those other two items. I do not want to give any false hopes to the Minister, but we are hopeful about that. From a Committee point of view, I commend the Bill to the House. <BR /> <BR />I will now make a couple of brief remarks in my capacity as a DUP MLA. It is very positive legislation and a good example of where there has been ongoing work and, indeed, a sense of listening between the Committee and the Department. As indicated, we have tried, where possible, to address the concerns and frustrations of parents. It is a very significant Bill.”
“I am not suggesting that the change of Chair had anything to do with that, and it may be more to do with the circumstances surrounding the Bill, although it is noticeable that we have two other Bills that may make it on to the statute books by the end of this term. I commend the Minister, his officials, Committee members and the House on that significant achievement. It is important to say that, with this Bill, we have seen good cooperation between the Committee and officials, and the contribution of Members within the Assembly. In that sense, we have seen something of a virtuous circle. <BR /> <BR />Education matters can be difficult, controversial and hard to get to agreement on.”
“As they lobbied the Committee, articulated so eloquently their concerns and, indeed, quite often, their first-hand experiences and made so many useful and innovative suggestions, the Committee was able to translate those into amendments, and the Assembly will now hopefully pass those into law. It can be a long process, but I have to remind those organisations, particularly those that attended the Committee’s briefing event on Health and Education cooperation almost one year ago, that the Assembly and the Committee have listened, and hopefully they have made a difference. <BR /> <BR />While I am congratulating everyone, it is timely to note that this would appear to be the first time that an education Bill has undergone a Committee Stage and then successfully proceeded to Final Stage.”
“Those included the pilot scheme that transfers SEN rights from parents to children below compulsory school age and also changes to the SEN statementing process, which may alter the balance of support that is provided to children between schools and the Education Authority. In many ways, the Committee will keep a watching brief and await the relevant secondary legislation with interest. <BR /> <BR />I would also like to record the Committee’s thanks to our many stakeholders, those who made written submissions and, indeed, those who attended our briefing events, made submissions or gave formal oral evidence. Those stakeholders should be congratulating themselves today.”
“It is fair to say that there was initially a little bit of scepticism from the Department on some of those amendments. In the end, between the Committee and the Department, we came to a positive understanding. It seems that we have agreed a better Bill, and I suspect that that will be acknowledged across the Chamber. <BR /> <BR />The Bill as introduced contained other measures, including the introduction of statutory personal learning plans and new voluntary mediation arrangements. The Committee generally welcomes those changes and believes that they will form an important part of the new SEN and inclusion framework. It would be remiss of me not to remind the House that there may be some elements of the Bill with which Members were a little less content.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee is particularly happy with those amendments to the Bill that are designed to improve the statementing process, whether that is through better specification of support in statements, the improved obligations to provide consistent services or the general duty on Health and Education to cooperate. All those have been tackled in the Bill.”
“For members of the Committee, those pressures and challenges are very real, and what we must keep uppermost in our minds is that they are most acutely felt by parents and children. <BR /> <BR />Many parents place their faith in the SEN assessment and statementing process and then come to a representative organisation, or even to their local MLA or councillor, when it appears to be going wrong. As I said at Consideration Stage, many parents have complained about a complex process with poor coordination and a lack of communication between education and health providers. It is the Committee’s hope that the Assembly has done something very positive in the Bill to address those serious complaints and concerns.”
“I will make a few remarks as Chair of the Committee for Education. <BR /> <BR />As we just heard, I think everyone will accept that this is a very important Bill. It supports a revised special educational needs and inclusion framework. It is designed to maintain an inclusive ethos in schools; ensure early identification, assessment and provision of support; reduce bureaucracy; build on the capacity of educators; and take into account the views of pupils and parents. <BR /> <BR />The number of children with special educational needs appears to be increasing. That has been ongoing for a number of years. That provides budgetary and resource pressures for schools and the Education Authority and policy challenges for the Department.”
“I thank the Minister for his response. Can he outline his assessment of the level of disruption that has been caused as a result of the dispute in terms of judicial proceedings?”
“— from Lagan Valley raised this, there was not a single concrete idea for practical change. It is a lack —”
“To be fair, the Ulster Unionists are outside the Government, and, therefore, whatever criticism they make is at least based on that. However, if one came as an outsider to this place, one would be shocked to learn that the SDLP, for all its criticism, has consistently been a member of this Executive. This is not criticism from an opposition but from a party that is in the Government. A more honest position would be to follow what the Ulster Unionist Party has done. I listened with interest to the catalogue of figures from the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party and the clichés from the leader of the SDLP. We heard a litany of figures. When my colleague —”
“The lack of transparency from the Department of Education has certainly been a concern for some time. Given its failure to take part in savings delivery plans, for example, there has been a concern that there is a silo mentality in the Department. We will want to drill down into that when we have the officials with us very shortly. As I indicated at the start of the speech, that limits the amount that I can say in relation to the departmental budget. We will be getting that information in February. However, it is an ongoing concern and I do not disagree with the Member, for once, on that subject. <BR /> <BR />I will say briefly, as an MLA, that I have been here as Budgets have come and gone. I had the great pleasure and honour of listening to the last two speeches from the leaders of the SDLP and the Ulster Unionists.”
“I really have only a very short period of time, and I want to make some remarks. Well, I will give way if the Member is going to be brief.”
“I believe that the Committee will place much of its focus on the aggregated schools budget. The capital budget is to increase in 2016-17, which is, of course, welcomed by the Committee. Most Members will be aware of the schools enhancement programme and the minor works, and there is a lot that needs to be done. Again, we will see the progress on that. Finally, as a Committee we will be trying to take the views of stakeholders on what the broader direction of the Programme for Government should be in the future.”
“However, I should note that the 300 or so redundancies in the Education Authority were not envisaged in the business case for that organisation. Members have expressed concerns that the teaching staff released may put additional pressure on support services such as CASS (Curriculum Advisory and Support Service). <BR /> <BR />It is also worth noting that, in recent years, the Department of Education's staffing levels have increased by around 6%, with a 10% increase in salary costs, so we are not starting from the position of the Department of Education already seeing redundancies. While there have been some cuts, the Committee will want to see the Department's plan continue into this process in 2016-17. <BR /> <BR />I mentioned spending in the classroom.”
“It is fair to say that there has been controversy around the scheme. Indeed, the Committee has put a question mark against the entry point and is still teasing out whether the Department has got that right. The Committee will also want to probe further whether this is good value for public money and whether those made redundant could simply have been replaced. We will want to tease that out. Given the short timescales, we will probably require further information. <BR /> <BR />The Department is also due to receive around £25 million for 600 non-teaching redundancies, both school- and non-school-based. The Committee has long been of the view that the administration of education is too expensive and that the budget would be better spent in the classroom. I think that the Committee still feels this way.”
“We have been advised that that may amount to about £30 million in DE. The Committee has sought information on the breakdown of these costs and on the separate impact of related changes for low-paid workers. <BR /> <BR />I mentioned earlier a kind of early retirement scheme for teachers. The Investing in the Teaching Workforce scheme will cost about £33 million and, if fully taken up, apply to around 500 teachers, who will gain early reduced access to their pension. They are to be replaced by 500 relatively newly qualified teachers. It is no secret that the scheme attracted a great deal of public comment. It is the largest single allocation from the public sector transformation fund to any Department, and an additional £14 million will be used to fund about 300 separate redundancies.”
“<BR /> <BR />The resource budget was then boosted by a further £70 million to meet the costs of redundancy and, essentially, an early retirement scheme for teachers. I will say more about that in a moment. The money is effectively ring-fenced for those purposes. As the House is aware, DE undertook redundancies in schools in the current financial year and paid for some of them from its resource budget. Thus, the argument advanced by some DE officials that the Department is £70 million worse off in 2016-17 may not be entirely watertight. We will wish to explore that further when we see the detailed budget position. <BR /> <BR />Just when you think that things are complicated enough, there is a further complexity involving changes to employer rebates for National Insurance.”