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 72 of 77.
“I appreciate the point that the Member has made. The contribution that we have made is to say that what is being at least nominally proposed by the Conservative Government, if taken at its height, would actually be a British bill of rights. It is not saying that there should not be any form of rights or that there should not be any human rights protection. It is specifically as regards the incorporation of the European Convention. Indeed, as Mr Allister indicated, the issue is the idea of foreign judges essentially dictating what happens within the sovereign territory of the United Kingdom.”
“We are talking about putting in a British Human Rights Act, an Act that would build on the long tradition of the British Parliament. This year is the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, and there has been a movement from that, traditionally through an unwritten constitution and various Acts of Parliament. Those are the protections that we have in place, and I would like us to be dependent on those rather than the Human Rights Act. For all those reasons, I urge people to reject the motion.”
“We have seen, particularly in the European Court, mention being made of prisoner rights. I suspect that, if somebody was elected from Maghaberry, they may have a little bit of difficulty attending council meetings in the new Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council, even with the modern technology of video links. <BR /> <BR />Nevertheless, there has been a degree of mission creep. If you were to go back far enough, I suspect that, among those who helped to set it up, the likes of Churchill would be spinning in his grave at the prospect. It goes beyond that. The United Kingdom and, before that, its constituent parts have a long history. If we were simply talking about abandoning the Human Rights Act and having no human rights protection at all, I would probably support the motion, but we are not.”
“No, I do not accept that. They have gone beyond their remits in many cases.”
“However, within a democratic society, I am concerned that we are moving in the wrong direction. There has to be a greater level of democratic accountability, and, to some extent, the courts see it as their role more and more, and above the democratic decision, to enforce what they see to be right. That is a danger in any democratic society. It is more dangerous when that judicial intervention comes from outside the democratic framework and is therefore not accountable. We are in a situation in which it is not simply British judges or even judges in Northern Ireland who are reaching particular decisions. The European Court is also taking part.”
“Those of us with long enough memories know that, for anybody you spoke to at the time of the agreement, whatever side they voted on, prisoner releases, decommissioning, the formation of Government and the reform of the police were the key elements. I do not remember meeting anybody in the street during that period who said that the incorporation of the Human Rights Act was a key element of the agreement, but perhaps I move in different circles than some in the House. <BR /> <BR />Principally, the reason why I oppose the motion is, as highlighted by Mr Givan, a concern about judicial activism and its pushing of the boundaries. There is a degree of mission creep. As indicated, the courts always have to interpret the law and there is obviously, therefore, a balance to be struck.”
“The concept that the Human Rights Act 1998 was in some way central either to the Good Friday Agreement or to its passage by way of referendum is a high level of revisionist history. As indicated, the Human Rights Act was a pledge of the Blair Government in 1997. Irrespective of whether there was an agreement in Northern Ireland, a UK-wide Human Rights Act that would incorporate that into domestic law would have happened, and it was not, in that sense, a deal-breaker. As somebody who, for past transgressions, was involved in the negotiations on the Good Friday Agreement, I know that it was not a central element.”
“I appreciate that the movers of the motion tabled it well before the Queen's Speech, so they cannot be held guilty on that point. However, to some extent, the motion has been overtaken by events. It is undoubtedly the case, I think wrongly, that David Cameron is rowing away from this faster than the Coleraine rowing team that competed for Great Britain in the European rowing cup at the weekend. There is no doubt that he intends to abandon this and, hence, we saw the watering down of the commitment in the Queen's Speech. To some extent, the motion has become irrelevant. Like Don Quixote, we are tilting at windmills if we see it as a central point. <BR /> <BR />There is a degree of revisionism as well. To be fair to Mr Maginness, he, at least, slightly corrected that impression.”
“Well, I am sure that you will have no problem with what I agree with, which is the motivation behind the Conservatives' pledge in their manifesto. I suspect that it was to create a sort of UKIP-lite appeal. Clearly, it is difficult to know the cause and effect, but the Conservative manifesto ended up getting 331 Conservatives elected while one was elected from UKIP. Whatever the large volume of votes there was for UKIP, it seemed to have a degree of success. If I were being cynical, I suspect that the Conservatives perhaps believed that they would be forced into some form of situation in which there was a coalition Government and they wanted to have various things that they could jettison to show that they were willing to accommodate, most probably, the Liberal Democrats.”
“I find myself agreeing with him on one point at least. Like a stopped clock, it may be that we agree twice a day. On his last point —”
“I am glad that Mr Maginness is not infringing on our human rights by carrying on beyond his allotted time.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that it is not simply a question of democratic deficit but of how the courts have taken on mission creep and that what has happened has gone beyond the original intentions?”
“The Minister has already referred to it, but, whatever scale of early years funding is available, can he indicate what practical measures will be taken to ensure that applications are treated in an open and accessible way and that it is not simply a case of it being rolled over to groups that have received it in the past?”
“The key challenge to the Minister, the Department and the Education Authority is that we have area planning that does what it says on the tin and that has not simply a good vision but a practical outworking that delivers change in our school system that is inclusive, fair, strategic and allows all sectors to feel that there is a level playing field. That is the key challenge for us all as we go forward. I commend to the House the motion, the Committee for Education's position paper and its recommendations.”
“The key challenge to the Department, the Education Authority and all those involved is the extent to which changes are made to ensure that all future implementation is fit for purpose. I can, perhaps, distil this into one exchange that occurred. The Minister, while he did not, unfortunately, support all the recommendations in the report, he made reasonably positive noises about them. My colleague Mr Wilson expressed cynicism that whatever noises the Minister made, he would, ultimately, simply ignore the recommendations. That is the key test. <BR /> <BR />I find myself in the unusual position of saying that I hope that Mr Wilson is wrong.”
“He advised that development proposals would take into account cross-sectoral solutions and confirmed that the FE sector will be directly involved in future area planning. He referred to revisions to the capital programme criteria. A bit disappointingly, he disputed recommendation 3 and referred to the sustainable schools policy. We believe that recommendation 3 needs to be properly taken on board. He advised that it was for planning authorities better to interpret and make use of the needs model. However, there are some concerns about its accuracy. The Minister did not accept recommendation 6, which was also disappointing. <BR /> <BR />If we look at this in an optimistic way, we all accepted the need for area planning. There has been an acceptance throughout the House of some of its flaws.”
“The Minister, while not accepting everything in the report, accepted that improvements to area planning were required and indicated that they were in hand. He accepted the need for consultations to be improved but argued that the existing process had been engaged with by a large number of respondents. Again, we come down to the issue of simply getting the responses. I appreciate the Minister's point that, if the final decision is not necessarily what you wanted, it does not mean that there has not been proper engagement. However, we need to see an improvement in the quality of the engagement. The evidence given to us was fairly consistent on that. <BR /> <BR />The Minister highlighted the planned improvement and synchronisation of area planning, with action plans being issued in September 2016.”
“I do not think that anybody would particularly disagree with his vision, but I suppose that the issue is whether what happens in practice matches that vision.”
“The Member will be aware of the circumstances in Fermanagh a lot better than I will. This highlights the point made by a number of Members: we need a level playing field and something that is cross-sectoral and strategic in nature that, consequently, takes into account all the sectors at the same time and at the same level and recognises that the needs in rural Fermanagh are not the same as those in Craigavon, Bangor or inner-city Belfast. There has to be that flexibility as well. <BR /> <BR />I turn briefly to the Minister's remarks. He set out his vision for area planning with the needs of children at the centre. He highlighted budget pressures and the sensitivities of local communities to school closures and amalgamations.”
“<BR /> <BR />A number of Members, including Chris Hazzard and Seán Rogers, raised the importance of rurality and the need to ensure, as we move forward, that the needs of genuinely rural communities are taken into account. That leaves aside the argument raised about the issues around the definition of rurality. If I can turn —”
“<BR /> <BR />The variation between the sectors in pace and process was highlighted by a number of Members, particularly Sandra Overend, Trevor Lunn and Nelson McCausland. As highlighted by Seán Rogers, there is a need, on a cross-sectoral basis, to be a lot more strategic in our thoughts. There is clearly a feeling from the Committee that, in proceeding, we need to ensure that all sectors feel that they are on a level playing field and will be dealt with fairly. <BR /> <BR />Mention was made — it is also referred to in the report — of the need to be all-encompassing of the different sectors. For instance, Seán Rogers raised the issue of the exclusion of further education colleges. Indeed, if we are looking at overall area planning for the post-16 category of pupils, that also needs to be brought in.”
“We have seen situations in which there has been a danger of schools closing in almost a domino effect and pupils perhaps being shuffled around. A number of Members — Robin Newton, Nelson McCausland, Sammy Wilson and Danny Kennedy — raised very specific issues about their constituencies. Whatever the vision and widespread buy-in of the idea of area planning, it has perhaps been seen to fail to respond in individual constituencies. Indeed, one of the concerns raised was that, at times, the Department has taken a too-rigid approach to the variation in enrolment numbers and that there has perhaps been a failure to respond to local needs. While that is a slightly different issue to the needs model, the fact that the needs model has also not fed in properly to things has also been significant.”
“While the Minister accepted that there were some problems, he was a little reluctant to see too much in the way of problems. However, a number of Members raised the needs model and, indeed, how up to date it was and whether it reflected reality. Trevor Lunn, Robin Newton and Sammy Wilson raised that issue. Trevor Lunn raised the issue of whether it was responsive enough to the needs of the integrated sector. Sammy Wilson also raised the integrated sector but had a slightly different view of the appropriateness of the needs model. One of the things that were abundantly clear — it was raised by Nelson McCausland and Robin Newton — is the extent to which future needs that are based on demography do not appear, in individual cases, to have been taken into account all that well.”
“If people take a view that area planning has a different motivation or, indeed, is coming with a predetermined outcome, proper results will not actually arise from that. <BR /> <BR />A number of Members raised the issue of cross-border cooperation, particularly Seán Rogers and Trevor Lunn and, perhaps in a very different context, as she admitted, Sandra Overend. That lack of joined-up thinking has been highlighted.”
“I completely agree with the Member. I think that it has been highlighted by a number of Members that even, shall we say, those who are most robust in their defence of what has happened in area planning would accept that there has not been that full level of consultation and inclusiveness. The need for inclusiveness as we move forward was highlighted, for instance, by Maeve McLaughlin and Chris Hazzard. Sandra Overend highlighted that the position on implementation, particularly in consultation, left things in disarray. Seán Rogers said that there was a feeling out there that parents just were not being listened to. This seems to be a fairly consistent theme. It is right that one of the key elements of our report's recommendations is that there has to be both inclusiveness and a feeling of real, positive engagement.”
“Maeve McLaughlin highlighted that it needed to be evidence-based and indeed that there was much to reflect on and learn.”
“Two things that were fairly consistent throughout all the contributions were that everybody accepted, without reservation, the need for area planning and change and that having empty desks in schools was a problem that needed to be sorted out in a strategic manner. Similarly, it was admitted by everyone, to varying degrees, that there were flaws in the area planning process itself. On those two positions — the need for area planning and acceptance of the flaws in its implementation — there was a wide spectrum of views. Probably the most enthusiastic on area planning was Chris Hazzard's contribution. Others, like Mr Wilson and Mr Kennedy, were considerably more sceptical on the issue. However, I think that everyone on all sides accepted that there was a need for change.”
“<BR /> <BR />I think that everybody has acknowledged that area planning is a significant challenge. That said, I think that the Committee genuinely believes that the recommendations in our position paper are eminently doable and would go a long way to getting buy-in by schools and parents in the area planning process. The Committee understands that a review of area planning will be undertaken. That is a crucial set of circumstances. It hopes therefore that there will be discussions with the Department on the subject in the not-too-distant future. From that point of view, this is not the endgame for the Committee but merely a staging post. <BR /> <BR />I will turn to some of the themes that emerged from contributions.”
“Sometimes, Committees undertake scrutiny for ideological or even political reasons; in the past, there has even been the accusation that Committees have brought reports simply to annoy, embarrass or generally admonish Ministers for the sake of it. I am sure that that has never happened in this House, but there is that accusation from time to time. This is not one of those occasions. The Committee began its scrutiny more than two years ago in response to the concerns and complaints of schools and parents. The Minister referred to the vast quantity of responses on area planning. That shows the importance of the issue to people. When Committee members set aside the time and listened, they found that the concerns were reasonable and the complaints addressable.”
“This has not just come out of the ether. As has been indicated, the Committee did a lot of work and gathered a lot of evidence. It was good to see that a number of contributors thanked the Committee for the work that it had done, and I reiterate in particular the thanks to Professor Gallagher for his work on the position paper. It is important that the Department and the Minister study the recommendations of the report and, even if there is disagreement on some of them, find some of the information to be useful and enlightening. <BR /> <BR />Before highlighting the key contributions to the debate, I would like to briefly remind the House why the Committee undertook this work.”
“On behalf of the Committee, I would first of all like to thank all of those who contributed to today’s debate, particularly the Minister, who has come along to give his response on it. I think we got into a little bit of the ding-dong that Mr Sheehan earlier indicated that we had avoided; perhaps indicating that, whatever else, Mr Sheehan is not a prophet.”
“This debate and the Education Authority's review process provide an ideal opportunity. If lessons are learned from the mistakes made in the area planning process over the last few years, we can have a process on which we can move forward together and in which we look not simply to have greater cooperation and efficiency but to improve the standard of education. The opportunity is there, and I urge the Department and the new Education Authority to grasp it. I commend the report and the recommendations of the position paper to the House.”
“In the last couple of years, we saw the problems when the former Southern Board seemed to jump ahead with the proposed changes to the Dickson plan, which clearly went against a lot of the concerns that had been raised locally. I would make the more general point that, as we move forward with area planning, we need to have much more of a responsive nature, be swifter in our responses and have a much greater degree of engagement with the public. <BR /> <BR />As I said at the outset, from Committee and party points of view, there is good value in the idea of area planning and it should be a no-brainer. Unfortunately, with the way in which the implementation has gone, we have seen a number of flaws within the system.”
“We have seen variable measurements for the number of surplus school places, which can be difficult to judge because it can be a moveable feast. In my constituency, very sensible adjustments were made reduce the nominal amount of surplus places in at least two of the local primary schools. In effect, the rooms in their buildings were being used for other purposes beyond the primary school and an artificial number had been created. As we move forward with area planning, we have to ensure that everybody is working off the same assumptions and information. <BR /> <BR />Finally, as has been mentioned, as we move forward, we need greater listening, particularly to the needs of schools and parents. As was indicated, we need a much more proactive process in that area.”
“<BR /> <BR />Thirdly, we will hopefully shortly see the Department's legislation on shared education, and that is also an area that the Committee has looked at in some depth. As we look to the future, it is important that the linkages are there between shared education and area planning and that many of the old assumptions about the numbers and the lack of robust statistics are tackled. When I was speaking as the Chair, I mentioned St Columbanus' College in my constituency. That is a maintained school, but its intake from the Catholic community is less than 50% of its numbers and, on that basis, it is a super-mixed school. Where there is good practice, be it there, Lisanelly, Methody or other places, that should be taken into account when we look at area planning. Allied to that, we need more robust statistics.”
“Particular concerns had been raised about the controlled sector, and I am very glad that, when the Education Act was being put though the House, we secured the creation and, indeed, direct representation of the controlled sector body. It is vital that that moves ahead swiftly and that all the pieces are put in place by the Department. I call on the Minister to clarify that. <BR /> <BR />Secondly, the experience that people have had of the implementation of area planning has been somewhat piecemeal. For the sectors and from a geographical point of view, part of which comes from the division of the different boards and sectors, I am sure that we would all agree that area planning needs to move forward on a much more strategic basis.”
“The wide-ranging and difficult process has simply not been managed in a satisfactory manner to date. I hope that, in taking forward the anticipated review of area planning, the Minister will consider and ultimately implement the Committee’s position paper. As the Chairperson of the Committee, I therefore commend it to the House. <BR /> <BR />I want to turn now to a number of points in my other capacity as a DUP MLA. All those points are compatible with the report. In moving forward, there is an opportunity, with the report and the creation of the new Education Authority, to effectively restart, reboot and re-evaluate. We need to ensure that we do that on the basis of a level playing field and a sense of fair play across the sectors.”
“The Committee believes that it is time for a new departmental mindset in respect to consultation. To be sure, there is no doubt that hard choices and unpopular decisions will have to be made. The Committee however feels that that makes active listening and meaningful engagement much more important. Members particularly felt that, had there been a proper explanation to parents of the benefits of area planning resolution, including a greater linkage with the new capital builds, at least some of the problems, delays and angst that we have seen in some parts of Northern Ireland could have been avoided. <BR /> <BR />The Committee takes the view that area planning is necessary to deliver a better educational experience for all our children. That will inevitably mean some level of rationalisation of the schools estate.”
“What is wrong with the consultation processes? Why did the Committee consistently receive such forthright and eloquent feedback from teachers and parents on area planning? Why did those same representations appear to fall on deaf ears in DE and its arm's-length bodies?”
“<BR /> <BR />I understand and am glad to say that the controlled sector support council and other groups will have some form of representation in the area planning steering group. I hope that in a future timescale for area planning, reviews will be inclusive and synchronized and will thus promote cross-sectoral and innovative solutions. <BR /> <BR />Finally, as Chair, I want to talk about consultation. The Committee does not have extensive resources. It does not have easy access to schools or to all parent or pupil organisations. It does not have steering groups that include a wide range of arm's-length bodies. I suppose that, in many ways, the Committee is asking itself how it was able to do a better job at times than the Department and its arm's-length bodies when it simply came to listening to stakeholders?”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee also felt that it was a serious error to omit the further education sector from the needs model and thus from educational planning for over-16s on an area basis. The Committee also commented on the different timescales for and treatments of the two largest sectors in relation to area planning. It simply does not make sense for the Catholic maintained and Catholic voluntary sector to be permitted to plan their provision separately from the controlled and other denominational grammars. This approach undermined cross-sectoral solutions and, coupled with representational issues at the steering group, fed a perception that the controlled sector was not getting a fair deal.”
“In parts of Northern Ireland, there is a trend towards a greater level of mixing, which is something to be welcomed. For instance, last week, in my capacity as Committee Chairperson, I met representatives from St Columbanus' College, which is in my constituency, and the Committee previously visited Methodist College. Neither of those schools is integrated and therefore they operate under a label and a certain level of assumptions. Instead, they might be termed "super-mixed schools". The needs model needs to recognise and promote this very welcome organic mixing of the major communities in Northern Ireland. I suspect that, in the debate, there may be others who will want to say how the needs model particularly treats the integrated sector.”
“Indeed, we hope that the Department will endeavor to make faster progress in actually establishing the dashboard. <BR /> <BR />I also want to mention the needs model. This is the methodology that the Department uses to project demand for educational provision on an area basis. I suspect that, some years ago, a lot of the assumptions underpinning the model in respect of the level of identification of communities with particular educational sectors may well have been highly accurate and reasonable. I do not believe that that is the case any more. I suspect that colleagues will refer to the outworkings of that in places like east Belfast. We now have an increasing level of diversity in our school population, including many more newcomer pupils from outside Northern Ireland and more children designating as neither Protestant nor Catholic.”
“Admittedly, the reference is to revised Bain criteria of 85 children and composite classes as determining, amongst other things, the sustainability of a school. <BR /> <BR />The Committee was very much impressed by the evidence from parents and teachers from small rural schools on this issue. The Committee takes the view that Bain-type measures of the sustainability of a school are overly simplistic. The Committee believes that a dashboard of measures that assesses the value added in schools while also recognising the importance of cost is a better way to evaluate provision. We may also hear today that the dashboard is in fact departmental policy. That being the case, perhaps the Department could have advised the education and library boards and CCMS before they published their area plans.”
“The two sets of figures, which differed by around 10,000 or 11,000, and perhaps also the mysterious designation of everywhere outside Belfast and the city of Londonderry as "rural" — I am sure that that designation came as a great surprise to people in Rathcoole, Kilcooley or the Old Warren Estate in Lisburn — appear to amount to clear breaches of that basic first rule of good change management. <BR /> <BR />We may hear arguments today that the Committee's reference to the Bain criteria is completely out of place and that these criteria are no longer used in any way. I refer Members who make that point to pages 17 and 18 of the Western Education and Library Board's primary area plan, which was published less than a year ago.”
“First, there was reference to 85,000 and, then, to 74,000. It became apparent to the Committee that the Department was using a different set of figures from those that were used by the education and library boards and CCMS. Members found the use of different sets of figures to be, at first, surprising and, then, confusing. <BR /> <BR />In a change management system, rule number one is to communicate clearly and consistently and to immediately scotch any suggestions of ambiguity or arbitrary decision-making.”
“<BR /> <BR />At the start of the area planning process, there were many references — they have been fairly constant — to the surplus school places.”
“What is concerning is that the Department, the education and library boards and the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS) did not seem to fully understand that at the time. <BR /> <BR />It is anticipated that, now that the Education Authority is in place, there will be a review of area planning, and, looking to the future, hopefully things may change. I trust that, as part of that process, the Department will accept that the Education Authority is not the Education and Skills Authority (ESA) and that, consequently, there is still more than one planning body for schools in Northern Ireland. That being the case, the Department will still have a key role in leading and managing the change in our schools.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is also fair to recognise that the process of area planning is made more complicated by the highly sectoral nature of our education system and the lengthy transition period that we faced in the education and library boards becoming the Education Authority. <BR /> <BR />Having said all that, I must also say that neither the sectoralisation nor the highly charged nature of school planning was a secret or should have been a surprise to anybody. The dogs in the streets would no doubt have told the Department of Education — and we have some very wise dogs in this country — that area planning was a substantial change management challenge. It could also have easily been spotted that area planning would generate significant angst within schools and, almost inevitably, accusations of unfairness and inconsistency.”
“The area planning process itself was driven by other longer-term changes, demographic and budgetary, and by the unchanging need, which I think all of us would agree on, to improve education outcomes for all our children. <BR /> <BR />To be clear at the start, the Committee for Education accepts the need for area planning. Put simply, it is good to plan for education. It is correct to do so on an area basis. It is the right thing to do in order to address expected changes in the school population and to improve provision for all our children. Given the strong importance that all communities attach to education and the equally strong linkages between our schools and our cultural identities, it is perhaps not surprising that the process has proved to be complex and sometimes controversial.”