Diane Dodds
West Belfast · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“Minister, that is a brilliant segue into the question that I will ask. Just over 5% of women who are now seen within the 14-day target for a suspected breast cancer in Northern Ireland. That has happened since the list was regionalised. I get the fact that cancer cases are rising, but —”
“Minister, for Members and those who are listening to the debate, it is important that you tell us what "actively being considered" means on a day-to-day basis.”
“Thank you, Minister. The Muckamore inquiry report demonstrates a shameful period for our health service, and no one involved can, in any shape or form, come out of this with any kind of credibility.”
“Let me be clear: experimental treatment on children that can have lifelong implications is unconscionable. Children of 11 or 12 are in no position to give clear consent to the use of such drugs, especially when those administering the treatments had them banned because of the lack of evidence on their long-term impacts.”
“Once again, I will speak in the House about puberty blockers and the nationwide trial run by King's College. I now understand that the Government will issue new guidance that will allow such a trial to go ahead.”
“It is now anticipated that more than eight out of 10 couples in which the woman is under 40 will conceive naturally, but that leaves two out of 10 who will need additional interventions. Over a lifespan, that is a fairly substantial number of people.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,456 lines we hold for Diane Dodds, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 19 of 50.
“Thank you. The Member has spent a considerable time saying that some of the concerns — I will put it no stronger than that — that those he met had with the Bill have now, largely, been assuaged. I wonder whether the Member read the letter of 3 March, just a few days ago, from a range of stakeholders, that stated:”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He has said that the Bill will surely be subject to a number of judicial reviews. Why on earth, then, is the SDLP supporting the Bill? Despite all the difficulties that the Member has outlined, I suspect that there is a great big "but" coming.”
“Although worried about the impact on schools, children and young people, they are unwilling to stand up for them. <BR /> <BR />The time has come to take a brave stand, and the stakes could not be higher. I urge those who have expressed their deep concerns about the Bill, publicly and privately, to show the courage of their convictions: put the interests of our pupils and schools first, and stop bad legislation from becoming law. The people of Northern Ireland — pupils, parents, teachers and your constituents — are watching, and they will take a dim view of those who fail to protect them, their schools and the interests of their communities. The decision that we take today will have long and lasting consequences, and there is no excuse for inaction.”
“I note that its sponsor is nodding her head shamelessly. It is about giving one sector a significant advantage in law that is not available to any other. The Bill is not about levelling the playing field. As I said before, I will not stand by and see 93% of our schoolchildren disadvantaged. They are children who deserve the best, many of whom come with special needs and social and educational disadvantage. <BR /> <BR />There is another group in the Chamber today: those who know that the Bill is flawed and that it will disadvantage children in their communities. Those in that group are willing to vote against the Bill but do not have the backbone to stop it. To be honest, theirs is the worst of all situations. They are scared of political opponents and scared of the great and the good.”
“However, this is not a game that we are playing; this is about real children, real people's lives and the future of our schools in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />Others in the Chamber throw up their hands in horror at the use of a petition of concern (POC) in the context of the Integrated Education Bill. I repeat for the record — I have said it many times — that integrated schools are excellent, and I will continue to support the sector and the parents and children who make the choice that an integrated school is the right school to meet their needs. <BR /> <BR />The Bill is not about the education of children together. If it were, it would be a much wider Bill, and it would encompass those sectors that already educate children together. The Bill is about the enhancement of one sector of education.”
“As uncomfortable as it is for many in the Chamber, my party and I are not willing to allow that to proceed unchallenged. Standing quietly by or meekly acquiescing to a Bill that disadvantages and devalues the overwhelming majority of our pupils and our schools is not something that I am prepared to do. <BR /> <BR />Many accusations have been levelled at those of us who are willing to challenge the Bill. Sinn Féin thinks that it is not very progressive to challenge the Bill and to use every means at our disposal to defeat the Bill. Note to Sinn Féin: it is not at all progressive to support legislation that would disadvantage 93% of our school population. Pat Sheehan talked about a "hostile takeover". Probably, the gentleman knows a lot about attempted hostile takeovers.”
“We could dispute that all day, but what I am really concerned about is the kind of divisiveness that the Bill will engender, not only now but going forward. What we have is a Bill that supports and gives benefits only to one part of the education system. I find that intolerant in the extreme, particularly from a party that tells me that it opposes labels and stereotypes. A sign above the door does not define the level of integration in a school, as is well proved by Carrick Primary School in Lurgan. <BR /> <BR />I have received a huge number of emails, letters and phone calls about the Bill. Many parents and teachers are quite distraught that their meagre level of resources could forever stay stagnant or, worst of all, be redirected in order to comply with the demands of the Bill.”
“The Member has made that point on a number of occasions in the debates that we have constantly had in the Chamber. <BR /> <BR />One thing that we should remember about the Bill and from the Member's statements more generally — the Member and I have engaged not only in the House but across many media outlets in the past days — is that there is a view that children and schools can be fully integrated only if they are in the integrated sector. In many ways, I find that an intolerance that is difficult to fathom.”
“We will not create a society that is more equal and fairer by giving one sector more than the other. That is a fundamental thing for the House to consider when it comes to the fairness and inclusivity of the Bill.”
“The Member makes a valid point, in that it is not unreasonable to aim to grow the sector; in fact, the sector, for a number of years, has enjoyed advantages that were not part of any other sector. The Department already had to encourage and facilitate integrated education. The addition of the word "support", which comes with huge beneficiary implications, is very different indeed for the sector.”
“I will give way in a moment or two, but I want to make this point. <BR /> <BR />Members should ask themselves this: how will this promote a fair and equal society? How are those children, parents and teachers meant to feel when they see that level of priority bestowed on one school and one sector but not their school or their sector?”
“That school, where there are pupils from a range of backgrounds, where there is a wide mix of religions and, most importantly, where children are valued for who they are, by the Bill's standards, is not integrated and would not benefit from the Bill's benefits. In fact, it would be disadvantaged in terms of places and funding. That is where the Bill leaves us. That is a terrible legacy to leave for children in Northern Ireland.”
“The Department of Education is not required to bring that forward for any other part of the education system, and an amendment to try to make it more even was not accepted by the House. Therefore, I view the Bill as being fundamentally flawed. <BR /> <BR />Many in the House claim that the Bill is about children being educated together. The Bill, fundamentally, is about one sector of education — the integrated sector — and fails to acknowledge that children are educated together in other schools and other sectors. I want to read, for the record of the House, an email that I received from a primary school in my constituency:”
“That plan must include targets and benchmarks. It must include the identification of resources to encourage, facilitate and support integrated education. The Bill states that it must also:”
“I will in a moment, when I make a bit of progress. <BR /> <BR />The Bill fundamentally ensures that the Minister of Education will have additional duties in law towards the integrated sector that are simply not there for the maintained and controlled sectors. Added to the duties to encourage and facilitate, integrated education will have the pleasure of the duty to support it. Clauses 4 and 5 set out the duty to support and its meaning in terms of funding and additional need now and in the future. There is no requirement in law on the Department to adhere to any of those duties when addressing the needs of any other sector in the education system in Northern Ireland. It will be unique to the integrated sector. <BR /> <BR />Clause 9 requires the Department to publish a plan for the integrated sector.”
“There are huge issues to be addressed, including underachievement, funding gaps, vocational education, inequality in accessing education and addressing the skills deficit in our economy. The Bill will address none of those fundamental issues. In many cases, it will serve only to exacerbate the current problems in our system. The Bill is about one sector in our education system and one sector only, a sector that accounts for approximately 7% of the school population. The Bill fundamentally ensures —.”
“I have said many times during debates on the Bill in the House that we all want to see a Northern Ireland that is more prosperous and more peaceful where we can move forward together as one community. We want to see a society where we value education as a means to get a good job, provide for our family and have a decent standard of living, irrespective of our religious, social or political background. We want a society that is fairer, more inclusive and more equal. We want a society where our children are educated together, can play together and, ultimately, go to work together. <BR /> <BR />In saying all of those things, I am not blind to the need for change in our education system.”
“I wish him well and thank him for the legislation.”
“I note that the Bill has no business case and no real estimate of the cost of the universal clause, so I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say about clause 1 and the universality of that at a time when we have tight budgets to control. <BR /> <BR />The amendments, as many have said, are technical. They tidy up the Bill and eradicate mentions of bodies where there is no need for them and so on. Importantly, they also address something that the Education Committee discussed at length: the issue around privacy, confidentiality and accessibility. It means that no one should be in an awkward or difficult position in accessing products, particularly young girls in school, where there might be some hesitancy around the issue. <BR /> <BR />We support the Bill. I have spoken to the sponsor on the issue many times.”
“<BR /> <BR />Throughout the Chamber, there is an acknowledgement that eradicating period poverty is hugely important and that no one should be disadvantaged because of it in either work or education. It builds, of course, on the pilot schemes that I announced as Minister for the Economy and that our Education Minister has announced. Those important schemes are already making a difference. <BR /> <BR />Before I speak to the amendments, I wish to say that I am interested to hear the Minister's and indeed, the Bill sponsor's comments — he knows that I have raised the issue on many occasions — on the universal clause on the provision of period products.”
“First, like Pat Sheehan, I wish my colleagues happy International Women's Day. Perhaps we should focus our minds on the women in Afghanistan who have been denied opportunities and those in Ukraine who are suffering such terrible violence. <BR /> <BR />I thank the Bill sponsor for the Bill. I know that there was some Twitter excitement last week about the origins of the Bill and so on. I go back to the old phrase that success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan. I wish the Bill success, because it is important in progressing equality and because — again, on International Women's Day — the issue is so fundamental to women and girls in our society. It may be an accident of timing, but it is appropriate that we are discussing the Bill on International Women's Day.”
“We owe that to the schools and to the system in Northern Ireland, as well as to the children who are educated there and to the parents who make choices about their children's education.”
“The integrated sector is also concerned about ethos, and the Integrated Education Bill seeks to legislate for the ethos of that sector's schools, including the composition of boards of governors etc. Equality screening needs to apply everywhere. Often with legislation that seems relatively simple — a straightforward change in the law — there can be unintended consequences. <BR /> <BR />I am happy to support the Bill. This issue is massively important to fairness in our society. The Bill therefore has my support, but I would like us to give due diligence to the concerns expressed to the Committee, rather than to rush to the finish line without those concerns being addressed.”
“That issue is worthy of some scrutiny by the Committee as we take the Bill forward. Like the Deputy Chair, I would like to see the Bill progress in this mandate, but I think that it would be a disservice for us not to address the issues that have been presented to us about the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Significant numbers of stakeholders indicated their support for the removal of the exemption, but also their concern over the ethos of a faith-based education and about the protections that may be needed to ensure that open conversations can be held about the ethos of a particular school. That is worthy of scrutiny and of our attention. <BR /> <BR />It should be noted that the ethos of a school is not just a quirk of faith-based schools or the controlled sector.”
“The Equality Commission has also already set that out in its arguments around the Bill. In response to the Committee — I want to be clear with the House tonight — Bishop McKeown and those from CCMS accepted that that is an outdated part of fair employment legislation that should be scrapped. In relation to the certificate, however, CCMS said:”
“The first response that I want to refer to is from the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education (NICIE). What it says about the certificate is significant and important. It states:”
“That long-held exemption is outdated in our society, and equal opportunity should be respected in all areas of life. <BR /> <BR />While it is a short Bill and there is significant support both in the House and in society for its objective, some of the issues are rarely as straightforward as they appear. The Bill is silent on the issue of the Catholic certificate in religious education. That seems to me to be a significant omission, and it means that, while discrimination is removed in one part, another anomaly remains. <BR /> <BR />Ahead of Second Stage, the Executive Office Committee has already been taking evidence on the Bill, as has been said. It has received responses from stakeholders across Northern Ireland, and I will put some of them on record in the House tonight.”
“Like others in the Chamber, I support the principles of the Bill at its Second Reading. It has been a long-held manifesto commitment of the DUP, and we are pleased to support it. <BR /> <BR />The policy objective of the Bill is to remove the exception of teachers from the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 to ensure that schools are not permitted to use religious belief as a ground on which to discriminate between candidates for teaching posts. In practice, we have a situation in Northern Ireland where employers of teachers do not have obligations to monitor the community composition of persons applying for, appointed to or promoted to jobs, and teachers are not able to bring complaints of religious discrimination relating to their recruitment.”
“I thank the Minister. The rigorous implementers may want to think about those statistics. <BR /> <BR />Jacob Rees-Mogg was recently promoted in the Cabinet. One of the first things that he said was that he would like to have a bonfire of retained EU law. What would the Minister like to see on the bonfire?”
“Minister, do you agree that farmers play a vital role in managing our natural environment and encouraging biodiversity, and that without their work there would be much greater land abandonment in Northern Ireland? Do you further agree that farmers are part of the solution to our climate issues rather than part of the problem, as some in the House would suggest?”
“It ensures that children will be entitled to a full 12 years of education and that they should avail themselves of nursery education. Best of all, it will actually become operational for September 2022. That is delivery. <BR /> <BR />The Bill is relatively small in size but has a huge scope to change the lives of young children and offer them a better start. Thank you to all who campaigned and made that a reality today.”
“It is a good day for politics. We have listened and addressed the concerns that have been raised with us. Northern Ireland is unusual in that, until today, we had no flexibility for young children who were due to start school. The Bill will bring welcome changes and ensure that we have the most progressive evidence-based policy of the nations of the United Kingdom. <BR /> <BR />The Bill, rightly, puts parents at the heart of decisions about the time when their children should start school. It acknowledges that children who are born in April, May and June may need a little extra time before they start school, and therefore allows the deferral of school start until the year following their fifth birthday. It allows for premature children whose natural birth dates should have been within the April to June period to be given that flexibility.”
“Again, I want to place on record our thanks to the Minister for introducing the School Age Bill. As the previous Member to speak said, it is relatively small in size, but it will have a big impact for children and families in Northern Ireland. I also want to put on record my thanks and acknowledgement for the cooperation of all parties in the Education Committee to ensure that the Bill has had smooth passage through the legislative process. Most of all, we want to acknowledge the work and efforts of parents and, indeed, organisations who have worked hard to ensure that the issue was kept foremost on the political agenda. <BR /> <BR />Today is a good day. It is a good day for young children and their parents in Northern Ireland. The Bill ensures that we give children the best possible start at a time that is right for them.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I want to make two points. Mr Sheehan asked a question about the demand for integrated education. In an answer to an Assembly question, it was stated that, in 2020-21, some 2,509 pupils in Northern Ireland indicated that integrated education was their first preference. In 2021-22, 2,151 pupils did so. That is a drop of 14·27%. <BR /> <BR />You pondered the issue yourself. What should be done? No one on these Benches is blind to the need for change in education. I want to see education that is inclusive of all our young people, and I mean socially inclusive as well as religiously. The best place for this is the independent review of education, not striking out in a private Member's Bill, poorly drafted, which has had this amount of amendment and debate.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I agree with your remarks that education is the best way in which to lift people out of poverty. I agree that we want to see our children educated together. Does the Member not agree with me, however, that many children are already educated together in sectors that are not called "integrated" and that those sectors will suffer because we are prioritising the integrated sector?”
“<BR /> <BR />There are amendments in the group that we support — amendment Nos 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 — but you should look at the context in which we support them. They try to ameliorate a bad Bill, but it is still a bad Bill.”
“It would be incredibly difficult to determine — it may be fought over in courts — what "without detriment" means. I accept and support the intention of the amendment because it seeks to soften the Bill, but it does not deal with the fundamental problem: we are supporting one sector of education above all others. The proposer of the amendments has done a significant amount of work on them. I view them not as game changers but as attempts to ameliorate the duties in law that were added to the Bill and voted for by all of the parties in the House, except those on this side. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 16 is the proposal to exclude clause 9(3)(d). It is significant. It is, again, done for the good reason that the Department does not have the duty in relation to any other sector.”
“The fundamental flaw will remain. I repeat that it is a form of discrimination against the controlled and maintained sectors. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 14 has been discussed already. It is another amendment by which its proposer seeks to soften the Bill and its impact. I am not sure of the intention behind it. It states:”
“While that softens the impact of the proposal, it will not take away the additional duty, and, as I have said in the House on a number of occasions, we object to additional duties in law that place the sector in a different place to other sectors in education. We will support amendment Nos 5 and 6, but we are mindful that they simply soften the context without fundamentally changing it.”
“That additional duty is defined in clause 5 for places and resources and, again, in the strategy. That is where the amendments that we have been particularly interested in fall. <BR /> <BR />The duty to support remains, but amendment Nos 5 and 6 seek to place and contextualise that duty to support:”
“I rise to make a very few remarks about the group 2 amendments. We will support a number of those amendments, but I will make it clear at the outset that support for them will not mean that the overall Bill will suddenly become satisfactory. The amendments soften the context of the Bill, but they do not deal with its fundamental problem. <BR /> <BR />Clauses 4 and 5 as amended at Consideration Stage include an additional duty "in respect of integrated education". Members will recall that integrated education already had two additional duties in law that do not apply to the controlled and maintained sector. Those are specifically the duty to "encourage and facilitate" integrated education. The Bill as amended at Consideration Stage added an additional duty to "support" integrated education.”
“It is worthwhile clearing this up. Will the Member agree, particularly in relation to the amendments but also to the Bill in general, that most of those who speak about consultation are speaking about the lack of consultation before the Bill was published? The Bill 's sponsor has indicated that she relied on a consultation process from 2016-17. It is normal process —”
“The Member has a point. I would go further. I would say that, actually, the controlled sector's being amalgamated into the Education Authority means that there is no specific authority that deals only with that sector. Therefore, I would like to see the position of controlled sector schools being significantly strengthened in the education system. You have a point. <BR /> <BR />The Bill is not inclusive. It will not promote the integration of children all together. It ignores the value of the shared education projects that we have been involved in. We will not support the group 1 amendments.”
“That extends the duty quite significantly. <BR /> <BR />My party will not support the sponsor's amendments in group 1. We are somewhat bemused by the fact that, given our opposition to the Bill, we would table amendments to actually do so. I am almost finished. Does the sponsor want to make an intervention?”
“However, that does not weaken my resolve that, in fact, I cannot support the amendments, particularly amendment No 3, which extends the scope of support to:”
“I will in a moment, when I am finished. <BR /> <BR />That is what the Bill fundamentally does. <BR /> <BR />The group 1 amendments, including amendment Nos 3 and 4, actually strengthen the position of the sector by, as the sponsor said, changing the "may" to "must" where the duties on the Department are concerned. Amendment Nos 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 all point to strengthening the duty to support. I accept, from what the Bill sponsor said, that that duty was supported at Consideration Stage, and I accept that parties in the House — the SDLP, Sinn Féin, Alliance and the Ulster Unionists — all voted to add an additional duty of support for that sector above all other sectors, so the Member is tidying up the Bill by including the word "support" in amendment Nos 7, 8 and 9.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is vital that we have the context for the amendments. The sponsor of the Bill indicated that these are simply tidying-up amendments, but they actually strengthen the support for integrated education. As I have said in many debates in the House and throughout many hours of Committee discussions on the Bill, I will support every sector in the education system but I will not support one sector having additional duties in law over another. That is fundamentally —”
“I will share this point with the House, because I think that it is interesting and that the House will be interested in it: from the admission figures for 2020-21, the two areas in which there was a decline in first-preference choices were the integrated sector, where the decline was by almost 15%, and the Irish-medium sector, where the decline was by 12%. There was a small increase in the controlled sector —”
“Where inclusion in our education sector is concerned, I reiterate the point that I made in previous debates that, from the evidence and figures that were presented to the Committee, 61% of pupils in the controlled sector are Protestant, 10% are Catholic and 29% do not identify as either. I would fairly argue that that is a very integrated sector of education. <BR /> <BR />Many arguments have been put forward in the House in support of the Bill. Some of those arguments were about parental choice and the demand for integrated education.”
“I am somewhat bemused — maybe I am "befuddled", if I may use a word that my friend used the other day — by the sponsor's reference to the Minister not tabling tidying-up amendments. It is our view that the Bill is unamendable. The Bill is inequitable and discriminatory. It discriminates against the controlled and maintained sectors. Some day, MLAs will have to decide whether they will stand up and support the 93% of children who are educated in the controlled and maintained sectors. <BR /> <BR />Throughout the debates on the Bill, I have made my position abundantly clear. The Bill is not a vehicle to promote real inclusion.”