Michelle McIlveen
Strangford · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“Public confidence depends not only on effective enforcement but on enforcement being exercised fairly and consistently. <BR /> <BR />There is widespread concern across Northern Ireland about the condition of many of our lakes and rivers, and there are a vast number of factors that contribute to water quality challenges.”
“Although we support the overall direction of travel, I think that is appropriate to reflect on the concerns that have been raised and ensure that the legislation is proportionate, practical and capable of delivering its intended outcomes.”
“If we are therefore serious about improving our aquatic environment, every source of pollution must be addressed. New legislative powers are meaningful only if the Department has the resources, the expertise and the personnel necessary to implement them effectively.”
“There is, however, a need for accompanying clear guidance and support and for regulatory consistency and prompt decision-making. Delays, uncertainty and excessive bureaucracy will undoubtedly discourage investment and undermine confidence in the sector.”
“Subordinate legislation should not become a substitute for proper democratic accountability. Consultation and engagement must be undertaken before regulations are introduced, and I cannot overstate the need for stakeholder engagement. <BR /> <BR />I will now talk about the Bill's proposed enforcement powers.”
“The DUP broadly welcomes the Bill. As has been said, it provides an opportunity to modernise legislation that, in some areas, has remained largely unchanged for decades. The Bill strengthens the protection of our fisheries, improves the regulatory framework for aquaculture and enhances the management of our water environment.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,597 lines we hold for Michelle McIlveen, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 14 of 52.
“I believe that my Bill will sit alongside other important legislation that has been passed in recent days as a valuable legacy of the work of this Assembly on behalf of the population of Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />To answer Mr Butler's question, my officials will work closely with the Education Authority over the next number of weeks to ensure that the option of deferral is available for September 2022 and that information and support is made available. This is important, groundbreaking and progressive legislation, and I am delighted to commend the School Age Bill to the House.”
“I would also like to acknowledge the goodwill and support of the Education Committee in granting accelerated passage for the Bill. We have acted together with unity of purpose to bring real change for families right across Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />My Bill gives choice — real choice — to the parents of many thousands of children who are both in April, May and June each year and also to the parents of premature children who would have been young for year if born at term. The first years of life lay the foundation for future development. The Bill will ensure that the very youngest members of society are supported to fulfil their potential.”
“I thank all Members for their comments and observations on the Bill. It is heartening that there is such consensus on the need for greater flexibility for young-for-year children. <BR /> <BR />The Bill will provide reassurance and optimism for parents who are concerned about their very young child starting school shortly after their fourth birthday. As the School Age Bill reaches its Final Stage, I thank the parents and supporting groups who made the case for young-for-year and premature children. It has been inspirational to hear their voices. I am delighted to be able to bring forward change on their behalf. I pay tribute to Alison McNulty of TinyLife, who so ably and effectively made the case to include in the scope of the Bill premature children who would have been young for year if born at term.”
“That approach will allow children who defer to access preschool immediately before commencing primary school, which will provide important continuity of early years education. <BR /> <BR />Let us reflect. The passage of this reform represents the biggest change in our approach to school starting age in many decades. Such change is unprecedented in its scale and scope and will transform the lives of many children in the years ahead. Northern Ireland will now have one of the most progressive and evidence-based approaches in the world.”
“Thirdly, my Bill amends the definition of the upper limit of compulsory school age for children who defer entry to primary school, so that they will continue to receive 12 years of compulsory education like all other children. That means that children who defer will not leave education at the end of year 11, midway through their qualification courses. That is a very important measure to ensure equity of educational provision for children who defer. Finally, the Bill also amends the regulations for preschool admissions to facilitate the deferral of preschool education. Parents of children born between 1 April and 1 July will be able to choose for them to attend preschool in the school year following their fourth birthday.”
“The parent of every young-for-year child in Northern Ireland will have the automatic right of deferral of both preschool and primary school for their child. That is one of the most wide-ranging and progressive approaches internationally and one that is firmly based on the evidence on attainment of young-for-year children. The Bill will also provide flexibility for premature children who would have been young for year if they had been born at term. No longer will any child in Northern Ireland be required to start school a year earlier due to their premature birth. Secondly, my Bill will ensure that children who defer will not reach the lower limit of compulsory school age until after their fifth birthday. That removes any requirement to provide full-time home education in the year before deferred children commence primary school.”
“Each of those policies aims to support and develop children throughout their time in education and recognise the importance of early years to our children's development. My aim is to ensure that all children have access to high-quality education that is suitable for their individual needs. Greater flexibility in school starting age is an important element of that approach. <BR /> <BR />I will briefly set out the changes implemented by my Bill. First, it provides flexibility, so that children born between 1 April and 1 July will be able to commence primary education in the September following their fourth birthday or, alternatively, defer entry to primary school until the September following their fifth birthday.”
“When I was a member of the Education Committee, I consistently advocated greater flexibility, and, when I assumed office in June last year, I made sure that it was the top legislative priority for my Department. In the summer of 2021, I commenced a major review of our approach to school starting age. Since then, my officials have engaged extensively with key interest groups and stakeholders to develop the proposals for change that form the core of the Bill. That work has led us to today's final milestone. <BR /> <BR />I am committed to ensuring that every child has the best start in life. The new approach to school starting age is a key part of a wider suite of departmental policies such as implementation of the 'A Fair Start' report, investment in nurture and the children and young people's strategy.”
“I am delighted and privileged to bring the School Age Bill to the Assembly for its Final Stage. The Bill will make important and enduring changes to the lives of many children in Northern Ireland. No longer will there be a one-size-fits-all approach to starting school; rather, parents will decide the right approach for their child. All young-for-year children and all children born prematurely who would have been young for year had they been born at term will have the option of deferral. <BR /> <BR />As Members know, there has been long-standing concern that children born towards the end of the school year suffer adverse educational impacts by virtue of starting school at a younger age than their peers.”
“<BR /> <BR />I have set out in the group 1 debate and throughout the process the real impact on the education budget, with examples of real-money costs. There is one finite budget. Programmes that are designed to be flexible and agile to respond to the needs of children regardless of which type of school they attend but are not statutory will be able to access funding only once all the provisions of the Integrated Education Bill are paid for and from that one education budget. Placing a narrative that the common funding formula will not be altered by the Integrated Education Bill is the real misrepresentation. Placing a narrative that the Bill will create savings is delusional. The Bill will cost. Anyone who doubts that needs to go back and read it and not take at face value the online narrative or, indeed, the spin in the Chamber.”
“There is nothing to prevent proposals being made for developments for primary and post-primary schools to meet all the unmet need. Why, then, has the focus been on statutory preschools? Perhaps because 60% of integrated schools are not oversubscribed. Perhaps because 97% of requests to vary admissions enrolments from integrated schools are granted. Perhaps because the vast majority of the 60 development proposals over the last 10 years have been approved. Despite all that, 3,000 places are available in our integrated schools, sitting there ready to be filled by those who wish to attend an integrated school. Is it perhaps because the demand is just simply not as great as is being portrayed?”
“No, if you do not mind. <BR /> <BR />— and identify respective resources for facilitating the establishment of new integrated schools, the expansion of existing integrated schools and the transformation of existing schools into integrated schools. All those requirements are in the Bill alongside many others. None of them applies as a statutory duty to any other sector: not Irish-medium, not controlled, not maintained and not the voluntary sector: no other sector. "Level" is defined as having the same relative position, not in front of or behind. How, precisely, is any of what I have just described the same? <BR /> <BR />Despite all the rhetoric about the integrated sector not being on a level playing field at present, I assert that it is.”
“It will require the Department of Education to prepare, publish and maintain a strategy for the integrated sector only and for a report to be laid in the Assembly. It will require the Department to make regulations about integrated education only. It will require the Department to include provision for resources, quantify funding commitments —”
“It will take years to recover, if it does at all, because sectors who were and are working collaboratively through the area planning process, including the integrated sector through NICIE, will retreat to their corners. All the while, officials will be diverted to strategies and reporting at an additional cost, removing their focus from the potentially innovative approaches that may flow from the independent review of education and removing their focus from improving things for pupils and staff in all our schools. <BR /> <BR />"Levelling up" seems to be the latest term used in the media promotion of the Bill. In plain terms, the Bill will require the Department of Education to set targets and benchmarks and create catchment areas in which to report for integrated education only.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 11 attempts to recognise the potential impact on the Irish-medium sector, and, obviously, that is laudable, but it is a flawed Bill. I know that Members have been petitioned by education stakeholders on the flaws in the Bill and on their real concerns about the impact on workload, particularly for those in the integrated sector, who would have to prove their ethos when no other sector has to do that in law; about equity and fairness for those the Irish-medium, controlled, maintained and voluntary sectors; and, fundamentally, about the dismantling of the area planning process. Until now, everyone had a seat at the table and equal opportunity to bring forward solutions for the benefit of all. That process has now been compromised, and, if the Bill goes through, it will be irretrievably compromised.”
“It is far-reaching, and schools from other sectors are writing to me saying that they feel devalued by those who support the Bill. Through the Bill, the House is saying to those who cater for roughly 93% of our children, "You are not valued. You are not good enough to have a Bill for your sector". Are we to bring forward a Bill for each sector? Will we enshrine silo sectoral planning in legislation when we have spent over 10 years trying to break that silo planning cycle through area planning? Should that happen right at a time when all those involved in area planning are undertaking innovation labs to look at exploring community solutions and co-designing proposals to look at better meeting the needs of education provision in rural areas? At what point do we come back to a common-sense approach?”
“All the group 2 amendments reiterate and highlight that there are significant flaws and shortcomings in the Bill. Such amendments, frankly, would not be needed at Further Consideration Stage if the Bill were not so fundamentally defective. They seek to mitigate the risk to the Education budget and, therefore, to children's education, which that budget pays for, in order to make sure that it is managed in some way. Should the amendments be needed? No. Are they needed? I will reiterate that the fact that they have had to be tabled at this point in proceedings highlights the significant flaws and shortcomings in the Bill. That situation could and should have been avoided had the amendments that I tabled at Consideration Stage been adopted. <BR /> <BR />My view remains clear. This is a flawed and defective Bill.”
“It is shameful that an amendment to mitigate detriment is needed, but it is needed, and it is disappointing that the Bill sponsor and others are not supporting it. I do not need to elaborate on the comments that were made by Mr Allister, which I support. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 15 and 16 would prevent an expectation that the Department of Education should set targets for the number of schools that are transforming and the number of new integrated schools that are established. The Department of Education should not be subject to any such expectation. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 18, 19 and 20 recognise that how schools operate in reality is not reflected in the Bill.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 12 recognises that burdening the Department of Education with onerous duties that also bring cost pressures is not strategic; it is the opposite. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 13 reminds Members of all section 75 duties and that the Bill has come to Further Consideration Stage with no equality impact assessment having been done. Instead, that is something else that the Department of Education is expected to pick up if the Bill becomes law. Frankly, at that point, it is too late. The Department will be hamstrung by the statutory duties in the Bill that clearly should have been considered in equality terms long before passing it into law. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 14 would provide protection fundamentally for the children in every other type of school.”
“Some of the group 2 amendments that we are debating certainly aim to improve the Bill and mitigate its unfettered impact. I thank Members of the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP for attempting to do that. Unfortunately, I still consider us to be at the point where no amendments can make the Bill workable. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 5 and 6, for example, recognise that no sector or school operates in isolation, and I welcome the fact that the Ulster Unionist Party is attempting to bring sustainability into the Bill. Without sustainable schools in whatever sector, our children cannot access the high-quality teaching and learning that they need and deserve. Even with those amendments, the Bill remains defective.”
“In the group 2 debate, we are considering amendments that would place context and balance on the requirement for:”
“I am stating very clearly that this is not a modest Bill. It is defective law that will not deliver the benefits presented over recent days on social media. Educating children together? Absolutely. Legislating for one sector over another? Absolutely not. I will not support those amendments.”
“The Bill is not modest. It is not about a level playing field but is designed much more to hold feet to the fire than to actually deliver benefits for children in integrated schools or any other type of school. The evidence is here again today in the fact that none of these amendments would be required if good, practical, workable legislation was being debated. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 10 serves to remind the Bill sponsor that other schools in other sectors bring children together and break down barriers. I invested a significant amount of time at Consideration Stage to present amendments that would have done what the Bill sponsor claims is the intention of this Bill. The very fact that such active opposition to my amendments was evident speaks volumes. I am not hiding behind headlines or electioneering sound bites.”
“No additional funding is coming with the Bill. <BR /> <BR />There is one education budget, which is already under significant pressure and faces a shortfall of around £735 million over the next three financial years. That is not rhetoric; it is reality. What a dereliction of duty it would be for the House to place such a burden on the Department of Education's budget.”
“<BR /> <BR />As funding of those critical programmes is not statutory, they will take second place behind devising targets and providing sufficient places to aim to meet unspecified demand for integrated places — never mind the almost 3,000 available places that exist in integrated schools today — in a landscape where there are very few areas in Northern Ireland where an integrated school cannot be reasonably accessed. <BR /> <BR />Funding will be required for the conducting of consultation exercise after consultation exercise, for staff increases in oversubscribed integrated schools to meet unspecified demand, for capital requirements to ensure that children have somewhere to sit and technology to learn with, and for paying an estimated minimum of £30,000 for every individual judicial review.”
“Those are critical issues that can make a real difference for our children and young people and our practitioners in schools, but their funding is not a statutory requirement. Are we to stop programmes such as 'A Fair Start', Engage or extended schools to secure the funding that is required to implement the Bill? That move would be to the detriment of every sector, including the integrated sector. More importantly, it would be to the detriment of our children.”
“I remind Members that 90% of the Department of Education's budget goes towards funding schools and pupils. The balance of the funding is targeted towards early intervention initiatives, youth and other children's services, other non-departmental public bodies, other education services, and departmental costs. <BR /> <BR />Recovery from the impact of an ongoing global pandemic is a current issue. The emotional health and well-being of pupils, teachers and principals is a current issue. Supporting our most vulnerable children and young people is a current issue. Addressing barriers to learning for children and delivering the ambitious programme of change laid out in 'A Fair Start' is a current issue.”
“It will result in a considerable amount of work being done that delivers few or no tangible benefits for the pupils in those schools. Under the Bill's provisions, staff and resources will be diverted to meet the requirements of the strategy, report on the aim to meet demand, and carry out the Bill's many consultation requirements. Anyone who thinks that that will not impact on the Department's ability to support other schools and sectors is wrong. <BR /> <BR />We also should not ignore the significant additional burden that will be placed on staff and resources in our integrated schools. The requirement of the Bill, if it becomes law, will take precedence over any sensible budget planning that any Minister of Education seeks to manage.”
“I appreciate that, Mr Deputy Speaker, but, of course, it is all very much linked, because what is being said outside is influencing decisions that are being made in the Chamber. There are suggestions on social media — I apologise for having to use that term again — that, as funding follows a pupil via the age-weighted pupil unit, there will be no impact on other schools. That is inaccurate and dangerously misleading. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 1 and 2 seek to place an additional significant bureaucratic burden on the Department of Education. The Bill sponsor would lead us to believe that the Bill represents a mechanism for progress, but it is more likely that it will be a Bill that grinds the Department of Education to a halt and places an unnecessary burden on integrated schools.”
“— will cover the integrated education strategy costs.”
“Over recent weeks, the Bill sponsor and her party have invested a significant amount time in claiming on social media that no sector will be impacted by what the Bill sponsor describes as the "modest" Bill before us. The explanatory and financial memorandum suggests that two additional departmental staff in one team will be required, which will cost around £40,000 per annum —”
“All guidance and policy will now need to be reviewed in the context of the wider definition, and officials will also have to consider the potential ramifications should schools fail to meet the new definition and targets. <BR /> <BR />The Bill also has a lot to say on targets and the use of benchmarks. That represents a significant backward step for the integrated sector. In a context in which we are moving to an outcomes-based approach, focusing on the difference that we want to make for our society, children and schools, having an outdated focus on outputs and targets will not deliver the impact that our children and young people deserve.”
“the Department cannot ignore the fact that it will have to ensure that every integrated school meets the definition of what that requires and that every school, and I mean every school, can demonstrate that with evidence. If schools do not, they are not integrated schools delivering integrated education as defined in the Bill. The Department will therefore have to take steps to avoid falling foul of the legislation. <BR /> <BR />The Department will also have to reconsider, in the light of the new definition, what "reasonable numbers" are in practice. Given that it appears that the new strategy requires targets for everything, all guidance and policy will change from what is clearly understood as aspiring to meet the minimum 30% mix.”
“Has the Bill sponsor considered the ramifications of that? For example, how is a post-primary integrated school even to stream its pupils, a practice that is standard, certainly for delivering qualifications? Whilst having regard to its duty:”
“I have been told by representatives of integrated schools that they were not asked and that they do not, in fact, welcome having a different inspection regime to prove their status. I suggest that the Bill sponsor reflect on just how representative the views that she puts forward are and explain how we can be sure about the level of consultation that has underpinned a process that will, undoubtedly, have far-reaching implications for existing integrated schools. Has the Bill sponsor clearly advised integrated schools that they will have additional work to do to demonstrate that they are, in fact, integrated schools? <BR /> <BR />Legal advice suggests that the definition could mean that a mix from every category in clause 1 must be reflected in every individual class in an integrated school.”
“that the amendments would track into the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 and:”
“those categories. Any integrated school cannot just claim that it does that. It will have to prove that it does that, and it will have to do so whilst ensuring that the quality of education that it provides, in meeting the requirements of the statutory curriculum, is delivered to a high standard. <BR /> <BR />I have it here in Hansard that the Bill sponsor has claimed:”
“I welcome Mr Allister's intervention. I can reassure the Deputy Speaker that everything that I say in response will be relevant to the Further Consideration Stage and the amendments. <BR /> <BR />I will go back to the point that was being made about the definition. I will say it again: no longer, in legal terms, is integrated education just to be about focusing on the education together in a school of reasonable numbers of Protestants and Roman Catholics. An integrated school now must do that with, if I may add, no requirement for it to be a quality educational experience in a sustainable school. That is very important, and it is at the heart of everything that we are saying today. <BR /> <BR />Clause 1 states that integrated schools must also ensure:”
“Now, an integrated school "must" do that, with no requirement in the Bill, I might add, for that to be a quality educational experience —”
“No, I will not. <BR /> <BR />In practical terms, clause 1 changes the definition of what it means to be an integrated school. Every existing grant-maintained and controlled integrated school will have to conduct an analysis and provide evidence to demonstrate that it now meets that definition. All of them will also have to review their admissions criteria. In legal terms, integrated education is no longer just to be about focusing on the education together, in a school, of:”
“On the definition in clause 1 that was voted through at Consideration Stage and that the amendments now seek to track through to the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, does the Bill sponsor realise what that means for integrated schools themselves? Has she provided a copy of the Bill directly to integrated schools with a clear and unambiguous explanation of what, in practice, it will mean for them? I hear, from principals of integrated schools, that they realised only after Consideration Stage that the Bill does not live up to the headlines or the claims made for it by the sponsor and her party.”
“The Bill's defectiveness, coming out of Consideration Stage, was so significant that I had to write to the Bill sponsor, the party leaders and the Education Committee to set out the technical issues with the Bill at that point. I do not have any reason to believe that, had I not done so, the Bill sponsor would have identified the defects herself. <BR /> <BR />Even with amendment Nos 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28, does the Bill sponsor have any real concept of what her Bill will do? Despite confident claims to the contrary from her at every stage, I do not think that she understands or , indeed, cares about its impact on schools and, therefore, on children.”
“For it to be necessary for the Bill sponsor to table, at Further Consideration Stage, 10 further amendments on top of the five that she had already tabled — amendments that attempt to clarify what should have been clear from the Bill's introduction, namely the definition of an integrated school and what "support" for integrated education is intended to imply — is a clear indictment of the Bill's defectiveness. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 3 and 21 appear to be catch-all amendments, should the Bill sponsor have failed to identify all the provisions that need clarification. In fact, I do not think that the Bill sponsor identified any of the provisions that need clarification.”
“If you do not mind, I will not. <BR /> <BR />It is not concerned with the preferences of 93% of parents whose children are currently educated in schools in other sectors. It lifts out and elevates only the preference for integrated education, above all and at the expense of all other sectors. That is not my definition of the level playing field that many Members have stated, at every stage of the Bill, as a desired outcome. Nothing in the Bill represents the right of our children to have high-quality, sustainable education. The Bill is based on one sectoral interest above others and is divisive. <BR /> <BR />The second key point, which I come back to, is that I simply cannot support the Bill in the legally defective form in which it was introduced and amended at Consideration Stage.”
“In fact, I would argue that they are absent from the Bill. <BR /> <BR />The current system is not necessarily perfect, but it supports parental choice, not with a predetermined outcome in mind but with an open mind. Nothing about the Bill represents open-mindedness. The Department of Education will be required to set targets and aim to meet demand for integrated education but not for maintained, controlled, voluntary or Irish-medium education. The Bill is not concerned with parental preference for any other sector. It is not concerned with the preferences of 93% of parents —”
“I therefore decided not to table amendments at Further Consideration Stage. The Speaker very helpfully confirmed at the start of the sitting that there is no legal or Standing Order requirement for the Minister of any Department to table amendments, and I chose not to do so. <BR /> <BR />I will go back to the Consideration Stage, when I set out a significant number of reasonable amendments that would have clearly delivered on what the Bill sponsor and others say that they seek to achieve through the Bill. Having witnessed the consistent voting down of drafting that would have delivered reasonable, sensible and workable law, I will come back to two key points, the first of which is the most fundamental of all: our children. Children in every school, sector and community are overlooked.”
“As the Bill sponsor has rightly stated, I did not table amendments at the Further Consideration Stage. Recognising that the Bill, as introduced and as amended at Consideration Stage, represents defective law, and given that the range of sensible amendments that I had moved at Consideration Stage were largely negatived, I instructed the OLC to draft amendments with a view to tabling those. I also wrote to the Bill sponsor, the Education Committee and party leaders providing a legal analysis of the technical concerns relating to the Bill. I facilitated a meeting with the OLC, the Bill sponsor and my officials to see how far amendments could resolve what I consider to be fundamental flaws in the Bill. Having considered the draft amendments, I concluded that the deficiencies in the Bill are simply too fundamental to be resolved.”
“I thank the Member for his question. Obviously, budgets were always going to be very challenging. As I said, conversations will continue with my officials with regard to the impact of whatever allocation the Department of Education receives.”
“I thank the Member for his question. Up until this point, my discussions with officials were very much on the issues that we were going to face in the Budget that was being proposed and the consequences of my Department's underfunding as a result of that. I have had discussions with my officials on some scenarios for what allocations may look like. However, that is as far as that has gone with regard to Budget planning. <BR /> <BR />I have asked my officials to look at the allocations that we are likely to get and how they may be distributed in order to ensure that schools receive their budgets in adequate time.”
“It will be required to provide resources to protect the ethos of integrated schools and quantify the resources required for integrated education, including those required to facilitate the establishment of new integrated schools, the expansion of existing integrated schools and the transformation of other schools to integrated status. There is more, but my point is that the Department does not do any of that for any other sector. That will, over time, reinforce sectoralisation.”