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 16 of 52.
“<BR /> <BR />Given the sequencing, GTCNI's current inability to investigate and sanction teachers for professional misconduct could only theoretically give rise to a child protection risk, where the PSNI or employer's investigations have found evidence of a safeguarding risk but then failed to take action to appropriately address it. <BR /> <BR />I appreciate the concerns that have been raised, and I want to underscore the fact that there are measures in place to address that, so that we do not create fears, particularly amongst parents. <BR /> <BR />Mr Butler raised a question about the next steps.”
“While an initial misconduct referral to GTCNI may be made at any stage in a PSNI or school investigation, GTCNI has no role to play in any of the immediate actions taken to safeguard the pupils involved. <BR /> <BR />I appreciate that the Deputy Chair also listed other circumstances. The safeguarding processes apply equally to permanent teaching staff, substitute teachers and those employed on temporary contracts. The guidance makes it clear that, even where a staff member resigns immediately after an allegation is received, that must not prevent an allegation being followed up in accordance with the guidance. By the time that any disciplinary and/or criminal investigations have concluded, any teacher judged to present a safeguarding risk to any pupil should long since have been removed from the classroom.”
“Where any allegations are received involving a member of their staff, the school must additionally follow the guidance set out in DE circular 2015/13, 'Dealing with allegations of abuse against a member of staff'. <BR /> <BR />As part of those processes, the school will seek advice from key contacts and agencies, including the chair of the board of governors, the designated or deputy designated teacher for child protection, the EA's Child Protection Support Service for schools, the relevant employing authority, social services and the PSNI. Depending on the nature of the allegations, a criminal investigation or an employer's disciplinary process will normally be commenced. <BR /> <BR />A GTCNI professional misconduct investigation can commence only once those investigations have concluded.”
“<BR /> <BR />Under the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, the board of governors of each school is responsible for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of its pupils and carries the primary legal responsibility in that matter. They do so by carrying out thorough pre-employment checks, effective school management and the timely application of disciplinary procedures as soon as any allegations of teacher misconduct, involving children or otherwise, come to their attention. In respect of their safeguarding practices, they must follow DE guidance, 'Safeguarding and Child Protection in Schools — A Guide for Schools'.”
“I thank the Chair, the Deputy Chair and the members of the Education Committee for their engagement on all matters associated with GTCNI. It has been a problematic organisation for many years and was so when I was on the Committee, when issues were raised around its functioning at that time. I welcome the comments made by all the Members who contributed. I share very much the desire of the Chair and Deputy Chair that we have an organisation that is competent and professional and will give support to the teaching profession. <BR /> <BR />The Deputy Chair raised some concerns in relation to allegations of teacher misconduct and the potential for issues of child safeguarding. If you do not mind indulging me, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will explain the importance of that in the current situation.”
“We will also want that Bill to address all of the issues that have prevented GTCNI from exercising teacher regulation in the manner that was originally intended. It is our firm intention to introduce the substantive GTCNI Bill early in the new Assembly mandate. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.”
“<BR /> <BR />In closing, I also remind Members, as I outlined in my Assembly statement in December, of the Department's commitment to bringing forward at the earliest opportunity a public consultation exercise to identify the functions currently assigned to GTCNI that are critical to the sector and must be preserved. The consultation will seek views from the public, the teaching profession and key educational stakeholders on how those functions can be delivered efficiently and effectively. In the interim, the Department has taken on immediate oversight of GTCNI's executive team, allowing its staff to continue progressing new teacher registrations and registration renewals. Any decision on a replacement for the current council will, naturally, need to be included in the drafting of a GTCNI dissolution Bill.”
“<BR /> <BR />Some Members may be minded to question the need for the Bill and its urgent passage at this late stage in the Assembly mandate. As I said in the previous debate, I have received three pieces of correspondence asking for clarification of the legal authority under which I stood down the council. One of those was from a group of former council members, and another explicitly mentioned the possibility of seeking a judicial review of my decisions. In that context and being mindful of legal counsel's advice and Baker Tilly Mooney Moore's assessment of the GTCNI, it was essential to expedite the passage of the Bill at this time.”
“issuing it with the direction. It is a power that gives any organisation within its scope every opportunity to act reasonably, professionally and in compliance with its legal duties before the Department intervenes. <BR /> <BR />My officials have been working closely with the Departmental Solicitor's Office, the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) and the Office of the Attorney General to develop a suitable Bill. The result is the succinct, two-clause Bill that is before the Assembly. If, however, you exclude the introduction and commencement details, it is a single-line Bill that adds the GTCNI to the list of relevant authorities in article 101(3) of the 1986 Order. It seems hard to conceive how the safeguards that we are seeking could be delivered in a more minimal way.”
“For the benefit of any Members who may not be familiar with that provision, article 101 permits DE to direct a small number of defined relevant authorities in the exercising of its powers and duties. The current list of relevant authorities set out in the Order includes the Education Authority (EA), boards of governors of schools, the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS) and the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA). It may reassure Members to know that it is a power that has seldom been used, and it requires DE to:”
“Furthermore, I am not willing to allow further damage to the already tarnished reputation of the GTCNI, nor to take a risk that, by its actions, a reinstated council might damage public confidence in our teaching workforce more generally. Legal counsel's advice therefore was that the Department should, in parallel with pursuing the dissolution of the GTCNI, seek to take a power to direct the council in the discharge of its duties, should the need arise as a result of a successful legal challenge. <BR /> <BR />Legal counsel and the Departmental Solicitor's Office (DSO) have identified that adding the GTCNI to the list of relevant authorities to which DE can issue directions under article 101 of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 is the most straightforward means of securing that outcome.”
“I want to be clear on this point: legal counsel strongly believes that the Department would have a robust defence for its actions on the basis of the primacy of our article 3 power and on the strength of Baker Tilly Mooney Moore's report and recommendations. Nonetheless, there is always a risk in any judicial review process. Given Baker Tilly Mooney Moore's verdict, which was heavily based on the views and self-assessments of council members, that the GTCNI was the worst-performing organisation that it had ever been asked to review, I am unwilling to take any risk that DE would once again find itself powerless to intervene in the operation of an ineffective, factionalised and, frankly, toxic organisation.”
“would be reinstated, pending the passage of legislation formally to dissolve the organisation. In such a situation there would, under the Department's current powers, be no means for DE to prevent the council from pursuing the same damaging and divisive agenda that resulted in that damning assessment of its performance.”
“The use of the duty in that way has not occurred before, however. Its application has not been tested in court, and there are no examples of case law or prior court judgements to give us insight into how a court might rule in such a case. As our legal counsel pointed out, there is therefore a risk to the Department of Education that my decisions could be challenged and, should such a challenge prove successful, the same council, about which Baker Tilly Mooney Moore concluded:”
“Having carefully considered the report, I accepted that recommendation and took the decision to stand down the GTCNI on 13 December 2021. That decision was conveyed in my statement to the Assembly on the same date. On the advice of legal counsel, I took my decisions using the Department's authority under article 3 of the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which imposes a general duty upon my Department:”
“It identified extensive governance and leadership failings, deep-seated divisions and animosities among GTCNI members. In the assessment of Baker Tilly Mooney Moore, those failings were so endemic that it felt it necessary to offer some very stark conclusions and recommendations. <BR /> <BR />Baker Tilly Mooney Moore concluded that the council is functioning but not functional and is not providing leadership or advocacy to the profession. It also concluded:”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. You will be delighted to hear that the General Teaching Council (Directions) Bill is a very simple, two-clause Bill that seeks to bring the General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland (GTCNI) within the scope of a long-established departmental power allowing it to issue directions to a small number of bodies. In this case, it could be used if the leadership persists, against advice, in taking damaging decisions or pursuing damaging actions. <BR /> <BR />Members will recall my statement about the GTCNI to the Assembly on 13 December 2021. The Department had received a final report from our consultants, Baker Tilly Mooney Moore, on the findings of its 'Board Effectiveness Review' of the GTCNI.”
“I thank all Members for their expressions of condolence and tributes on Christopher's passing. I also thank Members for their comments and for their support for the Department's further use of accelerated passage. A number of important points were raised about the GTCNI, particularly by the Chair of the Committee, and I will be happy to discuss those during Second Stage.”
“<BR /> <BR />Failure to progress the Bill under accelerated passage would mean that it could not hope to complete its Assembly passage within the remainder of the current mandate, forcing us to restart the legislative process early in the next mandate. To leave GTCNI and the Department exposed to legal challenge for such a period and potentially to permit a reinstated GTCNI council — a council assessed as broken, divided and toxic — to take any further action without the Department being able to intervene would not be acceptable. I therefore ask for approval for the introduction of the Bill under accelerated passage arrangements.”
“The answer is simple: the decisions that I announced on 13 December rely on an untested legislative power, and, while legal counsel has advised the Department that its use is sound, an untested power is always vulnerable to challenge. Given the damning assessment of GTCNI's performance, legal advice has recommended, as a safeguard against a judicial review and a reinstated council, that DE should secure a direction-making power as a matter of urgency. The Department has already received recent correspondence stating that a judicial review may be pursued, so it is now imperative that DE secure that power as a precautionary and protective step.”
“Members will recall from my statement to the Assembly on 13 December 2021, when I announced, on foot of the scathing conclusions of an independent effectiveness review of GTCNI, my intention to legislate for the dissolution of GTCNI and to stand down its council with immediate effect. There was widespread consensus in the Chamber that day that my decisions were warranted and necessary and that they represented a positive step forward for an organisation that had been struggling and dysfunctional for far too long. <BR /> <BR />Members may ask, if the council has been stood down, why the Bill is required and why accelerated passage is needed to move it forward so quickly.”
“Members will, of course, have the opportunity to raise issues on the detail of the Bill during its Second Stage debate. However, as required under Standing Order 42(4), I now wish to provide Members with an outline of the Bill, why accelerated passage is required and the possible consequences, should accelerated passage not be granted. <BR /> <BR />The General Teaching Council (Directions) Bill is a simple two-clause Bill seeking to bring the General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland (GTCNI) within the scope of an existing provision that permits the Department to issue directions to a body. In this case, it could be used if the leadership persists against advice in taking damaging decisions or pursuing damaging actions.”
“When taking forward legislation, my preference is always to have the full Committee procedure to ensure scrutiny and the resolution of any issues to the Committee's satisfaction. Nonetheless, there are times when accelerated passage is unavoidable, and, given the shortness of the Bill, I am convinced that its use will not compromise Members' ability to adequately scrutinise the matter. <BR /> <BR />I begin by noting that, in accordance with Standing Order 42(3) of the Northern Ireland Assembly, I appeared before the Committee for Education on 1 February to explain the need for accelerated passage for the Bill and to outline the consequences of it not being granted. I thank the Chair and members of the Committee for their acceptance of the case that I presented and for their support to move the Bill under accelerated passage arrangements.”
“With your indulgence, as this is my first opportunity to speak in the House since the untimely passing of my friend and colleague Christopher Stalford, I offer my heartfelt sympathy to his family. Whilst I have also done so privately, it is appropriate that I do so in the place where he excelled and was a larger-than-life character. At this sad time, I send my love and prayers to Laura, Trinity, Oliver, Cameron and Abigail, Christopher's mum, Karen, his siblings and his granny. I will miss Christopher greatly. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the opportunity to address the Assembly on the motion. The use of accelerated passage is not something to be sought routinely, nor do I take it lightly.”
“<BR /> <BR />I emphasise that the proposed review amendment will ensure that the scope and nature of our approach to school starting age are kept under active review by the Department of Education. Prior to my taking office, many parents and stakeholders had lobbied on the issue for a significant number of years. The amendment means that a firm commitment to active review is enshrined not only in my Department's policy commitments but in law. The Department will review all new evidence, including, most importantly, evidence on the impact of deferral in our education system. I commend this important amendment to the House.”
“In concluding the debate, I thank all Members who spoke to this important amendment. I also thank them for their supportive remarks. It is clear that there is widespread consensus on the need for greater flexibility for young-for-year children. My Bill provides a unique opportunity to benefit our children. No longer will there be a one-size-fits-all approach to starting school; rather, parents will decide the right approach for their child. <BR /> <BR />All young-for-year children and all those born prematurely who would have been young-for-year if born at term will have the option of deferral. The Bill will give them time to play, to flourish and to start school at the best possible time for them. My Bill will sit alongside other important Bills passed in recent days as a valuable legacy of the work of the Assembly on behalf of society.”
“I trust that Members will support the amendment.”
“My revised policy on school starting age commits to putting in place effective monitoring arrangements that will inform evaluation of the effectiveness of the current proposed changes and any need for further intervention. That will include a detailed independent research study to examine the impact of the Bill on young-for-year children who defer and those who do not. <BR /> <BR />There needs to be an opportunity to consider the experiences of those children through preschool, the Foundation Stage and into Key Stage 1. That will provide a robust evidence base on the impact of the policy in our system. The experience of pupils in our education system must be an integral element of the review. The proposed review amendment provides that a firm commitment to active review is enshrined not only in my Department's policy but in law.”
“I wish to formally record for the Assembly my clear intention that that will be a wide-ranging review to consider whether deferral should be further extended to children who are not young for year, including all premature children, multiple-birth children and children who are looked after, or done on the basis of an assessment of exceptional need. <BR /> <BR />The review will be led by a senior official in my Department and will include consideration of the views of parents and all key stakeholders and interest groups. I fully expect that work on the review will commence well in advance of the fifth anniversary of the Act and that full consideration will be given to all future options in the best interests of our children. <BR /> <BR />I also wish to explain the proposed time frames to Members.”
“<BR /> <BR />Some parents of young-for-year children who are currently attending preschool and are due to commence primary school in September 2022 are particularly anxious. I confirm that, subject to the Bill receiving Royal Assent, those parents will be able to apply at second stage for a funded preschool place for September. <BR />Turning to the review as proposed by the amendment, I emphasise that it will ensure that our policy with regard to school starting age remains effective and up to date, taking account of all emerging research in that area.”
“That provides important continuity between preschool and primary school. <BR /> <BR />However, I wish to clarify for Members that I recognise that some parents will have concerns about their child starting primary school only once they have begun attending preschool. Deferral will be available for those children. Young-for-year children who are enrolled in preschool will also be able to apply for a second funded year of preschool. However, they will not be prioritised above the target-age children who are applying for a first year of preschool. That will ensure that all children have equitable access to preschool provision and that my Department can continue to provide a year of high-quality funded preschool education for every child whose parents want it.”
“<BR /> <BR />Preschool is an important stage of early education, with many benefits to long-term educational outcomes. It provides a rich variety of challenging play-based learning activities in a stimulating environment, and helps to prepare children for primary school. The Bill's provisions will ensure that children who defer have the benefit of a high-quality preschool experience in their immediate preschool year prior to starting primary school. I have heard from many parents of young-for-year children who do not want their children to start preschool until the year after their fourth birthday. Parents will, therefore, usually decide to defer prior to preschool, with the child then starting preschool following their fourth birthday and primary school after their fifth birthday.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. I will return to that issue in my remarks, but, to clarify, yes, that will be the case. <BR /> <BR />The intent is to avoid a situation where children who are separated in age by almost two chronological years are educated in the same school class. The legislation will give Northern Ireland one of the most progressive and evidence-based approaches in the world. <BR /> <BR />With regard to preschool, the Bill also amends the regulations to facilitate deferral of preschool education. That means that children who are born between 1 April and 1 July will be prioritised for admission to preschool, either in the year after their third birthday, as is the case now, or, alternatively, if their parents choose to defer preschool admission, in the school year following their fourth birthday.”
“<BR /> <BR />In a small number of cases, there will be very premature babies who were born in late March and would have been part of a younger chronological year group had they been born at term. The amendment that I will table at Further Consideration Stage will reflect an approach that representatives of premature children have advocated for many years; one that is based on expected birth date. No longer will any child in Northern Ireland be required to start school a year earlier due to their premature birth. That is very much in line with the evidence around the double disadvantage of being both premature and young for year, and with the broader intent —”
“I have been impressed with those arguments. That is why my officials have worked with the Office of the Legislative Counsel to prepare an amendment that will extend the definition of young-for-year children to those who would have been born between 1 April and 1 July, or, indeed, later except for their premature birth. Subject to the satisfactory completion of this stage, I will table that amendment for the Further Consideration Stage immediately after this debate. That approach enshrines fairness and equity, as it means that no child is further disadvantaged and excluded from the young-for-year category due to their prematurity. It focuses on the expected birth date and whether they would have fallen in the young-for-year category if they had been born at term.”
“Those are children who, owing to their prematurity, are born between December and March but had been due to be born between April and June, or even in the summer months, if born at term. Advocates have noted particularly the case of children born at 24 or 25 weeks in late March.”
“I remind Members that, under current legislation, children with a statement of special educational needs are already permitted to defer primary school through the policy of overage retention, which permits a second year of preschool, if that is the most appropriate educational approach for their unique educational needs. <BR /> <BR />At Second Stage, a number of Members also mentioned deferral for children who were born prematurely. I emphasise that my Bill permits deferral for every premature child who is also young for the year. In recent days, however, I have held discussions with TinyLife and others, and they have also made the case for premature children who would have been young for the year if born at term.”
“Giving real choice, however, to the parents of the many thousands of children born in April, May and June each year is in no way narrow or limited reform. Rather, it is unprecedented in its scale and scope. The parent of every young-for-year child in Northern Ireland will have the automatic right of deferral of 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 around attainment for young-for-year children. <BR /> <BR />I also take this opportunity to respond to the comments of some Members at Second Stage as to why deferral was not being extended to children with special educational needs.”
“The Bill also ensures that children who defer do not reach the lower limit of compulsory school age until after their fifth birthday, which removes the requirement to provide home education for them in the year before they start primary school. <BR /> <BR />The Bill amends the definition of the upper limit of compulsory school age so that children who defer will continue to receive 12 years of education and will not be able to leave school at the end of year 11, midway through their qualification courses. It is crucial that we ensure that no child is denied the right to complete important qualifications that will impact directly on their life chances in adult years. As I noted earlier, some Members commented on what they perceived to be the relatively narrow choice in, and nature of, the Bill.”
“It is an extremely important amendment, committing to a review of primary legislation. <BR /> <BR />At Second Stage, some Members commented on what they perceived to be the relatively narrow nature of the Bill. That is a totally mistaken description. My Bill represents the biggest change in our approach to the school starting age in a generation. A "deferred case" is defined in the Bill as a person who turns four between 1 April and 1 July and who does not start full-time education until the age of five. That provides flexibility to children born between 1 April and 1 July, as they will be able to commence primary education in the September following their fourth birthday or defer entry to primary school until the September following their fifth birthday.”
“I am pleased to introduce the amendment, which will insert a review clause into the School Age Bill. It states:”
“I beg to introduce the General Teaching Council (Directions) Bill [NIA 54/17-22], which is a Bill to empower the Department of Education to give binding directions to the General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland.”
“Other Members have said that the Bill is long overdue, and I absolutely agree. I have made the matter a priority, however, and it has not taken me eight years to bring it forward. I have been Minister for only eight months, but, in that time, I have ensured that it has been my priority. I have driven forward a rapid policy review, which has brought about the Bill. For the first time, we will have real and practical change for families across Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />I would like to thank the majority of Members — there is always one — for their constructive and supportive contributions. I ask Members across the House to support the Bill.”
“They include TinyLife, Early Years and the many parents who have campaigned very hard, the majority of whom will not be able to take advantage of the legislation for their children but will, I know, very much welcome the progress that we have made today.”
“She also talked about the need for deferral for children with special educational needs. The research tells us and, as a former teacher, Mrs Barton will understand that it is important that early interventions in those children's lives are made as quickly as possible. It may not be advantageous for them to be deferred at that stage. It may be better for them to progress with their age group to ensure that they have support. <BR /> <BR />Finally, I am heartened by the consensus on the need for greater flexibility, particularly for young-for-year children. I know that the Bill will provide reassurance and optimism to parents who have concerns about their young child starting school shortly after their fourth birthday. I pay tribute, as others have, to all those who have campaigned for many years for flexibility in the school starting age.”
“I have given a commitment in the House, and it is in the policy documents associated with the Bill, but, if the Member is content to discuss the matter, I will be happy to talk after the debate about what a review may look like and the timescales associated with it. <BR /> <BR />Mrs Barton raised concerns about transfer. The young people who defer should not be disadvantaged in any way. When they move into P1, they go with their cohort, and they will progress through the school with that cohort, so they will not be disadvantaged by their age. She will be aware that, in one clause, I allow an extension to the years in which their schooling concludes, so they will not need to leave in year 11 in the middle of their examinations, which are incredibly important.”
“For parents who decide later in the process to defer primary school — during their child's time at preschool — there will be an opportunity to apply for a second funded preschool year. That will be very much dependent on locality and accessibility, of course, but it means that a decision in the final year before their child enters school is not precluded. I acknowledge that Members will have had concerns about that, because the pre-preschool year may be a bit early to make that determination, but the option is still available to parents. <BR /> <BR />The Chair of the Committee referenced the need for the Bill to include a review of the current approach. I have made a commitment to that.”
“Such an approach is incredibly bureaucratic, and my colleague from Strangford talked about the issues with panels and the difficulties, pressures and stress that they can create for parents. <BR /> <BR />While what we bring forward today may be regarded as narrow, it is significant. It takes away any barriers, particularly those relating to assessment, and makes the process much easier for parents. That is why it is critical for us to ensure that there is guidance in place, that that is easy and accessible for parents to understand and that they get the correct support to make the right decisions for their children. <BR /> <BR />A number of Members referenced the issue of deferral of preschool and whether there would be any disadvantage from it. I want to clarify that.”
“A number of Members referenced the previous Bill. Its scope was somewhat different from that of the Bill that I bring forward today. That Bill was introduced by Mr O'Dowd, and I was supportive of it at the time. No doubt he will agree that it was not without its critics and challenges. It was the only show in town to be discussed, but the proposals were limited in that they permitted deferral in exceptional circumstances only. Parents would have had to provide evidence to an educational panel for why deferral was necessary, whereas the proposals that I put forward today are much more wide-ranging. They permit deferral for all young-for-year children on the basis of parental preference. Parents should not be required to provide evidence.”
“I thank all Members for their comments and observations on the Bill. While there may be some difference of opinion on the scope of the Bill, we are all agreed that the core of the Bill, which is to permit deferral for all young-for-year children on the basis of parental preference, is the right approach for our children. I note that the Chair of the Committee and others talked about the narrow nature of the Bill, and I hope that, by saying that, they are not undermining the significance of the Bill and the incredible difference that it will make to so many young people and their families and, particularly, the life chances of the young people who feel at the moment that they will be disadvantaged by being young for year.”