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 19 of 52.
“I set out very clearly in the group 2 debate what amendment No 23 will achieve in introducing clause 5A to replace clauses 4 and 5. I trust that, after this group 3 debate, you will vote for clause 5A to stand part of the Bill and that you will therefore see the explicit requirement in primary legislation for parental preference to be ascertained by the Education Authority. I thank the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) for the time and effort that it has put into drafting a provision that I believe could meet the intentions, as we have previously discussed in relation to clauses 4 and 5, and which also works within the complexities of existing education legislation. That, of course, is never an easy task.”
“In this our third group, "Strategy, implementation and reporting", we have the opportunity to provide a new clause for parental preference. We will debate the very problematic-as-introduced clause 7, and we shall determine whether the departmental strategy at clause 8 and the associated reporting around this at clause 9 are targeted for the benefit of children or, as introduced, focused on activity that perhaps may distract from the benefits that could otherwise have been delivered for children. This will be determined by the choices that we make at this point in the debate. <BR /> <BR />I have set out very clearly —”
“If the Assembly passes the Bill without the amendments that have been drafted with the professionalism and objectivity of OLC, the Department of Education will require a huge uplift in its budget, which the Finance Minister will have to find, or my Department will risk breaching other statutory duties and children will be adversely affected as area planning will grind to a halt. <BR /> <BR />I urge Members to not miss this opportunity and to pass the amendments that I have tabled.”
“<BR /> <BR />I urge you to support amendment No 60, which will help to clarify who the guidance will be provided for and will support a proportionate and workable approach. <BR /> <BR />Our best means of ending up with a workable piece of legislation is by supporting the amendments that I have tabled throughout the Bill. If we have access to expert draftsmen, why do we not utilise them? Again, it would be shameful if we did not. <BR /> <BR />Let me be clear: the amendments that I have tabled, as the Minister of Education, have been drafted by OLC to make the Bill work within the current primary legislation for education. They are not my party's amendments.”
“My point about that being a cosmetic exercise in semantics absolutely stands. On the legal application, the definition at clause 5 dictates what that means, and, even with the amendments to it, risk and cost are created through the terms "sufficient places" and "future demand" and by treating integrated schools so differently whilst having to pay for that out of the same finite budget that has to cover quality education for all our children. <BR /> <BR />On clause 11, I urge you to not vote for amendment No 59, which would provide unnecessary bureaucracy and a burden merely for the optics. The laying of routine guidance before the Assembly is not necessary and will not benefit our children.”
“Clause 5A will sit alongside, rather than contradict, the existing legislative power that provides a legal basis for the Education Authority to plan efficiently to provide sufficient places to meet parental and community needs. That is why the duty is placed on the Education Authority. That duty would explicitly require the Education Authority to ascertain that the provision for parental preference works in the Bill and with other legislation. On clauses 4 and 5, I urge you to put your faith in the professional and impartial drafting of OLC, deliver the voice of parental preference and vote to oppose that clauses 4 and 5 stand part of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />On amendments Nos 31, 36, 39 and 48, I reiterate that changing the word "promote" to "support" throughout the Bill has no material impact.”
“New clause 5A provides for parental preference to be ascertained to inform the strategic planning of education provision without creating any hierarchy or presumption of any sector over another. Such parental preference is not based on the schools that currently exist, but it allows the Education Authority to ascertain what types of schools parents wish to be able to access for their children's education. <BR /> <BR />I will oppose both clause 4 and clause 5, as introduced or with the amendments tabled to them made, stand part of the Bill. I urge you all to do the same. It is my intention to move amendment No 23 in group 3 to bring in new clause 5A.”
“The decision that you make, as Members of the legislative Assembly, will be critical in determining whether we produce a piece of legislation that is clear in purpose and intention and workable for the good of all our children and young people.”
“I cannot emphasise enough the responsibility on all of us to give that serious consideration when voting at that juncture.”
“I thank the Member for his perspective on this. I understand, however, that the decision was changed because additional information came to the Minister's attention. As a consequence, he was able to revisit the original decision and approve the proposal. <BR /> <BR />I will move on. This point of the debate illustrates how complex it is to make clear, coherent and comprehensive legislation that works in its entirety alongside existing law and is as good a product as we can get in the context of how this Bill was introduced. I remind Members that the vote on amendment No 23 will not take place until after the group 3 debate. It is, however, inextricably linked to the vote after this group 2 debate on whether clauses 4 and 5, as introduced or with amendments, stand part.”
“I hope to be able to move new clause 5A as part of group 3. At that point, I will appreciate any support given to the passage of clause 5A so that it can be considered again at Further Consideration Stage. I make that appeal and will do so again at the group 3 stage. <BR /> <BR />I will go back to the substantive part of my winding-up speech.”
“She may or may not be have been aware — certainly, when I met her in the middle of December, I explained this to her — that, at that point, I had not engaged the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) to draft the amendments, so it was impossible to have a conversation with her on their content. In fact, she may or not be aware that, because this is a private Member's Bill, the Department had to request permission from the Executive Office to engage OLC, which has great professionalism and integrity in drafting. That permission was not granted by the First Minister and deputy First Minister until 21 December. I did not see my amendments, as tabled, until last Tuesday, so it was impossible to have those conversations. I want the House to be aware that I was working to an extremely tight timescale to be able to deliver amendments.”
“Officials, at that point and subsequently, requested sight of the draft Bill. That request was turned down by the Bill sponsor. She refused to engage with the Department in advance of the Bill being tabled in June 2021. I understand that the Speaker may be considering looking at how private Member's Bills are addressed in the House. Given, however, the type of private Member's Bill that this one is, it is important that it is given greater consideration in advance of being presented in the House. <BR /> <BR />Furthermore, the Bill sponsor criticised the fact that I did not engage with her on the amendments that I have tabled.”
“I respect the Member's comments, particularly regarding the consultation that the Committee carried out, but, given the scale of this legislation and the far-reaching impact that it will have across the Department, it is only right and proper that there should have been a much more relevant and up-to-date consultation, which should have included schools. Up until this point, that has not happened. <BR /> <BR />I also want to refer to the Bill sponsor's engagement. I understand that the Bill sponsor wrote to the previous Minister, Peter Weir, in March 2020 advising him of an intention to bring forward the private Member's Bill. Subsequently, there was a meeting with officials in September 2020 to discuss the possibility of an integrated education Bill in the context of a private Member's Bill.”
“Let me continue. He said that Members on these Benches are using a consistent tactic in relation to non-engagement and that that is underhand. The fact remains that the consultation was carried out in 2016. I was the Chair of the Education Committee at one point, just as Mr Lyttle is the Chair of the Education Committee now. If a Minister were to bring forward legislation based on a consultation that took place in 2016, it would be criticised — rightly so. It is absolutely right and proper that we raise that point consistently. It is a valid point, because, even as the Member acknowledged in her comments, there has been considerable progress since 2016, particularly with regard to engagement with the integrated sector and NICIE.”
“Clearly, the Member has not understood that the Chair of the Committee raised the issue of JRs in his contribution on this group. However, she reinforces the point that she does not care what challenges come about from any other sector as long as they are not in relation to the integrated sector. The Chair also made a point about —”
“As a consequence of some of the amendments and clauses that are being proposed, we are knowingly increasing the risk of JRs being taken against decisions.”
“Before I commence a further appeal for sense to prevail, I will raise a couple of issues regarding comments that were made during Members' contributions. The Member for East Belfast and Chair of the Education Committee made reference to JRs to overturn development proposal (DP) decisions. In particular, he referenced a Strangford College JR. It is my understanding that, when the pre-action letter was received in the Department, the Minister at that time — my colleague Peter Weir — became aware of preferences that were not available when he took his first decision, so the decision was retaken, and the proposal was subsequently approved. Further to the point on JRs of decisions, the Bill sponsor said in yesterday's debate that any decision can be challenged.”
“We must remember that, however we piece the legislative jigsaw together, it must make sense and work as a whole, and children and young people must be front and centre in benefiting from the final legislation that we produce.”
“I do not wish to place any further unnecessary administrative pressures on our schools, particularly when those additional pressures would reap no reward for our children and young people's education. The more departmental time is tied up in procedure, the less departmental time is available to deliver for the children and young people in our schools. <BR /> <BR />Therefore, I urge Members not to vote for amendment No 59 and not to use the legislative process as a means of placing meaningless actions in law that provide no tangible benefit. The law should not be used in that way, and to do so makes a mockery of our role as Members of the legislative Assembly.”
“Guidance on the final form of the Integrated Education Bill will be mainly for arm's-length bodies and schools; amendment No 60 makes more sense in that regard than the Bill as introduced. It means that proper, substantial guidance, for example in the form of a letter or circular to schools, will be published on the Department's website, a method of guidance that is familiar to our schools and all those involved in education. <BR /> <BR />Essentially, our schools have enough to cope with, especially in view of the challenges that we, as a society, have faced over the past two years. Many principals whom I have met and spoken to have told me about the administrative pressures that they are under. Do we really need them to have to look for guidance laid in the Assembly as well?”
“Area planning has been a real challenge but is becoming easier, because all those involved have worked collaboratively to learn from their experiences and have reviewed and reshaped the practices and processes that have led to the development of the new strategic area plan. The consultation on the new strategic area plan provides an opportunity for everyone to have a say in the planning of education for the next five years. <BR /> <BR />I turn to "Guidance" at clause 11 and the amendments included in group 2. I express concern about what purpose amendment No 59, tabled by the Chair of the Education Committee, serves. The Department of Education can lay guidance before the Assembly, but to what purpose?”
“<BR /> <BR />Nonetheless, if Members mean what they say about supporting parental preference, this point in the debate represents the time for them to stand up, be counted and vote against clauses 4 and 5 and the associated amendments. After the debate on the amendments in group 3, they then need to vote to support the new clause, which will enable the Education Authority to ascertain parental preference.”
“It will accompany the operational plan under the next strategic area plan, which is on the cusp of being launched for consultation. <BR /> <BR />The founders of integrated education fought hard to secure the rights of parents to instigate change in the education system, and those rights are enshrined in the existing education Orders. As a caution to Members, I will say that clauses 4 and 5, as introduced and if amended by the Bill's sponsor and the Committee Chair, could see that right diluted somewhat, given the proposed departmental strategic input. The OLC-drafted clause 5A would retain that right for parents in the sector and leave with them the power to bring forward proposals for change. While some in the sector see that as a disadvantage, others see it as an advantage that they cherish and wish to safeguard.”
“Had the Bill sponsor refreshed her consultation, she might have been aware of the collaborative structures that now exist in planning and the working relationships that have been built up over the past five years to ensure better planning to meet community needs. NICIE has been involved in all aspects of that. Work has commenced on designing an exploratory plan that will take account of community need. Again, had the sponsor engaged, she would be fully aware of that and would not need to put in such clauses on parental preference and demand, as work is already in train to explore that at a strategic level. Of course, all those involved in strategic planning, as well as many others, including school leaders, other Departments and the universities, are taking part in the Innovation Lab in a matter of weeks to design that exploratory plan.”
“Schools do not refuse children; they admit children up to their approved admission and enrolment number, in line with their legal duty. Where that is exceeded, schools can, if they wish, come to my Department for a variation. For the integrated sector and in line with the duty on my Department, that will be granted if there are no other available places in an integrated school within a reasonable travelling distance. By and large, almost all requests for temporary variations (TVs) in the integrated sector and, indeed, the Irish-medium sector are granted. As I have already stated, the overwhelming proportion of children are placed according to parental preference: it is almost 99%. <BR /> <BR />I mentioned the currency of the consultation on the Bill.”
“Measures of future demand ignore the religious demographics of an area and the number of existing places in integrated schools. <BR /> <BR />Members will no doubt recall that the Bill's sponsor referred to parents being refused places at integrated schools and said that integrated schools had fewer available places than schools in other sectors. Let me clarify that with facts. Looking at available places as a proportion of approved enrolments, we can see that integrated schools are similar to those in other sectors, with around 20% of available places compared with their approved enrolment. While that will vary at individual school level, it is no different from other individual schools across all sectors that are oversubscribed.”
“We simply cannot arrive at a situation in which legal inconsistencies exist, and, as legislators, we have a responsibility to prevent such a scenario. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 16, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 relate to clauses 4 and 5. I welcome the fact that they seek to manage pressure on the education budget and the education system as a whole. I have already stated that changing "promote" to "support" throughout the Bill, including in amendment Nos 31, 36, 39 and 48, would not have any material effect, as it is tied to the definition in clause 5. While aiming to meet demand is certainly an improvement on an unfettered requirement to meet it, such an amendment still falls short and sits within requirements to provide sufficient places in integrated schools.”
“The OLC drafting has ensured that the provision on parental preference works in the Bill and with other legislation, such as articles 5 and 6 of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, which ensure that efficient and sufficient places are available; article 14 of the 1986 Order, which provides for proposals to be made to meet demand; article 44 of the 1986 Order, which provides for children to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents; and article 9 of the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which provides for parents to express a preference about the school that they wish their child to attend. To do anything other than ensure that the Bill that we are debating today complements the wider legislative landscape for education would be folly.”
“It would, staying within the scope of the Integrated Education Bill, enable the Education Authority to ascertain whether that preference is for integrated education in a controlled or a grant-maintained integrated school or in a school that is not, such as a controlled maintained Irish-medium school.”
“Each represents a different piece of the jigsaw that is being put together today. In my view, considering them separately in the way that they have been grouped brings a considerable risk of Members not being in a position to make a well-informed decision. I consider it my duty to emphasise the importance of new clause 5A. <BR /> <BR />I will explain how new clause 5A, at amendment No 23, would work. It would sit alongside, rather than contradicting, the existing legislative power that provides legal cover for the Education Authority (EA) to plan efficiently to provide sufficient places to meet parental and community needs. That is why the duty is placed on the Education Authority. That duty would explicitly require the Education Authority to ascertain parental preference.”
“We cannot vote on amendment No 23 until the group 3 amendments are debated. However, to allow me to move the new parental preference clause, I urge Members to oppose clauses 4 and 5, as introduced or with the related tabled amendments having been made, standing part of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />In this section of the debate, I urge Members to agree that clauses 4 and 5 do not stand part of the Bill. We can then provide a workable legislative requirement that makes ascertaining parental preference — whatever type of school that preference may be for; whether in the integrated or any other sector — an explicit duty in primary legislation. It is an example of the complexities of legislation generally, and this Bill specifically, that those absolutely interlinked clauses 4, 5 and proposed new clause 5A will be voted on at different times.”
“Equally, if parents seek a controlled, maintained or Irish-medium solution, amendment No 23 allows for that to be reflected in strategic planning whilst remaining within the scope of the Integrated Education Bill. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 23 is an excellent example of the expertise of OLC drafting. It sets out a legal requirement that meets the stated intention and is workable in practice. That amendment sits in another group, unfortunately, so it will be voted on following the debate on the amendments in group 3 rather than now. I say "unfortunately" because that is a procedural point. In order for me to move amendment No 23, which would bring in the new parental preference clause 5A, which OLC has drafted, I will oppose clauses 4 and 5, as introduced or with the related tabled amendments having been made, standing part of the Bill.”
“Integrated education stakeholders have unanimously stated that they support parental preference and want to see provision planned for on the basis of which sector parents want access to rather than the schools that are currently available to choose from. That is the overall intention of these clauses and what they seek to lead to. <BR /> <BR />In order to protect equity and with a focus on delivering parental preference, as outlined by the aforementioned stakeholders, OLC has drafted an amendment that provides for that preference to be ascertained to inform the strategic planning of education provision, without creating any hierarchy or presumption that places one sector above another. If an integrated solution is what is sought, amendment No 23, which introduces new clause 5A, provides for that.”
“Of course, there are processes in train to enable that to be done. As we look through the amendments, we will see that proposed new clause 5A, in particular, will look to ascertain that demand. <BR /> <BR />These clauses are not set within the context of any existing legislative provision, and have the potential to undermine and interfere with the important principle of parental preference. Parents have a legitimate expectation to express preferences in the education of their children. However, I remind Members that, even despite the upset caused by the cancellation of last year's tests, around 99% of children were placed in a school of their preference at primary and post-primary level.”
“<BR /> <BR />You can imagine the knock-on effects of meeting the unfettered demand, of over 200 additional children a year, in the school previously mentioned by the Bill sponsor. I would argue that that would also be disadvantageous to that school in sourcing teaching and non-teaching staff in the short period between children being allocated places at the end of May and taking them into the school in September. Let us be practical; where would those children then be placed?”
“<BR /> <BR />Taken together, the implications of clauses 4 and 5 are too significant for every other sector in our education system, and their repercussions on the public purse will also be too significant. If, for example, we were to meet unfettered demand, and, taking costs to be around £4,500 per pupil in a post-primary school, for a school taking even 20 additional children, that could result, over seven-year cohorts, in a £650,000 gain for one school but a £650,000 loss for another. Regardless of sector, that is a significant loss that could result in staff redundancies and a reduction of provision and quality of education in the affected school, which would have a knock-on effect on the children in that school through absolutely no fault of their own. That is not fair.”
“As part of this group of amendments, we will start to address clauses 4 and 5, which relate to the Department of Education promoting integrated education and what that means. The Bill sponsor has tabled amendment Nos 14, 16, 18 and 19 in order to change references to the word "promote" to "support", yet she has not significantly changed the associated definition of integrated education. In effect, the Bill sponsor's amendment of that word is meaningless in law and amounts to nothing more than a cosmetic exercise in semantics. However, as Minister of Education, it is my duty to alert the House to the significant implications of this part of the Bill. Members must not be mistaken about the impacts of clauses 4 and 5, which, even with the amendment, are far-reaching.”
“It also sits on the area-planning steering group at chief executive level, representing its sector on strategic planning issues. <BR /> <BR />I appreciate that the Bill sponsor has tabled amendment No 11, which seeks to ensure that any consultation requirement relates only to integrated education. While I see the clause as unnecessary, I can only reiterate that I consider the OLC-drafted amendment to be the best guarantee that the Assembly has of having absolute legal accuracy. Taken together, the OLC-drafted amendment Nos 10 and 12 provide a coherent and clear provision that is consistent and workable alongside existing legislation. <BR /> <BR />I will turn to the promotion of integrated education.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Bill sponsor stated at Second Stage that she expects the Department to continue to engage NICIE, acknowledging at the same time that my Department does that anyway. I therefore return to the words of Mr O'Dowd, who asked why the Bill was necessary. Both Members acknowledged that that is done anyway, and I do not see clause 3 as necessary. NICIE is involved at all stages of planning for education provision and is formally represented at every level. It sits on the area-planning local groups, which operate at a grassroots level, in exploring the needs of local communities. It sits on the area-planning working group, which is at an operational level, and it actively works to populate the action plans for making changes to provision across local government districts.”
“<BR /> <BR />On the advisory body, the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) has drafted amendment No 10 to clause 3 in order to provide that the Department may consult a relevant body on integrated education only. Members may recall that that clause would require the Department to consult such a body in exercising any function — a burdensome, inappropriate and unwieldy requirement. OLC has, at amendment No 12, tied the definition of who the body might be to the existing wording of article 64 of the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which provides the power under which the Department funds the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education (NICIE).”
“Clauses 4 and 5 will not achieve the intention of promoting integrated education to a level playing field but will decimate the Education budget for as long as the legislation applies. <BR /> <BR />Those clauses will not give any oversubscribed integrated school a say on whether meeting demand is manageable for them or on how quality education will be provided in those circumstances. The clauses bring a very high risk of tipping existing schools in every other sector into being unsustainable, and they will leave the Department of Education in the courts rather than focusing on delivering for children. I will return to the issues with those clauses, but they are significant, and the amendments that I have tabled provide a better alternative at each point.”
“We now begin our group 2 debate on advice, guidance and support, with the amendments covering the substance of clause 3, which is on the advisory body to be consulted with by the Department of Education, and the very significant substance of clauses 4 and 5, which relate to the promotion or support of integrated education and what that means. We will decide on some amendments to clauses 8 and 10, although not the substance of those provisions, and on departmental guidance in clause 11. <BR /> <BR />Whilst I will elaborate on the issues in the clauses at the relevant amendments, suffice to say that clause 3 will bring the Department of Education to a standstill while it consults on every function with an integrated body representative.”
“Let us rely on the drafting expertise of OLC to ensure that we deliver that.”
“We may not be reminded of that until we get to that later amendment, so we all have a series of vital choices to make throughout the Consideration Stage. <BR /> <BR />While I understand that parties have already indicated their intentions throughout this, I once again will say that, in relation to clause 1, I urge you to vote for amendment No 2 and to vote for amendment No 7, which means not voting for amendment Nos 5 or 6. Vote for amendment No 8 and the associated amendment Nos 61 to 68. In relation to clause 6, vote for amendment No 24. In relation to clause 12, vote for amendment No 69, tabled by the Chair of the Education Committee. In relation to clause 13, vote for amendment Nos 70 and 71. Again, I say that our job today is to piece together a legislative jigsaw that slots together to make workable legislation.”
“<BR /> <BR />We have gone through quite a considerable amount of this already, and I do not want to rehearse too much of it, but the OLC's clauses that have been amended do give clarity that the duties here relating to the wording of the Bill as introduced are for the Department of Education and not for other bodies. That enables bodies to deliver the statutory responsibilities for which they have been established and are funded. When we are considering how we vote, we need to be very careful as there are consequences in the way that we do vote. As a consequence of that, we may end up restricting our options further on in respect of this Bill. I urge caution on that. If we vote for an amendment, we need to be aware that we may remove that option later on.”
“Therefore, there is an impact on the trust and also the collaborative arrangements that have been built up over the past number of years. The area plans that are being published tomorrow represent months of engagement between all the sectors. All have signed up to that strategic plan as the way forward to delivering a high-quality system that will provide access to a broad and balanced curriculum in viable and sustainable schools. The Bill as introduced includes unnecessary levels of duplication with regard to consultation by all. So, there are issues as a consequence of it moving forward.”
“It reviews policies and adapts them for integrated education in relation to transport and temporary variation. DPs only consider places in the integrated sector. I will give the Bill sponsor some clarification on that. If an integrated education school comes forward for a temporary variation, other sectors are not taken into consideration when the application is considered. Only integrated education places are considered at that point. With regard to funding, there is support for transformed schools, and this can be accessed. The Fresh Start capital funding programme is also well under way, which the integrated sector is benefiting from. <BR /> <BR />Mr Allister raised area planning. All sectors are represented in the structures. This Bill, if passed as published, will elevate one sector above the others.”
“In the three years from 2017 to 2020, when there was no functioning Executive, the Department progressed operational recommendations. There are 16 recommendations, which relate to significant policy and legislation, that are being formally considered as part of the independent review of education. Obviously, it is not lost on us that that was a request by the Alliance Party. <BR /> <BR />Mr Allister asked whether this Bill gazumps that review, and, in short, yes, it does. Obviously, we have enough substantive business to discuss today without revisiting how the Department of Education could have taken forward such recommendations without ministerial approval, but, in relation to discharging the existing duty to integrated education, the Department funds NICIE to encourage and promote integrated education.”
“As the Chair has shown an interest, I trust that he will support that at the relevant time in the debate. DE does not assess the need in any sector. What it does do is facilitate and go through a process of area planning. That process has all sectors included and allows proposals to come forward to change the educational landscape to reflect parental preferences. <BR /> <BR />The Chair of the Committee raised the independent review of independent education. As mentioned at the Second Stage debate, the 39 recommendations relating to the review of integrated education were not all accepted. Fresh Start capital funding, for example, cannot be provided to special schools, a recommendation that was in the report.”