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 27 of 52.
“Mr Speaker, with your permission I will answer questions 2, 3 and 7 together as they all relate to COVID-19, and I respectfully ask for an additional minute.”
“<BR /> <BR />My Department will engage in a "lessons learned" exercise, as I indicated, but we will also talk to a number of schools in the coming weeks to ensure that the reason for lost appeals has been identified and that remedial action is put in place to avoid that situation in future. I absolutely agree on the need for a robust process, and I am disappointed in the outcome of this.”
“I thank the Member for his question about appeals. As he is aware, it was a difficult year for parents and young people, with 280 young people unplaced in June. I found that distressing, and I know that there is a very small number, about five, who are still unplaced, and that needs to be addressed. <BR /> <BR />As the Member knows, additional money — £130,000 — was put into appeals. Over 120 appeals in respect of post-primary admission were upheld. I am concerned about that, and I think it is important to ensure that schools operate a robust admissions process that minimises unnecessary stress on children and families. It is also important to ensure that all schools can plan for an academic year with certainty and without having to worry about increases or drops in their intake.”
“<BR /> <BR />On ensuring that eldest children are not unfairly treated, the guidance advises schools not to use family criteria beyond a sibling currently attending the school. An example would be a parent's attendance, which is a type of criterion with the potential to disadvantage eldest children or newcomer applicants. The Department recommends that sibling connection is prioritised. Unfortunately, we had instances in Transfer 2021 of the separation of twins as the result of some schools' admission criteria. <BR /> <BR />All of that will be part of the review that will be undertaken and the further advice that will be given to schools if we fall into the same circumstances as last year.”
“I thank the Member for his question. The setting of admissions criteria is by law a matter for schools' boards of governors. The Department issues advice on the transfer process, including the criteria that it is recommended that schools should use. However, while schools must by law have regard to that guidance, the setting of admissions criteria remains very much a matter for schools. Even if my Department could compel schools to use a uniform set of admissions criteria, that would be less desirable than the current position, because, essentially, in many instances, it could mean that the same children are prioritised at all schools. Schools' boards of governors are better placed to set admissions criteria that meet the needs of the communities that they serve.”
“I thank the Member for her question. I appreciate that there are diverse views on academic selection. Certainly, my view is that academic selection will be maintained. If there is to be any change to that, it will require agreement in the Executive and the Assembly. As the Member will be aware, a significant number of parents have chosen to enter their children in the transfer tests in order to obtain a place in a grammar school of their choice. I support the right of parents to make that decision. Equally, that is what they choose to do.”
“I thank the Member for his question. As he will know, over the past number of months, I have tried to ensure that our young people remain in school for as long as is possible. The intervention of the Public Health Agency (PHA) with regard to close contacts will aid that to ensure that P7 pupils will not be disrupted to the level that, perhaps, they were. Again, how the tests are coordinated and timetabled is very much up to the providers. Currently, AQE has set out a timetable of 20 November, 27 November and 4 December. PPTC has set out 13 November, with a supplementary assessment on 11 December. I would like to think that our P7s who have opted to take the tests will be able to do so in the timetable that has been outlined by both providers.”
“I do not disagree with the Member. As he will know, test providers have reviewed and modified the content of this year's tests to take into account any disruption that has taken place over the past 18 months, and the full details of that are available on their websites. The Member will also appreciate that the transfer tests will compare only the pupils who have chosen to take tests in November and December, so they will all have experienced similar issues. Again, the decision to move forward with the tests lies very much with the operators and the schools that use them as an admissions criterion. Certainly, moving forward, there will be lessons learned from last year's experience if we have to go through the same thing again. That will be communicated in correspondence and guidance to schools for their preparation.”
“There are also workload issues for staff, who, in some cases, may have to be available on up to five successive Saturdays in November and December. <BR /> <BR />Any move away from the current arrangements would require the consent of all primary schools and teacher representatives. I certainly cannot compel them to agree to it. Unless the schools agree, there is a risk of creating an inequality, in that some pupils would be given the opportunity to sit the test in their school while others would not. Certainly, from an individual perspective, I would welcome such a move, but I cannot compel schools to do that.”
“I thank the Member for his question. As he will be aware, there is no bar to prevent primary schools from hosting the test. However, it is a matter for individual schools. In 2016, my Department removed the instruction that had prevented that. Recently, I met the Bring it Back to Primary campaign and teacher representatives to explore the issue. Teacher representatives were opposed in principle to it, as were the majority of the small number of school leaders who were at the meeting. While there would obviously be benefits for pupils, the proposal is not without difficulties, and they were highlighted at the meeting. They include logistical issues such as the security of papers and school premises being used on Saturday mornings, often by community groups and other organisations.”
“The exercise will examine issues such as the process for schools submitting their admissions criteria, the use of the new online admissions portal and the operation of the admissions appeals process, including, on the basis of appeal outcomes, the robustness of schools’ admissions criteria. Once that process is complete, it will inform the issue of revised guidance to schools on the process this autumn. As I have noted, the setting and application of admissions criteria remains a matter for school boards of governors.”
“<BR /> <BR />If the tests are cancelled, it will be a matter for individual boards of governors to decide and publish the alternative admissions criteria that they will apply for admitting pupils to their post-primary school in September 2022. My Department publishes guidance annually on the post-primary admissions process. The guidance includes recommendations on the admissions criteria that post-primary schools should and should not use and a timetable for the process. <BR /> <BR />Now that Transfer 2021 has concluded, my Department will undertake a "lessons learned" exercise with the Education Authority (EA) and key stakeholders in advance of the issue of guidance for Transfer 2022.”
“With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 1 and 6 together. <BR /> <BR />The post-primary transfer tests are organised and operated by two private operators, the Association for Quality Education Limited (AQE) and the Post Primary Transfer Consortium (PPTC). I have no role to play in their operation or timing. However, I have highlighted to the test providers the importance of ensuring that they comply with health protection legislation and of communicating clearly and early to parents, pupils and schools if contingency plans are being considered, should the tests not proceed or pupils are not able to take any of the tests.”
“A number of issues have been raised by colleagues today that fall within the remit of the Department of Health, particularly in respect of PCR testing; I give the assurance that I will raise them directly with it. <BR /> <BR />I am assured by advice that I have received from Health that the more targeted approach to contact tracing that has been agreed will result in fewer pupils having to self-isolate unnecessarily and that the range of mitigating measures will continue to ensure that pupils are safe in their school environment, being able to learn and socialise with their friends just as they should.”
“We will also continue to engage with EA on issues such as cleaning services and the provision of additional support to school leaders who need it. <BR /> <BR />I am mindful that, while we believe that our measures are sustainable and schools will remain open, we must accept that local issues may need to be addressed. Should there ever be a need for measures at the regional level, we have well understood escalation measures that were in place last year that we can reinstate. <BR /> <BR />As I said at the start of my speech, I remain concerned about the impact of the pandemic on our children. I assure Members that I will continue to listen and act appropriately.”
“I recognise the challenges presented by, in some instances, an ageing school estate. Last week, I met a school principal whose main building dates back to the 19th century and heard about the associated difficulties that he has with windows. We are working with EA to address those issues, and I hope that the experience will be the same across the school estate as the work is rolled out.”
“I trust school leaders to consider the policy guidance provided by my Department, the self-isolation guidance provided by the PHA and the operational guidance provided by the EA. Helplines are also available for them to raise any queries. With that information, school leaders will then, rightly, be able to use a cautious, risk-based approach to the decisions involved in the everyday operation of their school. <BR /> <BR />I have heard today about the need to focus on the other mitigations in schools. I believe that we have a balanced approach in our guidance. My officials continue to engage with colleagues in other Administrations on the approach to ventilation, including the use of carbon dioxide monitors in certain circumstances. My Department will submit a bid for capital funding to support wider provision of CO2 monitors in schools.”
“<BR /> <BR />While there is no guidance or set of rules that will please everyone, I believe that my Department's revised COVID-19 guidance balances the need to keep all those in our schools safe with ensuring that they can access the full range of educational experiences. My Department's revised guidance seeks to allow school leaders to lead. It moves away from being prescriptive to being as permissive as the public health advice permits. As always, we will listen to teachers, unions, parents, pupils and school governors and take on board their views. We will continue to respond quickly and adapt guidance to reflect any changes to public health advice.”
“It reflects the current evidence on the risks posed to close contacts, and it will result in fewer pupils having to isolate. <BR /> <BR />I understand and accept that there have been and will continue to be difficult decisions to take on how best to support pupils and schools during the pandemic. There is a wide spectrum of opinion across stakeholders and society on how that should be taken forward. There are still disruptions to normal school life, such as post-primary pupils being required to wear face coverings in classrooms. However, the Executive continue to be informed by the expert medical and scientific advice as they take decisions, in the same way that my Department relies on advice from the PHA and the Department of Health.”
“Schools should continue to focus on the range of mitigations that they have in place to reduce the risk of COVID transmission, including cleaning, ventilation, face coverings, consistent groups and regular asymptomatic testing using lateral flow devices. Vaccination is available to all staff and some students. <BR /> <BR />A separate arrangement for special schools will be implemented that takes account of the particular needs and vulnerabilities of those settings. While the overall burden will still be reduced, PHA risk assessments may mean that special-school principals are contacted more frequently about cases than their mainstream school colleagues. <BR />This is a small, operational change to the PHA process that will have a positive impact on school workload.”
“Parents will be asked to inform the school if their child tests positive, which could be part of school absence reporting. Detailed PHA guidance for schools will be prepared to support the revised approach. A warn and inform letter will be made available that schools may use to inform parents of cases in the school and to remind everyone of the steps that we all should take to reduce the risk of COVID transmission in school and beyond. <BR /> <BR />PHA will monitor the number of cases in schools and will continue to have arrangements to respond to and support schools with large clusters and outbreaks. The proposed approach is in line with the position being taken in schools in England, Scotland and Wales.”
“<BR /> <BR />Against that backdrop, my Department agreed with the Department of Health that schools would no longer be required to carry out the PHA's contact-tracing work and that only in certain circumstances would a school be asked to assist. That more targeted approach, which will begin on Friday, will involve the PHA contact-tracing service identifying and asking the very closest contacts — for example, very close friends — to isolate and get a test. Other contacts in school, such as those in the same class or who sit near the case, will not routinely be asked to isolate and book a test. School leaders will no longer be required to respond to every case and identify contacts. PHA will undertake the work and will contact the school principal for assistance only in limited circumstances.”
“<BR /> <BR />Since schools returned for the 2021-22 school year, the high community prevalence of COVID-19 has led to an increase in cases reported to schools, with large numbers of children being identified as school close contacts. That has caused disruption in schools, large numbers of children having to miss school, pressure on school leaders and a high volume of calls to the PHA, which has struggled to respond. However, with high rates of the virus currently in the community, the Department of Health and the Department of Education have recognised that the administrative burden on teachers is not sustainable.”
“The Executive agreed to the proposals brought forward by the Minister of Health, which took account of the expert advice from the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Scientific Adviser. <BR /> <BR />Last week, Public Health Scotland published a research paper that examined the number of close contacts in schools who went on to test positive. It identified that only 7·9% of school-year pupil contacts of a positive case subsequently tested positive themselves. A daily contact-trace testing study in England that was published during the summer also found that, in the participating schools, only 1·6% of those identified as close contacts went on to become confirmed cases within 14 days. Those studies support the position taken by the Executive.”
“The guidance also seeks to take advantage of the experience that has been developed by schools over the past 18 months. Principals have learnt what has worked well in their school and what has worked less well. Where there is an opportunity to allow them to tailor their actions and mitigations to suit their school's individual circumstances, it is appropriate to allow principals the flexibility to do so. <BR /> <BR />On 12 August, the Executive agreed that school bubbles would no longer be required in guidance and that face coverings should still be worn by post-primary-school pupils in classrooms, and they set out changes to self-isolation requirements. In addition, PHA guidance resulted in pupils identified as close contacts having to self-isolate only until a negative PCR test was received, rather than for 10 days.”
“That reflects the progress and learning that we have all had in society in areas such as the use of face coverings, hand hygiene and testing since the start of the pandemic.”
“<BR /> <BR />Schools were provided not only with guidance from the Department but with detailed advice from the PHA on the close-contact and self-isolation and testing processes. My Department's guidance reflected the agreed Executive position, which is based on expert medical and scientific advice. The guidance itself was the subject of detailed engagement with officials from the Department of Health over the summer and took account of their views across a number of areas. My officials also worked closely with the practitioners group of school leaders and maintained engagement with trade unions. The Department's guidance seeks to move away from the position in which school leaders and staff were required to follow a detailed list of prescriptive requirements, often telling principals what either must or cannot happen in their school.”
“Children from more disadvantaged backgrounds have been particularly impacted. Many Members pointed to that, and we have worked hard to minimise the impact on pupils. I also recognise the challenges faced by families in having to manage children who are out of school either ill or self-isolating. It has to be a priority for all of us to have children in school, where, we all agree, they should be. In particular, I recognise the work undertaken by school leaders and their boards of governors and staff since the start of the new academic year in supporting contact tracing. For many, this has been a very challenging time, with a lot of work undertaken over evenings and weekends to ensure that close contacts were identified.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have listened to the views that Members have expressed on the motion, and it is clear that all those present, including me, want children to access their education in a safe environment. The high community prevalence of COVID-19 in Northern Ireland has led to an increased number of cases being reported by schools and a large number of children being identified as close contacts and asked to isolate and book a PCR test. That has resulted in major disruption to children's education. It is acknowledged that the COVID-19 pandemic, in particular school closures and COVID-related absences, has been very damaging to the well-being of children, including their mental health, education and long-term opportunities for future employment and development.”
“<BR /> <BR />While I concur with the sentiments of many in relation to sharing and integration, passing the Bill today will have serious, long-lasting and adverse implications for our education system. While it might be well intentioned and, on the face of it, achieve a desirable outcome, I have set out the very serious concerns and damaging consequences of the legislation that my Department and I have identified. Given the similar concerns expressed by others, it baffles me that support is being given to what is a fundamentally flawed Bill. Voting for the principle of the Bill at this stage endorses those flaws. I strongly encourage Members to vote against the Bill and allow the issues to be considered properly through the independent review of education, as agreed in NDNA.”
“The education system is a key driver for positive outcomes in education, child development, health, the economy and in wider society and social cohesion. It is essential, therefore, that we take the appropriate time to get this right and to ensure that every child has the absolute best start in life. That is too important to get wrong, and that is the key reason why I ask Members to join me in opposing the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Imposing the Bill, which has a definition of integrated education so wide that it dilutes totally what integrated education means on the ground, is not the way to achieve agreement and build good relations. Instead, that would be the way to achieve disagreement, dissatisfaction and disharmony. What message would that send to our children?”
“Crucially, that will be done through full engagement and consultation with members of the public and schools from every sector, with communities factored in. That opportunity is the independent review of education. It has already been agreed by political parties and Executive Ministers and will commence shortly. The Member may be disappointed at the timescales associated with the review and wishes to rush ahead with the legislation, but reform on that scale cannot be rushed or achieved by a solo run without support from all sectors and stakeholders. It is incumbent on all of us to work together to find solutions to the challenges that we face, to build consensus on the delivery of those actions and to secure the necessary resources and commitment for educational transformation.”
“I can clearly identify that the impact of the Bill would undermine the good work to date on good relations that the integrated sector, as currently defined, and the shared education programme have built up. As a whole, the Bill is likely to damage good relations between people with different religious beliefs and political opinions in particular. <BR /> <BR />I have a duty to every child in every school across every sector, not just one sector above all others. We have a duty — a collective duty — to manage public money effectively. There is an opportunity under way, as agreed by Executive colleagues, with cross-party agreement and funding to deliver it, to consider the objectives of the Bill in the fullest, most appropriate way possible.”
“on any section 75 groups and that no equality impact assessment has been undertaken. I also note that the Member considers that the Department can conduct equality impact assessments on policy implementation. An equality impact assessment should have been undertaken before the Bill was introduced. Section 75 places a duty on us all to:”
“While others may prefer to ignore that, we have a collective duty to deliver value for money for the public purse, and the Bill does not do that. <BR /> <BR />I must also question what purpose the Member considers it would serve to require the Department to make supplementary regulations. The suggested provisions listed in the Bill are adequately covered through the primary legislative requirements that it seeks to create. <BR /> <BR />I note that the Member considers that the Bill:”
“An estimation of savings in 2017 does not translate into available resource now; indeed, the specified £2·2 million that is referenced in the review of integrated education as relating to initial teacher education taking place in four institutions is within the Department for the Economy's remit. Even if that were to translate into available resource in the future, it would not come to my Department. The Bill is referencing potential savings that are not even covered by its provisions. <BR /> <BR />I also point out that any impact on the common funding formula, as referenced in the additional factors for current grant-maintained integrated schools, would be from within a finite pot. There is no available additional funding for any aspect of the Bill.”
“I strongly contend that, if any overriding factor is to be prioritised, it should be meeting the needs of the child, not this single sectoral interest above all else. <BR /> <BR />While I recognise that the explanatory and financial memorandum attempts to quantify at least some of the costs associated with the Bill, it does not account for the legal challenges that are likely to arise from clause 7 in particular. It does not advise me where additional funding or additional departmental staff are to be found, and it does not recognise the additional costs for the managing authorities. As you all know, the Department of Education budget is under pressure. We need to prioritise funding to the right areas so that we can make a real difference to learners in the classroom.”
“Under the draft Programme for Government and the New Decade, New Approach agreement, there is a commitment to an outcomes-based approach. Targets distract from such an approach and do so without considering whether the customers — in this case, children, parents, schools, staff and communities — are better off as a result of our actions. The Bill serves to elevate the integrated education sector above all other sectors. It does not allow for the child to be at the centre of planning and provision. That is further evidenced by the requirement in clause 6 for education bodies to provide for integrated education as an overriding factor in any of their policies, strategies, plans and public services.”
“The requirements in relation to the Department developing an integrated education strategy and reporting on this every two years clearly draw heavily on the wording of the Shared Education Act (Northern Ireland) 2016, as does the addition of the duty to promote. Those requirements give no recognition to the fact that integrated education is very different from shared education. For example, in area planning, two years is a relatively short time, so it is not evident how the reports would be helpful. They may report activity, but how will we know whether anyone is better off?”
“Unspecified and limited special circumstances do not provide any assurance that local concerns or differences can be taken into account. Effectively, if a school is to be established, it is to be integrated. The Bill is also silent on the ownership and management type of schools. Currently, even in the integrated sector, parents and boards of governors can choose grant-maintained or controlled integrated status. Each offers a different management approach; neither is opposed by the Department.”
“The Bill does not consider the views of the wider community, which may not want an integrated school as the default solution for its area. If parents cannot avail themselves of an alternative based on the religious demographics of an area, that will be a problem. Existing non-integrated schools will be constrained by clause 7 in having to establish what is inappropriate by reason of special circumstance when bringing forward development proposals for new schools, including amalgamations. Clause 7 will not only undermine the current area planning process, which has been carefully established and gives every sector a voice around the table, but, in reality, will completely override that process to the extent that area planning becomes undeliverable.”
“It will not foster and nourish the good relationships that are in place and pave the way for further collaboration across our diverse system. In fact, it could destroy those relationships. While I appreciate that the Member indicated that that is not her intention, the Bill's drafting in that respect says otherwise, and, certainly, the explanatory and financial memorandum reinforces that point by saying:”
“When set alongside clause 7, the implications for the entire education system and the public purse are significant and extremely concerning. <BR /> <BR />Clause 7 requires that when any new school is being established, it must be presumed that it will be integrated. I will give an example of how that will significantly impact on area planning. The publication of a suite of development proposals is required to amalgamate two or more schools: proposals to close the existing schools and another proposal to establish a new school. If those schools are controlled, maintained, voluntary grammar schools or Irish-medium schools, are we to presume that the new school will be integrated? That will not encourage planning and managing authorities to bring forward proposals for sustainable provision; it will do the complete opposite.”
“<BR /> <BR />There is a difficulty at the core of the Bill. It requires the Department to apply the duty to promote by aiming to increase demand for integrated education and providing places to meet the demand for integrated schools without taking into account:”
“The Bill will have significant implications for controlled, maintained and Irish-medium schools. Those schools expect that equal and fair consideration will be given to their needs by any team in the Department. Indeed, Irish-medium education has the same statutory duty protection as integrated education: the Department must encourage and facilitate its development. If the Bill becomes law, all other schools will be secondary to integrated schools. The active promotion of integrated education by the Department also has the potential to undermine the essential functions and purposes of shared education, which are to bring together children of different backgrounds through cooperation in a school system with a wide range of different school types, where all school types are equally valued.”
“The explanatory and financial memorandum makes no reference to consultation with schools. While I acknowledge that the Member for Strangford has clarified that her limited consultation, which took place five years ago, is permissible for the purposes of the Bill, I am concerned that, given the significance of the legislation, the main education partners have not had the opportunity to comment on its substance and potential impact. If I were to bring to the Chamber significant legislation that would, essentially, change the way in which education works in Northern Ireland, and I brought with that legislation a consultation from five years ago, I would expect to be challenged, and rightly so.”
“enables actions to be taken for the integrated sector that do not have to be taken for other sectors. That is not enough for some. We hear that 24,861 pupils being educated in integrated schools is only about 7% of the school-age population and that growth is too slow. That, of course, does not take into account the integration that naturally occurs in other sectors. For others, the provisions of the statutory duty are too much, and the Bill strikes no balance for those stakeholders. <BR /> <BR />Under the 1997 Education Order, provision is made for parents to express a preference for the school or schools that they wish their child to attend. For the Department to invest in the promotion of integrated education as required by the Bill would be at the expense of other sectors.”
“It is not a body set up for the Department to consult with on every function, some of which require specialist or professional expertise on confidential matters, including on other arm's-length bodies. <BR /> <BR />Funding a body to carry out promotion whilst requiring the Department to employ more staff and undertake specific promotion tasks is a duplication and value-for-money issue. The promotion requirements and the meaning given to promotion in clauses 4 and 5 have implications throughout the Department of Education. Currently, the Department does not promote one sector over another — for good reason. <BR /> <BR />The duty:”
“From the explanatory and financial memorandum, it is evident that the Member considers that the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education could be that body. In reality, if I take an example of the statutory public consultation in which the Department engages on a development proposal for significant changes in the schools estate, the legal advice is that the Department should not seek to consult any specific group during the statutory two-month period, because doing so promotes the views of that consultee above all others. <BR /> <BR />The Bill runs contrary to that legal advice. NICIE is an arm's-length body funded by the Department to encourage and promote integrated education.”
“The Bill's definitions of integrated education and integrated schools are so wide that, in comparison to current provision, they could simply dilute what integrated education has meant since it began, even before Lagan College opened in 1981. It has not escaped my notice that the Bill is being tabled during the fortieth anniversary year of integrated education, but that does not mean that it is the right time for a single-sector Bill to become law. <BR /> <BR />Clause 3 is extremely concerning in real terms. On any function that the Department of Education seeks to carry out, whether required by other legislation, governance, public accountability, financial or practical considerations, it is required to:”