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 49 of 52.
“I thank the Member for his questions. Absolutely. The overall intention of the Bill is positive, and any lever that will encourage Departments and agencies to work closely together in this policy area will certainly be welcomed. The breadth of policies and services relating to young people means that cooperation is essential. Throughout my time as a Member of the House, I have been concerned about services for children and young people and about ensuring that policy is right so that they can have a positive future.”
“However, we wish to discuss the amendments further, particularly with relevant Departments, to ensure that the Bill is effective, practical and beneficial for our children and young people.”
“The Children's Services Co-operation Bill was introduced to the Assembly by Mr Steven Agnew in December 2014 and passed Second Stage in January 2015, after which it was referred to the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister for scrutiny. The Department supports the general principle of the Bill but holds concerns about its current drafting. Officials have been working with the sponsor of the Bill to address these concerns and consider potential amendments. <BR /> <BR />We have now shared the potential amendments with the Committee, and officials provided it with an update on 17 June. The Committee is scheduled to complete its scrutiny of the Bill by 3 July.”
“I thank the Member for her question. She is obviously better informed than I am about the deputy First Minister having signed that off. My understanding is that it is still with both Ministers and will then have to go to Executive colleagues for consideration. It is still at that stage, and I cannot be any more definitive than that, although we would like it to be moved on from the Executive as soon as possible.”
“I thank the Member for her question. Yes, absolutely; NICEM has been critical, but, over the period, much of what has been said is about the delay of the strategy. Having spoken to that organisation, I know that it is very keen that the strategy is well considered and that it makes a difference. The draft strategy is but a draft and requires further discussion, so we are hopeful that what is delivered will be acceptable to all groups.”
“They will also consider the reasons why people are falling into crisis and whether any action should be taken to prevent matters getting to crisis point.”
“I thank the Member for his question. In the last financial year, the crisis fund provided support to a significant number of minority ethnic individuals, who traditionally have fewer and weaker support networks to help them to avoid destitution in emergency situations. The crisis fund has benefited several vulnerable groups: vulnerable migrants, EU and non-EU nationals, destitute refugees, asylum seekers and other identifiable vulnerable groups, such as Roma. <BR /> <BR />The Red Cross was the lead administrator of the fund, and responsibility for day-to-day decisions lies with that organisation. There were 12 partners in total delivering funding from the crisis fund. Officials will shortly be meeting again with the Red Cross and others to discuss how the last round of funding went and whether there was scope or need for improvements.”
“The Member asks a very specific question. If he does not mind, I will write to him with an answer.”
“I thank the Member for his question. Reform is certainly being looked at. The draft strategy is with Ministers. We are looking at it and hope to publish it in the not too distant future. Having discussed those issues with a number of the groups, I know that they are concerned that we have a strategy that works. We look forward to seeing such a strategy rolled out.”
“The analysis of those contributions has now been completed, and we are considering a revised draft of the strategy in light of it. The document will be considered by the Executive in due course before publication.”
“Racial equality and good race relations are key aims for the Department and the Executive. The need for a strategy that not only helps us deliver these key aims but reflects people's aspirations and everyday concerns is an ambitious goal but one that we are determined to get right. Our 16-week public consultation instigated much discussion and elicited many opinions from right across society. Academics, trade unions, pressure groups, political parties, individuals, key stakeholders and church groups, amongst others, provided detailed contributions.”
“I thank the Minister for her answer. Can she give an update on the export strategy that her Department is developing?”
“I thank the Minister for his answer and hope that he can provide Newtownards with the same relief as he has provided to Downpatrick. Has he consulted other Executive Ministers about the transfer of tribunal hearings relevant to their Department out of expensive city-centre accommodation and into existing publicly owned, under-threat court buildings?”
“I thank the Minister for his response. When does he expect to be in a position to take a decision?”
“The Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill passed its Second Stage on 10 March 2015. As part of the Committee Stage, the Committee for Education has sought written responses. The Committee expects to begin oral evidence sessions involving key stakeholder organisations shortly. The Bill is reasonably short, but the provisions are complex and quite involved. In order to allow sufficient time to consider the evidence and anticipated amendments, the Committee is seeking an extension to the Bill's Committee Stage. I assure the House that the Committee will endeavour to conclude its work well in advance of the proposed extended deadline. On behalf of the Committee, I ask the House to support the extension of the Committee Stage of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill until 13 November 2015.”
“The Minister mentioned anticipated improvements to the transferability of teaching qualifications, and he previously announced a favourable change to the way in which universities in the Irish Republic award points for GCE A levels. Will the Minister tell the House whether he has made any progress in persuading the Irish Universities Association to change its mind and recognise our applied Northern Ireland GCSE A levels to ensure their portability? In addition, will he provide further detail on the cost associated with the three-year collaborative programme of work and confirm that key services like the primary modern languages programme will not be sacrificed to fund cross-border activities that have seemingly limited relevance to our schools?”
“— than those who are in possession of one. The answer is not to let anyone —”
“— degree certificate. Nothing else is required. The exemption, along with the certificate, creates a problem where Protestant teachers are the ones who potentially suffer. When those who are not in possession of a certificate look for a job, the options are more limited —”
“As for Mr Lunn's aspiration for a single certificate, in my understanding that is a teacher's PGCE or bachelor of education —”
“My party has been at the forefront of the debate on shared education and creating a more cohesive system. The proposals are ambitious and are not only an indication of a step forward in education in but a symbol of the progress that is being made in Northern Ireland. They represent a means by which the entrenched sectorism that has existed for far too long in our society can be diluted and a more coherent system of education developed. <BR /> <BR />Joint faith schools should assist in normalising the recruitment of teachers. The Catholic certificate has always been an irrelevancy when it comes to doing the job. The current legislative exemption permits its existence. There would be an understandable outrage if a Protestant certificate were proposed.”
“There is the new Lisanelly site, advanced proposals for shared education at the Moy and forthcoming proposals for Brookeborough. Of course, there is also the Education Committee's inquiry into shared education. <BR /> <BR />There is always a danger that we use yesterday's language rather than tomorrow's vision. The exemption should be removed, but it is only part of the wider issue that needs to be addressed. Debating a motion on it is great for headlines but does little to solve those other issues. I am pleased that the Churches in Northern Ireland have been working closely with the Department on proposals that could push shared education forward quite dramatically. This was outlined to us as part of the shared education inquiry, and I believe that the publication of a circular on this issue is imminent.”
“<BR /> <BR />Speaking as a Member, I want to widen the debate on this matter. I will, of course, be supporting the motion. My party has been calling for the removal of the teacher exemption for many years. The Minister of Education, of course, should have been included in this motion, and, while OFMDFM has a responsibility in relation to equality, it is the Education Minister who has the responsibility for teacher recruitment. However, the context of the debate has moved on considerably since this matter was last before the House. Previously, this was discussed when an earlier incarnation of the Education Bill was before us. It proposed to create a single employing authority. Now, we have a new Education Authority, which has an obligation in terms of shared education.”
“The majority of members felt that the present arrangements are unfair and represent a significant inequality. These members felt that the approach of CCMS was particularly unhelpful given the need for flexibility on all sides in the face of primary school area planning. The majority of members believed that cross-sectoral amalgamations and enhanced sharing between schools can only be hampered by what some have described as this unfair employment practice. <BR /> <BR />The Committee heard quite recently from CCMS and the Commission for Catholic Education on shared education. We were advised that CCMS wishes to enhance access to the certificate. Other than that, I think that it is fair to say that nothing has changed in the intervening two years on the issue of the certificate.”
“The report suggested that there was no statistical evidence of an adverse impact on employment opportunities for newly qualified non-Catholic teachers. Nonetheless, the Department suggested that the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS) should consider limiting this requirement to designated posts only in the primary and nursery sector. Some Committee members do not view the certificate as necessarily discriminatory. They accepted the Department's findings that there is no evidence of material disadvantage for non-Catholic teachers. <BR /> <BR />The majority of Committee members highlighted considerable concerns about CCMS's continued insistence that teachers in Catholic maintained primary schools be required to obtain the certificate of religious education.”
“I am speaking first as Chair of the Education Committee. Around two years ago, the Committee considered the Department of Education's report on the review of employment opportunities for teaching staff, including the assessment of the equality impact of the religious certificate requirement. Whether the House agrees or disagrees, as the report finds, some non-Catholics clearly view the requirement to possess the certificate of religious education as a bar to employment in the Catholic maintained primary school sector.”
“Given the difficult budget situation that many schools find themselves in, has the Minister given any consideration to using the school surplus fund that is available to his Department in a more creative way to offset schools' needs?”
“As I indicated a moment ago, that may very well affect almost all teachers retiring 20 years from now. <BR /> <BR />Finally, changes of the kind proposed in this and related legislation may have equality implications. The Committee was surprised by the absence of workforce information and equality data for teachers. The Committee felt that the Department should do more, and soon, to develop and maintain such data. Members felt that, for a modern teaching profession, it was only sensible to know more detailed demographic profile information for its employees. <BR /> <BR />The Department has provided some assurance in respect of the above. I hope that the Minister, in his response, will touch on these matters again and give reassurance to members of the Committee.”
“Firstly, members want to be sure that the Department will make significant efforts to communicate these complex pension changes that will take effect in about two weeks’ time. Members also wanted to be sure that the Department will properly explain and be flexible in respect of the timescales relating to options for avoiding actuarial reductions.”
“As well as teachers’ contributions, employers’ contributions have also increased to 17·7%, generating an additional cost of around £37 million per annum for the next four years. <BR /> <BR />The costs are substantial and the changes are significant. The outlook, according to the actuaries, appears to be better, with employers’ contributions to the new pension scheme falling back to 13·2% in 2019-2020 as contributions catch up with liabilities. It is also hoped that there will be no further increases in teachers’ contributions to their pensions. This is a difficult transition with consequences for all teachers and, indeed, further education lecturers that need to be fully understood. <BR /> <BR />As I indicated earlier, the Committee was content with the legislation. However, members did have a number of reservations and concerns.”
“The Committee noted that the Examiner of Statutory Rules had found no impediments in the drafting of the rule. The Committee, therefore, agreed on 3 March 2015 that it was content for the Assembly to affirm the rule. <BR /> <BR />This secondary legislation is part of the wider reform of teachers’ pensions. As pensioners’ longevity has improved, so costs have increased. In order to manage this increasing liability, teachers’ contributions have risen to an average of 9·6% of pensionable salary. Teachers’ retirement age is also set to change. It is expected that the average retirement age for teachers will increase from around 60 at present to around 65 in about 10 years’ time. That will increase again to 66 in about 20 years from now.”
“The Department briefed the Committee on the regulations in question on a number of occasions and as part of the wider raft of secondary legislation that supports the Public Service Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 2014. <BR /> <BR />The Minister has outlined the nature of the regulations before the House today. The Committee considered the relevant consultation on 5 November 2014 and the draft rule on 4 February 2015. The Committee also engaged with the teaching unions, seeking their views on the changes to the Northern Ireland Teachers’ Pension Scheme. Members accepted that the legislation in question was largely technical in nature and that its passage was certainly required in order to ensure the continued payment of teachers’ pensions.”
“Can the Minister give us a timescale for when we will have sight of both regulations and the code of practice?”
“I thank the Minister for his answer, in which he referred to youth engagement clinics. How effective does he believe those to have been in diverting young people away from the courts?”
“It is important, however, that those rights are balanced against those of teachers, carers and parents. It is even more important that those rights do not detract from addressing the paramount needs of the child. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, to continue the Titanic theme, at present this appears to be iceberg legislation. The majority of it, which is yet unseen, is contained in the forthcoming secondary legislation. The potential dangers of what lies hidden are of the greatest concern, and I ask the Minister and the Department to provide the clarity needed as we go into the Committee Stage of the Bill.”
“As the Bill moves into Committee Stage, that period will have to be looked at carefully, particularly in the context of placing the needs of the child first. Is there more that could be done to streamline the process to ensure that the child is receiving the assistance and support that he or she needs more quickly? <BR /> <BR />One of the major problems to date has been levels of inconsistency in policy across the five boards. Hopefully, that will be eradicated as a result of the creation of the Education Authority. That pre-existing inconsistency caused greater confusion and, in some cases, higher expectancy. The movement towards consistency will undoubtedly encounter similar difficulties. <BR /> <BR />The Bill brings into legislation rights for children and young people that previously rested with their parents or carers.”
“It is difficult to make an assessment of that from the Bill and, while there is a proposed reduction in the waiting period from 29 days to 22 days, following the decision of the board to undertake a statutory assessment, it appears rather arbitrary simply to reduce it by seven days. Why not reduce it to 14, seven or no days? That period is to allow parents to make representations about whether or not they are content for an assessment to take place, but it is a concern where parents are not willing to engage when the child has a clear need. A reduction of seven days merely tinkers around the edges when one considers that the average length of time for the assessment of a child is six months.”
“In saying that, we are seeing cuts to the very bodies that identify and remediate those needs and the Department is not creating a supportive environment. We can pass all the legislation we want, but unless adequate funding is in place for the purposes of diagnosing, supporting and addressing those needs, it will seem that we are merely shuffling those proverbial deckchairs. <BR /> <BR />The weighty, over-bureaucratic and lengthy statementing process is ripe for reform, but the question that must be asked and fully investigated is how the Bill proposes to sort out that problem.”
“That is an unsatisfactory situation, and while I support the general principle of the Bill, in that I recognise the real need for the reform of SEN in Northern Ireland, I will need clear direction from the Department about what will come next. It will be no good if the Bill merely moves the deckchairs on the Titanic. Its purpose and outcome must be to address the needs of children. <BR /> <BR />The number of children who need assistance is increasing; the Department's statistics are a clear indication of that fact. That may be down to good work in identifying and diagnosing, but we must assume that the Bill is about moving forward and improving the provision for children with special educational needs.”
“It is hoped that, during the anticipated Committee Stage, the Department will fully disclose all the planned ramifications for statementing and all the other parts of the SEN framework. As Chair of the Committee, I am concerned about the absence of clarity and the balance of the Bill. I would like to hear reassurance from the Minister that my concerns and those of stakeholders will not simply be brushed aside. <BR /> <BR />I would now like to add a few words as my party’s spokesperson on education. A major problem hangs over the Bill, and I am concerned about the absence of detail in the absence of the secondary legislation that will flow from it. The Chamber is being asked to take a leap in the dark.”
“While the debate is about the principles of the SEND Bill, it is timely to reference the balance between the primary legislation that is before us, the anticipated secondary legislation, and the consequent impact on the statutory SEN code of practice that the House might not see until the next mandate. It is difficult for us to debate the principles of the Bill when its impact cannot be fully set out and cannot yet be fully understood. It will be even more difficult to put the Bill through its amending stages without that clarity. <BR /> <BR />The Committee may also struggle to accept the very wide-ranging regulation-making powers that the Department is seeking in the Bill.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Bill also proposes changes to the appeals mechanism for SEN. In particular, an independent mediation service has been proposed, and I expect that the Committee may take the view that the intervention of a trusted and informed third party may prove to be a boon to would-be appellants and might help them to resolve disagreements more efficiently and effectively. The Committee will, of course, wish to study the detail and, in particular, the relevant regulation-making powers that the Department seeks. <BR /> <BR />I have mentioned the lack of clarity and the absence of the anticipated secondary legislation a number of times.”
“My experience and, I am sure, that of other school governors in the Chamber, is that obligations on schools and even the education and library boards are all very well. However, to make a difference, appropriate support and guidance will be required for SENCOs, teachers and school leaders. Statutory agreements between the Education Authority and the health and social care trusts will also be needed. <BR /> <BR />The Committee welcomes the work that has done in improving teachers’ SEN capacity. It has also noted the ongoing reviews of the multidisciplinary support teams and the allied health professionals. Members look forward to a standardised regional SEN support service, which will give more certainty to parents and children on the help that they can expect to receive.”
“I understand that a similar pilot scheme has been completed in another jurisdiction and that almost identical legislation has been passed elsewhere. That being the case, I anticipate that the Committee may well feel that the Department should simply study the results in those other places and seriously evaluate whether these pilot schemes provisions are actually necessary at this time. <BR /> <BR />The Bill also places obligations on boards of governors and on the Education Authority in respect of special educational needs. I am a member of a number of boards of governors, and I declare an interest at this time in respect of my membership on the boards of governors of Castle Gardens Primary School in Newtownards, Killinchy Primary School and Nendrum College in Comber.”
“In line with international accords and new legislation in other jurisdictions, the Bill will require relevant authorities to have regard to the views of the child in respect of SEN provision. There is also a requirement to undertake a pilot project to allow for appeals and claims by children below compulsory school age. Additionally, children and young people above compulsory school age will acquire rights that previously resided with their parents or carers. <BR /> <BR />The majority of Committee members may well wonder about the value of much of this. Obviously, we all want children to get the best start in life through a good education. I am not sure, however, that these proposals will significantly change that. I suspect that they might entertain lawyers and, more worryingly, add to the general Department of Education bureaucracy.”
“However, I note that the Bill before us only reduces the timescales for parents' participation in the statement assessment process. I understand that other changes will be made in secondary legislation affecting the Education Authority, the overall idea being to simplify and speed up the whole process. These aspects of the Bill and the other anticipated changes to secondary legislation, which I understand are to deal with statementing, appear to be well-intentioned, though, in the absence of the necessary detail, it is not completely clear. <BR /> <BR />As well as statementing and changing the role, qualifications and title of the special educational needs coordinator (SENCO), the Bill intends to do a number of other things.”
“The boards have also struggled with the interface with the health and social care trusts, which provide many of the supporting services. The Committee has previously taken evidence about the unsatisfactory relationship between Health and Education and will do more work on this in the coming weeks. <BR /> <BR />At one time or another, most MLAs will have been contacted by constituents with problems relating to obtaining a statement of special educational needs for a child, the content of such a statement, or the nature of the SEN provision. It is self-evident that the statementing process is complex, confusing, overly bureaucratic and, therefore, ripe for reform, as referred to by the Minister. Ideally, that reform will lead to a welcome reduction in some statementing timescales.”
“<BR /> <BR />So, what is going on in our schools? Certainly, some of this increase is down to an improved capacity in schools to identify and correctly route children with SEN. This improvement is a positive thing. If the issues that prevent or limit our children's access to the curriculum are caught early and addressed, this is very much to be welcomed. There have been a number of excellent programmes: Sure Start, community education initiatives, and the extended schools programme. It is also worthy of note that all of the above and some SEN budget lines have been cut back in the 2015-16 Department of Education budget. This is disappointing in the context of what we are dealing with today. The growth in demand for SEN support services has placed a considerable burden on the budgets of the education and library boards.”
“The Minister has helpfully set out the content of the Bill and referenced the relevant context. During the debate, we may well hear more about the latter than the former. I am sure that Members will share a great deal of detail regarding the numbers involved and a lot about the importance of special educational needs provision. The numbers are quite stark. The Department’s most recent figures show an increase in the number of children with special educational needs from around 16% of the school population 10 years ago to 22% now. Those figures mean, incredibly, that there is a total of 73,000 children with special educational needs, of which about 16,000 have a formal statement. A recent report also showed that the number of pupils presenting with autism spectrum disorder has increased by 67% in around five years.”
“On 18 February, the Department provided an update briefing on what is now the Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) Bill. The Committee has received further written clarification from the Department. Members are looking forward to more extensive departmental briefings after Easter, assuming of course that the Bill proceeds as expected today.”
“I will speak initially as Chair of the Education Committee and later as an MLA. <BR /> <BR />The Committee received briefings on the special educational needs and inclusion consultation about two and a half years ago. A significant number of concerns were identified by stakeholders, and those manifested themselves in a sometimes lively exchange between them and the Department.”