Daniel McCrossan
West Tyrone · Social Democratic and Labour Party · Northern Ireland
“I thank the Member for giving way. She has raised some points of interest. Aside from the Bill at hand, the Department of Finance currently collects rates from property owners across Northern Ireland. I have found that there can be difficulties with that when properties have been lying vacant for a significant period.”
“That applies in particular to those who have been land-banking over a period of time — that happens everywhere, unfortunately — with the hope that the big cash cow will be coming and, ultimately, they will be relieved of their responsibility to maintain, look after and enhance the landscape in a town or village by spending the necessary f…”
“As is often the case when we speak in the House, it may be that some ratepayers or members of the public will take it as a given that the Bill will be the silver bullet that will resolve the dilapidation issues in towns. Depending on which area you are in, the scale is very different.”
“We need to be creative in how we can put the Bill to task. <BR /> <BR />Certainly, as I have said, it is good policy. I have no question that the Bill is well intended.”
“<BR /> <BR />Addressing dilapidation is not simply a matter for local government in isolation. The responsibility lies with the Executive as a whole. The Executive have had their eyes closed to this matter for too long, and many of our buildings have deteriorated significantly across council areas over a long period.”
“That encourages private investment, and there is natural enhancement from those investors. However, in areas that lag behind because of economic decline, underinvestment and general deprivation, many towns and cities can quickly become the poor cousin.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,822 lines we hold for Daniel McCrossan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 20 of 37.
“As SDLP education spokesperson, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this important legislation, which was introduced by the Minister of Education. The SDLP supports the Bill, and, as stated earlier, we support its accelerated passage through the Assembly. It is vital that we do not miss the opportunity to enact the change, given that, unfortunately, it did not quite make it in 2014.”
“Hopefully, we will see a swift conclusion to the process, which will benefit our children.”
“I thank the Chair of the Committee for his intervention and wholly agree with his point. We are legislators. We are here to legislate to improve people's lives, and I have no doubt that this piece of legislation, like others that we have passed in the last two days, such as the Organ and Tissue Donation (Deemed Consent) Bill and the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill, is wholly positive and will have a positive impact on the lives of our citizens. That is why we are elected. <BR /> <BR />The Bill has certainly been a long time in the pipeline. I thank those who worked tirelessly to get it to this point, particularly the campaigners in Early Years, Sure Start, TinyLife and Belfast Mum. I also thank the Minister for progressing the Bill to this stage.”
“I welcome the Minister's proposals. The SDLP supports the Bill in principle and is satisfied and happy with the use of accelerated passage. We want to see the Bill progress as swiftly as possible, particularly given that it is unfinished business from 2014 when the then Minister, John O'Dowd, withdrew the legislation because there was not sufficient time to pass it prior to the 2015 Assembly election. We do not want to see that happening again. We have had reassurances from the previous Minister, Peter Weir, and the current Minister that everything that needs to be done will be done to ensure that the legislation is passed during this mandate. They have the SDLP's support to do so.”
“<BR /> <BR />I think, in particular, about the hard-working health care staff, our teachers, those who stood firm throughout the pandemic, toughed it out and worked hard to save lives, improve lives and help our children. When the going gets tough in this place, those in privileged positions of power walk away and sit at home. That has to end. People have had enough. They deserve better, and they demand better from this place and our politics.”
“After their performances this week, I can say that some members of the DUP would not have any difficulty in securing a job: they would be good in a pantomime — although no one would be laughing. Whilst they play games, people suffer incredibly. People on waiting lists are literally dying as we stand here. That is unforgivable and unjustifiable. <BR /> <BR />The DUP professes to speak for unionism. What about the people on waiting lists? What about the people who are worried about their children's education? What about the people from all walks of life who come to my office and tell me that they need strong representation on issues that matter to them? Where is the DUP on those issues? The legacy here is 15 years of failure — complete and utter failure. It is totally disgraceful.”
“<BR /> <BR />Members of the Assembly are elected to deliver, to lead and to show leadership in times of crisis and difficulty. That has, by far, been lacking in this mandate, more than in any other mandate since the institutions came about post the Good Friday Agreement. We had already had a stop-start to the mandate, with three years of an absent Executive, when waiting lists went through the roof and schools were suffering. Ordinary, hard-working people have paid the price. Now, we sit on the brink of an election with political stunt-playing by the DUP. <BR /> <BR />Make no mistake about it: this is about an election. It is not about a protocol; it is an electoral stunt. Quite simply, members of the DUP and the new leader are concerned more about seats than people.”
“I rise to reflect on the events of recent days and to echo in the House the real frustration that people feel. People are fed up. They are sick to the teeth of this place failing them. They are sick of the distraction politics that emanates so strongly from the DUP around the Assembly. They are disgusted, to say the least, that a First Minister and a party — the DUP — would make a call to withdraw from the institutions and resign from an important post of leadership simply because he and the party were not getting their way. Imagine if the British Prime Minister or the Taoiseach did not agree with something and simply said, "Well, I am resigning. I am going home. I am sitting in. Get on with it yourselves". It is an absolute failure and a huge abdication of that important position of trust.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. There is no stronger advocate for the environment than me or my colleagues in the SDLP, but it does not outweigh the value of human life. Many lives have been lost on the A5, and that, surely, is the higher priority.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. A key point is that, if Mr McHugh and I were neighbours, and I was building an extension to my house and Mr McHugh objected, his name has to be put to that objection. Therefore, I would know that Mr McHugh had objected. My concern about the process — I know that Mr McHugh will agree — is that we do not know who is objecting under the umbrella of the Alternative A5 Alliance. Surely, that is not in the public interest, nor is it transparent.”
“<BR /> <BR />The House has been divided on many things, but we are united on this. I ask the parties to reaffirm their commitment to seeing the road happen and to join me in appealing to the Alternative A5 Alliance to, please, withdraw from any future challenge and allow this vital and necessary infrastructure to go forward so that no more lives are lost. I give my thoughts and prayers to every family who have lost loved ones on that road, well beyond 2006. I pray every day for the safety of everyone who travels on it. It runs through the very heart of my constituency, and it is absolutely vital that we see it delivered. I thank the Minister, Nichola Mallon, for her continued commitment to it.”
“<BR /> <BR />As an elected representative for West Tyrone, I am not prepared to stand in silence and allow a small group to continue pursuing that agenda without a proper and full explanation of what they want. In the public interest and in the interests of transparency, we have a real situation. People are objecting, as is their right, but they are objecting under the group name "Alternative A5 Alliance". We do not know who those people are. We do not know what their agenda is; indeed, we do not know who is funding them. That is not representative of the many thousands of people who engage with me and other MLAs in the constituency who are desperate to see the road delivered or, indeed, the families of people who have to travel on that road every day, who are terrified that something might happen to their loved one.”
“Meet the parties; indeed, my colleagues in Sinn Féin, the DUP, the UUP, Alliance and my party, the SDLP, will meet anybody who has concerns about the road to see whether we can address them. We cannot allow a small minority group of individuals to continue to block this necessary and vital piece of infrastructure. <BR /> <BR />We need to see the A5 delivered in its entirety, but we also need the public to keep faith and keep with us. We are battling to see that road project fully delivered. We have a commitment from the Minister to see that happen. We need to ensure that we engage with those who are adamant that they will continue to put in challenge after challenge to see whether we can find a way through this. The road will not be stopped; it will happen. The difficulty with the delay is that more people will die.”
“I also ask them, if they have genuine concerns about that road, to please come and talk to elected representatives.”
“<BR /> <BR />Looking at the commitment of the parties in the Assembly, the commitment to the project that has been laid bare by the Executive and the financial commitments from the Assembly, the Executive and the Irish Government, you would wonder what is holding this up. There have been considerable legal challenges to the project over the last number of years. I am not here to give a lecture to the Alternative A5 Alliance, telling them how wrong they are. However, as an elected representative for West Tyrone, I appeal to them to think about their actions and consider the families who have lost loved ones on that road: the four families who lost loved ones in December, coming up to Christmas time and just after it, just last month.”
“I was with the family; I visited their home and attended the funeral. The great pain was very clear on those days. My thoughts and prayers are also with the families of Peter Finnegan, Petey McNamee and Nathan Corrigan. I attended the funeral of Peter Finnegan in Beragh, where there was great grief and sadness as well as frustration. <BR /> <BR />The project is a key priority for all parties in the Assembly. It is, indeed, a key priority for the SDLP and for the Minister for Infrastructure, Nichola Mallon. Consistently and for some time, we have been saying that the project needs to be delivered in its entirety to ensure that we have a road that is safe and fit for purpose, putting an end to the carnage and death on that road. I have long said that it is the most dangerous road on these islands. It needs to be addressed quickly.”
“I thank my constituency colleague Nicola Brogan for securing this important Adjournment debate. We can never be done with ensuring that this is put on record. This is a vital infrastructure project with the solid commitment of the Executive and, indeed, of all the parties. It has been a flagship project since it was announced as such in 2006 or 2007. <BR /> <BR />Forty-two lives have been lost. I have sat at the funerals of quite a number of those who have died since I took over as MLA in 2016; indeed, I attended the funerals of some of the lads who, sadly, lost their lives in December. Four young lives were lost on that road in December alone. Aaron Harkin died on the A5 at the far end of Strabane in early December. That caused huge devastation to his family and to the entire community.”
“I thank the sponsor for her intervention and clarification. My party will have further conversations about how we will proceed. However, in order to accept new clause 5A in its current form, we would need to be deeply satisfied that we could amend it to an extent that is acceptable to my party colleagues. Equally, I understand what the Bill sponsor says: if we were not to support new clause 5A at this stage, we could keep clause 5 and table an amendment to it to allow some shaping of what would exist under new clause 5A and go further than that. We could consider that as well. <BR /> <BR />Those are my comments at this stage. I thank the Minister and sponsor for their interventions and for providing clarification.”
“I thank the Minister for her intervention. Maybe the Bill sponsor will contribute on this as well, because it is important for our positioning on it. I am concerned at how limited we are in the amendment to the existing new clause 5A. I appreciate the Minister's seeking clarification. That is really where my concern is: we have to go forward with the wording and then amend that wording. I think that I am right in my understanding of that. If we go forward with that wording, I am concerned that that would weaken what the sponsor is trying to achieve. If we could amend that at Further Consideration Stage to give stronger support for the integrated education sector, I would be much more comfortable. Maybe the sponsor could provide further light on that. Do you want to come in now?”
“I am not sure that we are in that place. If we accept that wording, we would have to go forward with it and then amend it. That has caused some concern, certainly among my party colleagues. Maybe the Minister would consider withdrawing it with a view to bringing it back at Further Consideration Stage; I do not know whether that is possible. I think that the correct term is that she could "seek leave" to bring it back. I understand what is intended; I am just concerned that it does not provide enough safeguarding. We have accepted clauses 4 and 5 with a view to supporting new clause 5A and seeking amendment. Ultimately, if we were not satisfied with how that progressed, we would deal with it, but, unfortunately, there is a limit to that.”
“I believe that the integrated sector would benefit from such an arrangement, and I commend it to you all. <BR /> <BR />We have discussed amendment No 43, and the sponsor accepts where our concerns lie on it. She provided a great deal of clarity on that area. <BR /> <BR />I will go back to my initial remarks about clause 5(1)(a), which is where the basis of my concern lies. I would like to see us be in a place where that clause could be amended in order to provide greater safeguards.”
“<BR /> <BR />Clause 9 requires the Department to "prepare and publish" a biennial report on integrated education. It is appropriate that a report be produced regularly. The SDLP, therefore, fully supports those objectives. However, as the Department is the body with the duty to produce the strategy, it may be helpful from time to time to have a different body cast an outside professional and objective eye on how much progress has been made, otherwise, the Department would, effectively, always be marking its own homework, if I may use that phrase. <BR /> <BR />On amendment No 42, it is accepted best practice to sometimes commission a third party with appropriate capacity to prepare a report on a public body, which the Department would, of course, publish. That is the substance of the SDLP's amendment.”
“The resources that are available through the shared education programme, which are open to all integrated schools that enter into partnership arrangements, can be used for training and achieving the purposes of integrated education, as set out in clause 2. I draw attention to that because I am confident that all schools, not just integrated ones, already work towards those objectives. Furthermore, shared education programmes are already resourcing training programmes for staff, pupils and parents in other sectors. It would be excellent to see shared education being used more for arrangements such as those that are referred to in that clause. That would open up opportunities for significant resources to be deployed in order to bring diverse schools together in partnership. Only good can come from that.”
“Again, that is to be welcomed. We discussed amendment No 40, which is also to clause 8, with the sponsor recently, and we are satisfied with it. <BR /> <BR />I now come to amendment No 41. The whole rationale for the Bill is to create a level playing field for integrated education. The SDLP wholeheartedly supports that intention, as we always have and will continue to. However, the provision of the particular resources that are set out in clause 8(3)(f) creates a situation of advantage for one sector. That is where the criticism rests. We believe in equality. We want to see all our children being treated equally.”
“With that in mind, I propose that the word "identify" be replaced by "quantify". The resource needs that the strategy will require have not been quantified. That is surely the starting point, and it would give more transparency to the process. Once the strategy is produced, quantifying the need is the next logical step. That change of wording will facilitate a more robust resource-identifying process. Ultimately, it will facilitate the revising of the strategy and will make planning much more focused. <BR /> <BR />Bearing in mind what I have just said about amendment No 37, I propose, for exactly the same reasons, to add two words via amendment No 38: "identify respective". That is designed to improve focus and facilitate the taking forward of the strategy. In amendment No 39, Kellie addresses a concern that was raised by the Committee.”
“The Department has no additional resources available at this time, which implies that resources will possibly have to be diverted from other areas of the Education budget. Again, I know that that has caused some concerns in the House and that the sponsor is keen to alleviate those concerns in whatever way possible. A dilemma is presented to us in that we will have legislated without knowing the cost of the changes that will be imposed as a duty, nor will we know what other areas of education may be affected and by how much. The dangers of unintended consequences give us some concern, but we have expressed that to the sponsor in our continuing conversations, and we have sought some assurances.”
“<BR /> <BR />If the sponsor's amendment to clause 8 is made, the Department will be required to publish a strategy for encouraging, facilitating and supporting the provision of integrated education. It has been suggested that that will likely be costly, and the estimated costs that have been provided are limited in their scope. To her credit, the sponsor recognises that fact on pages 4 and 5 of the memorandum.”
“That said, the SDLP is a little concerned that the amendment may be interpreted in such a way as to be a little too restrictive to the cause of integrated education. We would not want the sponsor's amendment to unwittingly restrict the formation of integrated schools. Once again, we are in the realms of potential unintended consequences. That is why we seek clarification on that and propose it is tidied up. <BR /> <BR />While there should be no presumption of a new school, there may be occasions when it is the desire of some schools, in the circumstances listed in new clause 7(5)(a), (b) and (c), to become integrated. On those occasions, it would be unreasonable to interpret the phrase "does not include" to mean "forever excluded". Amendment No 28 was tabled with that in mind.”
“<BR /> <BR />In amendment No 27, Kellie has written new clause 7, which addresses the significant problems that the original clause threw up, namely that every new school would be presumed to be integrated with an associated lack of legal clarity about what constitutes a "new school". Clause 7, as originally written, proposed that every new school would be presumed to be an integrated school. In that guise, the clause raised some alarm and caused much disquiet amongst all the parties, particularly at Committee Stage. I note with great satisfaction the significant amendment to that by the sponsor, which promotes her willingness to listen, engage and change to ensure that concerns are taken on board.”
“In the world of education, two prominent ones are integrated schools and the shared education programme; indeed, it should be noted that the Bill sponsor borrowed heavily from the Shared Education Act 2016 when she was putting the Bill together. Again, we had discussions about that. Both approaches to bringing our communities together are commendable and are worthy of our support and encouragement. I do not believe that it would be the intention of anyone in the House to subordinate one of those pieces of legislation to the other. With that in mind, amendment No 26 has been tabled in the spirit of promoting equality of purpose as opposed to creating an issue.”
“That should significantly reduce the potential for legal challenges and will, consequently, benefit all schools, including integrated schools. Creating the potential for conflict in our education system, however inadvertently it is brought about, is not conducive to promoting community cohesion, which is one of the declared purposes of integrated education. <BR /> <BR />Our problem with clause 6, page 3, line 1, is similar to that outlined above. In the pursuit of peace and reconciliation and in our attempts to bring communities together, we have many programmes, policies and bodies that work in harmony and unity.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 25 acknowledges that the term "must include provision for" is too strong and goes well beyond the notion of enabling a level playing field. I propose that the bodies listed as "education bodies" in clause 13 are asked instead to "have regard to". That is a term that is well known in legislative circles, and consequently it has a helpful clarity of meaning. Furthermore, it gives the direction a strength of purpose similar to a departmental circular sent with the authority of a Minister. It is therefore not an instrument that can easily be disregarded. It also enables an element of operational flexibility to ensure that the statutory duties of those education bodies do not come into conflict.”
“The clause creates a conflict for CCMS in performing its statutory duties towards the faith sector that it was set up to serve. It also presents the EA with problems in how it fulfils its statutory functions and serves all sectors equally and without favour. CCEA has no duties to one particular sector: we have had that conversation with the Bill sponsor, and she has considered that point. Naming CCEA is unprecedented — I think that that is accepted — and goes well beyond the notion of creating a level playing field for integrated education. <BR /> <BR />I strongly place it on record that the SDLP is firmly in favour of a level playing field for integrated education. All the amendments that we have tabled are to that end, and the next amendment is no different.”
“I am not entirely comfortable with that at this point, so we will look at that as we progress through the group. <BR /> <BR />Clause 6 places duties on the Department, the Education Authority, CCMS and CCEA to include provision for integrated education in their strategies, plans and policies. The clause has created significant disquiet in a number of circles, and we have been alerted to the potential for legal challenges. Today, the debate has been had to provide clarity in that area, and there is a clear need to amend the clause in an attempt to avert the potential for any obvious or emerging legal problems that could arise.”
“I am delighted that we have got to group 3 and that we are finally discussing the amendments and the Bill. <BR /> <BR />We have had conversations on clause 5(1)(a) that, no doubt, will continue throughout the debate on this group, but we are not overly satisfied with the present wording. We have looked at it in detail to see whether and to what extent it is possible to amend it; indeed, I have had that conversation with the Minister and with the Bill sponsor. We have concerns about it, and it is not acceptable to us in its current form, so we are stuck on that clause. Greater safeguards need to be provided for the integrated sector, which currently are not there. I have been told that those can be added by an amendment, but, again, I am relying on that promise.”
“I ask Members to note that I refer to the Bill sponsor's proposed amendment when quoting those words. A strong commitment to integrated education is contained in all of that, and that is key to addressing the problem of insufficient places in some areas. Again, we continue to engage widely on that issue. We have been doing so throughout the process. I have outlined some of the concerns that we have. We expressed those to the Bill sponsor. Hopefully, we will get the clarification that we need before voting goes ahead.”
“Please bear in mind that the wording that precedes my suggested amendment in clause 5(1)(a) reads:”
“Many Members mentioned that in their contributions and will continue to do so. The approach in clause 5 could be considered as being too absolute. I venture to say that the solution to the problem of insufficient places for pupils who wish to attend integrated schools needs to be found in looking at how area planning operates, but not in the absolute way in which subsection 1(b) of that clause sets out. Instead, I propose that a robust method for gathering evidence of future demand in an area is formulated and fed into the area-planning process so that parental preferences can be taken into account. Appropriate provision will result from that. <BR /> <BR />The SDLP firmly believes in parental preference, and the amendment in my name is, to my mind, fair to all in that regard.”
“That is where we may encounter some difficulty. If we go back to clause 1, there is the clear understanding that, to be an integrated school, reasonable numbers of children from all backgrounds should be enrolled in that school. However, if there is no consideration at all for the religious demographics of the area under consideration, it could be problematic or even a contradiction in terms. We must consider the area when it comes to having reasonable numbers. Again, we have had that discussion at length with the Bill sponsor. What does "reasonable numbers" mean? There is a bit of uncertainty about that, and it needs to be probed further. <BR /> <BR />Likewise, we cannot totally ignore the number of spare places in existing schools when we are trying to ensure the efficient and effective use of resources at system level.”
“<BR /> <BR />In amendment No 21 to clause 5, the Committee Chair clearly outlines that there is a more measured and temperate way to approach meeting the needs of provision for demand for integrated education. I am content with that. <BR /> <BR />The Bill sponsor and I discussed amendment No 22 to clause 5 in detail, and we will continue to consider those conversations, particularly before voting commences today. <BR /> <BR />Clause 5 stands alongside clause 4, in that it defines "promotion" or, if the Bill sponsor's amendment passes, "support". For instance, the legal advice suggests that clauses 4 and 5 stand together and that the words used in clause 4 take the meaning that is given to them in clause 5. Clause 5 is, therefore, vital to our whole understanding of what promoting or supporting is.”
“<BR /> <BR />Through amendment No 18 to clause 4, the Bill sponsor addresses concerns that were raised strongly at Committee Stage. The intention of Jim Allister and the Minister is to remove clause 4 entirely. As a party, we have considered that at considerable length. We are of the view that that measure goes too far, and we will not be able to support it. <BR /> <BR />Through amendment No 19 to clause 5, the Bill sponsor addresses a concern that was raised strongly at Committee. Furthermore, in amendment No 20 to clause 5, the Bill sponsor puts forward a more measured and temperate approach to meeting the needs of provision for the demand for integrated education. Again, I thank the Bill sponsor for that.”
“I wish to ensure that everyone is clear that the duties imposed in the Bill are not seen as being superior to the duties already conferred in other legislation. To speak of "the duty" could therefore be interpreted as that duty taking precedence over other duties. We had that conversation with the Bill sponsor, and she has been very accommodating and has recognised the reasoning behind my amendment No 17. Put simply, that amendment to new section 2(3A) in the 2014 Act under clause 4 of the Bill seeks to ensure that there is no lack of clarity on the equality of legal duties. Our choice of words in the amendment adds clarity to the intention to make it "a duty" to stand alongside other duties, not on top of them or before them. Again, I appreciate the Bill sponsor's understanding in that regard.”
“If the Bill sponsor's amendments to clause 4 are accepted, there will be a duty placed on the Department of Education and the Education Authority to "support" integrated education, alongside their existing duties to encourage and facilitate it. <BR /> <BR />It is no secret that, throughout the process, I and others have raised concerns with the Bill sponsor at Committee level about particular drafting problems. That is our responsibility as legislators and as members of the Committee when we are scrutinising a Bill. Our responsibility is to seek as much clarification as possible and to ensure that that clarification is brought to the wording in order to minimise the prospects of any potential future legal challenge emerging.”
“The amendment is proposed in that spirit, and the Bill sponsor will most likely pick up on that when it comes to her time to respond. <BR /> <BR />The wording of amendment No 15 is self-explanatory. It simply sets out to determine the boundaries of the consultation concerning integrated education so that there is no problem with matters becoming cross-cutting. Since amendment No 10 and/or amendment No 12 will hopefully be made, I will no longer need to seek much clarity on that, but I would appreciate some outline from the Bill sponsor. <BR /> <BR />The declared intention of clause 4 is to amend the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 and the Education Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 to include a duty to "promote" integrated education.”
“of Education about integrated education. Without a doubt, such advice is necessary and will be helpful. I am therefore content to move in the general direction in which that clause leads. <BR /> <BR />We may need to establish some boundaries, however. My proposed amendment to clause 3 — amendment No 15 — is, again, a probing amendment, and it has been discussed with the Bill sponsor in recent days. We all know that preschool provision includes nursery and playgroup provision. Although nursery schools and units fall clearly within the remit of the Department of Education, playgroups operate through social services, which come under the Department of Health not the Department of Education. My concern is that there may be a cross-cutting aspect to the clause. There may therefore be a need to specify where the boundaries lie.”
“I am happy to debate the Bill further and discuss the various amendments in group 2. <BR /> <BR />I will start by outlining some of the points that we have raised. For instance, clause 3 as drafted will require the Department to consult a recognised body about any function that it exercises towards any such body that:”
“<BR /> <BR />That is a very quick outline of our positioning and rationale for some of our amendments. I have been open about some of them being probing amendments. Hopefully, the sponsor will kindly give us the necessary clarification. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the time to speak to them.”
“<BR /> <BR />Our amendment No 9 to clause 2 proposes to remove the wording of the clause and substitute it with a phrase that seeks to promote human rights instead. The Bill sponsor, Ms Armstrong, sought clarification on that today, and I appreciate that conversation. That purpose is perfectly in keeping with the other four purposes, and will impact positively on the curriculum and pupil outcomes in a similar way to the others. It will, therefore, bring consistency to the entire clause. The promotion of human rights is highly desirable and noble, and sits well beside all the purposes that are listed, especially the one on equality and diversity. It will also further enhance our desire to promote respect for identity and community cohesion, and is perfectly in keeping with the ethos of integrated education.”
“Therefore, that is a positive amendment and better reflects the position of many integrated schools at this particular time. <BR /> <BR />We have considered amendment No 7 and cannot support it, and the same applies to amendment No 8. Clause 2 sets out the five purposes of integrated schools. Our concern is that one purpose does not sit well alongside the others that are listed. Again, I seek clarification on that. The other four are about the delivery of elements of the curriculum in the school. Teaching would aim to promote certain outcomes in pupils in keeping with those four purposes; academic, social, moral, etc. On the other hand, the efficient and effective use of resources is a matter to be addressed at education system level.”
“Indeed, we are happy with the Minister's amendment to that — amendment No 6 — so we will spend a bit of time shortly looking at both. A combination of both amendments could probably be developed for the next stage of the Bill. Amendment No 5 is to clause 1, page 1, line 11 and amendment No 6 replaces the word "improves" in amendment No 5 with "advances", which is a better choice of word for the context. Again, the sponsor and I have engaged on that. For example, a new school would have nothing to improve, but it could still advance. That is the reason for that amendment. What is more, the idea of "improves" could be seen, in some contexts, as negative — for example, a school may be seen as lacking in some way — whereas the word "advances" has no such nuances; rather, it denotes taking the position forward in a positive way.”