Debate contribution: Integrated Education: Fresh Start Funding for Capital Projects

Debate contribution by Mr Eóin Tennyson on 12 March 2024.

MLA

Mr Eóin Tennyson

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

12 March 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Integrated Education: Fresh Start Funding for Capital Projects

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4267170

Read the official Assembly record

Text

The Good Friday Agreement contained a promise to "facilitate and encourage integrated education" as an:

"essential aspect of the reconciliation process".

Over 25 years on, there are 71 formally integrated schools and colleges, representing just 6% of Northern Ireland's education settings and encompassing 27,000 children. That modest growth is extraordinary, given that it has been almost entirely parent, pupil, and teacher led. While communities have come together to set up integrated schools or to seek to transform their local school, not a single integrated school has been proactively planned for by government. Indeed, in 2013, a court found that the Department was doing the opposite of its duty to facilitate and encourage integrated education. Integrated education is not just desperately needed, it is overwhelmingly wanted. Polling indicates that almost three quarters of parents believe that integrated education should be the norm, and a similar proportion would support their child's local school transforming to integrated status. We should embrace that demand and grasp the opportunity to make progressive change in our education system and across wider society. Indeed, the UK Government recognised that demand and the importance of integrated education in building a more shared and inclusive society when they committed to delivering significant funding for the integrated school estate in the Fresh Start Agreement. The effective cancellation of the remaining £150 million of funding is a retrograde step and a slap in the face for the schools that Members have referred to, which planned and made provision on the basis of the promise of that funding being honoured and delivered. It also represents a screeching U-turn in the rhetoric of the Prime Minister — mentioned by my colleague Nick Mathison — who previously said that educating our children together should be "the norm, rather than the exception". It is not the first time that the Tories have spoken out of both sides of their mouth when it comes to Northern Ireland, and it highlights again why the Minister's approach of simply relying on the UK Government to see the light is, unfortunately, unlikely to bear fruit. In recent years, the Integrated Education Act passed by the House placed additional duties on the Department of Education to aim to meet the demand for integrated education, as mentioned by Diane Dodds. In the intervening period, however, it seems that little has changed in the attitude of the Minister and his DUP colleagues who sit behind him, all of whom referred to the Act as an attempt to place one sector above all others. That could not be further from the truth. It is about righting a historical wrong and recognising the fact that the Department has mistreated the integrated sector by not proactively planning for and supporting it. I turn to a number of the comments that were made in the debate. I will speak first to the amendment, as proposed by Mr Butler. Mr Butler attempts to include shared education in the scope of the motion. The reason why it was not included in the motion is this: although Fresh Start was originally intended for shared and integrated education, the outstanding projects, which have business cases and planning approval and are in a state of readiness, are, overwhelmingly, integrated projects.

I may not have been here in 2014-15, but I can read, so I know what the Fresh Start Agreement says. As I have outlined, it made commitments to shared and integrated education; however, the projects, which would have relied on the remaining Fresh Start funding, that were taken out of the Department's major capital works programme are, by and large, integrated projects. That is an important distinction — the projects that are ready to progress are integrated. The Minister referred to 17 school projects. The funding available is £150 million, and it is simply not the case that that is sufficient to fund all 17. It is important that we are all honest about that. Cara Hunter raised concerns about inflation, and I agree. We have articulated to the Government that that commitment was made almost 10 years ago, and that should be reflected in any representations that are made. Cheryl Brownlee and Diane Dodds made comments about the fact that there are schools other than integrated schools that are, in fact, integrated. That is a misnomer. Yes, there is mixing across other sectors, but there is a very clear legal definition, which the House endorsed, of what an integrated school is. As we have all agreed, we need to be accurate about that. When we talk about integrated schools, we are talking about a very particular ethos. Mr O'Toole referenced the negotiations, and I know that what was agreed, what was not agreed and the openness and transparency around those is a hobby horse for Mr O'Toole. It is important that we set the record straight on that. The SDLP participated in negotiations from when they commenced until 13 December. I have a paper that was presented to all the parties on day 1 — it was 11 December — that makes reference to the UK Government's intention to re-profile existing funding streams. I sat beside Mr O'Toole at Hillsborough Castle on 12 December, and I do not recall him raising any concerns about Fresh Start or funding for integrated schools at that stage, unlike —.

I will.

I will be very clear. We received the paper on 11 December, and the SDLP also received it. Immediately, on 11 December, we wrote to the Secretary of State to express our concern about any attempt to re-profile existing funding, and we expressed specific concerns about integrated education and Fresh Start funding. Frankly, I would be embarrassed to be a member of the Opposition coming to the House decrying the situation when, actually, Back-Bench Members of Executive parties have done more due diligence and scrutiny on the issue. It is important that the Member accepts that, because some of his public commentary has accused us of doing otherwise.

I will, yes.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am conscious of time. I do not want to play politics with the issue, but, in fairness, the Member raised it, and I am responding to the points that he made. It is important to set the record straight on that. Gerry Carroll made comments about the pressures that Irish-medium education faces. I agree and understand the concerns that exist in that sector. The Minister made a number of comments. First of all, I commend him for his visits to all sectors in recent days. They have been incredibly welcome, but it is apparent that the Minister is perhaps a better marcher than he is a céilí dancer. That was reported very well in his visit to Dungannon, but, genuinely, I thank the Minister for his work on that. Where next steps are concerned, we are not simply coming to the Chamber to decry the position that we are now in. We want to be constructive and offer the Minister suggestions on the way forward. The motion notes the Minister's letter to the Secretary of State, which is welcome. However, that should not be the end of the road. We believe that there should be an engagement with the Finance Minister in order to seek a resource to capital switch to enable that money to be returned for its original purpose. That may not be entirely in the Minister's gift, but we could do it and seek to prioritise it. I am also aware that the Minister made reference to Strule and his intention to bid for money for it. I would appreciate it if the same priority were attached to those integrated projects that we referenced, which brings me back to Mr Butler's comments on Strule. This is in no way to be disrespectful to Strule; it is simply that Strule is not funded by the same mechanism. My colleague Kate Nicholl put it well when she talked about shared education not being the final destination. The Alliance Party is clear that we have a vision for a single education system. We have to be honest: we cannot maintain parental choice indefinitely and also seek to have a single education system; those positions are contradictory.

I agree about the management bodies. I am conscious of time. I will just say that shared education is about putting children from different community backgrounds in different uniforms. In some cases, if it is not managed well — some shared campuses do it very well —.

I commend the motion to the House and ask parties to unite around the issue.

1,434 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:48 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification