Inquiry into the Education and Training Inspectorate and the School Improvement Process

Committee Business – in the Northern Ireland Assembly at 11:45 am on 17 June 2014.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of John Dallat John Dallat Social Democratic and Labour Party 11:45, 17 June 2014

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to two hours for the debate.  The proposer will have 15 minutes in which to propose the motion and 15 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech.  All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

Photo of Mervyn Storey Mervyn Storey DUP

I beg to move

That this Assembly approves the report of the Committee for Education on its inquiry into the Education and Training Inspectorate and the school improvement process [NIA 132/11-15]; and calls on the Minister of Education to implement the recommendations contained in the report.

The inquiry into the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) and the school improvement process is the second inquiry that the Education Committee has undertaken in this mandate.  Members received written submissions from around 60 stakeholders and undertook around 17 oral evidence sessions.  There were two informal events and a school visit, and we spent about half of the present session of the Assembly considering and deliberating on the evidence.

I take the opportunity at the outset to thank the many witnesses to the inquiry, including schools, principals, teachers, academics, district inspectors, associate assessors and representative organisations.  I also want to thank the Department, in particular the Education and Training Inspectorate, for its responses and cooperation.  As Chairperson of the Committee, I also express my gratitude to the other members of the Education Committee for their enthusiasm and hard work throughout the inquiry.  Finally, I pass on, on behalf of the Committee, our thanks to the staff of the Education Committee, particularly our Committee Clerk and his staff, for organising the evidence sessions and for compiling what, I believe, has turned out to be a longer than expected report.  Their hard work and diligence on the matter is very much appreciated, and I want to place on record that thanks today.

It is a long report, with a smaller than usual number of findings and recommendations, and I want to take a little time to highlight a few of the issues to the House.  First, and for the avoidance of doubt, let me be very clear that the members of the Education Committee, separately and collectively, agree that professional inspection of the effectiveness of our schools is a good idea.  The concept sits very well with the values of the teaching profession, which quite rightly sees itself as being reflective, striving for improvement and focusing on delivering the best educational experience for all our children. 

Members agreed that inspection, as intended in the Every School a Good School policy, usually provides some useful direction for schools on their improvement journey.  So, inspection is clearly a good thing.  However, it is equally clear that simply and repeatedly inspecting our schools will not in itself make them any better.  Imagine if a teacher had a child who is underachieving in the school.  Simply telling that child repeatedly that their attainment is inadequate or unsatisfactory will not, on its own, make the child any smarter or make their performance any better.  The child needs to be helped and properly supported.  As it is with children, so it is with schools.

The Committee has heard before about significant reductions in the Curriculum Advisory and Support Service (CASS) for schools and the adverse impact that it has on school improvement.  Members were, however, disturbed by suggestions from witnesses to the inquiry that some sectors were considerably better off than others in that regard.  I think that that, if true, is unfair and makes no sense whatsoever.  I also think that that was not the intention of the Every School a Good School policy.

The Committee's first recommendation is therefore for proper support for school improvement services.  The Committee also recommends a stronger alignment between inspection and support, as is currently the practice in Scotland.  This will ensure that there is, as the OECD recommended, a balance between the challenge provided by the inspectors to schools and the support that schools must have if they are to improve. 

The Committee, when taking evidence, was greatly struck by the very different perceptions of the Education and Training Inspectorate.  To be sure, inspection is an uncomfortable process and will, from time to time, lead to difficult exchanges and even some ill feeling, particularly if inspection results are poorer than a school expects.  That ill feeling may explain some of the negative evidence submitted to the Committee. That said, the very great differences in schools’ experience and the mass of associated evidence cannot be so easily explained.  It is on that point that I want to digress for one moment.  I trust that the inspectorate does not see the report as an attack but as a genuine attempt by the Education Committee, and those who collectively make it up, to reflect the genuine concerns and fears of many schools about the process.  A simple dismissal,  "We do not recognise that fear exists", is not acceptable and does not face up to the realities.

Why does the inspection experience vary so much?   That is a question that we need answers to.  There are a number of reasons.  By way of context, let me briefly explain one of them:  area planning and its impact on inspection.  I can advise the House that it appears to be widely believed by schools that a bad inspection report can lead to a significant reduction in parental confidence and, therefore, enrolment.  That, in turn, it is argued, can make a school unsustainable and even lead to its closure.  It appears that the area-planning process, with its focus on the sustainability of schools, has had quite a lot to do with the new context for school inspections.  I will not comment on the process itself, but what I will say is that area planning has certainly altered perceptions and raised the stakes for schools during the inspection process. 

The question then is what is to be done?  The Committee believes that, in the first instance, everyone must recognise that there is a new inspection landscape.  That said, inspection reports must, of course, continue to provide parents with a clear understanding of a school’s strengths and weaknesses.  However, that must be done in such a way that a school is not inadvertently misrepresented and, consequently, its sustainability unfairly undermined.

The Committee, therefore, recommends that the Department do away with the one-word summaries of school performance.  No longer should schools be labelled “unsatisfactory” or “inadequate”, or even “good” or “outstanding”.  Those descriptors misrepresent the breadth of educational experience in many schools.  They do a disservice to schools and can often inadvertently mislead parents into believing that a school is all good or all bad when that is simply not the case.

The Committee recommends a similar practice to that adopted in some other jurisdictions, where single-word descriptors are replaced by more meaningful text.  The Committee also recommends that two reports be produced for every school inspection.  There should be an internal formative document designed to help improvement, and it should be accompanied by a more summative publication, in the public domain, which will explain in plain English where a school is strong and where it needs to improve.  These reports should be free of coded references and jargon and clear enough for everyone to understand.  Therein lies a huge challenge for the current process. 

When I say "everyone", I really mean parents.  They are the key group in the school improvement process who, so far, have had limited or no opportunity to take part.  The Committee agrees with leading educationalists and the OECD report that the Department has missed a trick by not doing more to include parents.

Every email press release that the Department sends to the Committee carries a link to the Education Works campaign.  The campaign is designed to encourage more parents to get involved with their child's education.  The principle behind the campaign is endorsed by everyone.  It is therefore surprising that one arm of the Department promotes that message increasingly and another — the key delivery partner in Every School a Good School; the Education and Training Inspectorate — does not.  Indeed, ETI indicated that it has had almost no recent engagement with parents, other than through its inspection questionnaires.  As I said before, that does not make sense.  It is for that reason that the Committee recommends, in line with the OECD report, that a representative parental consultation platform be established.  That will, it is hoped, be the gateway through which many more parents get involved with and contribute to the school improvement process. 

During its deliberations, the Committee was also more than a little taken aback by the poor relations, incessant sniping and high levels of misunderstanding and frustration amongst education stakeholders.  It seems that relationships generally are in need of repair.  A good beginning would be for the inspectorate to have a complaints procedure that commands greater confidence.  A reformed procedure should admit the possibility of error or revision by ETI and allow for investigations to be undertaken, in some instances, by outside personnel.  That would go some way to improve relations, enhance perceptions and secure more buy-in for school inspection. 

A number of changes are proposed in the report, and I have mentioned some of those.  My colleagues on the Committee will explore the other changes during the debate, including the treatment of the value added by schools, the important role of the district inspectors, the promotion of self-evaluation and changes to the use of questionnaires.  The Committee agrees that all those changes amount to a new beginning for inspection and school improvement. 

A new beginning needs a new name.  The Committee for Education has therefore proposed a rebranding of ETI as the Northern Ireland Education Improvement Service.  The new name and brand would signal a break with the past and an explicit commitment to a two-way collaborative model of school improvement, which will combine inspection with adequate levels of support for schools. 

 

A majority of Members also felt that the linkage between the Department and the new school improvement service needed substantial change.  A majority of Members had concerns in respect of the relationship, or perceived relationship, between the Department and ETI.  Those Members felt that the Department had recently proved itself to be both immune to criticism and oblivious to good advice.  Examples of that are the implementation of the computer-based assessment process, levels of progression and the original proposals for the common funding formula scheme, to name but a few.  ETI, on the other hand, was perceived by some as simply being the enforcement arm of the Department. That sometimes widespread view tended to undermine the professional authority of the inspectorate's findings. 

What is required is a statutorily independent, professional organisation that can report, without fear or favour, in respect of all aspects of education policy.  A majority of Members want to see that role undertaken by the new Northern Ireland Education Improvement Service.  Those Members also want all communications between the new body and the Department to be transparent and understandable. 

This is the time of year when schoolchildren get their end-of-term report.  I am going to resist the temptation to boil down our 1,300-page report to a single word or simple throwaway catchphrase, like "must do better" or "needs improvement", however apt that might be in this instance.  Instead, I will say that the Committee believes that a reformed, rebranded and independent inspectorate will be more than capable of delivering a much-needed school improvement process.  The recommendations will address perception and trust issues and lead to a more collaborative relationship and productive outcomes for all.  As Chairman of the Education Committee, I therefore commend the report to the House. 

In conclusion, I want to make a few comments as a Member of the House and as the DUP education spokesperson.  The report, I trust, will not be yet another that sits on the shelves of the Department or in the Library of the House and ignored.

I believe that the issues in this report are far too important, particularly for the schools that are involved and for the pupils who attend our schools.  I have no doubt that, given their professionalism, the district inspectors, associate inspectors and all engaged in the inspection process will, if given the opportunity, be able to respond to this report in a way that is positive and which will lead to improvement.

I give this very simple warning, however, let it not be said that this was just another day at the Northern Ireland Assembly.  Let us all, collectively, work together to see the implementation of this report and the introduction of the Northern Ireland improvement service.  Then, I believe, collectively with parents, teachers, schools, the Department and the inspectorate, we will continue to deliver and ensure the best possible outcomes for our pupils.

This week, I have two pupils from Ballycastle High School with me on work experience.

Photo of Mervyn Storey Mervyn Storey DUP

That school and its pupils want improvements to be made for their benefit.

Photo of Christopher Hazzard Christopher Hazzard Sinn Féin

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.  I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Committee's report this afternoon.  I want to put on record my thanks to the Committee staff for their steadfast and professional support throughout the process and to all those individuals, organisations and interested parties who participated in the witness sessions.  I also thank the schools that hosted the Committee as it explored the merits of self-evaluation and the school improvement process.

Looking through the report, we can see the vast number of areas where the Committee has identified issues and recommended some very interesting points of action.  Indeed, some of the highlights include increased support for struggling schools; alterations to the format of inspections, including the use of what some, including the Chairperson, have termed "plain English"; and looking at the role of parents in the overall process to give them a platform to become more active and informed. The Chair talked about the renaming of the inspection body to capture the culture of self-improvement in the education system as a whole.  There is also the unique dynamic of Irish-medium education in a full immersion setting, which requires a specialised inspection process.

I want to focus on recommendation 16, which is to do with the statutory independence of the inspection body.  The Sinn Féin members of the Committee have argued for some time that this recommendation does nothing but put the horse before the cart.  How can we seriously stand here today and recommend that the inspectorate be independent but, in an effort to determine whether this status is desirable, we should afterwards carry out research?  We think that that is crazy.  No Minister would ever give serious consideration to such a predetermined recommendation.  Indeed, I regret the fact that our report includes such a recommendation, as I feel that it downplays the significance of some of the others.

We have absolutely no theoretical or ideological opposition to an independent inspectorate; indeed, an independent inspectorate may be preferable moving forward.  However, as I have outlined in the report, we suggest that evidence-based research should be undertaken prior to a decision either way on independence.  It is important to stress that, during our inquiry, we received no evidence that supported an independent inspectorate.  Moreover, the governance of the inspectorate was not included in the terms of reference for the inquiry.  Occasionally, the question was put to witnesses regarding their perspectives on independence, where some offered thoughts on the way forward.  Many stressed, however, that it was an issue that they had not considered in any great detail before offering some initial thoughts.

Photo of Mervyn Storey Mervyn Storey DUP

Will the Member give way?

Photo of Mervyn Storey Mervyn Storey DUP

Does the Member not accept that the submission made by the NIPSA representatives — we never got a satisfactory answer from the Department or the inspectorate as to the interference or the changes that were potentially made to reports — clearly indicated that something was going on to which someone has still not put their hands up?

Photo of Christopher Hazzard Christopher Hazzard Sinn Féin

I thank the Member for his intervention.  There is a line in the report that says that there was absolutely no evidence collected to support any accusations made.  Indeed, in the very same week that it was suggested we should replicate the independence of Ofsted, the Education Minister at Westminster, Michael Gove, sacked Sally Morgan, the head of Ofsted, many believed, for no reason other than her political affiliation as a Labour peer.  The question remains:  how is that independent?  Are those who seek an Ofsted model of governance content for the Minister to be able to sack at will the so-called independent head of an inspectorate?

There are at least a dozen fundamental questions that need to be addressed before settling on the preferred governance standing, including who will fund any such independent body; who will appoint members of such a body; and who will hold those members to account.  Those are the sorts of questions that need to be answered long before we can seriously agree on the governance status of any future inspectorate body.  It is surely more logical to research and evaluate a range of governance options as we move forward, and to defer any consideration in respect of statutory independence until such work has been completed. 

For that reason, a Cheann Comhairle, I cannot support the motion, which calls upon the Minister to implement all of the recommendations that are contained in the report.  Go raibh maith agat.

Photo of Seán Rogers Seán Rogers Social Democratic and Labour Party

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion.  A number of factors influenced the Committee's decision to conduct the inquiry.  They include the Department's attempt to enhance the ETI's powers, concerns that were expressed about the high stakes of the nature of inspections and the apparent lack of consistency in the measurement of value added.  I will address the debate purely from a schools perspective.  I suppose that, at the outset, I have to say that my experience of inspections, both as a teacher and as a school leader, was positive, but I have met many for whom it was a different story. 

I believe that the Department and the Education and Training Inspectorate need to learn lessons from the report.  Lesson one:  it is not the inspectors who deliver school improvement, but the leaders and teachers in schools.  Again, I pay credit to them for their dedication and hard work.  An inspection can, however, assist the school improvement process if, first, the staff and governors have confidence in the process, have ownership of the findings and believe that they are valid.  The district inspector plays a vital role in developing that trust.  It is a very important but challenging role.  I believe that there should be two reports:  a short report for public consumption and a more detailed report which could feed into the school's development plan in order to drive further improvement.  The majority of schools support the idea that there should be more practising principals and teachers on inspection teams.  There should also be a more transparent complaints procedure.

Secondly, schools must have the resources available to effect improvement, bearing in mind that there are many factors that influence school and student performance, including the home learning environment and the quality of early years and previous education.

Thirdly, staff must be motivated to drive change.  The ETI is very quick to say that it is not its responsibility to provide support.  Instead, we have to depend on a depleted CASS service.  Classroom teaching and leadership are key to school improvement, but we must bear in mind a recent ETI report which suggests that over half of lessons are not very good or better and that, across the sectors, management needs improvement in 22% of primary schools and 39% of post-primary schools.  Quite bluntly, there is little high-quality staff development available, even if schools could afford it. 

Take something like schools' self-evaluation — a must if we are ever going to develop school inspections into a quality assurance process.  It is probably 20 years since I first organised a school's self-evaluating conference, but that process is still not well enough embedded in all of our schools because, I believe, the necessary expertise is not there to deliver it.  There is a lot of expertise in our team of inspectors.  However, apart from some good examples, they have not got the time to disseminate that good practice.  There is some excellent work out there — special education comes to mind.

We need to see school support services and school inspection processes being more closely aligned.  The language that is used in inspection reports is extremely important.  We need to change language like "inadequate" or "unsatisfactory".  Words like that do nothing to motivate people. 

The second lesson is that inspections should be data-informed, not data-driven.  I was very taken by a principal of a school where up to 80% of the pupils were on free school meals.  Its inspection was going very well until it was compared with end of Key Stage assessments.  That was devastating for staff.  The ETI could walk away after the inspection, but it was the principal and the senior management team who had to pick up the pieces among a totally deflated staff.  The ETI does not see the aftermath.  Even when an inspection goes well, stress builds up, and heads see an increase in sickness absence after an inspection.

The ETI tells us that the data is only part of the picture, but it seems to drive everything else.  In some cases, when the data is suspect, as is the case with end of key stage assessments, numerical targets simply inhibit improvement.  We need a more holistic assessment of a school's performance.  How can you use the same measure at the end of Key Stage 4 for students who were getting straight As at 11 and those from another post-primary school who were barely able to read?

Maybe there is just one lesson for us all here, —

Photo of Seán Rogers Seán Rogers Social Democratic and Labour Party

— and that is to listen to our teachers.

A professional, independent, broadly based, balanced inspection of schools is an essential component of school improvement.

Photo of Seán Rogers Seán Rogers Social Democratic and Labour Party

I finish by recording my thanks to the Committee staff and all those who took the time and effort to contribute.

Photo of Jo-Anne Dobson Jo-Anne Dobson UUP

I very much welcome the opportunity to join Members here today as the Committee presents the results of its inquiry into the Education and Training Inspectorate.  Since we launched the inquiry back in June last year, we have taken considerable evidence from over 60 varied and distinguished organisations and individuals.  That evidence and assistance have been invaluable to the Committee in arriving at what, I believe, is a balanced and sensitive approach to the subject but one which recommends action rather than inertia.

At the very outset, I join other Members in stating my gratitude to the Committee Clerk and staff for the work they conducted throughout the inquiry; work that has been invaluable to Committee members.

During our evidence sessions, I am glad that we were able to clear up that the central reason for inspections in our schools is the pupil, not the bureaucratic process, the teachers, the buildings or the parents.  Pupils must remain central.

The measure of any successful inspection should be the action that follows it.  If areas for improvement are identified and there is no improvement, there is little point in an inspection taking place in the first place.  Therefore, I believe that one of our key recommendations to provide additional support to help struggling schools to undergo a programme of improvement is entirely correct.

The process of communicating the results of inspections is also absolutely key.  If parents are not able to fully understand the results of an inspection carried out at their child's school, that needs to be improved upon.  Striking a balance is critical for staff and parents alike.  It would be wrong to have an over-simplistic portrayal of the school's performance, nor would it be correct to publish an over-complex inspection report.

We must recognise that engagement with parents also has to improve.  An answer to a question that I asked during the session in which we took evidence from the ETI officials sticks in my mind.  I was told that the process of engaging in evening meetings with parents at a school due to be inspected had been discontinued some years back by the inspectorate because the turnout was so small.  The reason given was this:

"it simply was not worth the resource."

The inference was that it was somehow the fault of the parents for not turning up to the evening meetings, rather than a failure on the part of the inspectorate to effectively communicate with parents.

Inspectors must begin the process of greater and more innovative connection with parents. That will strengthen the value of the inspection process overall.  Inspections have to become more about the end product and the result rather than the process.

As I bring my remarks to a close, I once again praise the Committee staff for their hard work.  I believe that they have come up with a radical report, which suggests reforms that, if implemented, will make a real difference to our schools and our pupils.  Teachers and principals must no longer see inspections as threats but, rather, as opportunities for improvement in the education of our children.  That will mean a change in mindset, which, I believe, will and must come sooner rather than later.

I urge the Assembly to support the report and the Minister to act on its recommendations for the sake of every single pupil in Northern Ireland.

Photo of Trevor Lunn Trevor Lunn Alliance

I am glad to contribute to today's discussion.  The report has taken a long time to produce.  I do not think that we expected to spend six months on it, but it seemed to develop a life of its own.  I do not want to be disrespectful, but we seemed to turn over the odd stone and then had to investigate a bit more what was under it. In no particular order, I thank the staff, in particular Peter McCallion, who is with us today, for managing to draw together a mass of evidence into a cohesive report that I encourage everybody to study, particularly the inspectorate.

Most people agreed that an effective school inspection system was a desirable thing.  I thought that there would be some doubt about that, but that came through loud and clear.  At least, in that respect, we are not going to follow the Finnish model, where they do not appear to have inspections at all.

The nature of inspections came in for some discussion and scrutiny.  Should they be based on the present model of two or three days?  Should they be announced two or three weeks in advance, or should they be unannounced?  A body of opinion and the evidence that we got favoured unannounced inspections, and, frankly, I would, too.  At least it has the effect of removing the enormous stress for the principal and staff of preparing for an inspection.

Another thing that came through — others have mentioned it — is the disparity between the experience of the inspectorate and how it views inspections and, dare I say it, the victims — that is, the staff and the principal in the schools — who definitely take a different view.  As far as the inspectorate is concerned, the inspections are helpful, cooperative, supportive and non-confrontational.  They are kind of an arm-around-the-shoulder, touchy-feely, helpful exercise that everybody will benefit from, and the staff and principals will be kept apprised of what is going on at all stages right through the inspection and receive a helpful report afterwards.  I think the staff see it differently.  They see them as stressful and critical, with no real recognition given, particularly no recognition of the value that schools have managed to add in the course of their year's work, perhaps in difficult circumstances.

We took evidence from one school principal who came to talk to us.  I will not name the school because I do not think that it is named in the report, but it is a primary school in a difficult area of north Belfast.  There are paramilitary influences, and there are a lot of problems with truancy, absenteeism and parental failure to encourage their children.  Over a number of years, the school had managed to improve gradually the situation of the pupils. When the inspectors came and did their inspection, the principal's comment was that, if he had been given a satisfactory rating, he would have challenged it, because he thought that the school was better than that.  He thought that the improvement that the school had generated deserved better than that.  The school got an unsatisfactory result, which was absolutely devastating for the staff, for him and for the pupils.  It just floored them.  The appeals process does not seem to cater for that.  Appeals are not successful.  There is a recommendation in the report that we should have a more structured appeals procedure, and I agree absolutely with that.  It should be an appeal to a body that has nothing to do with the ETI or the Department.

The independence of the inspectorate kept coming up.  I support the recommendation that it should be independent of the Department.  I wish that somebody would explain to me — perhaps the Minister will have a go at it — what the rationale is for the inspectorate being part of the Department, to put it around the other way.  It cries out to me that it should be an independent body.  As far as renaming it is concerned, at least it would put a different emphasis on the thing and perhaps draw a line under the past. 

I am running out of time. On the Irish-medium sector and the immersion part of it, the fact that inspectors who cannot really speak Irish go into Irish-medium schools kind of defeats the object, does it not?  That needs more resources and a proper recognition of what the Irish-medium sector is trying to do.  It is an insult to the sector that the inspectorate cannot —

Photo of Trevor Lunn Trevor Lunn Alliance

— provide an Irish speaker to inspect an Irish-medium school.  I will have to stop there.

Photo of Jonathan Craig Jonathan Craig DUP

I start by declaring an interest as a member of two boards of governors, one of which has had major interaction with the inspectorate for the past couple of years.  I am like a lot of Committee members — bar one, I think — in that I am one of the few people who, unfortunately, has had experience of the inspectorate.  That experience has been good and bad.  When I look at the school that the inspectorate came into, I see the positives and benefits of its coming in.  There is definitely an atmosphere of staff being more focused on specific issues, which is one of the big benefits.  The inspectorate clearly expanded the school's use of data and pupil tracking, and it greatly raised the focus on pupil profiles as a tool for seeing how a child's ability increases throughout his or her school life, which is of great benefit.  The inspectorate has also led the school to review its entire curriculum.  Once you understand how children are improving or not improving, you have an indication of what they are best suited to educationally. 

All of that is very good stuff, and I cannot complain about the fact that, last year, the inspectorate saw that school as one of the most improved in the Province when it came to academic achievement.  Those are all the good things that came out of the inspectorate going in and changing what was happening in schools.  Aligned with that, however, are the downsides, the things that I do not believe the inspectorate gets right.  First, it comes in and takes a snapshot of what is going on.  It does not sit down with the key players in the school and allow them to explain what progress has been made and how the school is attempting to do some of what it will eventually implement anyway.  I can give a simple example.  The inspectorate criticised the school for not having a head of maths. In fact, the inspection interfered with and stopped the process of interviewing for that very post.  Then, they had the cheek to criticise the school for having no one there.  They do not really interact with the staff and senior management of the school on what plans are in place to improve on some of the issues that it ends up criticising it for.

The use of anonymous surveys is highlighted in the report, and I fully support the point made.  My experience is that anonymous staff surveys, in particular, give a platform to those who have not achieved or advanced in the school and feel aggrieved.  All you get from those individuals is negativity, which you would expect because nobody likes not being the winner in an interview.  I like the fact that the report clearly identifies that as a major issue in how the inspectorate should operate.

The language used in the reports is highlighted at, I think, section 7 of the recommendations.  I do not think that any member of the Committee had an issue with the main body of inspection reports. The problem is that no one ever reads that.  The press definitely do not read it; they look at the end of the report and at the language used in the conclusion.  That is what does critical damage to the reputation of any school. I welcome the fact that our recommendations say that more moderate language should be used throughout all reports.

Running centrally through all of this is the fact that everybody agreed that there should be independence for the inspectorate.  I find it hard to believe that the Minister would fight against independence for the inspectorate while his party —

Photo of Jonathan Craig Jonathan Craig DUP

— fought for the independent oversight of the police.  That is hypocritical.

The debate stood suspended.

The sitting was suspended at 12.30 pm.

On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Beggs] in the Chair) —