Committee for Education

OFFICIAL REPORT (Hansard)

General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland: Mr Sam Gallaher

26 May 2021 NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY

Committee for Education

General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland: Mr Sam Gallaher

26 May 2021

Members present for all or part of the proceedings: Mr Chris Lyttle (Chairperson) Mr Pat Sheehan (Deputy Chairperson) Mr Maurice Bradley Ms Nicola Brogan Mr Robbie Butler Mr William Humphrey Mr Daniel McCrossan Mr Justin McNulty Mr Robin Newton

Witnesses: Mr Sam Gallaher General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland

The Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): I welcome Sam Gallaher, chief executive of the General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland (GTCNI). Can you hear us OK, Sam?

Mr Sam Gallaher (General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland): I can hear you. Can you hear me?

The Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): We cannot see you, but we can hear you clearly.

Mr Gallaher: Is that better?

The Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): Yes, thank you. Sam, we are extremely short of time today. We will give you an opportunity to make opening remarks before we take questions.

Mr Gallaher: OK. This situation is really concerning. I listened to the evidence from the chair and vice chair of the General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland. I agree with much of what the chair said. There is an issue in the organisation, which the Committee certainly identified and I outlined before, relating to regulation and the legislative framework. We regulate in a dynamic situation where case law changes all the time. The legislation therefore needs to keep up with that. When the regulations were developed in 2015 and applied to the GTCNI, those regulations and the approach to regulation, although I cannot comment on that, were probably sound. However, as we came to implement them, it was clear that case law and other legislation had changed and that, therefore, there was a need for us, on counsel advice, to change the approach that we were taking. The approach that we were advocating was not going to work. There is an issue around regulation that needs to be addressed. That is clear. However, on the other side of the organisation, in moving out of special measures, there

1 are quite clearly, given the resignations that occurred this week, issues within the council itself and with its operation. Those now impinge onto the operational side that I am happy to manage and deliver on. There are issues there.

On the road map out of special measures, there are issues that have come from internal audit reports. We know that we need to address and move forward on those. The way forward is relatively clear, however the operation of the council is a concern. That needs to be addressed and, hence, brought into the review.

From listening to the evidence, I know that there was a preoccupation with whistle-blowing. I am not party to the detail of those complaints, but I suspect that some of them will relate to matters that should really be addressed by the board or within the organisation itself. Playing up the situation by saying that it is really bad presupposes that the 112 complaints were all valid. I can only speak for the things that I have been asked to comment on and respond to the permanent secretary on. I responded to those, and the explanations that were given were accepted. That is all I can say, and I think that there may be an overemphasis on this whole idea of whistle-blowing.

There are three things from my point of view. The first is the regulatory side of the house and the legislative framework. The second, on the other side, is the functioning of the council itself to operate as a board should operate. I think that there are issues there. The third, in the middle, are the operational issues, reflected in our internal audit recommendations, that we need to take forward in our own processes and some of the areas in the way that we work in the organisation to move forward. Overall, the fact is that the board does not operate and its situation spills over into the organisation itself.

The Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): Thanks, Sam. So, there are regulatory, board functionality and operational issues that, as the Education Committee has heard, put children and young people at potential risk. Do you want to respond to that?

Mr Gallaher: I think that the answer to your question is much as it was the last time I gave evidence to the Committee. There are weaknesses in the regulatory framework in which we operate that mean that we cannot really regulate. If our powers, at the minute, are only to remove a teacher from the register and we cannot do that without fear of significant challenge and a high probability of failure, when we look down our current caseload, how many of those cases do you think would end up with somebody being suspended for life from the register? On the basis of the information that we currently have and without going into a full investigation process, the truth is that those numbers will be relatively small, I think, in relation to the number of cases. That does not mean that we do not do it.

On the other hand, are our other elements causing risk? If we had a range of sanctions, I would argue that situations would occur in day-to-day work in the teaching profession on which we might take a view in a regulatory capacity. Such situations would not warrant removal from the register for life but would be conditional registration or recommendation for training or supervision, which other regulatory bodies do. We do not have a range of sanctions to apply, so we only really regulate in the most severe cases. From what I can see from looking at our caseload, there is not a significant number of the most severe cases.

The Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): OK. It is helpful to understand the proportion and quantum. However, if there is one thing that the Education Committee will not accept, it is children potentially being at risk.

Mr Gallaher: Is there a risk? Yes, there is a risk at the minute.

The Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): How long will it take to address the regulatory, board and operational issues that appear to be creating that potential risk?

Mr Gallaher: The potential risk in the regulatory function is probably more to do with the legislation and the process. The key determining factor is the development, revision and implementation of new legislation. Once the nature of that legislation is known, we can put an approach to regulation in place, but the approach to regulation will probably be along the lines of the independent approach for which we have already advocated. That needs to be put in place in order to move forward. Ideally, as legislation is developed and you can see how it is happening, preparatory work could be done in tandem.

2 In answer to your question about the timeline, I can only repeat the advice that the Department has given us, which is that it could take up to two years to do it.

The Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): Is that an acceptable length of time?

Mr Gallaher: I would not say that the situation in which we find ourselves is acceptable, but it is what it is, unless the process can be short-circuited and the legislation introduced more quickly. That is my view. However, the legal advice that we have received from counsel is that an overhaul is needed in relation to the range of sanctions that are open to GTCNI and the power to implement an independent process to allow that to go forward.

The Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): OK. We have a maximum of three to four minutes per question per member. I will now bring in the Deputy Chairperson, Pat Sheehan.

Mr Sheehan: Thank you, Chair, and thank you for that, Sam. We have heard disturbing evidence today, and you have confirmed that there are potential safeguarding risks. You said the same thing the last time you were before the Committee.

I will touch on some correspondence between the GTC and the Children's Commissioner, which also involves a Department of Education official. The Children's Commissioner asked important and pertinent questions, and the response was very worrying. The DE official seemed to be more concerned about protecting the reputation of the GTC than being open and transparent with the Children's Commissioner. For example, he said:

"you must consider the reputation and good standing of the Council and defend these as fully as possible".

I am not sure whether the person is a man or a woman, but they then said:

"it is important that whatever you say can be owned by the wider Council. How you secure that wider Council buy-in will be something yourself and the Vice Chair should consider. Since this must be a GTCNI response, it would be wrong for the Department to directly steer you in what you say. However, I would note that your suggested response on the background to and current handling of teacher regulation seems to sell the Council's efforts a little short".

Why would some officials not want to cooperate with the Children's Commissioner in a full and transparent manner?

Mr Gallaher: I do not think that the advice that was given to the chair was unreasonable. When the correspondence from the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People (NICCY) arrived, I was not there. When I saw it, I said that we would respond to it accordingly. I did not think that it was unreasonable. My view, as I said to the council, was that being transparent and giving NICCY information was important all the time in dealing with and responding to NICCY. At the same time, it is also about how we present that information. We cannot say that the organisation was going to hell in a handcart, because we were not. That does not mean that there were not concerns around the regulatory situation, and we could, maybe, be honest about that. Suffice it to say that we addressed the matter with NICCY. We met NICCY, went through a number of issues with NICCY and had a follow-up on that. The situation was resolved to NICCY's satisfaction, and it has written to confirm that.

Mr Sheehan: Given the content of the letter from the DE official, I am concerned that there was not full transparency and openness with the Children's Commissioner at that time. It points up the level of dysfunctionality in GTC at the minute. Tell us this, Sam: how can the GTC move on from the myriad problems and dysfunctionality that have consumed the organisation?

Mr Gallaher: To address your earlier point, Pat, I do not think that, in responding to NICCY, we had any lack of transparency or were not factually correct in our response. I would contest that view, and I do not think that there was any attempt to mislead.

Your second point was about how to move forward. Council needs to act as one. There are disparate views in council as to what the purpose of the organisation is and how that should be translated into operation. There is also a fracture in relationships that needs to be resolved, and there is a very high

3 level of mistrust. Even in the operations of the council that I can see, there is a sort of disregard for the normal conventions that apply between a board — the way a board should operate — and its executive. That needs to be recognised and addressed. My suggestion, which I put in my briefing paper, is that the governance framework needs to be revised and that we need to tidy up some of the loose ends that are causing points of concern, but that has not been accepted. Those things need to be grasped. The council needs to operate as one, and it is not operating as one. There are, as I can see, active attempts at disruptive behaviour.

The Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): Thank you, Pat. That demonstrates that we have time for members to ask one short question and short supplementary and receive short answers.

Mr Newton: Thank you, Sam, for coming back to see us again. This cannot be a pleasant time for you. I am sure that it is not the highlight of your professional life.

The Deputy Chair asked part of my question, which is about how the council can become fully functioning again. This is my only question; well, it is two questions, I suppose. Sam, were you privy to, as Brendan referred to, the information that a barrister was asked to look at, which was — not wishing to put words in his mouth — described as relatively simple legal advice that this could be put right quite quickly? Sam, how much of this is down to strong personalities with their own views on how things should be done?

Mr Gallaher: To answer your first point, yes, we requested counsel advice on the procedures, and the counsel pointed out where the weaknesses were. That advice came to me, was then considered by our policy and regulation committee and then went through the council. I also made the Department aware of that advice. We met the permanent secretary, if I recall correctly, back in June 2019 on this matter. The permanent secretary asked for a second opinion, so advice was then obtained in August that backed up the advice that we had been given in the first instance. The advice did not suggest that this was relatively simple to fix. Counsel presented to me verbally that legislation would be required and a number of areas would need to be tightened up but that it was relatively straightforward. It suggested that we needed to operate in a similar way to Wales. Its legislation would be something similar and we could look at that.

On your second point about whether it is down to strong personalities, what is going on in the council is not necessarily down to strong personalities. I get the impression that other forces are at work in there and there are things to actively undermine individuals. For example, the issue around membership. There were issues around membership, brought up by one member writing to the chair, and the chair wanted to take this on rather than bringing the matter to the council to discuss and determine if there is an issue. Why that was brought up, a year in, to the council seems rather strange, and there has been a number of things like that. It does not look like it is just about strong personalities; it looks like there is intent in some things.

The Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): Robin, do you want a quick supplementary, or are you content?

Mr Newton: I am content with that, Chair. Thank you, Sam.

The Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): Apologies that I have to press people so much.

Mr McCrossan: Thank you, Sam, for being with us again today. We appreciate your time. It is a challenging time for the council and you, as chief executive. I do not even know where to start. The detail of what is emerging generally is completely shocking.

I will start with the issues around child safety. We have heard concerns expressed. You shared them in your first visit to the Committee, and the chair and vice chair have shared similar concerns today. I want to look at the regulations. Around 2012, I understand, the Department came to the GTCNI and said, "OK, you have to regulate now. We will no longer regulate; it is over to the GTCNI". At that point, there were stumbling blocks and difficulties that meant that the GTC could not regulate. On that basis, is it fair to say that concerns around the safeguarding of children would go as far back as 2012, Sam?

Mr Gallaher: No, I do not think that is the case. The regulations that transferred power to the GTC to regulate were the 2015 regulations. Before the 2015 regulations, GTC did not have the power to regulate. The power to remove teachers sat with the Department. That power only moved to GTC from 2015. It then needed to put in a process that was right to regulate. While putting in and developing that

4 independent process, through independent panels, gaps began to emerge in our legislation, which meant that it does not allow us to do that. The power of the council cannot delegate outside of itself. Those kinds of things emerged then. The frustration emerged through trying to put a process in place from 2015, when those regulations came into place. There was agreement on a way forward with the Department in January 2019 and, subsequently, in May 2019, counsel opinion was that this will not work. As I said at the time, why did counsel opinion only come in then? Surely it is something that you would have got earlier.

Mr McCrossan: You touched on difficulties around finding a way forward with the Department. Was the issue in resolving that directly related to the collapse of the institutions and the absence of a Minister?

Mr Gallaher: We were told that legislation could not be passed because there was no Assembly. Therefore, that was an issue.

Mr McCrossan: That is fine, Sam. Basically, by default, the collapse and absence of the institutions put our children at risk for three further years because they could not legislate. Children in Northern Ireland were put at risk. No legislation could be put in place because of the absence of a Minister. That is absolutely appalling. Thank you very much for clarifying that.

I have another point, Sam.

The Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): Final supplementary, Daniel. Thanks.

Mr McCrossan: I asked the chair and the vice chair about individuals who may seek election to the GTCNI to deliberately disrupt and sabotage it and, as some described to me, bring it down. Is that an accurate reflection of the intent of some people?

Mr Gallaher: I know of one member who stood on that platform and articulated that in writing. I recall that one member told me that before they even produced their name to me. I have to be honest: in some cases, I have seen behaviours that would not dissuade me from that.

Mr McCrossan: Is the person who declared that in writing the current chair or vice chair?

Mr Gallaher: No.

The Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): That is a fair point: anyone who doubts the significance of the absence of an Executive or Assembly need only look at the case at hand and the inability to enact the legislation that is needed to support teachers and protect children.

Could I bring in Robbie Butler MLA, please? I think that you need to unmute your device, Robbie.

Mr Butler: That is twice. Thank you, Chair. You can add that on to my three minutes.

Thanks, Sam, for joining us. Daniel raised a good point: three years were wasted because there was no government. That has probably been further compounded by 16 months of lockdown, when our children, especially the more vulnerable children, have lost that safeguarding. There have been many lost opportunities. Hopefully, today, we will bring those things to a pinnacle.

We had the chair and vice chair on. Something that the chair intimated towards the end piqued my interest: the implication that there is a division in the council in relation to openness and the ability to be open on it. Is that your summation of the performance of the council?

Mr Gallaher: I think that there are concerns in that arena. Clearly, the Minister's letter that I have seen suggests that there has been quite a lot of correspondence between the chair and the Minister and DE officials. If the chair is writing in the capacity as chair of council, it follows that he really should share with the council information on what he is writing about on its behalf.

Mr Butler: This is my main question —.

Mr Gallaher: I do not see that happening. Therefore —.

5 Mr Butler: This is my main question. I am interested in the implied authority or the delegated authority of the chair with regard to correspondence. Does the chair speak for GTCNI and on behalf of the council? What authority does the chair actually have?

Mr Gallaher: The body corporate has an executive authority. The individuals are non-executive. In my opinion, if the chair is writing to anyone and citing the fact that they are chair of GTCNI, it follows that they are reflecting the views of the council or writing on its behalf. To my mind, it is incumbent on the chair to make sure that they are reflecting the views of the council rather than personal opinion or the agenda or opinion of a few. When the Minister replied in the letter in October indicating a review, the natural question from some members of council was, "Can we see the correspondence that prompted that?". The answer from the chair was that he would not share that.

Mr Butler: Brendan levelled an issue regarding the whistle-blowing and allegations about GTCNI: that those were not made public. The same thing is happening with the chair with regard to subject access requests.

Mr Gallaher: I can only speak from my experience. As chief executive, with responsibility for ensuring that resources and public money are spent properly, all I can say from my perspective is that there are blurred lines between what is council business and what is possibly the agenda of an individual or a group of individuals. To me, those lines are blurred.

Mr Butler: Thank you, Sam. This is my final question. Do you believe that, at any stage, it was the case that anyone either misled or wanted to hide something in order to protect a reputation, perhaps at the expense of safeguarding children, through non-compliance or non-sharing of information?

Mr Gallaher: No, I do not think that at all. If you are referring to the NICCY-type correspondence, when organisations write to me, our job is to be as transparent as possible. It may be that you have to be diplomatic in some of those things, but the truth is that we need to be as transparent as we can. What we do not want to do is scaremonger unnecessarily, and that is my concern.

Mr Butler: I appreciate that. This is my final one, Chair. You are absolutely right, and there is absolutely no reason for anybody to scaremonger. The chair and vice chair were also asked this question: what level of risk is there to safeguarding our children at the moment? You might have answered that the last time that you were with us, but can you answer it again?

Mr Gallaher: The fundamental position at the minute is that employers have a responsibility to implement their procedures for recruitment and for disciplinary matters if there are allegations of misconduct in school. That is the first point of call. Those procedures may end up in a teacher being dismissed. If it is a very serious case, there will either be a criminal process or the school will refer the matter to the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS), which will then undertake its work. If, at the end of the day, it decides that someone should be barred from involvement with children, it will let us know, and we will remove them from the register.

What we would do on the back of some of those things is take a professional view by saying, "Do we think this person has brought the reputation of the profession into disrepute? Do we think they pose a risk?". We would then do an investigation process, and the outcome of that process may be that a decision is taken to remove that teacher from the register. In that sense, that bit is removed, so, in theory, a teacher who gets dismissed or resigns from a school could be employed in another school, if that school does not do its checks fully. There is an element of risk there.

Mr Butler: OK. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): Sam, correspondence that we have received states:

"Following a General Teaching Council meeting on 26 March 2021, the General Teaching Council is now implementing a revised screening process for misconduct referrals".

What does that mean?

Mr Gallaher: What that means is that, in light of the McKee ruling, we proposed a change to our screening process so that officers could not take the decisions. That relates back to the powers of the council. We are implementing a revised screening process that allows us to screen our cases at the

6 first stage, when it is determined whether a case should go forward to an investigation or whether the referral should be closed. That is the process that we are setting in place now. The first step in that is to bring all our records up to date and provide the necessary information. We will then move forward with a process that involves myself and a couple of members of the council making those decisions.

The Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): OK. I would like to know more about that, but time is against me.

Mr Humphrey: Morning, Mr Gallaher. Thanks again for joining us. I understand from information that we have been given in evidence that the GTC has been placed in special measures on two occasions. Am I right in saying that two route maps out of those scenarios were presented? If so, were they followed?

Mr Gallaher: I cannot speak about the first time because I was not in the organisation in 2016-17. On the back of the reviews, there was an action plan that was to be followed. Part of that was around my appointment. That is what I came to do: to try to implement that programme. It has been a bit frustrating, and the big frustration really came after about six months.

Ongoing correspondence to the council created concerns among council members that their contact details had been circulated. A few other matters came up. The Department wanted a bit more oversight in September. Then, with the transition to the new council and the difficulties in electing a chair and things like that, the Department decided to put the organisation into special measures again.

There is an operational route map out of special measures but there needs to be a route map for the council to function. Clearly, it is not functioning. Regrettably, the resignations are symptoms of that.

Mr Humphrey: Are you telling us that the council is not following the route map that was set out by the Department?

Mr Gallaher: The council was trying to do that. Part of it was about developing a corporate plan and getting a settled structure, and we have been endeavouring to do all of that. However, it has been frustrating, and aspects of the council and the operation of the council have frustrated that.

Mr Humphrey: By "aspects of the council", do you mean that elements of the council have frustrated it?

Mr Gallaher: The way that the council is operating has frustrated that. High levels of correspondence and a reluctance to resolve internally issues that could, quite clearly, be resolved internally and wishing to conduct business in the public domain does not help.

Mr Humphrey: When an organisation has been placed in special measures twice and has had a route map given to it twice, the failure to implement the route map and put in place the practices, procedures, policies or whatever else that are needed to do that is absolutely appalling, whoever is responsible.

Why did eight people resign this week? Do you know?

Mr Gallaher: Going by the information that has been cited in the resignation letters, they were concerned about the functioning of the council. Whether the chair recognises it or not, people must have felt that they were being bullied and harassed. They were concerned that the council was not pulling together and that business was not being conducted. I determine that the meetings of the council have been ineffectual for the past year. That is spilling into the operational side of the house. Some people have probably just got fed up with that and have concerns.

Mr Humphrey: Finally, what do the relationships in the GTC look like when it meets? Have relationships been so badly damaged that they are irreparably damaged? Is the organisation, in fact, dysfunctional?

Mr Gallaher: I find the meetings to be very confrontational. They can be adversarial. There is a feeling that, when issues are raised, they are not fully aired and concerns are not addressed. There is a feeling among some that some things look like unnecessary witch-hunts against certain individuals on matters that are not really important. Concerns have been raised. My suggestion was that the council really needs some sort of facilitated workshop to begin to resolve some of the differences and move

7 forward. My question there was whether everybody would enter into that in the right spirit of wanting the organisation to work. I do not know. I do not think so. I am not sure about that.

Mr Humphrey: Are relationships so bad now, and have they broken down so much, that they are irreparably damaged and the organisation cannot function as currently constituted?

Mr Gallaher: It is a difficult situation. I get no sense that there is consensus about what the organisation is about and the direction in which it should be going. Yes, we have a corporate plan, which is good even if getting to that point was a bit torturous, but I am not sure if everybody has bought into that. People are saying, "If I do not agree with that, you have to try to change". It is very factionalised.

Mr Humphrey: Thank you.

Ms Brogan: Thanks for attending this morning, Sam. I want to touch on how the council is supposed to work and your role as chief executive. How do you work with the chair and vice chair of the council? How are you supposed to work with them? What is your relationship like with the other members of the council, and what is it supposed to be like?

Mr Gallaher: First, the current relationship with the chair, which has existed since the beginning of 2020, is not what I envisage a proper working relationship between the chair and the chief executive should be. We do not meet regularly; everything is done using email. It is difficult, and that is not for the want of trying. The relationship with other council members is OK. I try to do my job, but I am trying to operate in very difficult circumstances with the board. I get an impression that there are different agendas at work, and that is not helping.

Ms Brogan: Why is the relationship so poor, Sam? Whose fault is that? Why is it so fractured? Why are you only communicating via email?

Mr Gallaher: You need to ask the chair that question. It is my job to work with anybody. In my first meeting with them after they became chair and vice chair, I asked, "How do you want to work?". I never really got a straight answer to that question. I offered to meet at least once a month, but that has never materialised, and everything is just an email.

Ms Brogan: This is my main question to you. Surely that is a shared responsibility. Is creating that relationship not part of your role as chief executive?

Mr Gallaher: Exactly. There have been numerous overtures to make that work. I have given advice on how things should work. It takes two people to tango.

Ms Brogan: Absolutely. What role have you played in addressing reports of bullying, especially of female members of the organisation?

Mr Gallaher: Female members of the council board have spoken to me about how to handle correspondence they have received that has made them feel bullied. I have advised them accordingly. That is the way people felt, and I advised them accordingly about what they should do. On accusations of bullying in the organisation, a survey appeared and it was taken out of my hands. The council took action on that. The HR provider had a presence on-site, met staff and held focus groups. People were advised about how to raise issues, and no issues were raised. I cannot comment any more than that.

Ms Brogan: OK. It is clear from today's meeting and others that there are serious issues; we all accept that. Thank you, Sam. I appreciate that information.

The Chairperson (Mr Lyttle): Is Maurice Bradley still there? Yes. Can you hear us, Maurice? [Long Pause.] No. Maurice, is your device on mute? OK. We are almost out of time as it is.

Sam, thank you for meeting us today and giving evidence. There is obviously a need for urgent action on the regulatory board functionality and GTCNI operational matters. The Education Committee will continue to do all that we can to ensure that urgent action is taken in response to those matters.

8 Mr Gallaher: Thank you.

9