Debate contribution: Education Inspections Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mrs Michelle Guy on 1 June 2026.

MLA: Mrs Michelle Guy
Party at the time: Alliance Party
Date: 1 June 2026
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Executive Committee Business
Heading: Education Inspections Bill: Second Stage
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5581806

Text

The Bill raises important issues for the Assembly about how inspection operates in Northern Ireland. Members across the House support school inspection; we can at least say that there is broad agreement on that. As a party, Alliance supports the role that inspection plays in accountability, in driving improvement and in providing assurance to parents and the public. How inspection should operate, how it should be enforced and how those decisions interact with the wider pressures facing education here is the key question that we will debate today.
Let us look at RE inspection. Clause 2 is not only welcome but necessary. Following the Supreme Court judgement, the Minister must ensure that religious education is taught in a way that is objective, critical and pluralist. The Bill addresses a clear and long-standing gap. For too long, RE has sat outside the standard inspection framework. That is not sustainable and is not compliant with the law. Inspection of RE is essential not just for compliance but for fairness, equality and confidence across the system. We should be clear that the Minister must act on that issue, and the Assembly should not lose out on that reform because of disagreement on other parts of the Bill. Clause 3, however, raises significant concerns. It would introduce a new legal definition of "unacceptable professional conduct" that is tied directly to inspection. Let me be clear: Alliance is in complete opposition to the proposed sanction of teachers in clause 3. The Minister must recognise the current context in education. Workload is still overwhelming the education workforce. It has seen no improvement. I was in a meeting on Friday in my constituency with special educational needs coordinators (SENCOs) and principals who continue to feel that there is no real support for them, yet their workload grows. That context is important. The independent review of education outlined how the Department of Education needs to address decisively the issues that have led to industrial action. I do not think that any teacher would say that issues have been decisively addressed. The Department has placed safeguarding at the centre of its argument: that is not inappropriate. Safeguarding and the best interests of our children in schools must always come first. I know that that is teachers' absolute priority. I meet teachers and school leaders all the time. I go in to bat for them. I am on their side. The Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) has highlighted the fact that disruption to inspection reduces the level of formal external assurance. We must be careful, however, not to overstate what inspection alone can deliver. Safeguarding is not an event but a continuous responsibility. It depends on teachers, school leaders, external agencies and a culture in which concerns are identified early and acted on appropriately. That brings us back to workload.
In the context of that report, that is accurate, but it is not accurate to say that that is the only way in which safeguarding operates in schools or that it is the most important part of it. As I said, there are a lot of aspects that facilitate safeguarding. If we rely on that happening just through inspections, we do not have a robust system. I was bringing my comments back to workload. If the Minister is serious about safeguarding, he must also be serious about the pressures facing teachers. Teachers need time and capacity to build relationships with pupils, identify concerns, respond appropriately and work with families and support services. The independent review of teacher workload identified systemic pressures that remain unresolved. Addressing those pressures is not separate from safeguarding; it is fundamental to it. Consideration Stage is the opportunity to bottom those issues out and consider whether mechanisms that are more robust and frequent than a four- or five-year inspection cycle are needed. After Second Stage, it becomes the Assembly's Bill. That is an important point. Voting for the Bill at Second Stage is not the same as endorsing every clause in it. It means allowing the Assembly to scrutinise the legislation, hear evidence and consider amendments to improve the Bill. Some commentary about the debate has suggested otherwise, and, frankly, that has created unnecessary concern among teachers. Supporting the Bill at Second Stage does not mean supporting clause 3 as it stands. Supporting the Bill at Second Stage does not mean accepting the Bill in its current form. Supporting the Bill at Second Stage means recognising that there are provisions that deserve further consideration while retaining the Assembly's ability to demand or remove provisions that do not. For Alliance, the Bill does three things. It widens the remit of inspection for ETI; it brings religious education within the inspection framework; and, through clause 3, it introduces consequences for obstructing inspection. We support the first two objectives; we have serious reservations about the third. Looking at the way forward, we are looking for a clear commitment today from the Minister to engage meaningfully with teaching unions, teachers and political parties to address the concerns around clause 3. Let me be clear: our support today is conditional on that. The Minister offered that commitment to my colleague earlier in the debate, but he has since intervened a number of times to argue for clause 3 as drafted, suggesting that he is not going to have that engagement. Minister, I do not know whether you are listening, but I ask you now to offer us assurance that you will have meaningful engagement with the different stakeholders to ensure that the next stage will be legitimate and meaningful and that we can change clause 3. If your intention is to simply push it through, our support today is in question. Would you not like to offer that assurance?
We needed to hear that reassurance because, throughout the debate, you have been arguing in a way that suggested that there is no wriggle room with you. Thank you for providing that clarity, and we will consider that as we go forward. If that engagement produces a workable solution, we will consider it on its merits. If it does not, we will seek to amend the Bill and, if necessary, remove clause 3. To repeat, Standing Order 36(2) is clear. The Assembly will have the opportunity to vote on whether individual clauses stand part of the Bill. That means that clause 3 can be amended or removed at a later stage. Whether you like the Minister or trust him or not, the vote today changes nothing in law. It allows scrutiny to continue and provides an opportunity to secure improvements that may otherwise be lost. Alliance will approach the Bill as we do every issue: by assessing the merits of the legislation before us and acting in what we believe to be the public interest. We expect meaningful engagement, and we expect meaningful amendment. If those expectations are not met, we will have no hesitation in voting against the Bill.

1,158 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Awaiting analysis

This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.

Disagree with this assessment?

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

Challenge this classification