Debate contribution: Education Inspections Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Peter Martin on .
- MLA
- Mr Peter Martin
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 1 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Education Inspections Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5581925
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The common theme in what you outlined was children. That is whom we are here to protect. We are here to make their lives better. Adults — voters and Members of the Assembly — can have political views on those things, but, ultimately, we are not here to protect the interests of special groups or to protect this group or that group; we are here to make sure that the lives of the children in our schools are the best that they can be. We are here to make sure that they are safe in those schools and are getting a quality education. On that, we can agree. Outside of that, it is political opinion. The SEN code of practice, which I was talking about, states that the ETI must evaluate the effectiveness of schools' SEN policies and their adherence to the code. Action short of strike prevented the ETI from fulfilling that role. We talk a lot about SEN in the Chamber and rightly so, because SEN pupils are some of our most vulnerable pupils. The schools that they attend are not being inspected, however. Some of them have not been inspected for quite a while. As some colleagues have mentioned, given the quality of the workforce that we have in Northern Ireland, teachers have nothing to fear. Our teachers are brilliant. As a lecturer, I was inspected several times.
I will indeed.
Danny, I obviously disagree. Kids' placements are not necessarily of relevance to what we are debating today. What is relevant is the quality of teaching, learning and safeguarding in all our schools, especially for SEN pupils. What I want and what the Minister wants is for the ETI to have the ability to help schools if they are having problems. I happily accept that, going back 10 or 15 years, inspection was punitive. I have some knowledge of that. That is certainly how teachers viewed it then, and some Members have made that point this evening. However, most people who know about education in Northern Ireland and who know teachers will say, "Actually, the ETI has changed, and inspection has changed". Teachers are not as fearful as they once were about having the ETI in their school; in fact, I would say that most teachers probably view the ETI as being more collaborative and more supportive than it has ever been. Ultimately, its job is to support schools and make them better. The couple of areas that I have outlined demonstrate why the Bill is so important. Ultimately, parties will have to defend whatever position they take. I have outlined my party's position, which is that we view safeguarding and child protection as the most critical thing when we drive our children to the school gate and leave them in the school environment, with teachers acting in loco parentis. Those teachers are amazing, but, as I and others have said, no profession is completely unblemished. We have to ensure that that environment is safe. The way in which we do that is by having the ETI in to check procedures and policies. That is what the Bill does. It does not criminalise teachers: we have been absolutely clear about that. The Minister has compromised, whether Sinn Féin accepted that at its whim or not. We now have a slightly different Bill from the one initially talked about in the Executive. That is why I fully endorse the Bill. Teachers have nothing to fear from it. Teachers who are listening to the debate today will have been confused by some of what they have heard — I know that I have been. I stand here with the clear position that, if we are serious about child protection, about safeguarding in our schools and about making that better, we need inspection. That is what the Bill delivers.
639 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.08 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.92).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.06 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.08 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.88 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.07 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.05 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:47 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.