Debate contribution: Education Inspections Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Jonathan Buckley on 1 June 2026.

MLA

Mr Jonathan Buckley

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 5581935

Read the official Assembly record

Text

The debate has saddened me greatly. When I originally came into the Assembly Building to debate the Education Inspections Bill, I thought that we would have a genuine debate around the need for inspections in our schools and the need to protect all of those who attend our schools. Sadly, however, the debate has gone to the worst extremes that I could have imagined when I first came to debate it. In particular, that has come from Sinn Féin and in some of the interjections from the SDLP. I do not believe for one moment that there is any Member in the Chamber who does not value teachers and does not recognise the significant contribution that they make in educating our young people and wider society. I have family members who are teachers: I could not be prouder of their contribution. I could not be prouder of the legacy that they have left to many of the young people who are now adults, prospering in our society and contributing to it. Many of them will look back at the contribution made by their teachers and believe that they were blessed to have many of those great people in their life. All of that having been said, I have listened to how every party in the Chamber has said that inspections are valued and are an integral part of the school process. That is for many reasons, including the quality of education. My colleague mentioned SEN, something that we talk about often in this place, but there has been limited reference to that in the debate. More fundamentally, what led me to speak in the debate was the issue of safeguarding, an issue that Ms Hunter alluded to. I have taken a considerable interest in that issue in my political career in the Assembly. Nobody, regardless of political party, should be naive enough to think that serious safeguarding issues are not ongoing in our schools. If you take the time to talk to teachers — I do, and I suspect that others in the Chamber do — you will know that some of the issues that many of them are dealing with are complex, sad and worrying. Whether it is the system that has created vulnerable young children or whether those vulnerabilities lie in wider society, young people face some of the most desperate and difficult challenges in their home life and in society, including the rise of the internet and social media. There are so many issues going on. There are nearly 30,000 children across our school system who are significantly vulnerable. That should worry everybody. With that in mind, I thought that I was coming to the Chamber to debate an issue on which every political party has said that inspections are not the issue and that we all value their role in holding the wider apparatus to account and ensuring that we have a system that is fit for purpose. However, to say in the next breath that you will vote the Bill down is, I find, ridiculous. If, by means of the Bill, we protect just one child through an inspection not being stifled or obstructed, that surely should be the wish of every Member. Are we for real when we suggest that anybody, regardless of their position in the public sector, should be able to hold up or obstruct something that could identify a serious safeguarding issue? That goes to the heart of why I am speaking on the Bill.

The Minister, in his opening statement, outlined that, since the ETI and the unions had re-established much more productive relations — relations are more productive, as the Committee Chair also mentioned — there have been a couple of occasions of shortcomings in child safeguarding in schools, one of which required urgent intervention. That is a matter of serious importance for any Member who debates the Bill today. I encourage Members to think carefully about what voting down such a Bill means. We have pivoted between extremes. We have tried to pit a Minister against teachers and to portray Members as not caring about teachers' existence or meaningful contribution. However, that does not stand up to scrutiny. Under the Minister, we have seen record pay settlements for our teaching profession. That was much required and should be celebrated. We have seen an increase in the number of professional development and training days, which the profession had been calling for for many years as it tried to deal with and navigate some of the more complex issues in schools. There has been much reference to teacher workload, and that is, absolutely, a priority issue. The Minister initiated the independent review of teachers' workload to deal with the profession's genuine concerns and, hopefully, address them with recommendations that make life easier for teachers but also create a more collaborative and conducive teaching environment for young people. That seems to have gone by the wayside for a lot of Members, who want to engage in political attacks on the Minister. The debate should not be about that. It was not the Minister who came up with the hare-brained idea to introduce the clause that many people have an issue with. The independent review of education advocated that change. Why? It is because the review identified that aspect as one of risk. Where there is risk in child safeguarding, we should do all in our power to ensure that we limit that risk. That is what that clause and the Bill in general are designed to do. I agree totally that the vast majority in our teaching profession carry out their duties and go way beyond what is expected of them. Let that never be in doubt for any Member; let us just be factual and say that every Member values our teaching profession. They may go about it in different ways, but every Member values their contribution. However, it would be remiss and negligent — we would be closing our eyes and ears — if we were not alert to the fact that, in every organisation, there are people who do not have the same genuine intentions; it may even be just one person. The Lloyd-Lavery case, for example, which has just finished, was one of historical abuse in the school system, and we found out about that only recently. Should the Assembly not seek, where possible, to limit the risk of exploitation of children in our system? That goes to the heart of the debate. Whether you agree with different inferences of how far-reaching a clause goes, continuing to Committee Stage would allow for further debate, given that it is an Executive-led Bill.

We say, with a genuine spirit, that, with the best will in the world, the Assembly cannot turn its face against the reality that, potentially, there are bad actors in our school system. There are bad actors in every home across Northern Ireland. We simply do not know them. Sadly, as many Members have become more aware of the issues, such as child abuse, that face some homes and, indeed, some schools, they have become very aware that there are sick, depraved elements in society.

Absolutely.

I fully agree with the Member. For me, the saddest thing about the debate is hearing that we have pivoted to the extremes. We have teachers who are worried about the legislation when we have no need to worry them. We can assuage their concerns. We can debate this legislation, and we can take it into Committee and look at genuine ways of ensuring that we minimise — you can never eliminate, but you can minimise — risk. The Member is absolutely right. We have to take seriously the picture of society that is being painted right now; for many young people, it is not a pretty place. What would be more conducive to debate is Members engaging in facts rather than in the political spin that we have heard from some Members, because that is so far removed from the reality that many of our young people face. Inspection should never, ever be used as a bargaining chip in industrial relations or negotiations. You cannot say, on the one hand, "We never intend this to be used; we recognise inspections as an integral part of the school system", and, on the other, "You should never, ever legislate to make sure that it's not abused". That should not be the case. We should genuinely give the Bill a fair wind, with the intention of minimising risk for young people.

I will in a moment. Their voice has often been overlooked. I know many parents who also sometimes look at aspects of our education system with despair. Giving an education inspectorate the ability to come unimpeded into a setting despite whatever challenges there are deserves further consideration.

The Member is right: nobody is advocating banning strike action or action short of strike for teachers. This is a particular aspect where we must ensure that strike action does not impede the work of the inspectorate in ensuring safe standards in our school system, that our pupils with SEN have the chance to flourish and are not neglected, that children who are affected by the most horrendous safeguarding issues are able to have their voices and those of their parents heard, and that the system is protecting them. We are guardians of that system, and, where we know that risk exists, we would be negligent not to address it. I want to move on; the Member brought up an interesting theme. There is no criminal sanction in the Bill — that does not exist — so the lines that Members keep parroting could not be further from the truth. I am at pains to understand Sinn Féin's position on the Bill, despite the many interjections from the Member for West Belfast Mr Sheehan, who is not in the Chamber. Sinn Féin's conduct has been duplicitous and two-faced, to say the least. The Minister may make a point about Sinn Féin's engagement with the Bill. In the first instance, it did not find elements of the Bill acceptable. It then entered into direct conversation with the Minister to ensure that consensus was found. Do Sinn Féin Members in the Chamber not speak to their Ministers? Can Mr Baker or Mrs Mason not speak to the fact that their Economy Minister, Caoimhe Archibald, engaged directly with the Minister on the Bill to find a way forward? Did that Minister not speak to the Members? I will give way if they want to respond.

We hear about the democratic process, but the question is clear. Your Minister —.

I will.

That shows the fundamental misunderstanding of Sinn Féin Members. It is legislative incompetence in the most extreme. Mrs Dillon just referred to the Hunting with Dogs Bill. The Hunting with Dogs Bill is a private Member's Bill. It was nowhere near the Executive. To cite that as an example of legislation from the Executive just shows how incompetent their approach is when dealing with serious matters. I am sorry that I am now becoming much more exercised on the Bill, but this is so serious. You do not even recognise the difference between an Executive Bill and a private Member's Bill. The term "economical with the truth" was used today. Sinn Féin is being economical with the truth in the extreme. Let us fill in the blanks that Mr Sheehan, Mr Baker and Mrs Mason did not want to talk about in their contributions or, indeed, that Mrs Dillon did not mention in her intervention: the Sinn Féin ministerial team directly engaged with the Minister of Education to find a Bill that could come before the House today and command consensus. The Minister of Education gave a few concessions, which were welcomed by the party opposite, so that the Bill could be presented on the Floor today. Something changed at the weekend for those Members to do a complete one-eighty on the legislation. Do you know what is so sad? This is meant to be about safeguarding children and ensuring that the inspection process is fit for purpose. The most despicable aspect of it all is that they have attempted to whip teachers up into a frenzy by saying that we are legislating against their legitimate rights. Teachers still have the right to strike and the right to take action short of strike — rightly so — and I will defend their right to do that. However, please do not come into the Chamber with political games on an issue so serious as child safeguarding. That is despicable to say the least. Ms Hunter mentioned the Scottish legislation and said that we could perhaps learn from it. The place to debate that is at the Committee. You would not send the Bill to the Committee if you did not agree at all with its general principles. The general principles are that we respect inspections, that there is a need for them in schools and that there is a desire to protect them. Nobody has indicated that they are against inspections, so the principles stand. The point is that Members have turned this into a political dogfight when it did not have to be one. If you are serious about legislating in the interests of all our young people, you would allow the Bill to get a fair hearing. Just imagine the outrage if, because of union action, the RQIA was unable to go into a nursing home, for example, about which families of patients had genuine concerns. Every Member would be on their hind legs in the Chamber ensuring the right for the inspector to go in and ensure that adequate safeguarding was in place. It is the same when it comes to prisons, hospitals and even small business owners. If, for example, an allegation of environmental misconduct or poor food safety standards is made against a restaurant, it does not have the right to absent itself from the process just because it feels that it is unfair. No, it has to submit to that process. That is why we need to remove the genuine need for strike action and action short of strike by having inspections that have best standards and safeguarding at their heart. That is what the Bill is about.

One Member said that Scotland may be an example to look at. The legislation in Scotland goes much further than what the Minister is suggesting today, in that it indicates potential imprisonment. That is not the case here. That is not the case in England, Wales or, indeed, the Republic of Ireland. They all have specific legislation because they recognise that the protection of vulnerable young people needs to coexist with the rights and standards that teachers deserve. In closing, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker —.

I will give way, yes.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I do not understand the drivel coming from the Member for West Belfast. I have not heard POC mentioned once during the debate. Even the most critically minded of Members would perhaps give me some credit. I never mentioned a POC. I am talking about —.

That is absolutely ridiculous. It shows just how fundamentally misguided some of the opinions from Sinn Féin Members are. I do not know what Sinn Féin stands for when it comes to inspections in schools or the safeguarding of young people. It is cynically using a Bill that has the protection of children and school standards at its heart to advance political dogma. It is a dog whistle to the trade union movement — that is all that it is. Let us get back to basics. Mr Mathison said that there has been an improvement in relations, and he is absolutely right. If we were able to have a sensible debate on the Bill, we could arrive at a place that satisfies teachers' concerns and ensures that the safeguarding of children is paramount. I urge Members to step back from dog-whistle politics. Let us engage in sensible discussions that are fundamentally about safeguarding young people and protecting the rights of teachers, but let us also ensure that inspection staff are not challenged and are unimpeded when ensuring child safety and the standard of education in schools.

2,723 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

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.

Challenge this classification