Debate contribution: Education Inspections Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Daniel McCrossan on 1 June 2026.

MLA

Mr Daniel McCrossan

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

1 June 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Education Inspections Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5581983

Read the official Assembly record

Text

It is important to point out that, although the debate has gone on longer than anticipated, Members are not far away from one another on this. Clause 3 presents a problem. Members are not against inspection in schools, and we all claim to support teachers, but some parts of the Bill imply otherwise. The concerns have been clearly voiced to Members of the House over the past number of days as well as, absolutely, to members of my party. The SDLP supports the highest standards in education. It always has: no question. School inspections matter. No one is arguing with that; it is a fact. Every parent deserves to have confidence that their child is receiving the best possible education. Our teachers are not the problem, however; they are the backbone of our education system. As articulated by Members from across the House, clause 3 raises concerns. Even those who will vote to allow the Bill to progress have illustrated that they have concerns with clause 3. It gives officials broad powers during inspections and creates potential or, in some cases, definite disciplinary consequences for teachers who are deemed to have obstructed, impeded or failed to cooperate with an inspection.

To be accused of unacceptable professional conduct is an extremely serious matter for any teacher. In my time in the Assembly representing schools across West Tyrone, I have yet to meet a teacher who does not give all that they have and all that they are to that important job. Such a charge could affect their career, their reputation and their ability to do the job that they love and to which they have dedicated themselves. Teachers have spent years fighting for fair pay. When the Assembly was down from 2017 to 2020, there was large-scale industrial action, as teachers sought what they were rightfully entitled to. From 2022 to 2024, industrial action escalated. Why? It was because the people whom they had elected to this place were on strike themselves. The people whom they had elected to remedy and resolve the problems facing the education system were not here to fix them. Things got worse. We were dealing with the aftermath of COVID and schools were trying to return to normal. What did the DUP do? It took full-blown strike action. It disappeared from the Assembly. Its Minister of Education disappeared from the pulpit and from making grand announcements and gestures. Where was the interest in safeguarding our children then? Where was the interest in our schools, our teachers and our communities? The only thing that the DUP cared about in those years was itself.

I am making progress. I will let you in shortly. The DUP did not care about those who were dying on hospital waiting lists, and it certainly did not care about schools. If it had done, the DUP would not have walked out and prevented me from exercising my democratic right as a Member to represent the people who desperately need to be represented.

This Bill —.

Those things are all in context, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I am getting to the point. We can support robust inspections while also standing firmly with teachers, and that gets to the nub. The two are not mutually exclusive. To be clear, the SDLP will always support our teachers, their unions and their right to stand up for fair pay, fair conditions and the high-quality education that our young people deserve. Let me get to the nub of the problem with the Bill. I will address clause 3, which is titled:

"Power of officials and disciplinary measures".

That clause is the most serious and controversial part of the Bill, and it is the clause that we all have issue with. It states:

"A designated official has the power to take all reasonable steps"

— whatever that means —

"in conducting, or in connection with, an inspection".

The Bill includes powers of:

"(a) entering such an establishment or gaining access to different places in or at such an establishment, (b) getting information about or obtaining documents pertaining to such an establishment, or (c) observing or assessing teaching or ... activities ... or ... facilities".

On the face of it, that all sounds OK. Those, however, are broad powers in legislation, and they need clear safeguards. The Minister must provide clarity on the meaning of "reasonable steps", because the wording is too loose.

Not yet. I am making a point. Sensitive pupil information, SEN safeguarding and medical and staff information must also be protected. Is that information wide open to such inspections? Inspections are about improving standards; they are not about intimidating our staff. The truth is that the clause creates fear in the teaching profession. The biggest concern with clause 3 is whether it will be used — I believe that it will — against teachers who are taking part in lawful industrial action. That concern has been well rehearsed in the House today. The Bill states:

"It is unacceptable professional conduct by a teacher if the person intentionally",

obstructs, impedes or fails to cooperate with an inspection.

That is wide open. Teachers and unions have withdrawn cooperation from inspections as part of industrial action — we know that — but the reasons for industrial action were well made at the time: the profession was being utterly and absolutely ignored by this place and the Executive.

I say to the Member who is wanting to come in that his party has presided over the Education Department for a decade. A lot of the mess that exists in the Department of Education happened under the leadership of the DUP, so will it take responsibility for that? What responsibility will the DUP take for how fed up our teachers are and how overworked and exhausted they feel? We rely on them to educate our children, but the DUP's cure is to punish them for doing their job and for having the right to stand up and say, "Things need to improve. We need to be treated better".

I will give way first to my friend in the corner.

The DUP is missing a key point: teachers are not on strike to avoid inspection. They are on strike because you did not pay them right and did not value them as a workforce in our schools. You mistreated them and left them without a choice. They have not been standing on picket lines for the last 10 years because they wanted to avoid inspections. Wake up. There is a clear reason —.

I will make a point, Jonny. There is a clear reason why the teaching profession is so pissed off. Pardon my language, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, but that is how they feel. This is not the solution.

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. It was a heat-of-the-moment reflection of how people feel. I am glad that Mr Buckley is so easily offended. Imagine how the teaching workforce feels. It is important that clause 3 is seen as an attempt to weaken the form of collective action that has been protecting our teachers for many years. Teachers should not be disciplined for exercising their legitimate workers' rights, and the DUP is conflating those two issues. It is hiding behind this charade and this sham fight: the lovers' tiff between the DUP and Sinn Féin that plays out here every week and, might I add, seems to heighten coming into an election period. The reality faced by people on the ground is much more serious.

Jonny, after you made that point of order, you can sit there until I am done. Clause 3 does not simply say, "Teachers should cooperate with inspections"; it places certain conduct into the category of "unacceptable professional conduct". If that is how teachers not cooperating is described in the Bill, my God — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I will not stray into bad language — imagine what the public must think about the behaviour of the DUP and Sinn Féin when they went on collective strike from this place for a couple of years. On their return, the first thing that they did was resolve the pay increase for MLAs. Clause 3 refers to teachers who impede an official, obstruct an official —

— Settle down, Nigel. Settle down — fail to cooperate —

Can Laurel and Hardy behave themselves, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker? It is not that entertaining listening to them.

— the Bill.

I have respect for the Chair, and I absolutely agree. However, I am addressing the wider context of why we are here today. The terms in the Bill that I have set out could be interpreted widely. That is a dangerous place to be with legislation and, indeed, puts our teachers in a very dangerous position when it comes to their reputation and what they may be charged with and by whom. That is not clear in the Bill. This is an interesting one. The wording "encourages someone else" is particularly concerning. Why? It is because it creates uncertainty for union representatives, workplace representatives or teachers discussing collective action. That leaves the door wide open as well. There could be considerable unintended consequences. Under the draft legislation, if Patsy, as my teacher colleague, were encouraging me to take industrial action, Patsy would get into trouble for having that conversation. The wording is too broad and risks catching legitimate trade union activity, workplace discussions and collective action.

It could create a chilling effect within our schools. That has been articulated by teachers over the past few days. Teachers may feel afraid to challenge inspectors or to raise concerns during inspections. Staff may also worry that any disagreement with inspectors, delay or refusal could later be treated as an obstruction, with them suffering the ultimate penalty, which is far too extreme. It risks creating fear rather than professional constructive engagement. It puts a barrier between the Department, the Education Authority and, of course, our schools. Inspections should be about improvement, not intimidation.

1,669 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