Debate contribution: Education Inspections Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on 1 June 2026.

MLA

Mr Paul Givan

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

1 June 2026

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Education Inspections Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5582224

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Let me respond. I think that I have one of the most effective and closest relationships with the trade unions of many an Education Minister. I worked with them very closely to ensure that teachers got increases in pay, despite the frustrations that I was having from the Executive, notwithstanding my efforts. I brought forward a ministerial direction. Despite pressures to cut the Education budget, I stood up for teachers. I took it to the Executive, and I was challenged in the Executive by the Member's party when it came to giving teachers their pay. I stood up for them and supported them. They got their pay rise, deservedly so. I have worked with the trade unions effectively on many areas, including establishing the independent review of teacher workload, which made 27 recommendations. A trade union representative was appointed to be on that review. My relationship with trade unions is a constructive one, but I still anticipate that they will take industrial action, because they do that. That is their right. They will ballot their members, and I suspect that that could happen very soon. What I say to Members is that we should not allow that form of industrial action to include inspection. However, what can teachers do to put forward their case? I still argue that they should not do these things, but they can refuse to carry out administrative or clerical tasks, to implement new initiatives, to undertake unpaid duties and to undertake lunchtime supervision. They can have strict limits of only one meeting per term. They can refuse to respond to communications or to parents outside working hours, to supervise extracurricular activities, to invigilate exams and to engage in performance processes, Key Stage assessments and internal tracking data. All those things are legal forms of strike action, but let us not allow child protection to be included in that. Teachers have the right to strike, and I support their right to do so if circumstances require it, though I hope that they do not. Teachers have a very lengthy list. Why should Northern Ireland be the only part of the United Kingdom or the island of Ireland that has inspection as part of it? Why would we sacrifice the protection of our children, when no one else is prepared to do it? Sinn Féin Members repeatedly say that that should be allowed, but I will not compromise when it comes to the protection of children. Sinn Féin might want to do that, but I will not compromise on that. The Bill is about inspection and only inspection. That is all that it relates to: no other form of industrial action. Yes, industrial relations are fragile. They are, but I ask Members this: if inspection is included, will their position of saying that that is allowed give unions the confidence to say, "We are going on strike. We will ballot our members"? That could happen as soon as tomorrow. I am aware of the conversations that are taking place. Do Members believe that it would be right to include inspection, or will they stand up and say to the unions, "Please do not do it. Please do not use inspection. Feel free to use all the other tools at your disposal, but inspection is too important"? If they use inspection, will Members come back to the Chamber and say, "Do you know what? You were right. They used the inspection process. That is wrong, and we will enthusiastically support the Bill"? We will wait and see. I hope that they have not given encouragement to unions to issue that kind of directive to their members. I know many teachers who do not support their trade unions in putting them in the difficult position of seeking to obstruct an inspection. Many teachers do not want to do that. They may want to take part in other forms of action, but they do not want to do it in that area. Now is the time to get this right. There is a way that we can do it. Mr Sheehan referred to not having a notion about what this looks like, but he is the Deputy Chair of the Education Committee. The GTC Bill is before the Committee, and this Bill refers to the GTC Bill. The process will be a referral to the professional body, and, given that the GTCNI is the teaching profession's regulatory authority, I trust that it will be capable of ensuring a proportionate and appropriate sanction. Members may be concerned that it will not be — Mr Mathison and Michelle Guy sought assurances from me on that — and that the sanction could lead to a teacher's being dismissed, but I would never support a teacher's being suspended or dismissed from their job for refusing to engage with an inspection process. There will be scope to work with the Committee to make sure that there are clear parameters for that professional body, in any referral, to ensure that the level of deterrent set will be appropriate. I will be able to work constructively with Committee members on that, because they have raised the issue out of genuine concern, reflecting the representations that they have had. There is sincerity in what they have said and what Ms Sugden has said, and I trust that, as we go through the process, we will find a way to reach common ground on it. I certainly want to do that and am happy to do it. Those areas include a reprimand. There is no financial sanction: that was taken out of the Bill, because Sinn Féin wanted it to be removed. There will be no potential concern about going to court and facing a prison sentence: that has all gone. There is now a referral to a professional body, about which I am happy to give an assurance to the Chairman of the Committee and to Members who have asked for it that I will work in good faith with them to seek a resolution and address any concerns that they have. However, we still need to have a measure that will remove industrial action over inspection from the table for the future. There is a clear distinction between legitimate industrial action and the obstruction of a statutory independent process that is designed to safeguard children. The ambiguity that exists in our law has allowed that distinction to become blurred, and that does not serve teachers or school leaders. Above all, it does not serve children. By providing clarity, the Bill removes inspection from the arena of industrial dispute and places it firmly where it belongs, as a shared professional responsibility. Members have raised concerns about punitive action or threats of sanction. I reassure the House that the Bill's approach is deliberately measured and proportionate. It reflects a belief that the profession is best placed to uphold its own standards. Ms Sugden referred to professional autonomy: here is a professional body that regulates the conduct of its members. I trust that it would be able to be proportionate and reasonable, but, if the Assembly wishes to put safeguards around that, I am happy to engage in order for that to be done in a way that allows progress to be made.

Non-cooperation with inspection will be referred to the GTCNI, which is the profession's regulatory body.

Some of the criticisms of the Bill are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the facts: for example, the suggestion that action short of strike has not impacted on safeguarding is simply wrong. During those periods, only documentation was provided. There was no observation of practice. That is not susceptible to an alternative interpretation. That is not just my position; I will quote the Education and Training Inspectorate. Inspection report after inspection report during action short of strike came to that conclusion. One stated that inspectors were:

"unable to assure parents/carers, the wider school community and stakeholders of the quality of education being provided for the children [and]" —

listen to this, Members —

"unable to evaluate fully the outworking of the arrangements for safeguarding in the school."

Those are not my words; they are the words of the Education and Training Inspectorate. That view was endorsed by the Northern Ireland Audit Office, which Mr Martin referred to in his contribution, and was evidence of its concerns. Every institution that serves the public must answer to the public and must be tested, questioned and held to account. We know that not from theory, but, sadly, Members, from hard, painful experiences in institutions of various types that had been highly respected. Time and again, historical abuse inquiries have shown us the same truth: when scrutiny is absent, harm takes root. It does not matter about the badge, the title or the profession. No role is so important and no institution so respected that it can stand above independent oversight. Trust is not preserved by shielding institutions from scrutiny; rather it is earned through transparency and accountability. The lesson is clear and unavoidable: across every walk of life from the most powerful offices to the most trusted professions independent scrutiny is not optional; it is essential. Without it, silence prevails, and, where silence prevails, injustice follows. Every element of the legislation is grounded in the principle of what is in the best interests of children. Their safety should not be a pawn in an industrial relations game. Whether it is about ensuring that safeguarding arrangements are rigorously assessed, that provision for children with special educational needs is properly evaluated or that all aspects of the curriculum are subject to scrutiny, the focus should consistently be on protecting and promoting the interests of children. Ultimately, the only test that matters is whether the Bill will make the system better for children.

I believe unequivocally that it will. I give way to Mr Sheehan.

1,648 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