Debate contribution: Irish-medium Education (Workforce Plan) Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on 21 September 2026.

MLA

Mr Timothy Gaston

Party at the time

Traditional Unionist Voice

Date

21 September 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Irish-medium Education (Workforce Plan) Bill: Consideration Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5743362

Read the official Assembly record

Text

At Second Stage, I opposed the principles of the Bill because it singles out one part of our education system for a statutory workforce planning regime that is not provided for any other sector. None of the amendments addresses that fundamental inequality. Amendment No 1 replaces in its entirety clause 1, which is the only substantive clause in the Bill. Although much of the amendment is presented as a technical redrafting, the substance of the clause remains exactly the same. The Department "must" produce a workforce plan specifically for Irish-medium education, which is to "set out measurable targets". It "must":

"keep the workforce plan under review, and ... revise and reissue the plan at least once every 5 years."

It "must" consult specified Irish-medium bodies and report on the plan's "implementation and effectiveness". Controlled schools, maintained schools and integrated schools are not to receive such a statutory plan. There will be no equivalent statutory workforce plan for special schools or for the education system as a whole. I said that at Second Stage and still believe it to be a fundamental flaw in the Bill.

Only Irish-medium education would have its workforce requirements elevated to that special statutory status. The argument at Second Stage was that Irish-medium education faces particular challenges. I have sat in the Chamber for the past two years, and I can assure the House that it is not just Irish-medium education that faces challenges. Every part of our education system faces challenges. Special schools face an acute shortage of space, and some of them are already beyond capacity. Does the Bill do anything about that? Absolutely not. Special schools often have to take more pupils than they have space for simply because there is nowhere else for those pupils to go.

Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker. Indeed, the redraft of clause 1 through amendment No 1 deals with the issue that there is no mention of special schools. There is absolutely none, Pat. It is about only one sector, namely the Irish-medium sector, and that is Pat's intention. Amendment No 1 is about that most favoured sector: the pet project of Irish-medium schools. However, all schools across Northern Ireland in all sectors struggle to recruit teachers and get the facilities that each of our pupils needs, but, again, we have a redraft of clause 1 that elevates Irish-medium education above the rest of the sectors. Pat Sheehan's answer to all those problems is to push forward his favoured sector. The Committee report makes it clear that the Department is already developing an Irish-medium education strategy that includes workforce planning and is expected in 2027. Departmental officials warned that imposing this additional statutory process could divert the small team responsible for that strategy and slow down delivery. Amendment No 1 does nothing to address that warning, nor does it address the serious problem with the 12-month deadline that clause 1 would set. The Committee was told that there is no comprehensive dataset covering the Irish-medium workforce. The Assembly Research and Information Service warned that robust workforce data would be a requirement for setting meaningful and measurable targets. The Department even advised that producing a proper plan would require 18 to 24 months. Despite all that evidence, the clause stays basically the same and retains the requirement that the first plan has to come within 12 months. What is the purpose of consulting experts if their practical warnings are then ignored? The Assembly is being asked to impose a statutory deadline that, the Department has said, may result in a document being produced for the sake of complying with this law rather than having a robust workforce plan based on reliable evidence. That would not be good legislation, and it shows the folly of the private Member's Bill. Amendment No 1 would replace clause 1 in its entirety without including the Education Authority among the statutory consultees: why is that? That tells us something about the priorities underlying the Bill. Amendment No 2 would create further difficulties. It would require consultation with:

"those providing informal learning opportunities within the Irish-medium youth sector."

Neither "informal learning opportunities" nor "the Irish-medium youth sector" is defined. How informal must learning be before it qualifies? What constitutes the "youth sector"? We do not know, because those definitions are not in the Bill. Which organisations would acquire a statutory expectation of consultation? I also remain concerned about the cost. The estimated annual cost is between £26,200 and £43,700, and that relates only to administration, consultation, data collection and monitoring. It does not include the cost of delivering whatever recruitment schemes, training places, bursaries, specialist services or other interventions emerge from the plan. The Department described the present Education budget as "undeliverable", and I agree. We hear time and time again from the Education Minister that he cannot fund all of his priorities. Yet, here we have Sinn Féin prioritising Irish-medium education above all other sectors. I will certainly oppose amendment Nos 1 and 2. The Bill is not the answer. If Mr Sheehan wanted to make a difference to the whole education sector, he would not simply have picked out his Irish-medium pet project. I will be sure to go through the Lobby to vote against amendment Nos 1 and 2.

880 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:40 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