Debate contribution: General Teaching Council Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on 2 December 2025.

MLA

Mr Paul Givan

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

2 December 2025

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

General Teaching Council Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5271803

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank Members for their contributions to the debate. I will pick up on some of their questions at the end of my closing remarks. Mr Sheehan referred to wanting to make sure that the matter is taken forward based on what schools want, not the Minister's agenda. I am not quite clear where the conflict is between what I want and what schools want: our positions are the same. I want a General Teaching Council Bill that protects and strengthens the teaching profession in Northern Ireland. The Bill recognises the high standards that already exist while safeguarding them and demonstrating that the public trust in our teachers remains well founded. The quality of our teachers is the foundation on which our high educational standards are built, and the establishment of a strong and effective professional body will directly support the efforts of every teacher in that. I would be surprised if schools did not agree with my agenda on what I am trying to achieve in the Bill, so I do not think that there is a conflict between my agenda and what schools want. I fully recognise that a majority of teachers have come to see GTCNI as almost invisible, delivering little that is of value to them while demanding an annual fee. Members have touched on the fee issue. That perceived invisibility stems directly from the historical failure of those who were supposed to provide the body with leadership and direction. That is, to my mind, the most damning indictment of all against the old GTCNI. One Member said that opportunities for improvement from the report have come and gone over the past number of years. There has been significant improvement, and that is why GTCNI has been removed from special measures. I referenced in my opening comments the significant transformations that GTCNI staff have achieved under the supervision of the Department of Education. It is only right that we acknowledge the significant progress that those staff have been able to make. That quiet, behind-the-scenes progress that GTCNI staff have achieved over the past four years has convinced me that a renewed GTCNI is well placed to deliver the reforms. The leader of the Opposition and others quite rightly asked this legitimate question: why not dissolve, dismantle and create a new body? I would ask the Minister of Education that question if I were on the opposite Benches. I did ask that very same question, and I have no doubt that, as officials engage with the Committee, they will explain all the processes that have been followed to improve GTCNI and why the decision has been taken to reform it through this Bill. Fundamentally, you would be asking me to bring legislation to the Assembly to dissolve an NDPB and to then create an identical body with the same functions. The reform functions are in the Bill, and that is exactly what would be in a new body, were we to dissolve GTCNI. I asked whether we could we rename the body, because people will associate the name with their experience of the past and with the report on its dysfunctional nature. Having asked that question, I found that it is not straightforward to repeal in law the name that is associated with the General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland. That would have required more work and could have delayed the Bill. That is why we have proposed a much reformed GTCNI. Obviously, it will create challenges in repairing the reputational damage that is associated with the past GTCNI. I want to put my efforts into that, but, ultimately, it will be for the new board to repair that reputation and rebuild trust among the profession and the wider education sector. The Bill can address only the historical failures that undermined the work of GTCNI, correct the legislative weaknesses that hindered its work and ensure that there is timely, well-informed decision-making to support its operational effectiveness. Consensus, not conflict, must be the hallmark of its future leadership. Some have already expressed the view that the new board will not be sufficiently independent of the Department. My response to that suggestion is to repeat that the 2021 board effectiveness review, which was based on council members' feedback, found that GTCNI had the worst-performing board that its consultants had encountered, having undertaken 645 similar reviews. Therefore, I will not apologise for insisting that, in line with the review report's recommendations, a public appointments process will be used for all future board members. It would be a serious failure on my part if I did not use the Bill to ensure that a future board does not collapse into division and infighting once again. That having been said, I recognise that, in order for it to be effective, GTCNI's board will require the input of experienced teachers and an understanding of the realities of life in the classroom. That is why, in regulations to be brought forward in support of the Bill, the new board will consist of 12 people — the Chairman asked me to clarify that — and 50% of its members will be required to be GTCNI-registered teachers. As I said in my opening remarks, our teachers are highly educated, skilled and committed individuals, whose professionalism should be recognised and commended. Professionalism in any regulated field is a matter not only of a particular qualification but of a personal commitment to a set of standards and to being the very best practitioner that you can be. That holds true whether you are a doctor, a nurse, a social worker, an accountant, an engineer or a teacher. As a professional, you accept that you will be held to account if your practice becomes ineffective or if your actions fall below those standards that you and all your peers have promised to uphold. Professionalism is a commitment to the collective good rather than individual self-interest. A strong, effective professional body underpins that commitment. "What do I get for my fee?" will always remain a valid question. However, it is one that can be answered only in terms of the collective benefits that the new GTCNI will deliver for our teachers. Going forward, the new board will be responsible for fees and will wish to be transparent about how that money is being spent and the value for money that it delivers.

I will take that request away. Ultimately, when officials come before the Committee, in the advice that they give in responding to members' questions, they will not try to withhold information from the Committee about all the submissions processes that were followed. I do not think that it would be the norm to provide ministerial submissions to a Committee. However, I am quite happy for my officials, in engaging with the Committee, to provide information in response to any requests that it has in that respect. I will deal with a number of the questions that I picked up on. Given his experience with the police, Mr Burrows's input to the Committee will be very insightful. I have not spoken about it in this Second Stage debate, but it will be important that, when it deals with conduct issues, the body, in its reformed capacity, does so in the manner that Mr Burrows has articulated. We do not want spurious claims to be brought forward and for those to take considerable time to be investigated, to the individual's detriment. If someone can be dismissed, they should be dismissed rapidly. We live in a world where, at times, people, for whatever different reasons, will make spurious claims. For the individual concerned, it is unsatisfactory that there would be a protracted period of jeopardy when they have done nothing wrong. It is important that those issues can be expedited and filtered, and that, quite rightly, when people bring forward serious claims, there is appropriate investigation and support. Again, that needs to be conducted in a timely fashion. That will be helpful insight as the Committee deliberates on those issues. I agree with the sentiment that has been expressed. There is no doubt that the Committee will ask a number of questions. People have raised things at Second Stage. Having had experience of the Committee, I know that it will leave no stone unturned when it comes to delving into all those matters.

That is to its credit, and it will be important in refining the legislation. I am not saying that the Bill, as presented at Second Stage, will not be subject to refinement or, indeed, improvement. I am happy to engage with the Committee. However, it is important that we retain the integrity of the Bill's fundamental principles and the reasons that we got to where we did throughout the various processes and in Members' consideration of amendments that may be proposed.

I will not labour this point, as it has been raised before, but it would be remiss of me not to correct some of Mr O'Toole's points about appointments. People have raised issues about the public appointments process for six of the 12 registered teachers. I appoint hundreds of boards of governors. I am the appointing authority for a considerable number of boards of governors. No one has ever challenged my appointment of those governors when I have approved them. I have appointed other people to senior positions through a public appointments process. The appointment of the EA chairman was carried out in line with all of the processes. It came through a process, and I then had to select the individual. It appears to me that some are contending that I should discriminate on the basis of someone's political opinion or identity. Would it be the same if a person from a different political party had been appointed? I suggest that it would not. Therefore, it is unfair to characterise that appointment in the way in which it has been characterised. The chief executive of the Education Authority was appointed by the head of the Civil Service. A permanent secretary was identified and brought forward. The appointment was ratified by the Education Authority board. The inferences that are being drawn about that process are unfair to the individual who is chief executive of the Education Authority. I appeal to Members to desist. I wanted to address that point without labouring it. Members have contributed to the debate on a Bill that will give teachers the professional body that they deserve. I commend the General Teaching Council Bill to the House.

1,754 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:06 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