Official Report: Monday 01 June 2026

Mr Delargy: The 'good jobs' Bill is about delivering for all. It is about secure contracts and working hours; ending fire and rehire; introducing day-1 employment rights; fairer pay; a better work-life balance; and enhanced trade union representation. The Minister 's vision is to ensure that the benefits of economic growth are felt by everyone. Research in Ireland and internationally clearly shows the benefits for workers and businesses alike, yet, in characteristically regressive fashion, the DUP seeks to stymie and stifle debate. It seeks to block the opportunity for the House to debate and for the Economy Committee to hear evidence from relevant stakeholders. When many in the DUP sat smirking and sneering, they were sneering at the workers of the North: the teachers, hospital workers, carers, cleaners and bar and restaurant workers for whom they have continuously and consistently failed to stand up.

Today, the DUP has proved beyond any reasonable doubt its contempt for workers through its opposition to union organisation and equality and by introducing a Bill to sanction teachers who dare to engage in industrial action. As a former teacher, I will make it abundantly clear that the DUP will not break our teachers or undermine our right to organise and demand better conditions and fairer pay to deliver an education system that treats its staff with respect.

The DUP's reality and the reality for ordinary people are very different. Workers and families need the 'good jobs' Bill now more than ever. For ordinary people, the reality is that they are struggling to put food on the table, struggling to heat their homes and struggling with a cost-of-living crisis, and that legislation offers workers some semblance of certainty. Today, the DUP needs to give us and workers the answer to this question: is it blocking the Bill because, as a party, it is anti-worker and anti-trade union, or is it blocking the Bill because it is being taken forward by a Sinn Féin Minister?

The House has the opportunity to deliver historic legislation that will not only align us with elsewhere but make us a world leader in workers' rights legislation. Let us get it done. Let us bring the Bill to the House and deliver for ordinary workers and families.

Mr Clarke: Three hundred and sixty-five days a year, police officers go out to protect our communities across the Province. Twenty-four hours a day, they do so without fear or favour in every community that they visit. From the events that we saw unfold in the early hours of Sunday morning, however, it is clear that some people had other intentions: to harm our police officers.

My thoughts are with the police officer who was injured in that heinous attack and with his colleague, who, I am sure, was concerned about his partner in the early hours of that morning. It looks as if the officers were responding to something in the vicinity. As we have now seen on social media and other platforms, someone then got into their police car and used it as a weapon against the officer.

All police officers and all right-thinking people will stand in solidarity with that officer today over his use of a firearm to protect himself and others in the community. We now hear noise and rumblings from people who are asking, "How did they get into the police car? How were they able to drive it off?". Those questions are irrelevant. Everyone should put themselves in the position of the two officers out in the heat of the moment of an incident to apprehend someone who was obviously up to no good. The last thing on their minds would have been to lock the police car and check the doors before making off after the individuals. I have no concern about the officers' behaviour in relation to the car. They were responding in the heat of the moment to an incident, and they did so in a timely manner. What I do not like is someone then deciding to get into the car and use it as a weapon against the police officers.

Questions have been asked about the length of sentences in the judicial system. While some of us believe that sentences are lenient, it is open to our courts to use the maximum on the scale. I hope that, in this case, when any individuals are brought before the courts, the judge sends a clear signal by using the maximum sentence available. We need to send a clear message that it is unacceptable to attack our security forces or public workers or, for that matter, anyone. No one should be attacked for doing their job. I hope that, when the case goes to court, the full rigour of the law will be applied to the individuals involved in the incident.

Mr McMurray: I will also comment on the issue that Mr Clarke raised. I thank him for making his points.

I condemn Sunday's shocking attack in Downpatrick on a police officer, who was struck by a stolen vehicle. The officer in question sustained serious injuries that required treatment in hospital, where he remains. An attempted murder investigation is under way. That is, unfortunately, the reality for PSNI officers who put themselves in harm's way every day to keep everyone in the community safe. The officer is someone's son, someone's brother and someone's friend. It could have been any of our relatives or friends. I am sure that I speak for other others when I say that it is wholly unacceptable. I thank the officer's PSNI colleagues, who provided urgent medical treatment at the scene, and those from the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service who further cared for him and took him to hospital.

I also thank the members of the public who provided support at the scene. I am sure that that demonstration of support from the community is much appreciated. In fact, I have been in contact with some of the officer's colleagues, so I know from them that the help that was received from the community at the time was very much appreciated by the PSNI in Downpatrick. That speaks to the wider point that what went on in is in no way reflective of people in Downpatrick and is not what they want to see on their streets.

Finally, I wish the injured officer and his family well, and I pray that he makes a full recovery.

Mr Gildernew: Last week, the Department for Communities released new statistics showing that, for the first time, there are over 50,000 households on the social housing waiting list. The statistics also show that there are now over 39,000 households in housing stress and that over 33,000 have homelessness status, which is a rise of 5% since March last year.

We are in a housing and homelessness crisis. We need to see solutions from the Minister.

We urgently need to see the revitalisation of the Housing Executive carried through. That would allow the Housing Executive to borrow against its assets and invest in building more homes. For decades, the British Government have underfunded the North, meaning that we have seen no serious investment in our social housing stock in recent years. The British Government must abandon their austerity agenda and support the Executive to build the homes that are needed.

The Programme for Government set a target of 5,850 new homes by the end of the mandate. I have serious concerns that that target will now be missed. Last year saw the commencement of 1,750 new social homes. While that is indeed welcome, it falls short of the target of 2,000 a year by some distance. We all appreciate that funding is scarce for all Departments and that Ministers are required to cut their cloth accordingly. However, some of the priorities that Minister Lyons chooses to fund are hard to understand, given the seriousness of the housing crisis.

I also have serious concerns about the 600 homes that were promised well over a year ago that were to be purchased to address the unsustainable rise in temporary accommodation costs. Whilst I fully support the intent behind the initiative, it is clear that the project has stalled, and it is unclear whether any of those houses will ever be bought.

As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I was glad to take part in a recent inquiry into homelessness. One of the key issues identified is that our legislation to tackle homelessness is wholly unfit for purpose. The North still does not have a statutory duty to prevent homelessness, despite rising homelessness levels. The evidence from across the water shows that the best way to tackle homelessness is through prevention, and only a statutory duty can bring a shift towards more preventative activities.
Despite having been in office for over two and a half years, the Minister has brought in virtually no legislation on housing or homelessness. The only upcoming Bill that he has announced concerns tackling antisocial behaviour and is in no way relevant to the housing crisis. The Minister for Communities must urgently get to grips with the housing and homelessness crisis and support the people who need support now.

Ms Forsythe: I rise to highlight my serious concern about a huge failure of the Parades Commission, given that it has ignored residents and businesses in Scarva. Once again, we have seen the Parades Commission completely bottle a decision. It has refused to listen to the legitimate concerns of residents who live along the route of a Palestine walk, and that is so disappointing.

Last year, we warned about the parade. The Parades Commission's excuse then was that the police had not marked the parade as sensitive, so the commission did not consider it. That proved to be a disaster, and mayhem descended on the peaceful, rural village of Scarva. It is astonishing that, after the disruption, tensions and disorder that we witnessed last year, so few lessons appear to have been learned. In the DUP's meeting with the Parades Commission last week, the commission acknowledged that it knew about the disorder, that Hamas flags were on full display and that businesses and residents were intimidated and frightened as riot tourists descended on Scarva and caused absolute turmoil. Local people have made their opposition crystal clear, but, instead of acting decisively, the commission has chosen to wave through another deeply provocative parade, with only token restrictions placed on it. The residents will rightly conclude that their concerns have once again been ignored and sidelined.

Markethill Volunteers Flute Band put in for a sponsored walk on the same morning to raise funds for veterans, yet that has been ruled out by the commission in favour of the Palestine demonstration. That gathering has no genuine local connection to Scarva. We suggested alternative routes. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the route has been deliberately chosen just to provoke tensions in a quiet, rural community that neither supports nor welcomes the parade.

The Parades Commission is out of touch with local residents. It has not taken account of last year's disorder, and it has not listened to the concerns. The good people of South Down and Northern Ireland understand and respect the role of lawful and established cultural events in community life. However, there is understandable anger when an overtly political demonstration is brought into our area, despite clear local opposition and the scenes that we witnessed last year. The DUP stands firmly with the residents and businesses of Scarva, who deserve to be able to live in peace in their homes and trade in their businesses. It is a bad decision by the Parades Commission.

Mr Donnelly: On Thursday, in a briefing to the Health Committee, the Royal College of Emergency Medicine (RCEM) set out the scale of the crisis in emergency care in Northern Ireland and the human cost linked to the failure to address that crisis. Using the standard mortality ratio calculation, the RCEM has estimated that, in 2025 in Northern Ireland, there were 1,032 excess deaths associated with patients waiting 12 hours or more in emergency departments before admission. To put that into perspective, that amounts to around 20 people each week. In 2020, the estimated figure was 461, and, in 2016, it was 60. The royal college described the situation as catastrophic, and I wholeheartedly agree.

What is especially important about the report and what Dr Michael Perry and Dr Sara-Jane McGurk reaffirmed for us at Committee is that it makes it clear that it is not simply a demand issue. Attendance numbers at emergency departments have changed little while the long waits and the mortality associated with them have risen sharply. That is exactly what happens to a system that is under sustained strain and in which patient flow is critically blocked. That is exactly what this is about: patient flow, delayed discharge, bed availability, community capacity and social care. It is a whole-system problem that requires a whole-system response. When I asked Dr Perry about the barriers facing emergency care and what the solutions were, he was clear that there was a need for a multi-year strategy that looked specifically at social care, not just the front-door solutions that inevitably add to pressures. The report looks at recommendations such as that. Dr Perry and Dr McGurk also told us that, while the Minister's Release to Rescue programme had reduced ambulance waits outside hospitals, it had made overcrowding inside worse.

The royal college's recommendations are practical and deserve serious attention. They include ending the corridor care and mortality associated with long waits by the end of the decade, adopting a whole-system approach to overcrowding and ensuring that there is clear accountability for delivery. That focus on accountability is of the utmost importance. Overcrowding is persistent, 12-hour waits are now routine and corridor care continues, so clear responsibility must be taken for improvement. The Minister should set out a clear and public plan to address the concerns in the report. He should deliver a plan for real and sustainable reform. This needs to be treated as the patient safety issue that it plainly is. More than 1,000 deaths a year being associated with prolonged waits in emergency departments cannot be regarded as a routine performance problem but should be taken as a clear warning and an issue that demands urgent action. Patients and families demand better, and staff in our emergency departments, who work under extraordinary pressure, deserve better. The question is whether the Minister is prepared to respond with the seriousness and urgency that the current catastrophic situation requires.

Ms Murphy: The ongoing crisis facing families of children with complex needs and disabilities across Fermanagh is driven by the severe lack of short-stay respite services, particularly the lack of community-based services. For years, families in Fermanagh have had to fight for respite provision in their community, yet many are still expected to travel significant distances to access basic support, with Omagh and Derry often being the nearest available options. Even then, support is not guaranteed. When a family reaches breaking point, an emergency intervention is required. Respite beds that were offered to families on a short-term basis have been repurposed for medium- or long-term care. Of course, no one disputes the need to support children in crisis, but the reality is that families are left without the respite that they rely on to keep going and to prevent crisis in the first place.

The situation has only worsened with the loss of community-based interventions and support, such as the Brighter Futures programme, which provided safe activities and outings for children at weekends and during the school holiday period especially. Many families are staring into the summer months with little support and few opportunities for their children to take part in activities that others simply take for granted. We all know that our health service is under pressure and that budgets are stretched, but those families cannot continue to be treated as an afterthought.

Respite care is not a luxury; it is essential for the well-being of children, for the stability of families and to prevent more serious interventions being needed later. Families in Fermanagh have waited long enough. They deserve local access to respite services and meaningful community-based supports and to know that their children's needs are being prioritised. Crucially, that must include proper post-19 provision, so that those young people and others with complex needs are not left facing a cliff edge when it comes to getting support into adulthood.

I urge the Minister of Health to listen and, most importantly, to act and work urgently with the Western Trust to deliver a stand-alone, short-term respite service facility in County Fermanagh, alongside the community support that children and families need and deserve.

Mr Kingston: At a meeting of the Committee for the Executive Office held here in Parliament Buildings last Wednesday, a disgraceful allegation was made by Mr Daniel Holder, the director of a group called the Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ). His allegation was an injustice that does not stand up to examination and needs to be withdrawn.

During an evidence session on race relations, Mr Holder made a sweeping claim that some schools in Northern Ireland are no-go areas for ethnic minorities. When challenged by Committee member Phillip Brett MLA to clarify his statement — I commend Phillip for doing so — Mr Holder came off with the allegation that the Belfast Model School for Girls in our North Belfast constituency was such a school. The fact that Mr Holder was prepared to spout such nonsense, which was immediately contradicted by another panel witness at the Committee hearing, has exposed his own narrow-minded and prejudiced views and his unreliability as a witness or commentator, and it has damaged or reinforced views of his organisation, the CAJ.

Unlike Mr Holder, I have attended many events in the Belfast Model School for Girls over the years. It is an excellent school. It has had ethnic minority pupils for many years and is increasingly ethnically diverse, as are all schools across Northern Ireland. It seems that Mr Holder's allegation was entirely based on one unfortunate case involving girls who had been removed from at least three schools due to their conduct, including other schools before and after their time at the Girls' Model.

Daniel Holder needs to withdraw his crass allegation against the Girls' Model school and to publicly apologise for it. I publicly call on him and the CAJ to make that apology. I and other DUP representatives will not tolerate his disgraceful slur against the Girls' Model school. We will uphold and stand for the excellent work that it does for girls from North Belfast, greater Shankill and beyond.

Mr Gaston: Last Wednesday, the Committee for the Executive Office hosted two panels as part of its evidence-gathering process on the race relations strategy. Members from both panels were highly political in the evidence that they presented to us. The second panel included Daniel Holder, a director of the Committee on the Administration of Justice. He made the outrageous statement that Northern Ireland needs to make contingency plans for the possibility of a Reform UK Government and branded the party leading the polls in the United Kingdom as far right. That showed such contempt for the views of millions of people right across our United Kingdom and, indeed, tens of thousands in this part of our UK.

Those remarks were rightly challenged and called out by me and by other Committee members. However, the comments from a member on the first panel were even more telling as the radical left mask started to slip. The Bible tells us:

In Wednesday's Committee, we had an example of that attitude of the heart coming to the surface through what was said, and I put it on record here today. I apologise to the House for using these terms, but Fidelma Fearon from Minority Ethnic Support Armagh was clearly picked up on the mic as saying:

I am pleased to say that the public have had their say in the court of appeal that is social media about the actions that took place at the Committee last Wednesday. It is noteworthy that, when asked about her language, Fidelma Fearon told 'The Irish News' that she would not apologise. In the House of Commons, the verbal abuse of a Member of Parliament is categorised as a contempt of Parliament. Our Standing Orders oddly make no mention of contempt of the Assembly, and something needs to be done urgently to address that serious defect.

Ms Fearon's group is in receipt of tens of thousands of pounds of public funding, including generous sums from the Executive Office, and it was a member of the Executive Office Committee whom she decided to abuse. We know that, under section 45 of the 1998 Act, the Assembly has the power to compel witnesses to attend.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Gaston: Ms Fearon should be required to re-attend the Committee and learn some manners.

Mr McCrossan: I rise to echo the frustration and anger shared by countless constituents of mine in Strabane. The Strabane Athletic Football Club has worked tirelessly over a number of years to develop its new football stadium in Strabane. The club has gone through the various processes and tried to jump the hurdles that have been put in front of it. The planning application has been stuck with delay after delay after delay for eight years. It was passed unanimously by Derry City and Strabane District Council planning committee. It ultimately ended up with the Minister and was then referred to the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC). The report was completed in November, and it has sat, since last year, on the desk of the Minister for Infrastructure, who has not responded to the questions that I have asked about when it will be published, even though officials from the Minister's Department have responded to various questions about that from the media.

It is a real point of concern for people, because the land has sat in limbo for eight years. Last week, I revealed that, shockingly, the Education Authority has swooped in overnight and purchased the land with the application pending on it. The Minister of Education confirmed that the Education Authority is fully aware of the ongoing process faced by Strabane Athletic Football Club, that it has been subjected to considerable hurdles and that the report has been on the Minister for Infrastructure's desk since last year; that is not acceptable. The Minister needs to publish the report's findings and get on with it, instead of the dithering and delay from her ridiculously messed-up Department that does not seem to be able to deliver anything.

I was shocked that the Education Authority had moved so swiftly, given that it does not move quickly for very much. Some £500,000 of taxpayers' money was used to purchase the land, with no guarantee that there can be any development on it, given that the planning application has been stuck with the Planning Appeals Commission and on the Minister's desk; or maybe it is one rule for members of the public and another for a public body such as the Education Authority. In the interests of the people whom I represent, I sincerely hope that that is not the case.

People in Strabane are rightly asking what they are getting for giving Sinn Féin all those votes and all that power. There are three Sinn Féin MLAs, an MP and countless councillors, and, to be honest, even with all the power that they have in government, I would not depend on them to deliver a bag of chips if they had a fleet of chip vans; that is how poor it is. The A5 has not been delivered. Look at the state of our roads. There is a lack of investment in the north-west. The constituency that I represent is in a state, and the job situation is dire. Is it total incompetence, or does Sinn Féin not want to deliver at all? People are right to ask those questions. The people whom I represent in my community have had enough of being let down. The blame the Brits saga is over; Sinn Féin has been in power for 20 years, and it is high time that it stepped up and delivered for the people who invested their votes in it.

Mr Wilson: Yesterday marked 35 years since the devastating IRA bombing of the Glenanne UDR base, the home of 'B' Company 2 UDR. That cowardly attack resulted in the death of three soldiers. A lorry containing one of the largest bombs detonated during the Troubles was rolled down the hill before colliding with the base and ripping it apart. The explosion echoed across the County Armagh countryside for miles, and it was heard as far away as Dundalk. Debris from the indiscriminate attack landed in the nearby village and damaged residential dwellings. For many residents, the sound of the explosion still haunts them to this day.

Lance Corporal Robert Crozier, Private Sydney Hamilton and Private Paul Blakely were all upstanding and respected members of the local community, and their loss is still formally remembered annually in various ways. Indeed, this evening will see such a memorial event take place in Redrock Orange Hall. The bravery of the three men who were murdered by the IRA in that attack prevented further loss of life, and their sacrifice is consistent with the actions of many brave men and women who served in the Ulster Defence Regiment during the darkest days of the Troubles. We also remember the impact that the attack had on the 14 people who were injured in it, including civilians, as well as the families of those killed, as they continue to deal with the pain and hurt that that senseless act of IRA terrorism caused.

There has been substantial commentary in recent months about the need to move on from the Troubles. I challenge the likes of John Swinney or anyone else of his opinion to meet the families face to face and tell them to move on from the loss of their loved one. No one has ever faced justice for their deaths. There are many today who strangely claim that there was no alternative to the barbaric attack that devastated Glenanne, even damaging the local primary school, which the terrorists had zero regard for. We will not allow the sacrifice of those men to be forgotten, and we will not allow their deaths to be rewritten as anything other than what they were: a cowardly, murderous attack that achieved only hurt, pain and endless heartache for the families who lost their loved ones.

Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to correct the record. The Member for West Tyrone said that a planning application has been sitting on my desk since last November. That is inaccurate, and I want that corrected for the record.

Mr Gaston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the Commons, verbal abuse of a Member of Parliament is categorised as contempt of Parliament. Our Standing Orders make no mention of contempt of the Assembly. I believe that that is a serious defect. What will be done to address that in light of last Wednesday's Executive Office Committee meeting?

Mr Speaker: That is certainly an issue that Members raised. We can look at it. We do not get involved in the specific proceedings of individual Committees. When it comes to the purposes of the Chamber, Members will be aware that I have made it clear that robust scrutiny of the issues is in order but that personal abuse is not and that crude language is not acceptable either. It appears that, in the Committee, that happened. That is a matter for the Committee, but I hope that the Committee will have the same robust stance as the Chamber when it comes to such issues. Things that are not acceptable in the Chamber should not be acceptable in Committees.

That said, I will write to the Committee Chair, because there were comments made regarding my being a racist in spite of having an African son-in-law, a Latino daughter-in-law and Latino grandchildren. That does not really demonstrate that there is much racism in our family, but Mr Holder sought to make that comment. We will expect the Committee Chair to respond to that and have the Committee deal with the matters and with people coming to the Committee and not behaving in an appropriate way. I thank the Member for raising that point of order.

Members, take your ease before we move to the next item of business.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I have received notice from the Minister for Infrastructure that she wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking their questions. This is not an opportunity for debate, and long introductions will not be allowed. Minister, over to you.

Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

In compliance with section 52 of the NI Act 1998, I wish to make the following statement on the meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in transport sectoral format that was held on Thursday 7 May 2026 in Dublin.

I attended the twenty-sixth North/South Ministerial Council transport meeting in my capacity as Minister for Infrastructure, alongside Darragh O'Brien TD, Minister for Transport, who chaired the meeting, and Mike Nesbitt MLA, Minister of Health. The statement has been agreed with Minister Nesbitt, and I am making it on behalf of both of us.

Ministers received a joint presentation from officials from both Departments on the cross-border greenways feasibility study and heard about potential opportunities for progressing cross-border greenways through route reviews, stakeholder engagement and reviews of similar infrastructure projects. The Council welcomed the announcement by the Government of Ireland in November 2025 of €2 million in Shared Island funding to support the development of cross-border greenways. Ministers noted that the Department for Infrastructure's appeal against the June 2025 High Court ruling on the A5 is ongoing in the Court of Appeal. The Council acknowledged that both Administrations remain committed to the delivery of the A5.

The NSMC agreed that both Administrations should continue to work collaboratively to progress the A5, Donegal Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) and N2 road infrastructure projects through existing forums, such as the cross-border working group, which is considering the practical aspects of the delivery of the tie-in between the A5 and the N2 Clontibret to the border project.

Ministers received an update on the joint work to deliver the all-island strategic rail review and the subsequent rail project prioritisation strategy, including details on the identified early interventions for major projects and how those will be progressed in future. The Council welcomed the publication of the rail project prioritisation strategy and affirmed that both Administrations will continue to work together to progress it. Ministers agreed to identify an optimal means of cooperation in order to help deliver on the recommendations of the prioritisation strategy and the rail review, such as through establishing a cross-border working group or expanding the remit of existing governance structures projects.

Ministers welcomed the Irish Government's initial allocation in November 2025 through the Shared Island Fund and the progression of the market-sounding exercise in December 2025 to advance the Programme for Government (PFG) commitment to establish air connectivity between Dublin Airport and City of Derry Airport. The Council welcomed the approval by both jurisdictions in February 2026 of the joint final business case for the Enterprise fleet replacement programme and the ceremonial signing of the contract for the purchase of the new fleet of eight trains for the flagship Belfast to Dublin Enterprise service.

Ministers noted that the mini-tender process for the Shared Island sports club EV charging infrastructure scheme has made significant progress, with several grant agreements having been issued. The NSMC noted the findings of the jointly led transport biodiversity workshop, which identified the potential for transport corridors to be connected to ecological corridors in order to support the restoration of biodiversity.

Ministers welcomed the progress that has been made as a result of the Belfast to Dublin hydrogen refuelling study, which is currently developing two business cases to support the assessment of options for demonstrator stations.

The Council noted the work being done in both jurisdictions on emissions modelling and decarbonisation planning, as well as the intention to continue knowledge exchange and collaboration in that regard. The Council welcomed the information-sharing session that took place in March 2026 between officials who are working in sustainable mobility and climate-related areas to share information on current work streams and to identify potential areas for future collaboration.

The NSMC noted that Departments will continue to engage on the development and implementation of relevant plans and strategies, such as the transport strategy 2035, the national sustainable mobility policy action plan and the Moving Together strategy. Ministers agreed that officials will continue to participate in further information-sharing sessions, addressing themes of mutual significance.

The NSMC agreed that road safety is a key priority for both Administrations and welcomed the ongoing engagement on road-user safety between officials from both Departments. It noted that road safety officials will continue to engage on the implementation of road safety action plans, including any lessons learned that will help inform the development of future plans. Ministers agreed to explore opportunities for greater collaboration and coordination in order to raise awareness, particularly of driver behaviours such as speeding, intoxicated driving, distracted driving and seat belt wearing. The Council noted that details of road safety campaigns for 2026 will be shared and that a communications workshop to explore opportunities for collaboration will be held by the end of June 2026. It agreed to explore opportunities further for the alignment of road safety messaging in future years, where appropriate and where such opportunities arise.

The Council agreed to hold its next meeting in transport sectoral format in winter 2026. My officials and I look forward to working with the Minister for Transport and his officials on all areas of cooperation across the sector.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for her statement, in which she highlighted how road-user safety was a key issue for discussion at the North/South Ministerial Council meeting. Over the weekend, a constituent of mine and yours contacted my office, greatly angered by the fact that she had broken a bone in her ankle after tripping on a dangerous pothole on the Tullyah Road between the Mountain House and Whitecross. How are you and your Department working with your southern counterparts to ensure that the road safety strategy makes sure that dangerous potholes are filled and resurfaced without delay?

Ms Kimmins: It is a bit of a stretch to link that issue to the statement. However, I will give it a go.

Look: road conditions have been well discussed at this stage. I have set out very clearly the work that I am doing with officials to improve those conditions and make a difference that will actually have a lasting impact. I am really sorry to hear that a constituent has had that experience. Nobody wants that situation. Everybody should be safe on our roads regardless of whether it is to do with the condition of the roads. The road safety issues that we are talking about today relate to driver behaviour and put a key focus on the issues that we know are the main causes of road deaths and serious injuries as a result of road collisions. Road conditions are a separate issue to what we are talking about today.

I have set out very clearly to the House on numerous occasions, and to the Committee in response to correspondence, what we are trying to do about road maintenance within a very constrained budget. We are trying to make really good progress. We are seeing progress and roads being resurfaced, albeit not at the pace that I would like. I can do only what I can with the resources that I have. However, I am determined that we will make a real difference and that, this time next year, we will be in a better position than we have been in for some time.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Peter, I do not particularly wish to give direction on latitude, so will you keep your remarks to the statement, please? Thank you very much indeed. Peter Martin, over to you.

Mr Martin (The Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure): I feel as though I have been admonished before I have even asked the question, Mr Deputy Speaker. [Laughter.]

Minister, thanks very much for your statement. Recently, your boss, the First Minister, indicated in an interview that she would be willing to amend climate change targets in order to get the A5 built. Do you concur with the First Minister that the law should now be changed to allow for the construction of the A5?

Ms Kimmins: I am fairly sure that I have answered that question already as well. I said that very clearly when we received the disappointing High Court ruling on the A5 in 2025. That is well on the record. At this time, my focus is on the appeal, as we are in the thick of it at the minute. That is the quickest route to resolving the three grounds that were challenged in the ruling last year. At all stages, however, I have said that we will continue to look at all other options that will get the road built. My priority is getting the road built and the quickest way to get that done because, ultimately, it is about saving lives. That is what I am committed to doing. We will focus on the appeal, but we are looking at everything to see what else can be done in the event of an unsuccessful outcome. My view is that we need to win that appeal.

Mr McAleer: Thank you, Minister. The previous Member touched on the A5. I am heartened to hear that the A5 remains a key priority for the NSMC. Have the Dublin Government reaffirmed their commitment to that project?

Ms Kimmins: Absolutely. Thankfully, they have said that they are absolutely committed to their funding part. As the Member will know, the A5 is ring-fenced as an Executive flagship project. The commitment from the Irish Government is to part fund the project by around €600 million. As I said in my previous answer, my focus at this time is to get the appeal concluded with a successful outcome so that we can get on with the work, hopefully sooner rather than later.

Mr McReynolds: I thank the Minister for her statement. I certainly welcome that road safety was such a focus. Specifically on speeding and intoxicated driving, what legislative changes will we see in Northern Ireland during the mandate to tackle those issues?

Ms Kimmins: As the Member will know, we have just closed the speed limit review consultation. We hope to be able to publish the outcome of that fairly soon. That is a key area, particularly when we look at residential areas around schools. I have made my view very clear that we should see a lower speed limit in those areas. We have seen the success of the temporary 20 mph zones outside schools. That can really improve road safety.

As well as that, officials are looking at drink-driving legislation and drink-driving limits. That work is ongoing. I hope to be able to update Members as we get through it.

Mr Stewart: I thank the Minister for her statement.

Minister, will you outline what discussions took place on the all-island rail review and the prioritisation strategy? When are we likely to start seeing shovels in the ground on some of the key aspects of that all-island rail review, given its strategic importance?

Ms Kimmins: There are positive discussions around that. The Government in the South are really keen as well, and we continue to work with our colleagues in the Department of Transport. It has secured support from the European Investment Bank (EIB) advisory service to help progress the implementation of the recommendations of the all-island strategic rail review. As the Member will know, the project prioritisation strategy was published in December. Both Departments are building on their positive working relationships to explore additional interdepartmental working groups that can work collaboratively to achieve the recommendations of the rail review. Collaboration continues on the Enterprise service as well. The Irish Government's allocated Shared Island funding supported the introduction of the new hourly Enterprise service that commenced in October 2024. Officials are engaging extensively with their counterparts in the South and the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB) on the progress of the Enterprise fleet replacement project, which we signed the contract for just last month.

The investments will improve the experience of people travelling by train. The greater frequency and capacity will encourage others to use those services. It will make it even easier for people to connect and make greener transport choices, which will bring economic and social benefits for us all. We continue to work on that and on how we can progress at pace. There is a real appetite to see delivery of the all-island rail review in full, and I have outlined the prioritisation within that.

Mr McGuigan: Minister, I will continue in a similar vein. In your response to John, you mentioned the Enterprise project. It gives us a glimpse of what we can achieve across the island with the all-island rail review. For additional information, how do your Department and your counterparts in the South plan to implement the rail review?

Ms Kimmins: As I have said, we continue to work with our counterparts in the South to ensure that we have the capacity and capability to jointly progress the rail review. At the same time, we need to continue to work collectively to ensure that we get support from the Executive so that a credible, long-term funding strategy is developed and agreed. That will be key to making the progress that we all hope to see.

The project prioritisation strategy, which I mentioned in my previous response, was a summary report of the main findings from feasibility studies on the four major projects: the Antrim to Lisburn link, with a link to Belfast International Airport; the Portadown to Armagh line; the Portadown to Derry line; and the electrification of the line between Belfast and the border. That was published on 17 December last year. The report outlines a vision for the future development of the rail network in the North and aligns with the ambitions of the all-island rail review. The findings provide a case for investment in a modern and sustainable rail network, subject to the availability of capital and resource funding. Part of the wider network vision is to double the number of rail passengers through improved network accessibility, enhanced regional connectivity and reduced interurban journey times.

As I have said in the House before, I have provided £1 million of additional funding in the last financial year to maintain the momentum on those strategic projects. Delivering the four projects alongside a shift towards rail travel — we see more and more people really wanting to use rail services — will unlock significant benefits for the North and on an all-island basis. We see the growth in numbers. Completion of the feasibility studies is a critical first milestone in defining the projects and their viability. However, progressing all or any of the projects will require significant funding that has not already been allocated, and we will be subject to future budget availability. We continue to work with our colleagues in the South to find out how we can fund the projects, because we all agree that we need to realise the progress from the review and get on with it as best we can.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for her statement. Justice McAlinden recently said that your approach to the A5 appeal was:

He felt that it was "gaslighting" by you and your Department. I note that the court case was discussed at the recent meeting. Minister, it is extraordinary for a High Court judge to say that. How do you defend it? Has the penny finally started to drop in relation to unaffordable and unrealistic climate targets?

Ms Kimmins: I will not comment on those legal proceedings, as we are in the middle of the appeal. I will not, however, take lectures from the DUP, whose Ministers have taken it on themselves to intervene in many legal cases, with Grand Central station being one. I will leave it at that.

My focus is on winning the appeal and ensuring that we get the road built. I appreciate that the Member has put forward some suggestions, but we are appealing on three grounds, and that suggestion does not resolve all of them.

Mr McMurray: I thank the Minister for her statement. She mentioned €2 million for cross-border greenways: how will that money be spent, how much of it will come up North, and what are the plans to expand greenways on this side of the border, given that, when you look across, you see that the development of those greenways seems to be much further on than ours?

Ms Kimmins: The Member will be aware that I have committed to provide funding to support the development and delivery of cross-border greenways that are being taken forward under the Shared Island Fund for greenways, including an allocation of £126,000 last year to Fermanagh and Omagh District Council to support geotechnical survey work on the northern section of the Sligo-Enniskillen greenway and £400,000 over the next two years towards early development of a number of other potential schemes. Further funding allocations will be subject to the submission and consideration of individual project business cases.

The Member will be aware of the successful Carlingford lough greenway, which was recently completed. It has been transformative. We know that they are really important projects that bring so much not only for the local economy but for tourism, health and all of that. I want to continue to make progress in this key area. We also continue to explore the Sligo-Enniskillen greenway, which I mentioned; the Ulster canal greenway; Lifford to Derry via Carrigans village; Derry to Buncrana; Lifford to Derry on the River Foyle's east bank; and Warrenpoint to Newcastle via Kilkeel, which is, obviously, in the Member's constituency.

Ms Finnegan: Minister, it was welcome to see the signing of the contracts for the Enterprise fleet replacement project. The hourly Enterprise service has been a game changer for the all-island economy. Can you give an update on that scheme?

Ms Kimmins: It was welcome that both jurisdictions were able to approve the joint final business case for the Enterprise fleet replacement programme and to have the ceremonial signing of the contract last month for the purchase for a new fleet of eight trains for the flagship Belfast-Dublin Enterprise service. For me, it is a momentous opportunity for public transport, particularly for that significant route between Belfast and Dublin and that economic corridor. It is transformative.

The cross-border investment of almost £560 million, over £200 million of which comes from my Department, underlines my commitment to improving public transport. It is an exciting time. Grand Central station is the game changer that it promised to be when it opened in autumn 2024. It is fair to say that, when we had our guests down there last month for the signing of the contract, they were absolutely blown away by what they saw. It really is something to be proud of. I look forward to building on that momentum and making sure that we further enhance our rail network for everybody.

Mr Wilson: Thank you, Minister. On the road user safety element of your statement, we serve the same constituency, so you will be aware that Gosford is one of the busiest parts of it. A wide variety of visitors come to it, not least a lot who come across the border via Newry to access the forest park. Doing so is hugely risky, because they have to wait in the middle of one of the busiest carriageways in the constituency in order to access that park. I am due to meet your officials later this week, but it would be useful if you were to front-load that meeting with a positive statement about your intention to improve safety through the release and increase in safety and basically say, "Yes, I agree that we need to improve safety here, and a right-turning lane is the best way to do that".

Ms Kimmins: As the Member is aware, we had a site meeting a number of weeks ago. I understand the concerns, because, as he said, we share that constituency. I go up and down that road regularly, whether I am going to Gosford or coming to and from the matches. I know how busy the road is, particularly at that junction. The Member and I talked at length when we met on-site. As he knows, officials are looking at what options are available to improve safety. I have not had the feedback from that to date. Officials may have further updates when the Member meets them later this week. At this stage, it would be remiss of me to make a call on that until I see all the analysis of the options that we discussed on the day.

Mr McHugh: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas.

Minister, it is welcome that the Departments have made road safety a permanent agenda feature, recognising in particular the high rate of accidents that we tend to have in the border areas, where I live. Will you outline steps that will be taken to address the issue for border areas and the nature of the rural roads there?

Ms Kimmins: The key point that the Member has made about border areas is that it is so important that we are aligned on an all-island basis on what we are doing about road safety. Things do not change once you get to the border; we all experience the same challenges. Road safety is a key priority for me. As I have said previously, one death on our roads is one too many. This year already, 30 people have lost their lives on the roads; that is 30 families that have been devastated by a knock on the door. It is approximately one person every four days since the start of the year. My thoughts are with all the families and communities who are impacted on by a fatal road collision.

You will be aware that we launched our road safety strategy in the North in 2024, working with our road safety partners. We aim to reduce road deaths by 50% by 2030. The strategy is steered by the road safety strategic forum, members of which include representatives from the PSNI, the Fire and Rescue Service, the Ambulance Service, DAERA, DOJ, the Department of Education and the Public Health Agency (PHA). Our latest road safety strategy action plan, which is to 2027, was launched in January and outlines specific steps and initiatives to be progressed until the end of March 2027 that will contribute towards the aim of reducing the number of people killed or seriously injured on our roads. The action plan includes strategic interventions that are acknowledged to be effective, long-term policy developments and actions that will contribute to the strategic aims of safe roads, safe vehicles and safe people. Alongside our road safety partners, we focus on priority areas, including, among others, policy and legislation; enforcement; communication and awareness; and active travel. The action plan, which has been developed in collaboration with a wide range of road safety partners, including Departments and blue-light organisations, faces into priority and emerging road safety issues.

Following the recent increase in fatalities, I have committed further funding in 2026-27 to ensure that vital road safety campaigns are relaunched as soon as possible. This month, three campaigns, called "Priorities", "Bike Speed" and "Bike Aware", were aired, focusing on driver behaviour and motorcyclist safety as an initial priority. Media plans for pedestrian, seat belt wearing and anti-drug-driving campaigns are being finalised and will run once the existing campaigns conclude. That approach reflects emerging priorities, including the fact that seven pedestrians have been killed this year. Anti-drug-driving is a relatively new campaign, having run for only a short period in November, but it addresses a growing and widespread issue. There is also increasing concern around seat belt use, with anecdotal evidence linking the non-wearing of seat belts to recent fatalities and serious injuries.

Mr Durkan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas.

Minister, the dualling of the Buncrana Road, which is a major transfrontier route in the north-west, has been proposed since the early 1970s. I do not know how many times it has been announced, and I have lost count of the number of consultation events that I have been to, but it seems, once again, to have slipped off the Department's radar. Has there been any discussion with your counterpart in the South, given its planned investment in Donegal in particular, about the inclusion of the Buncrana Road in its plans?

Ms Kimmins: We are always looking at what we could consider for Shared Island funding, and there are projects with a cross-border element that could be eligible for it. There are discussions around all those projects, and Buncrana Road could be one of them. It has a cross-border benefit and could obtain that funding. We are discussing the projects that are there and will keep that on the agenda. Buncrana Road is a key one that could progress that way, if we were successful.

Mrs Erskine: Minister, we know that £159 million has been spent to date on the A5, and I think that that figure will probably increase. Last week, two public engagement events cost £20,000. That does not include staff costs. While taxpayers' money keeps being spent, action to deal with the problem is not in motion. Sinn Féin is presiding over locking up our infrastructure. Minister, if the Court of Appeal judgement goes against you, what is plan B? What are you doing to make sure that that plan is implemented as soon as possible?

Ms Kimmins: As I have said since the day after the court ruling last year, we are looking at other options. It would be irresponsible to go into the detail of them at this stage because our focus is on the appeal. Appealing the judgement on the three grounds on which we were unsuccessful last year is the quickest route to getting the road built. I assure the Member and the House that my focus is, ultimately, on getting the road built. We have said that we will look at other options. The situation is not as straightforward as Members portray; there are a number of factors that we have to look at, and I want to make sure that all of those are carefully considered as part of the process.

Mr McCrossan: Minister, with respect, the quickest route to getting the road built is not the appeal; it is getting it right the first time. Given the repeated failures and delays and the scathing criticism of your Department by Justice McAlinden, in relation to the A5, did the Irish Government raise concerns about your shocking incompetence as Minister and about that of countless Sinn Féin Ministers when it comes to getting the road built, which would allow us to finally move on?

Ms Kimmins: No.

Mr Gaston: The statement mentions the continued commitment to the A5. The judgement was a direct result of climate change legislation that was passed by the House and has to be owned by the House. Has the Minister asked her Executive colleagues to revisit the net zero policy not just in relation to the A5 but across the board? That flawed legislation needs to be binned, and the economy and building infrastructure in Northern Ireland's need to be put first.

Ms Kimmins: As I said in response to previous questions on the issue, my focus at this point is on the appeal. That is also what my officials are focused on.

The Member's points about the Climate Change Act are not the answer to all of the issues that we are dealing with at this time. We will consider everything in the round, as I said, but we have to ensure that it is carefully considered so that we can move forward and make good progress.

Mr McCrossan: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. After I raised concerns earlier about Strabane Athletic Football Club, the Minister quickly rose to her feet to state in a point of order that I was incorrect. I have just read the letter that I received from the Planning Appeals Commission. It confirms that, at the end of November last year, that report was sent for the Minister's attention to the Department. I have not been inaccurate; I have reflected exactly the correspondence that was sent to me.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): As you are fully aware, Mr McCrossan, that was not a point of order, but your point is on the record.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I have received notice from the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking their questions. This is not an opportunity for debate, and long introductions will not be allowed.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, and in compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act, I wish to make a statement about the 33rd meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in the aquaculture and marine sector, which was held on 15 May 2026. The Executive were represented by junior Minister Reilly and junior Minister Bunting as accompanying Ministers and by me as lead Minister for the sectoral meeting, which I also chaired. The Irish Government were represented by Timmy Dooley TD, Minister of State at the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment. The statement has been agreed with junior Ministers Reilly and Bunting, and I make it on behalf of all of us.

The NSMC welcomed the report on the activities of the Loughs Agency, particularly its ongoing conservation and protection efforts, as well as its environmental education and outreach programmes. Ministers noted the update on the agency's fisheries management and improvement works, including the delivery of nature-based solutions to support climate adaptation and nature restoration across the Foyle and Carlingford catchments during 2025. The Council welcomed the agency's success in securing PEACE PLUS funding, particularly for the MOSAIC project, which will deliver an innovative cross-border marine observation network with support from 11 international partners.

The NSMC approved Loughs Agency's revised business plan for 2025 and also its business plan for 2026 and recommended the associated budget and grant provisions. The Council also approved the agency's corporate plan for 2026-28. The Council noted that the Loughs Agency annual report and accounts for 2024 have been certified and laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly and both Houses of the Oireachtas. Ministers noted that a review of the agency’s staffing complement is being progressed, with any relevant recommendations to be brought to a future meeting of the NSMC.

The NSMC welcomed the update on the implementation of the Loughs Agency science strategy framework, which continues to focus on salmonids, native oysters and aquatic ecosystems. Ministers noted the agency's ongoing work to improve monitoring procedures for Atlantic salmon stocks that are used to better assess conservation limits. The Council also noted continued survey work on native oysters, including the commissioning of the oyster mapping eco modelling and growth modelling (OMEGA) project to support conservation efforts. The Council noted the launch of a pilot environmental modelling programme using remote climate telemetry to monitor river temperatures in real time.

Ministers noted a range of measures that are being implemented to address climate change and biodiversity loss, including the creation of riparian buffer strips, in-stream habitats, riparian tree planting, bank stabilisation, natural water retention measures and barrier mitigation projects across the catchments. The NSMC commended Loughs Agency for its proactive response to the impacts of climate change and biodiversity loss on priority fish species and welcomed its continued commitment to collaborative working with partners.

Finally, the NSMC agreed to hold its next meeting in aquaculture and marine sectoral format in autumn 2026.

Mr McCrossan: I thank the Minister for his update. His statement praises Loughs Agency's conservation work, climate adaptation projects, scientific monitoring and international partnerships, but warm words do not pay staff or deliver important projects. Given that the agency is now carrying more responsibilities than ever, will the Minister say whether he believes that Loughs Agency is currently adequately funded? If not, how does he justify that position to the staff of Loughs Agency and the communities that see services stretched and opportunities missed because of chronic underinvestment?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Mr McCrossan. I am aware of Loughs Agency's budgetary challenges, and that is why, a fortnight ago, I travelled to its offices in Derry to have a specific conversation about the issues. It was a constructive discussion, which we will continue, because I recognise the challenges that the agency faces with its budget. I will continue to engage in order to seek a resolution.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Can you give us a better update on salmonids and the most up-to-date picture on Atlantic salmon, given their particular relevance to tourism?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Robbie. A range of factors is contributing to the decline in Atlantic salmon stocks, including climate change, invasive species, disease and parasites, habitat degradation, stocking practices, predation, migration barriers, pollution and poor water quality, over-exploitation and aquaculture impacts. It is a significant issue of concern. There was a presentation at the meeting that highlighted the challenges and the need for us to work together, North/South, in response to the decline in stocks. Those are all significant challenges, but there is a commitment to work with Loughs Agency to address them.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for his statement. Have there been any discussions at North/South Ministerial Council level on the issue of strengthening all-island cooperation on nutrient management, particularly in light of the phosphate surplus that we have in the North versus the deficit in the South and the fact that farmers are not allowed to export phosphates to the South to redress the balance?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Mr McAleer. The issue was largely discussed at the NSMC meeting in agriculture sectoral format, so I will talk about it in my next statement. We recognise the challenges to water quality in Northern Ireland and the South of Ireland, so we need to work together. Significant North/South engagement is occurring on that, and there is potential for a Shared Island project. Those challenges are not unique to us, and we are determined to work together on them.

Miss McIlveen: I note from the statement that there was a discussion on the response to the impacts of climate change. Was there a wider discussion on the Irish Republic's Critical Infrastructure Bill 2026? Closer to home, has the Minister had any communication from Sinn Féin Ministers following the First Minister's comments that she would be open to amending the Climate Change Act, which would, of course, need to consider broader issues beyond infrastructure?

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for her question. The discussions on climate change at this NSMC focused on its impacts on fish stocks. I outlined more about that to the Chair of the AREA Committee earlier. The Loughs Agency has developed a climate action plan that maps out, at an organisational level, climate risks and impacts, supporting a shift from high-carbon energy, addressing climate adaptation for the organisation, and supporting climate-resilient solutions for the catchments of Lough Foyle and Carlingford lough.

Through delivery of the climate action plan, the Loughs Agency will be implementing an agile, risk-based approach to climate adaptation across the Foyle and Carlingford catchments. The plan allows the agency to be responsive to direct and indirect climate impacts to prioritise and plan work programmes.

In response to the specific questions from the Member, I have not had discussions on amending our climate targets because my focus is on delivering the climate action required due to the impact that it is having across Northern Ireland. We have responsibilities regarding that, and it is important that we live up to them.

Mr Blair: I welcome the Minister's statement. The Minister will be aware of the importance of Lough Neagh, especially the zebra mussel issue, to the wider aquaculture sector. He will be aware, too, of my recent engagement on that on behalf of constituents. Will the Minister give an update on any future ownership of Lough Neagh and on matters that would help us along the road of environmental governance improvements and environmental improvement more generally?

Mr Muir: Thank you, John, for your question. My focus as Minister is primarily on addressing the sources of the pollution that is affecting Lough Neagh, alongside climate change and stronger environmental protection. I am, however, conscious of the issue of ownership of the bed and soil of Lough Neagh. I had constructive engagement on that with the Earl of Shaftesbury recently. He said that he was amenable to handing over the bed and soil, without charge and without terms, conditions or preconditions, for community use, and if that was not possible, to public ownership. I intend to seek another meeting with him to explore the matter further, particularly the opportunities for community ownership. I am seeking advice on what public ownership of Lough Neagh would be. These are constructive engagements, and I will continue with them, but my desire is to get community ownership of the bed and soil of Lough Neagh, and I will continue in that vein.

Ms Finnegan: I thank the Minister for his statement. Following the NSMC meeting, does the Minister agree that the long-term success of the fishing, aquaculture and seafood sectors will depend on deeper all-island planning and investment? Also, what steps has the Minister taken to ensure that communities across the island benefit from that approach?

Mr Muir: Thank you for your question. Quite a lot is happening around that already. It is important that we have those NSMC meetings but also that work continues beyond the meetings. We are taking forward five EU-funded projects. I thank the Loughs Agency for taking part in those, which is practical North/South cooperation on those issues. The challenges faced in Northern Ireland are not unique to us; they are faced across the island of Ireland. We are a single epidemiological area, and that is one of the imperatives for cooperation, but we can also support the industry, North and South, through PEACE PLUS and the NSMC meetings, and we will continue to do that. I am grateful to my counterparts down south, including Timmy Dooley, who went to the meeting. It is a constructive and fruitful relationship.

Mr Wilson: Minister, you will be aware of the progress of the works at Narrow Water. What discussions have you had about the ecosystems in that location and what considerable construction work potentially means for that body of water? Was that discussed, and what parameters, restrictions or controls were placed on the work to ensure that there will be no damage to Narrow Water and its surrounding area during the construction phase?

Mr Muir: Thank you. I will write to the Member to set out more detail regarding the licensing arrangements because I will need to seek advice from officials. It is important that we protect the marine environment in everything that we do, so I will write to the Member to set out a bit more on that.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Minister. Will you provide more detail on the five EU-funded initiatives that you referred to?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Andy. The first of the five EU-funded projects is STRAITS, which is to coordinate aquatic animal tracking and environmental observation efforts, enabling progress on marine management and planning. The second is NorTrack, which is to monitor the movements of aquatic species that are critical to the north-east Atlantic. The third project is DTOTrack, which is to enable the agency to develop digital twin prototypes of the Foyle and Carlingford lough catchments to improve management and spatial planning capabilities. The fourth project, MOSAIC, is to develop an innovative cross-border marine observation network framework. The fifth project, Catchment Action for Local Management (CALM), is to address critical environmental challenges in cross-border river catchments across the region. I thank the Loughs Agency for taking the projects forward; they are practical examples of cooperation.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the Minister for his statement. Water quality is critical to the health of our environment and the success of our aquaculture sector.

Minister, what discussions were there at the North/South Ministerial Council meeting on water quality in our loughs and waterways, including the Brantry lough in my constituency, about which concerns have recently been raised? What actions were agreed to address the challenges?

Mr Muir: Thank you. The Loughs Agency plays a critical role in fisheries enforcement and in responding to water pollution incidents. Since the previous NSMC meeting in July 2025, it has responded to 101 illegal fishing incidents and investigated 172 pollution incidents. It dealt with five fish kills during 2025. Such incidents require a significant response, and I am committed to supporting the Loughs Agency in its critical role in responding to water pollution.

Mr Buckley: The Loughs Agency and the Department are key stakeholders in the management of fisheries in Lough Neagh. The Minister knows about the ongoing dispute about who owns the recreational and leisure angling rights on Lough Neagh. His Department continues to bury its head in the sand on the issue. Has the Minister or his Department had sight of a lease, licence or deed? Does he agree that, in the absence of such information, the Lough Neagh Fishermen's Co-operative has no right to claim ownership and put legitimate, legal, licence-holding anglers off the lough?

Mr Muir: As the Member will be aware, I have responded to an Assembly question on the issue. He will also be aware of the legal issues and arguments associated with it. I am wary of walking into a legal issue about the rights, but I am aware of your concerns.

Ms D Armstrong: Minister, thank you for your statement. I note the work to address climate change and the loss of biodiversity. Were measures to protect the marsh fritillary butterfly discussed at the meeting, given that the species is protected in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland? If not, could the matter be put on the agenda of future meetings?

Mr Muir: I can confirm that the matter was not discussed at the meeting. Rather than my asking for it to be put on a future agenda, if you write to me setting out more detail on it, I will be happy to raise the matter with my counterpart in the South.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, did you have any conversations about bringing Lough Neagh under the responsibility of Waterways Ireland? How would doing so help us improve water quality and increase the potential for tourism around the lough?

Mr Muir: I am aware of the issue that you outline. If I am to be honest, the issue of navigation and Lough Neagh not being covered by a North/South body were omissions from the Good Friday Agreement. I am conscious that the issue falls under the remit of another Minister. I am dealing with a lot in relation to Lough Neagh, and my primary focus is on tackling pollution, dealing with climate change and strengthening environmental protection. If there is a concern, I am happy to raise it with the relevant Minister to see whether there is amenability to cover it.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, you mentioned the Loughs Agency's fisheries management and nature restoration across the Foyle and Carlingford lough catchments. The Clanrye is the major river flowing into Carlingford lough. What efforts have been made on a North/South basis to monitor numbers of native species of fish in that river, and have schemes been explored to reintroduce them where they traditionally spawned? Have you sought the devolution of Crown Estate responsibilities to the North, and will you outline the benefits of doing so?

Mr Muir: There are probably two questions in that. On the latter question, the Crown Estate issue primarily sits with the Finance Minister. It was discussed with the Treasury as part of the formation talks for the establishment of the Executive, because Scotland has responsibility for its Crown Estate. I mentioned that to the UK Government, and they were certainly not amenable to devolving Crown Estate responsibility to Northern Ireland.

On the first issue, I will have to write to the Member with a bit more detail on that river. I want to make sure that I give accurate information in response to his question.

Mr Gaston: Can the Minister tell the House how many Loughs Agency staff appointments required retrospective approval from the North/South Ministerial Council because they had been made before approval was obtained?

Mr Muir: I recognise that the Loughs Agency's staffing complement, which was last approved in 2006, no longer reflects current operational demands and needs to be reviewed. The agency has confirmed that it is operating within its approved complement as it employs 50 staff, 49 of whom are full-time equivalents, against an approved staffing complement of 53. A review of the agency's approved staffing complement is being undertaken in order to regularise the position.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I have received notice from the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs that he wishes to make another statement. Before I call the Minister, I again remind Members that they must be concise in asking their questions. This is not an opportunity for debate, and long introductions will not be allowed.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement in compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 regarding the thirtieth North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) agriculture meeting, which was held at the NSMC joint secretariat offices in Armagh on Friday 15 May 2026. Junior Minister Aisling Reilly MLA, junior Minister Joanne Bunting MLA and I represented the Northern Ireland Executive at the meeting. The Irish Government were represented by Martin Heydon TD, Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Mr Heydon chaired the meeting. The statement has been agreed with junior Minister Reilly and junior Minister Bunting, and I make it on behalf of us all. It was a positive meeting, and a lot of progress was made. I will now take each paper in the order in which it was discussed.

On the review of the work programme, the NSMC noted the continued implementation of the revised work programme for the agriculture sector, as agreed by the Council in May 2024, and the engagement between both Administrations to review common challenges faced by the agri-food sector in both jurisdictions. Ministers noted that there is sufficient scope in the existing framework to facilitate cooperation on those challenges.

The Council acknowledged the ongoing efforts by officials from both jurisdictions to strengthen existing cooperation on animal health and welfare. Ministers welcomed the close collaboration and engagement that have taken place during times of epizootic disease incursions in both jurisdictions, including bluetongue virus (BTV) and highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI), to protect the high animal health status on the island. The Council noted the work under way in both jurisdictions to reduce the prevalence of bovine tuberculosis (bTB) across the island and welcomed the development of the €11·7 million cooperation project to tackle bovine TB as part of the Shared Island initiative.

On cooperation on plant health and pesticides, the NSMC welcomed the ongoing commitment of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to proactively take steps to deliver the shared objective of achieving and maintaining good plant health status on the island. The Council noted the ongoing collaboration and sharing of expertise demonstrated through the UK and Ireland plant health coordination group meetings hosted by DAERA in August 2025 and by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in January 2026. Ministers welcomed the continued cooperation and the opportunities being explored for further joint research resulting from the DAFM visit to DAERA in March 2026, as well as the continuation of joint DAFM/DAERA simulation exercises to test plant health contingency plans in 2026. Ministers welcomed the continued cooperation on laboratory expertise, including the recent designation by DAFM of the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) as an official laboratory to carry out analysis, tests and diagnosis of bacterial, nematode and fungal pests of plants and pesticide residues in or on food. The NSMC welcomed the continued collaboration on pesticides through the North/South pesticides group as well as the ongoing exchange of information on pesticide issues.

The Council acknowledged the good collaboration between DAERA and DAFM on research, innovation and bioeconomy. Ministers recognised the successful applications from Ireland and Northern Ireland on nine projects funded under Horizon Europe cluster 6 in the food, bioeconomy, natural resources, agriculture and environment sectors. The Council noted the funding of 11 projects over the past 10 years under the US-Ireland R&D partnership's agriculture theme. Ministers acknowledged progress on the funding of joint projects in both jurisdictions under the DAFM thematic research calls, including the three collaborating NI institutions' participation across six projects. The NSMC welcomed the announcement of two awards of almost €4·5 million each to support the development of bioeconomy in the agriculture and marine sectors, with co-funding from the Government of Ireland’s Shared Island initiative, DAFM and DAERA. The Council welcomed ongoing cooperation between DAFM and DAERA on identifying further opportunities for research collaboration under existing or new measures.

The NSMC welcomed the ongoing cooperation between both Administrations on addressing climate change and loss of biodiversity in the agriculture sector. Ministers acknowledged the cooperation between DAERA and DAFM on the development of agrienvironment schemes and agreed that officials from DAFM and DAERA will continue to share experiences and lessons learned from the implementation of Ireland’s agri-climate rural environment scheme, particularly in relation to results-based payments and technology solutions.

The Council noted the ongoing collaboration between DAERA and the Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht on rural policy making, including through regular meetings of the North/South rural policy forum. The NSMC noted the ongoing investment in rural communities, including through the PEACE PLUS programme, and welcomed the commitment of the two jurisdictions to sharing learning on addressing rural isolation.

The NSMC welcomed the important cooperation between both Administrations and the ongoing work to improve farm safety. The Council noted the joint inspection campaign delivered by the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland (HSENI) and the Health and Safety Authority (HSA) through the North/South farm safety group to raise awareness of the dangers of working at height. Ministers welcomed the presentation by Embrace Farm and Rural Support on the services provided by them to farming and rural communities.

The Council agreed to hold its next agriculture meeting in winter 2026. I look forward to working with my counterparts in the South on all areas of cooperation in the agriculture sector.

I commend the statement to the Assembly and welcome any questions.

Mr McCrossan: I thank the Minister for that update. Minister, you described it as an important meeting at which a lot of progress was made. Whenever people from across our rural communities look at the continued pressures on farm incomes, the ongoing bovine TB crisis, biodiversity decline and the lack of visible outcomes on the ground, they will ask us all and specifically you, Minister, a simple question: where are the measurable results? Can you point to a single concrete outcome from the meetings or others that you have had that will improve the daily lives of farmers and people in rural communities, beyond agreeing to continue discussions and share such experiences?

Mr Muir: I believe in North/South cooperation; it is of real value. That is why it is important that we do it. The Member is looking for specific examples. There is a Shared Island cross-border initiative on TB. The Member is aware of the details of that, and it is important that we continue to work on it. We continue to work on a North/South basis on many issues, and I am committed to doing that.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I am sure that the Minister will agree that farming is not just an important job but a dangerous job, with around 50 fatalities in farm-related accidents over the past 10 years. Will the Minister give an update on any initiatives on that or of the importance given to driving that number down to zero deaths on farms in Northern Ireland?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Robbie. A lot of work is done by governments in the North and South in cooperation with the farming sector. One key thing in the meeting was the presentation from Embrace Farm and Rural Support on the work that they provide. It is important that we continue to support them in that work in the time ahead, because collaboration is the way forward to address that critical issue.

It is not lost on me that farming is a very dangerous profession, and it is important that we all work together to address those concerns. There are too many lives lost and people injured in farming accidents, so cooperation is absolutely critical. That is why the meeting focused on that issue.

Mr McAleer: I have repeatedly raised the poultry litter issue with you and with the Departments, North and South. Farmers in the South want poultry litter, and farmers in the North want to export it, given the phosphorus (P) surplus here and P deficit in the South. Have there been any discussions at ministerial level to help resolve the issue, which would complement nutrient management across the island?

Mr Muir: I am aware of the issue and the challenges, particularly the lack of response to queries being posed to Shared Environmental Services (SES). As a result, I had a productive engagement with Pilgrim's, and I have requested a meeting with Shared Environmental Services involving Pilgrim's, NIEA officials and me. They have agreed to that, and we are seeking to set that up as soon as possible.

We need to find a way through the issues. They are of real concern to the industry. That is why I have stepped up, and I will seek to engage with Shared Environmental Services so that we can have a better response to the issues.

We are aware that the issue does not sit with just one Department in the South; there are others. I will seek to do what I can. We have also invited the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA) along because I am conscious that Shared Environmental Services works on behalf of all 11 councils, and there is a role for NILGA in cooperation and partnership working around this. Hopefully, that update is helpful. We are seeking to address it at speed.

Miss McIlveen: I am aware that PEACE PLUS projects looking at nature-based solutions to improve water quality on farms are being held up because of bureaucratic hurdles introduced by DAERA in relation to state aid. Will the Minister ensure that those hurdles are removed to enable work to commence?

Mr Muir: I am concerned to hear that. I am happy to engage with the Member on it. It is important that we get PEACE PLUS funding out on the ground to support the very good work that it is seeking to achieve. If the Member is happy, officials will follow up with her after the sitting.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for the statement and for the broad mention of animal welfare. Will the Minister update us on cross-border cooperation on companion animal welfare?

Mr Muir: There was a discussion on that, taking into account that my counterpart in the South, Martin Heydon, recently published a Bill on dog breeding establishments. We have also done an expert-led review on that, which was recently published. Officials are considering the recommendations in that, and we will set out a way forward in the time ahead.

We are very conscious of the need to safeguard animal welfare, including for companion animals. The cross-border nature of that means that we must cooperate in regard to the risks associated with people exploiting that land border, and we will continue to cooperate on the issue.

Ms Murphy: I thank the Minister for his statement. Given the concerns that many had even before Christmas about bluetongue and the fact that we will most likely be entering a vector high-risk period in the coming months, what engagement did you have with your colleagues at the NSMC on an all-island approach to disease prevention and control, and what, if anything, has been agreed?

Mr Muir: We seek to cooperate quite closely on bluetongue and other diseases, such as avian influenza, because of the impacts across the island of Ireland. There is well-established, ongoing engagement between colleagues in DAERA and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) on the prevention, preparedness and response to outbreaks of episodic disease, such as avian influenza and bluetongue. Officials from both jurisdictions maintain routine communication channels at policy and operational levels. That includes regular meetings and information sharing to ensure that, where appropriate, an all-Ireland approach is taken.

Both jurisdictions collaborate on horizon scanning through forums such as the all-island surveillance forum, particularly for transboundary issues such as avian influenza and bluetongue. There is collaboration on contingency planning, including joint participation in simulation exercises and preparedness activities.

In the event of outbreaks, including the recent outbreaks of avian influenza and bluetongue on the island of Ireland, there has been extensive engagement, North and South, to ensure a coordinated response. The matter is being addressed at more than just an NSMC meeting, however. There is ongoing engagement between officials, as well as between Minister Martin Heydon and me.

Mr Buckley: Is the Minister in a position to update the House on how the €11·7 million cooperation project to tackle bovine TB will be used for a wildlife management programme in Northern Ireland? He knows the significant impact that that particular strain of TB has had on local farmers. Will the project therefore include a cull of badgers that are infected with TB?

Mr Muir: I was pleased to launch the bovine TB regionalisation research pilot with my counterpart, Minister Martin Heydon, in Donegal in February this year. It is an innovative cross-border project that is supported by the Irish Government's Shared Island initiative and the UK Government's transformation funding, and it is intended to tackle the growing impact of bovine TB on farms in a pilot area that covers north-east Donegal and part of the Derry City and Strabane District Council area. It is the first time that a regionalised approach to the disease will have been trialled on the island of Ireland, and a coordinated package of measures will be undertaken. Subject to the approval of the necessary licences, the pilot is expected to include further research on the use of the test and vaccinate or remove (TVR) approach to wildlife intervention, alongside enhanced cattle testing, strengthened movement controls and improved on-farm biosecurity.

I understand that sett survey work is progressing exceptionally well, and I am delighted with the level of uptake and engagement from farmers in the area. Findings generated through the initiative will provide important evidence to inform future bovine TB eradication policy on both sides of the border. Although the TVR approach is being used in the pilot, it does not preclude or set a direction for wider policy on wildlife intervention, on which we will consult in the next few weeks. I encourage people to respond to the consultation so that we can then take decisions.

Mr McMurray: Minister, can you give us an update on the UK-EU sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agri-food negotiations? How will any agreement benefit the island of Ireland and, indeed, the whole UK?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Andy. The island of Ireland is a single epidemiological area. It has a very close relationship with the European Union, and the issues associated with Brexit have caused challenges. I welcome the fact that the UK Government are finalising negotiations with the EU on a future SPS agri-food agreement. I hope that the negotiations will conclude in the next number of weeks, after which the UK Government can move to legislating based on that agreement. I have engaged with the UK Government on the matter, and I will continue to do so. As the UK and the EU seek to finalise negotiations, there are two issues of concern. One is associated with the movement of fish and wine, which will remain outside the scope of any agreement. I am concerned that those goods will still require checks at points of entry into Northern Ireland from GB. I will continue to engage with the UK Government to resolve the matter. The other issue to be addressed concerns seafood marketing standards. The detail in the SPS agri-food agreement on those issues is important, and I will continue to engage with the UK Government to make sure that any agreement works for Northern Ireland.

Mr Wilson: Minister, you will be aware of the good news over the weekend that a curlew was discovered to be nesting in Northern Ireland and of the fact that there has been a 98% decline in the species here since the 1980s. You may also be aware of the proliferation of foxes and other vermin in Northern Ireland. What are your concerns about the ongoing safety of curlew here to encourage their return and about the methods that are used to deal with vermin such as the fox, which poses a real risk to our curlew population?

Mr Muir: I will focus on the positive, which is that if we give space to nature and the environment, we will see the recovery that the Member reported. It is important that we also support such initiatives through the PEACE PLUS programme, and the North/South Ministerial Council can be the place where we cooperate in order to see the return of the curlew. That is on what we want to focus.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for his statement. Bovine TB costs the Northern agricultural sector around £150 million a year, and that includes direct departmental compensation costs and indirect costs to farmers. Minister, you highlighted how efforts to reduce the prevalence of bovine TV were discussed at the North/South Ministerial Council meeting. Did the discussion include wild deer, because they are wild animals that also transmit TB and ticks? Can you detail what measures are being adopted to control the movement of wild deer?

Mr Muir: I am aware that the issue the Member outlines is more prevalent in the Republic of Ireland than in Northern Ireland. As part of the consideration of wildlife intervention on those issues, we have a blueprint for TB eradication, and we continue to deliver that, but we are also seeking to cooperate on a North/South basis. When the consultation on wildlife intervention starts, I encourage all Members to constructively engage with that.

Mr Gaston: Will the €11·7 million bovine TB project include consideration of a Northern Ireland-wide badger cull, given the long-standing use of such measures in the Republic of Ireland and, indeed, in GB, or will the North Antrim farmer who is outside the current pilot area simply get more paperwork from you while their herd continues to be destroyed by bovine TB?

Mr Muir: As the Member will be aware from questions on that issue, we will shortly commence a consultation on wildlife interventions across Northern Ireland. That will be an opportunity for people to give feedback and for us to consider commencement and drafting of legislation associated with that, with Executive approval. I encourage the Member to engage in that consultation constructively, as he always does.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): That concludes questions on the statement.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated a time limit to the debate. I call the Minister to open the debate on the Bill. Over to you, Minister.

Mr Givan: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to open the Second Stage debate on this critical Bill. It has been a long time coming. Indeed, I first submitted an inspection paper to the Executive as far back as November 2024, and, as far back as December 2023, the independent review of education recommended that it should be an offence to wilfully obstruct any person authorised to make an inspection. As those recommendations aligned fully with established arrangements in England, Scotland, Wales and the Republic of Ireland and followed a decade of disruption to school inspections, I assumed that they would not be politically contentious. Given that the arrangements would simply bring education into line with basic standards of oversight that we expect elsewhere in society, I hoped that the Bill could be passed in relatively short order.

Clearly, the trade unions seek leverage in industrial relations negotiations, and they would be reluctant to undermine their position, but that is not a position that could credibly be supported by any elected representative. If there has been a clamour to make inspection of nursing homes or prisons a voluntary process, I must have missed it. Surely the safeguarding of our children and the quality of their education is at least as important as other walks of life that are subject to inspection.

The first draft of the Bill included provisions that made obstruction of inspection an offence, as in other jurisdictions. That was not, as some suggest, an attempt to criminalise teachers any more than a 30 mph sign is an attempt to criminalise motorists; it is to reflect the fact that inspection is not a voluntary process. The number of prosecutions in the history of the same provisions in England, Scotland, Wales and the Republic of Ireland: zero. What that tells us is important. The law is not there to punish; it is there to set a clear expectation. Instead, their inspectors continued to inspect schools and identify safeguarding issues and schools that needed improvement whilst the quality of our children's education was left to chance.

However, we operate in a system where political consensus must be achieved for legislation to progress, so I was prepared to look again at the arrangements. As a result, I brought proposals in which there would be no prosecution, but non-cooperation would constitute unacceptable professional conduct. While unique in these islands as a possible way forward, I was grateful that that approach commanded unanimous support from my Executive colleagues and was agreed for introduction. I want to put on record my appreciation of their support at the Executive.

I was therefore more than a little surprised to read on social media that Sinn Féin, having sought the changes that I brought forward and endorsed the legislation at the Executive, intends to oppose that same legislation.

I know that it is sometimes said that Sinn Féin has one policy north of the border and another in the South, but holding two conflicting policies in Northern Ireland at the same time has to be a first. Perhaps Sinn Féin intends to fight the next election in the Republic on a platform of repealing inspection legislation in the South; that would be consistent. I can see that party's slogan for the safeguarding of children: "See no evil, hear no evil". Turning a blind eye to failing schools and prioritising the interests of adults over children is a reprehensible policy that is only made worse by Sinn Féin now posing as the defenders of teachers and opposing a Bill that it previously endorsed. Is it any wonder that Sinn Féin wants to subcontract plans for a united Ireland to a citizens' assembly, given that it cannot even establish a consistent policy on inspection? How stupid do the Sinn Féin Members think teachers are?

The Bill is one of the most important opportunities that we have in the mandate to make a lasting difference to education. It is a direct result of the actions short of strike over the past decade. My officials have set out the need for legislation clearly and consistently at the Education Committee. I regret the fact that legislation is, clearly, the only way to address the matter. All efforts at negotiation to have inspection excluded from action short of strike have been unsuccessful, including in January 2025, when there were no outstanding areas of disagreement between the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) and the Northern Ireland Teachers' Council (NITC). At a time when the new model of inspection had been widely welcomed by stakeholders, inspection was included in action short of strike. If one union includes inspection, we have seen time and time again that the others are under pressure immediately to do likewise; otherwise, in a competitive market, they lose members. The trade union response to the inspection consultation clearly stated that they objected to any proposal to remove inspection from the arena of industrial action. That now seems to be Sinn Féin's position as well. My Department's efforts to reach a negotiated agreement have met with silence from the trade unions. A draft agreement prepared back in November 2025 remains unsigned and unanswered.

Quite simply, in any scenario other than with this legislation, the refusal to participate in inspections will remain a feature of our education system. As in every other jurisdiction across the British Isles, the proposed separate statutory requirement is the only realistic and effective solution. We need a legal framework for inspection that guarantees consistent, independent oversight of educational quality, child protection and safeguarding that is fit for purpose and practicable. That is not just my view; it is the view of the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO), which highlighted the significant cumulative impact of action short of strike. Until action short of strike was suspended last year, three quarters of ETI inspections in the past eight academic years had been impacted on by action short of strike. To be clear, in those cases, that disruption means that the ETI is unable to provide assurance to parents, carers, school communities and all stakeholders on the quality of education that is being delivered. It also means that, in every one of those cases, the ETI has been unable to fully evaluate child protection and wider safeguarding arrangements, which are a core and critical protection for children. As a result of action short of strike, many schools have gone without meaningful inspection and, therefore, external scrutiny. That support is essential to driving improvement to make sure that children are safe and are making progress in their learning. With the return of inspection, 10 schools have been identified as needing sustained external support through formal intervention processes. Those were the first schools to enter formal intervention and receive external support in the eight years since 2017. By way of comparison, in the eight academic years before 2017, 80 schools received support. Thirteen other schools are in follow-up and receiving support, and their improvement will be evaluated through progress inspection. What does it mean when inspection is obstructed or cooperation is withheld? To be clear, it means that there is no classroom observation of teaching and learning. Lesson plans, pupil data and individual learning materials are not shared. Staff have refused to meet inspectors, preventing evaluation of their training and awareness and understanding of key policies. Often, questionnaires have not been issued to pupils and parents, and their voice has not been heard.

ETI is the only organisation that inspects child protection arrangements. Sinn Féin and trade unions have contended that safeguarding was fully protected during action short of strike: that is, quite simply, not true. From 2017, the unions permitted the sharing of safeguarding documentation only, but that is not sufficient. Read the inspection reports. Time and again, they state that, during that period, ETI was unable to fully evaluate the outworking of safeguarding arrangements. In order to properly evaluate safeguarding, inspectors must hear directly from pupils and parents through questionnaires, observe classroom interactions, speak with designated teachers and governors, analyse pastoral data and critically examine how policies operate in reality, not just on paper. Under action short of strike, almost none of that was possible. Only a consistent, unimpeded programme of inspection can provide the necessary assurances that unknown safeguarding issues are being identified and that robust child protection arrangements are in place in our schools.

The facts are deeply troubling. The Northern Ireland Audit Office reported that, in the three years prior to action short of strike, the ETI identified 37 schools where child protection arrangements were unsatisfactory. In the five years between 2020 and May 2025, that figure fell to just eight schools. That is not progress or improvement; it should be a warning sign. Since full inspection has resumed, serious safeguarding failures have once again been identified and schools have been found to have significant shortcomings in child protection provision. In those cases, ETI acted immediately, triggering intervention by the Child Protection Support Service (CPSS) and conducting follow-up inspections within six weeks. In other schools, inspectors identified that child protection training had lapsed, putting pupils at risk and requiring urgent corrective action. Perhaps most powerfully of all, pupil questionnaires revealed that some children did not feel safe in school, and it was only through inspection that support could be put in place. That is the reality. Without inspection, those voices are not heard, those risks remain hidden and those children remain vulnerable. Without inspection, risk does not merely increase; it becomes unavoidable that schools that require support may not be identified and that children may remain in environments where vulnerabilities go unseen. We know from bitter experience where that can lead.

It has taken time to reach this point, but I am pleased that we can now have an open and transparent public discussion on legislation that goes to the heart of our approach to education. Inspection is fundamental. It is a cornerstone of every effective education system and an essential safeguard of the significant public investment that we make — over £3 billion each year — to give every child the best possible start in life. The public rightly expects assurance that that investment is delivering high-quality education and that we are keeping children safe. When our education system falls short, the consequences extend far beyond the classroom. There are fundamental links between poor educational outcomes and unemployment and to greater demands on our health system, our benefits system and our criminal justice system. There are exponentially rising costs to society when education goes wrong. The cost of education failure is profound and far-reaching. Inspection is central to preventing that failure. It not only provides assurance but actively drives improvement by identifying effective practice, supporting schools to raise standards and ensuring that learning from the best is shared across the system. It also plays a critical role in shaping policy and targeting resources. Through school inspections and wider thematic work, the Education and Training Inspectorate provides a cross-sectional evaluation of our system. It can identify trends and phase insights, such as oracy challenges in preschool and Foundation Stage, dive more deeply into the delivery of specific parts of the curriculum, evaluate the impact of new education initiatives and assess the services that support our schools. It provides the evidence that we rely on to take informed decisions and to support where that support is most needed. Above all, inspection protects our most vulnerable children. It is the only independent mechanism that we have to assess safeguarding arrangements in schools and to ensure that those arrangements keep pace with evolving risks. It is also essential in evaluating provision for children with special educational needs, an area of exponentially growing demand and unaffordable provision. In short, effective inspection is not optional: it is indispensable. Yet the reality in Northern Ireland is that our legislative framework contains a critical gap, unlike every other jurisdiction across these islands.

We do not have clear legal provision to ensure cooperation with inspection. While current legislation requires schools to be open to inspection, it does not explicitly require cooperation. Some have argued that the present arrangements are already sufficient to require inspection, but that ambiguity has been exploited, allowing inspection to be drawn into industrial action and significantly impeded for over a decade. This has nothing — I mean absolutely nothing — to do with the right to strike: that right remains untouched. Nor does it affect the right to take action short of strike, which also continues. It is about one thing only: removing child protection and inspection from the arena of industrial leverage. Obstructing a statutory, independent process designed to protect our most vulnerable young people cannot be considered as working to rule; nor can it be considered acceptable conduct. It should never have featured in directives from unions to an ethical and dedicated profession that is committed to reflecting on its practice and to continuous improvement. Such directives damage the teaching profession.

I have worked tirelessly to provide equitable and significant pay offers to ensure that our teachers are fairly remunerated for the excellent and tireless work that they do in our classrooms every day. I have invested in attracting and retaining that critical workforce, providing bursaries for hard-to-fill subject areas. Since taking up office, I have raised the starting salary of a teacher by a third. I have prioritised investment in professional development from initial teacher training to the development of new and experienced school leaders. I commissioned an independent review of teacher workload and have published a comprehensive action plan that aims decisively to reduce teacher workload. I will continue to ensure that my Department and employing authorities look creatively and consistently at ways to reduce teacher and school leader workload in every action that they take. My flagship reform programme, TransformED, offers significant opportunities for workload reduction. We are moving into the implementation stage, which will make it a reality.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister [Inaudible.]

Mr Givan: It will take longer than 2.00 pm.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much.

Ladies and gentlemen, as Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, I suggest that the Assembly takes its ease until then. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the Minister will continue with his remarks. Please take your ease.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): With your permission, Deputy Speaker, I will answer questions 1 and 7 together.

My Department published the 'Integrated Education Demand: Evidence, Insights, and Limitations' report in April 2026 as part of the statutory arrangements under the Integrated Education Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. I am clear in my commitment to meet the obligations that are set out in the Act. I also recognise the strong interest from some parents and communities in accessing integrated education, and I remain supportive of parental preference in education.

I have considered the findings carefully. At system level, there are more approved places than first-preference applications at both primary and post-primary level. The data indicates that demand is uneven and highly localised, with pressure evident in a small number of schools and areas rather than across the system as a whole. The oversubscription of individual schools may reflect parental preference for particular institutions, which may be influenced by factors such as admissions criteria, school reputation and accessibility. That reinforces the fact that oversubscription alone is not a reliable indicator of wider system demand.

Similarly, the existence of geographic gaps in provision does not in itself demonstrate unmet demand. However, as per other aspects of the report, that will inform areas of interest in which to focus further exploration in the pursuit of robust and consistent supporting evidence to inform decisions. Future demand reports will be important in strengthening that evidence base over time.

The report will provide valuable insight for my Department, the Education Authority (EA) and the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education (NICIE). I expect that they will prioritise areas where the data indicates sustained and clearly evidenced demand. That will include assessing the viability of expansion, supporting proposals where appropriate and ensuring alignment with area planning and financial sustainability considerations.

Miss Hargey: Minister, given the clear demand for integrated education and Irish-medium education and the failure of the Department to support either, do you accept that many families now see the DUP as being hostile to both integrated education and Irish-medium education?

Mr Givan: The Member is categorically wrong about the Department's support for integrated education. I have provided pathways and frameworks for schools to become integrated. I have approved schools to become integrated. I challenge the Member: how many schools from the Catholic maintained sector has she engaged with about becoming integrated? How many schools in her constituency has she engaged with about becoming integrated? Out of over 70 schools, I can tell you how many such schools have transformed: one. The sector that overwhelmingly supports integrated education and transforms is the controlled sector. I look forward to seeing Members from Sinn Féin, the SDLP and other parties actively encouraging schools in their constituencies in that respect.

My track record in supporting Irish-medium schools is clear. There have been new builds, bursaries dedicated to them and protections in the Education and Training Inspectorate so that there are no reductions. I have done more for Irish-medium education than a Sinn Féin Minister ever has.

Mr O'Toole: I declare an interest: my child is at an integrated school. It happens to be an integrated school from which the Executive, taking the lead from you, took rebuilding money at the beginning of the mandate, in 2024, so I will take no lessons about standing up for integrated education. Minister, you just said that neither unmet demand nor, apparently, oversubscription are indicators of demand. Even when parents vote for transformation, as in the case of schools in Bangor, that is not a satisfactory indicator of demand. What do parents have to do to convince you and others in your party that there is demand out there for integrated education?

Mr Givan: The court ruled that my decision on integrated education in those Bangor schools was right and that Members in the House were wrong. You were wrong when you voted through legislation that actually undermines integrated education. The Member is wrong about the school that he just referenced. I did not take money away from the school that his child goes to; I gave money to that school so that it could be built. The Member might want to set the record straight: which Minister approved that school and gave it the go-ahead? It was this Minister. There is nothing from the Member. There is no appreciation that I took forward the school that, as he has referenced on numerous occasions, a member of his family attends. If the Member is going to make accusations, I ask that they be accurate. He should then reflect on the fact that this Minister takes forward decisions, including on the school that his family member attends, enabling it to build a new school.

Mr Buckley: The Minister has categorically demolished the sound bites from Sinn Féin and the SDLP on the matter. I will get back to the substance of the question. Some people have questioned the reliability of last year's admissions survey. What does the Minister have to say about that?

Mr Givan: It is correct to say that the survey results need to be understood in their full context, as they can give a different impression from that of standard population surveys. The survey reports that 31·2% of parents, regardless of their first preference, said that they would have preferred their child to be educated at an integrated school. That reflects a stated or counterfactual preference rather than observed behaviour. That can be contrasted with first-preference admissions of around 8% at primary and 10% at post-primary, which represents realised choices within the constraints of the current system.

It is also important to note that the survey sample appears to over-represent those who have chosen integrated education, with 32·9% of respondents coming from that group. That is significantly higher than their share of the overall school population and suggests that their views may carry disproportionate weight in the headline findings unless fully corrected through weighting. In that context, although the survey provides useful insight into parental preference, enrolment figures remain a more robust indicator of realised demand in the system as it currently operates.

Mr Mathison: I will not be able to weigh in on the nuances of the report on the demand for integrated education and how it should be interpreted, but, on the broader question of the legislative responsibility to aim to meet the demand for integrated education, when will the Minister set out his road map and his plan to deal with the areas of unmet demand that, as he accepts, exist in some areas?

Mr Givan: Working with NICIE, we have published the strategy and are taking it forward. I engage regularly with NICIE and have met its representatives on multiple occasions, including in the schools that I have taken forward. Rowandale Integrated Primary School in my constituency will soon be officially opened, and I look forward to attending that opening. There is also Priory Integrated College in Holywood, which I moved forward. I took the decision to approve funding for that integrated school, and I will continue to work with the integrated sector as it seeks to provide the best possible education for our young people.

Mr Givan: TransformED is a system-wide reform programme that is designed to address issues common across all sectors of education. In the programme, the distinct and additional requirements of Irish-medium education, particularly as it relates to immersion pedagogy, curriculum design and assessment, are being considered.

An experienced Irish-medium practitioner has been appointed as the lead adviser for curriculum reform in order to ensure that immersion-specific considerations are addressed in TransformED. The work will be informed by engagement with key Irish-medium stakeholders, including Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta (CnaG), as well as by learning from immersion education in other jurisdictions.

Practical support for Irish-medium schools is already in place. Through the £31 million teacher professional learning (TPL) fund, Irish-medium schools are accessing tailored professional learning and development. In addition, the Making Best Practice, Common Practice programme has facilitated research-informed conferences with a focus on areas such as immersion pedagogy and Irish language oracy. Teacher supply is also being supported through a pilot initial teacher education bursary scheme, with dedicated Irish-medium post-primary places from September 2026.

Progress has been made on assessment. Interim Key Stage assessment arrangements have been introduced from the 2025-26 school year, with all Irish-medium pupils in years 4, 7 and 10 participating. In parallel, Irish-medium numeracy assessments have been piloted, and work is under way to develop a bespoke adaptive Irish language literacy assessment.

Further bespoke work is under way on the curriculum. A dedicated Irish-medium literacy framework is being commissioned, and progressive curricula for Irish, English and biliteracy will be developed, as well as bespoke immersion guidance, including on curricula adaptations, where needed.

Mr Kelly: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra.

Given the serious staffing and resource pressures that Irish-medium schools face, does the Minister understand why many people see his proposal of an AI lead as little more than a Google Translate solution, instead of properly investing in the sector, and how that further reinforces the view that the DUP remains hostile to the Irish language?

Mr Givan: It is the added line now, is it not, Members? It is just thrown out to create the anti-Irish narrative that people want to ascribe to the DUP. Not for the first time, Sinn Féin is weaponising the Irish language. It cannot go to its electorate on the basis of anything that it has actually achieved. Where is the A5? The list goes on. Its tactic now is to generate grievance politics and, not for the first time, to use the Irish language as a cultural weapon. People can see through that and see it for what it is.

I will continue to support the Irish-medium sector. I have visited many of its schools. I have supported it through the provision of bursaries so that we can address the teacher and workforce shortfall that the Member referred to. I have supported it in developing numeracy and literacy that is bespoke to the immersion of the Irish language. I am supporting the Irish-medium sector in developing a curriculum. The independent review identified that Irish-medium schools were not being supported under the old curriculum. TransformED, which is the policy that Sinn Féin continually opposes for the sake of opposition, gives preferential treatment to the Irish-medium sector in order to develop a curriculum that is fit for purpose. That is why I have appointed a lead adviser for Irish-medium curriculum reform. They have over 25 years of experience in the Irish-medium sector. I will continue, as I said that I would, to be a Minister for all sections of education.

Mr Givan: Ensuring that every child with a statement of special educational needs has an appropriate school placement remains a primary focus for my Department and the Education Authority. The EA has advised that it is continuing to engage with schools in the Irish-medium sector to explore the development of specialist provision. The aim is to increase capacity and create sustainable pathways across all Key Stages, supporting pupils as they progress through school.

Four Irish-medium primary schools offer specialist provision, all of which have approved pathways to year 7. Bunscoil Phobal Feirste in Belfast has two specialist provision classes; Scoil na Fuiseoige, which is also in Belfast, operates three specialist provision classes; and Gaelscoil Léim an Mhadaidh in Limavady and Gaelscoil Uí Dhochartaigh in Strabane both have one specialist provision class. The specialist provision in all those schools involves social communication. I apologise if I pronounced any of their names incorrectly, but I wanted to try. Currently, one Irish-medium primary school offers specialist provision across all Key Stages. The remaining schools will be supported to implement additional pathways as their pupils progress through each stage.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I thank the Minister for that response. I have a close family relative who is in need of a SPiMS unit in an Irish-medium school but cannot access one in North Belfast at all. Apart from access in P4 and P5, they will have to go to an English-speaking school, even though Irish is their first language. Will the Minister look at that growing inequality? I am absolutely sure that he would not be content with children who have Irish as their first language being discriminated against, particularly those with a statement of special educational needs.

Mr Givan: I am more than happy to look at the case that the Member has referenced. It is not acceptable if the young person is not able to continue their pursuit of education through the medium of Irish, particularly because of special educational needs provision. It is a challenge for all schools when it comes to SPiMS. We seek to provide support, including financial support, for schools to do that. I do not know the specific reasons in respect of that school. Perhaps there are issues because of a constrained site, but I am only speculating. I am more than happy to look into the individual case that the Member has referenced.

Mr Martin: What oversight arrangements are in place to review decisions to establish new specialist provision in mainstream schools by the Education Authority?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for that question. I know that the issue of SEN placements and specialist provision is very important to him and to all Members. The EA maintains internal oversight through its senior leadership team. All specialist provision proposals are undergoing, over an eight-week period, a consultation process that engages with relevant stakeholders. The proposals are published on the EA's consultation page. The EA continues to work with all stakeholders when considering proposals in accordance with the established framework and strategic operational plans. A consultation report is then presented to the EA strategic planning and policy committee for approval of specialist provisions. The EA provides a statement of assurance to the Department confirming that appropriate consultation has taken place. I trust that that will reassure the Member about the processes that are followed in EA. Of course, my Department continually engages with EA on those issues.

Mr Givan: It was announced on 8 May 2018 that St Patrick’s Primary School in Crossmaglen would advance in design under the school enhancement programme (SEP). The scheme proposal for St Patrick’s is provision of a new extension with a multi-purpose hall, refurbishment of existing buildings, new site access, traffic-calming measures, a revised car park layout and new pick-up and drop-off facilities. The project is well advanced and currently at RIBA stage 3, which is the developed design. However, estimated costs for the scheme significantly exceed the SEP funding threshold. My officials are working closely with the design team to review the costs and to identify an appropriate way forward that best meets the needs of the school. They will shortly be in a position to engage with the school and ensure the project can proceed to the final stage of design. I have made funding available to progress SEP projects through the design stages in order to enable them to proceed to the pre-tender stage. Decisions to release projects to construction tender are then taken on a case-by-case basis, dependent on budget availability at that time. I will continue to make the case for additional Executive funding for Education to allow much needed projects, such as St Patrick’s Primary School, to progress to construction.

Ms Finnegan: I thank the Minister for his answer. Given the ongoing concerns raised by staff, parents and the wider school community at St Patrick's Primary School and Gaelscoil Phádraig Naofa in Crois Mhic Lionnáin

and following my party colleague Dáire Hughes MP's direct representations to the Minister, can the Minister provide clarity on what specific steps are being taken to progress the proposed redevelopment works and outline a time frame for any decision-making or delivery?

Mr Givan: The process is at the design stage 3, but the costs for that school have increased significantly beyond the school enhancement programme threshold. As a Department, we are working through the process to make sure that we can move it to the next stage. That work is being progressed. I cannot give a clear timeline, because some of that will involve feasibility and economic business case assessment. If there has to be an adjustment in the funding associated, we will need to go through the normal processes to seek approval, both in my Department and in the Department of Finance. I can assure the Member that I want that school to be brought forward to the end of stage 4 so that it is at the pre-tender stage. It would then only be subject to finance — I say "only", although that is still a significant challenge. At least, however, it would be there awaiting finance to be released. It is not at that stage yet, but there will be no undue delay on the part of the Department to try to take forward that project for the school.

Mr McNulty: Minister, you have mentioned obstacles to delivery of the new school enhancement programme at St Patrick's Primary School in Crossmaglen and the associated Gaelscoil. What solutions are you and your Department bringing forward to see that much-needed extension delivered, which would help children in Crossmaglen progress in the best environment possible?

Mr Givan: The Department has brought the school through the design stages. Members will know that a new build project takes too long to get to the end of the construction phase, but, before it gets into the construction phase, it needs to go through the design process, and it needs to have an integrated design team appointed. St Patrick's has that: it is being developed and taken forward. Other schools are waiting just to have an integrated consultant team (ICT) appointed to them, and, in some cases, we are not able to do that because of insufficient capital funding.

The Department will do all that it can to bring this forward to the point at which we are ready to go to out to tender stage for construction. That will be subject to finance, however, and there is a significant backlog of needs in the schools estate when it comes to new builds and school enhancement programmes. The school is not at that stage yet, however. Let us get it to the point where it is subject to finance with regard to proceeding.

Ms Brownlee: Will the Minister provide an update on the school enhancement programme throughout Northern Ireland? If he has any specifics regarding East Antrim, that would be helpful as well.

Mr Givan: The second call of the school enhancement programme closed to applications in February 2017. Four tranches of projects were announced to proceed to planning. Final announcements were made on 5 May 2020, and a total of 72 projects have been announced across the four tranches. So far, construction has been completed on two schools and is ongoing at three. Procurement is under way for five schools, and construction procurement approval was recently given for nine schools that were at the stage 4 point in the process. A remaining seven schools are at the RIBA stage 4, which is the technical design. There are still seven schools at the RIBA stage 3, which is the detailed design; 11 at RIBA stage 2, which is the scheme design; 26 schools at stage 1, which is technical feasibility; and two schools still at the scoping stage.

That gives Members a flavour of the extent of the demands. That is why there has not been a call for new SEPs. I would love to be in a position where I opened up for schools to put forward bids for school enhancement programmes, but we are not able to do that because of the significant pipeline of work that still needs to be taken through. Where I have been able to make some progress in recent announcements around SEPs and new builds, I have been able to do that within the funding envelope that is available to me. I want to do so much more, but I am constrained from doing so by the capital allocation provided to my Department.

Mr Givan: I am committed to continued and practical engagement with Health colleagues to improve outcomes for children and young people with special educational needs and their families. I regularly engage with Minister Nesbitt on matters that cross the Education/Health interface, and we met last month to ensure that progress was continuing on the summer schemes. The collaboration between our Departments is underpinned by the Children's Services Co-operation Act (Northern Ireland) 2015, which places a duty on all Departments and children's authorities to cooperate. In line with that, my officials continue to work closely with their counterparts in the Department of Health, the Public Health Agency (PHA) and the health and social care trusts on a range of issues relating to special educational needs.

Health colleagues were represented at all levels of governance during the end-to-end review of special educational needs, and that cooperation has continued in the development and implementation of the SEN reform agenda and delivery plan. Both Departments face competing priorities and pressures, yet there is regular and constructive engagement to ensure that our work complements each other and strengthens collaboration, all with a focus on improving outcomes for children and young people with special educational needs.

Mrs Dillon: Thank you, Minister, for the answer. I am sure that, like me, you have been approached by many parents and families whose children are not receiving, whether in specific special schools or in specialist provision in mainstream schools (SPiMS), the speech and language therapy, physiotherapy and occupational therapy that they need due to their special educational needs. Have you given exact figures to the Health Minister for the gaps in the allied health professionals workforce that are required to be filled to meet special educational needs? If you have those figures, can we have them?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question, because the withdrawal of allied health professionals is raised with me when I visit special schools in particular because we need to be increasing their number in those settings, not least due to the speech and language communication challenges that exist. We have made some progress with a joint Education and Health oversight group that engages directly between the two Departments on how to provide multidisciplinary specialist support for children with SEN. Local impact teams (LITs) have had their problems, but the underpinning approach, which is to enable educational and health professionals to make such interventions, is the right one, and we have worked with the Department of Health on that. If the EA or the Department has data with numbers identifying precisely what is needed, I will provide it to the Member.

Mr Carroll: I recently heard from parents and grandparents of children at St Teresa's Primary School in West Belfast about extending its speech and language unit beyond Key Stage 1. For some inexplicable reason, such provision does not exist in that school, when it does so elsewhere. I had a very productive meeting with the EA, which is open to looking at that. Minister, has the matter come across your desk? If it has not, would you be keen to explore it?

Mr Givan: I am happy to look at it. I have been able to visit St Teresa's. I know that it does hugely significant work and that it has led on establishing SPiMS and, in the way in which it has made that available, is a model of best practice for other schools. The principal of St Teresa's is deeply valued in my Department. He sits on my principals' panel and is part of the TransformED work that we are taking forward. I am familiar with the school, and I am happy to look into the issue. I know that there would not be an obstacle on the part of the school, but, if outside inhibitors are preventing the work from taking place, I will be happy to look into that, and I will correspond with the Member in due course.

Ms Bradshaw: Minister, you will be aware of the disparity in access to support services for children with special educational needs that exists for non-statutory preschool settings? How will you ensure that no child misses out on access to the right support?

Mr Givan: We allocated additional funding for preschool settings to employ an extra member of staff so that they did not have to wait for a statement of educational need. Such settings are often the first point at which it could be identified that a young person has a requirement, but, by the time that they have gone through that process, often, they will have left the nursery or preschool setting, which is a lost opportunity to make an early intervention. Part of the purpose of the Department's social inclusion funding was to provide additional support, and I am pleased that the non-statutory preschool settings that I have visited identified that as having been transformative in enabling them to provide support to such young people.

Where we can do more, we should. We have made efforts to provide additional support for young people in non-statutory preschool settings, and I am glad that that has made an impact.

Mrs Middleton: Are the Minister and his Department engaging with the Minister of Health and his Department to ensure that summer schemes will, with adequate nursing support, operate this year?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for her question. Obviously, we recognise the importance of taking the matter forward. As recently as 11 May, I met the Minister of Health to discuss progress on the arrangements that are being made, including the health support required to enable the schemes to operate. I assure the House that officials from both Departments continue to engage regularly, and weekly meetings are held with the Department of Health on the nursing provision that is required to enable the schemes to go ahead. The EA holds a weekly project board meeting to oversee delivery and progress. It is a live operational issue and one that I continue to monitor closely.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, I ask for a brief answer.

Mr Givan: OK. I had intended to group my answers to questions 6, 10 and 12. I do not think that I will get to respond to all the Members — apologies — but, because the three questions relate to the latest position on the Department's mobile phone pilot scheme, my response will address them together.

The mobile phone pilot in nine post-primary schools across the Province formally concluded at the end of March this year. I sincerely thank all the school leaders who engaged in it. Their feedback was hugely positive. King's College London is carrying out an independent evaluation. I believe that the benefits of that important scheme will be clearly articulated.

When I attended the official opening of St Ronan's College in Lurgan, which, with 1,800 pupils, is one of the largest schools in Northern Ireland , the principal and the staff highly commended the intervention and spoke about its transformative impact, for many different reasons, on the school environment.

I am conscious of time, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Minister, for complying with the tight time frame. I very much appreciate that. That ends the period for listed questions. We will move to 15 minutes of topical questions.

Mr Givan: The issue is really important to the staff who are affected. Such contracts are established by individual schools when they recruit. Some are term-time contracts, while others run over the 52-week period. I know that requests have been made to move to 52-week contracts, but, because of the current budgetary challenges in the Education Authority, it has not been able to move forward on some of those, despite schools setting out the clear business need and justification for it. I do not think that that is an acceptable position. I believe that our classroom assistants should be supported. That is why we have identified clear pathways to enhance the opportunities for classroom assistants.

When it comes to employment practices, I know that the EA has been working on providing better employment contract arrangements for classroom assistants. There is variance, and some of that is for good reason. I know that the EA wants to facilitate people who want to move to a 52-week contract, but the budgetary challenges are inhibiting that.

Ms Hunter: When I spoke to the classroom assistants, I was quite shocked to learn about the variety of jobs that they do. Some are a listening ear, while others feed or change children and do much more. Given that over 22,000 classroom assistants are holding up our SEN support system, can the Minister bring in a proper career structure for them through, for example, accredited training, recognised qualifications and pathways for progression?

Mr Givan: Those are all things that we want to provide. A report that was commissioned and completed identified the kinds of challenges that classroom assistants face. It also mentioned the fact that they very much desire the opportunity to develop their professional skill set in order to become teaching assistants and potentially even teachers. It is about how we create that opportunity. We need to find a way to support existing classroom assistants in order to ensure that we enable them to develop professionally.

If some classroom assistants want to become more than a classroom assistant, we also need to find ways to enable them to do that. Some classroom assistants whom I spoke to said that the only way for them to become a teacher is to give up their job and go into teacher training. However, if you are committed financially — you have a family to support and household bills and so on to pay — it is very difficult to give up your classroom assistant job. We want to help with the professionalisation of classroom assistants. The EA has plans on how best we can do that, including how best we support children with special educational needs. That is the priority: to make sure that we have the right model to support them.

Mr Givan: The need to address the SEN issue has been well documented. It is about how we get further information earlier. Health professionals, for example, will know through health visits whether there are any issues with the development of a child, but how is that information being shared or, in my view, not being shared with the Education Authority to enable proper planning to take place?

Part of the work that I commissioned on assessment was about the need to know in those early years from nought to three what the needs are and how we can make an intervention. As part of the early learning and childcare strategy that was funded through Executive ring-fenced support, we have made interventions in early years to try to support organisations, not least Sure Start, in many of our deprived areas so that they can make earlier interventions. Need continues to grow, so we need to be able to do more. We have started to provide support, but there are clearly pressures involved in establishing provision in early years settings to accommodate children, who have the right to be supported.

Mr McAleer: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. My office, that of my colleague Órfhlaith Begley MP and those of all the other elected representatives in West Tyrone have been contacted by families who have had to travel considerable distances outside the constituency to access specialist education for their young children. Does the Minister agree that that is disruptive for the young people, costs the families and is at odds with the Department's statutory responsibilities under the Rural Needs Act 2016 and other equality legislation?

Mr Givan: There is no doubt that there needs to be more support for our young people. That is why £55 million was ring-fenced for the early learning and childcare strategy. In the draft Budget that was published, that funding stood still, at the same £55 million, which, in effect, was a cut. I have submitted a paper to the Executive, as the strategy now requires £75 million. We therefore need the ring-fenced funding to be increased by £20 million. That identified need of £75 million is not just to continue the funding to provide support, including for Bright Start and for organisations involved in SEN in early years, but for us to be able to do more and expand provision. As I said, my paper is before the Executive. I trust that the First Minister will clear it so that there can be a decision taken to allow the funding to be released to my Department to enable me to work with early years providers not just in West Tyrone, which the Member has referenced, but in other constituencies that require that support.

Mr Givan: Wherever there is new, additional housing, the need for that provision must be identified as part of the basic area planning processes that the Education Authority, as the managing authority for controlled schools, and the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS) follow. They need to track any demographic changes. Some changes will lead to a reduction in need. As the Member has highlighted, however, the building of new housing creates pressure in an area. How will that need then be met? That is a challenge. There are examples of schools that were built in anticipation of new housing that did not materialise, so those schools have still not reached the appropriate pupil enrolment numbers. There is a fine balance to be struck between making provision in anticipation of new housing in which there will be children and meeting the need in the here and now. That is the part of the area planning process for which the managing authorities have responsibility.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you for your response, Minister. I am a little concerned, because the houses that I referred to are not just anticipated but are being built and occupied. There was some talk about a new school in the mid-Down area. Is your Department actively involved in pushing for a new build for the people of that area?

Mr Givan: That is slightly further away than up on the Newtownards side. I was in Castle Gardens Primary School recently. Its representatives talked about the fact that new housing there meant that more young people were now coming to the school. That is a new-build primary school that was built without the housing following, so there was a shortfall in pupil numbers. The situation has since changed, however, and that school now has very healthy pupil enrolment numbers.

Wherever schools want to take forward proposals, of course the Department works with them. The proposal in mid-Down is slightly different, in that it is, I believe, for an integrated school, when there is provision in existing facilities to meet the need. That is an piece of work that is being taken forward by those who are involved with that particular school. Where it is appropriate for my Department to engage in that work, it will.

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his question. From the time that I took up ministerial office, addressing teacher and school workload for teachers and leaders has been a central priority of mine. I firmly believe that supporting the teaching profession is essential if we are to retain our talented teachers, sustain strong school leadership and ensure long-term stability. Previous attempts to address excessive workload have not delivered sustainable change. That is why I appointed an independent panel in May 2025. It undertook a comprehensive review of teacher and school leader workload. It provided robust, evidence-informed assessments of the pressures facing the profession and set out 27 recommendations for change across the system.

On 28 April, my Department published a workload action plan that translates those recommendations into practical, deliverable and time-bound measures. That plan addresses each of the 27 recommendations. Importantly, the plan also includes a number of significant measures that go beyond the panel's recommendations. Those include the provision of additional administrative support for schools and the full roll-out of generative AI to streamline routine tasks.

Taken together, and alongside our continued commitment to partnership with the Northern Ireland Teachers' Council (NITC) and management side, I believe that there is a very clear plan that represents a comprehensive and forward-looking response to those workload pressures. It reflects significant and sustained investment, particularly in the context of the current budgetary pressures.

Mr Harvey: Will the Minister outline whether the measures have a financial cost, and, if so, how much cost is involved?

Mr Givan: Some of them do. A number of recommendations need to be taken forward to release the pressures in respect of information being requested from our teachers. I will say to the Member and to others that some of the trade unions were incapable of identifying some of the workload pressures, but I identified them by setting up a panel, with their agreement, and they had a representative on it. We gathered evidence. We made 27 recommendations, which I am taking forward, but you have to work your way through those recommendations. There is no way to deliver reduced workload and address the pressures by, first, retaining the status quo of a system that is not effective through the current curriculum, qualifications and assessment practice. TransformED, therefore, needs to be worked through.

Furthermore, you cannot strike your way out of workload. By refusing to engage and refusing to work through the issues, you are stuck with the status quo. Therefore, we need to find a way to work through it. I believe that we have the right plan, and people need to put their shoulder to the wheel to take that forward, and then the pressures on our school leaders will improve.

Mr Givan: It is an issue that I deal with weekly, and I have introduced various processes, such as identifying schools, writing to schools and seeking their cooperation to see whether specialist provision in mainstream schools (SPiMS) can be established. The work to address that need is ongoing. However, this year presents a better picture than last year, and that was a better picture than the previous year.

When I came into office, there was very significant pressure for SEN placements. We have worked to improve the processes to identify the needs. We are doing that in a much more difficult environment, where we have fewer schools available to us with the flexibility for specialist provision and fewer places in our special schools.

Therefore, I assure the Member that progress is being made. There are still challenges, but we are in a better place this year than we were in the previous two years, and I am confident that, by the time we get to September, every child who needs a placement should have it provided to them.

Mr McReynolds: I thank the Minister for his response and acknowledge the work that he is doing weekly, as he said. What action will he be taking in the coming months to ensure that no child will be left without a place in September?

Mr Givan: The action that we have been taking has been to identify the key areas of need across the Province. It fluctuates depending on the specific need in each locality. We have reached out to those schools, and the EA has been engaging with those schools. That is proving to be productive, and that work is ongoing.

When it comes to establishing specialist provision, we provide support for schools to do that. Those schools need to have confidence that they will be supported by the EA when they make their schools available. It is something that we all have to try to address. It cannot be left to the 26% of schools that are currently available.

There are a significant number of schools that we need to be able to access so that, collectively, we provide the best possible support. Earlier, a Member mentioned a case in which a child could not be placed in their local school with a sibling and had to travel excessive distances to another school that is able to provide support. We need to provide support in every locality to help meet the needs of children with SEN placements.

I assure the Member that everything that I, my Department and EA can do is being done. We are in a better position this year than in previous years, and I am confident that every child will have a placement for September. Some children may require contingency arrangements to support them, but placements should be allocated to those children.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, time for questions to the Minister of Education is up. Please take your ease for a moment while we make a change at the Table

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): There are currently no projected cost overruns for major IT projects managed by my Department.

Mr Dunne: Thank you, Minister, for that detailed answer. The Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) recently reviewed 29 major IT projects across our Departments. Those projects have an estimated cost of £5·2 billion, with your Department's six key projects costing approximately £1·12 billion. What will you do to tackle delays in replacing outdated IT infrastructure? Do you believe that that is value for money?

Mr O'Dowd: In fairness, Mr Dunne, I answered the question that you asked me:

As I said, there are currently no projected cost overruns for major IT projects in my Department. The matters to which the Member refers are matters for the Departments involved. It is for the relevant senior accounting officers, Ministers and officials to manage those projects.

Mr McCrossan: Minister, your Department signed off on a £125 million contract with Fujitsu for the Land and Property Services (LPS) NOVA programme. It was due to be completed before the end of last year but has missed its completion date. Can you tell us when the project will be completed? Can you guarantee that it will be completed before the end of the mandate?

Mr O'Dowd: I am happy to come back to the Member with more details. As I said at the start, there are currently no cost overruns for major IT projects managed directly by my Department. I am happy to come back to the Member about time slippage etc on that project.

Mr O'Dowd: With the Speaker's permission, I will answer questions 2, 10 and 12 together.

The Executive need sustainable long-term funding that allows us to plan, invest and deliver. I have made and continue to make the case, including through ongoing engagement with the Secretary of State, for fairer funding for public services and the investment required to grow our economy. In my engagement with both the Treasury and the Secretary of State, I have highlighted that, while the interim fiscal framework has supported our funding close to our 124% level of need, evidence has shown that we are not funded fairly when compared with Wales and Scotland. If the Executive were funded to the same levels, it would mean an additional circa £1 billion and £3 billion per annum respectively. Funding for the Executive has managed to meet levels of need only through the provision of one-off packages in recent years, which is not a sustainable or equitable position. The Executive recognise that we have a role to play in improving efficiency in how we deliver public services, but we need to be properly funded to enable transformation to take place.

Mr Frew: I thank the Finance Minister for his answer. He outlined the levels of need. What has he actually asked of the Treasury? Can he put a figure on that? Given that he is having difficulty agreeing a Budget with his Executive colleagues, could he release capital to, at least, allow new builds to commence?

Mr O'Dowd: I have outlined to the Secretary of State and, in writing, to the Treasury that, when I compare our funding package with those of Scotland and Wales, as I said in my substantive answer, I see that, while Scotland is funded in the region of £3 billion over its level of need and Wales is funded in the region of £1 billion over its level of need, we are funded at need. I have said to the Treasury that it needs to examine those figures and ensure that this place is properly funded going forward. However, it is clear from the figures that we are not being fairly funded and that those who pay taxes here are not getting a fair return on their taxes.

In relation to the release of capital, my permanent secretary has written to all permanent secretaries across Departments to set out an estimated funding package over this period of time, and capital is within that. Departments can release certain amounts of capital for projects, particularly those that are Executive flagship projects and others for which contracts have been committed to.

Ms Ennis: Minister, not for the first and probably not for the last time, the British Government have characteristically been more preoccupied with their own leadership wrangles in Westminster than with ensuring a fair funding package for the Executive here. Can you outline what engagement you have had with the British Government and how you plan to engage with them going forward on the issue?

Mr O'Dowd: I have had several meetings with the Secretary of State on the matter. The Executive have also corresponded with the Secretary of State and the Treasury, and, in the last number of days, we have received a response from the Secretary of State to our Executive position. We will have to study that response and respond in due course. There has been distraction as a result of the ongoing wrangles within the Labour Party, and there now needs to be a focus from the British Government on the issue. They need to come and sit with us, have a proper discussion and engage with us on the needs of public services here and how we properly fund public services and support our economy to levels that are comparable to Scotland and Wales.

Mr McReynolds: Minister, can you set out what the likely consequences for public services will be if you fail to reach agreement with the Treasury and secure Executive approval for a draft Budget?

Mr O'Dowd: In the absence of a Budget, as the Member will be aware, we are currently operating on 45%, as set out in the Vote on Account. If we still have not set a Budget by the end of July, the permanent secretary of the Department of Finance can issue permission to Departments to spend 95% of last year's total Budget and cash holdings. The preferred option is to agree a Budget, but, for that Budget to be agreed, it will have to be properly funded and resourced by the British Government.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, can I just double-check a point of fact? You have just confirmed that if the Executive do not or will not agree a Budget — we all want the UK Government to engage with you; they are in chaos at the minute, so whether they are focusing or not is anyone's guess — there will be an automatic 5% cut imposed by the Executive on public services. Is that a fact?

Mr O'Dowd: I would not put it in the same context in which you put it — as being a fact — but the procedures are clear: up until the end of July, we have 45% Vote on Account, and, after that, the permanent secretary can give permission for 95% of last year's Budget and cash to be spent. That will result in less spending power for Departments this year. I am fully focused on ensuring that we get proper funding from the British Government that will allow the Executive to set a Budget that will not only make our public services sustainable but allow us to carry out the programme of transformation that is required.

Mr O'Dowd: I was pleased to sign the Causeway Coast and Glens growth deal on 28 April 2026 on behalf of the Executive, underlining our collective commitment to delivering for the region. It represents a £72 million investment across nine projects funded equally by the Executive and the British Government. Funding from council and other deal partners brings the total investment to £129 million. The capital injection will support a strong portfolio of transformative projects right across the Causeway Coast and Glens area focused on innovation, regeneration, tourism and infrastructure. The projects are designed to deliver real, practical benefits for people and communities.

The most advanced projects in the growth deal are the Centre for Food and Drug Discovery, which is a leading-edge, industry-facing facility that will position the North as a global hub for drug discovery, food innovation and health research, and the Coleraine leisure and well-being centre, which will enhance health and well-being, strengthen the visitor offer for the region and support town-centre regeneration in Coleraine. Other exciting projects across the borough include the Bushmills and Dungiven regeneration programmes, the Cushendall Innovation Centre and the Portrush to Giant's Causeway greenway.

Mr Kearney: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra.

Minister, that is fantastic news for the east Derry, north Derry and north Antrim region. Can you give us some sense of whether the growth deal has set out projections in relation to employment generation, overall regeneration and the benefits that will accrue to the local population in that part of the North?

Mr O'Dowd: I do not have the full details of those projects in front of me, but I will be happy to share them with the Member. It is clear from the list of projects that it will bring forward that the Causeway Coast and Glens growth deal is being used in a way that will increase the economic powerhouse of that place. Innovations such as the Centre for Food and Drug Discovery at Ulster University and the Foodovation Centre at the North West Regional College — I had an opportunity to visit the centre for the launch of the programme and have discussions with the staff — ensure that businesses in that area have access to the highest level of innovation, research and marketing that is available anywhere. That, in itself, will sustain the jobs that those businesses have and create further employment in that area.

Mr Bradley: Minister, this is, indeed, good news for the Coleraine area and the Causeway Coast and Glens. What engagement has his Department had with Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council to ensure that inflationary pressures and rising construction costs do not cause delays, scaling back or cancellation of key growth deal projects?

Mr O'Dowd: There is regular engagement between the partners on the planning and delivery of growth deals. Inflation and other pressures are always bearing down on projects that we are involved in. We have an envelope of funding here for delivery. As I have said in previous answers, I continue to engage with the British Government on receiving proper funding for this place. At the moment, however, the city and growth deals funding is what it is.

Mr O'Dowd: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 4 and 14 together.

Around 30,000 businesses from a tax base of 75,000 already receive a reduction of between 20% and 50% through the small business rate relief scheme, which has been extended to 2026-27. Many recipients of that support are currently operating in our town centres. Last year's review highlighted that there was an appetite for enhanced support to be delivered to small businesses. For that reason, I set aside around £10 million in the draft Budget for an enhancement of the scheme. My proposals would see the number of recipients increasing, including businesses that are operating in town centres. They will also enhance the level of support provided to recipients across the scheme.

Those matters remain subject to the completion of the Budget process. Once that process concludes, I will bring forward proposals to the Executive for the further expansion of small business rates relief support and an increase in the number of recipients. Should approval be granted, those measures will be applied retrospectively. In addition to the existing small business rate relief scheme, my Department has recently extended the Back in Business and rural ATMs schemes, which also provide valuable support to our town centres.

Ms Egan: Thank you, Minister. You mentioned that you had set aside £10 million for the small business rate relief scheme. However, the draft Budget has not been agreed by the Executive, as you know. If that Budget is not agreed, how will you ensure that that support can be delivered by the end of the mandate?

Mr O'Dowd: Once again, that highlights the importance of being able to agree a Budget. As I have set out, when the Executive are given the ability to do so, they can introduce measures to support not only our public services but our local businesses and our economy. I am appealing to the British Government to give us the proper resources to continue that work.

Even though our Budget is limited in the next year, I have set aside that £10 million because small and medium enterprises are the backbone of our local economy and require support. However, I understand why other Ministers are hesitant about agreeing a Budget at this stage without further support. It has to be the focus of the Executive — I know that it is their focus — and of the British Government to get a Budget agreed. Another reason to agree it is to release that £10 million to small businesses.

Mr Stewart: Minister, you will know that many of our town centres and villages are on their knees. Many of the independent retailers whom I speak to are running to stand still to pay their bills. They also feel that they are paying a premium to be in town centres, even though the footfall simply is not there. Shopping habits are changing. What more can you do, as Finance Minister, to support our independent retailers and alleviate the burden of town centre rates?

Mr O'Dowd: As I set out in my original answer, we are providing substantial support to our small and medium-sized businesses. In monetary value, it is around £0·25 billion of support. I have further proposals in front of the Executive. I want to have even more discussions about how we can help our businesses to expand physically and not have so much of a rates burden on them in the first year. I will continue to examine the options that are available to me within the limited powers and financial resources that we have, because I recognise the importance of supporting our small and medium-sized enterprises.

Mrs Mason: Minister, you mentioned a number of positive schemes from your Department. Can you provide us with an update on your proposals for the introduction of a business growth accelerator relief?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes. A consultation will be launched at the end of this month and will run across the summer, during which views will be sought from stakeholders on the possible introduction of that policy, which is largely based on the Scottish model. The process will run over the summer and then, hopefully, policy and support will be introduced later in the autumn or towards the end of the year. It is about allowing businesses to physically expand — build an extension or physically expand the business — and giving them a rates holiday in the following year to allow them to absorb the costs of the initial investment in construction. The rates holiday for a year would, hopefully, act as a buffer for that and encourage others to invest, and those businesses would move to paying rates the following year.

Mr Durkan: Both you and your predecessor have spoken of the need for an entire strategic review of our rates system. Today, you have pointed out your intent to continue and expand some schemes. While that will be welcome, can you highlight a single change that has actually been made to how our rating system works since those were introduced?

Mr O'Dowd: There needs to be a collective, strategic approach to that matter across the Executive to ensure that we deliver the required changes to our rating system, whether those are to domestic rating policy or non-domestic rating policy. I have one paper with the Executive, and another will be on its way after the consultation. I have injected the £10 million into the draft Budget, but I can bring matters only so far. Others around the Executive table also have to look on this as a strategic way forward. While I fully accept — in fact, I have been clear from the outset — that this place is not properly funded by the British Government, there are measures that we can take ourselves to support our small and medium-sized enterprises and domestic ratepayers. That requires decision-making and leadership.

Mr O'Dowd: I am committed to legislating on that issue. Officials have commenced work on the detailed policy development that will be required to include provisions that are similar to Jade's law, which has been enacted but not yet implemented in England and Wales. I am very aware of the devastating impact that such circumstances can have on children and their wider families and of the additional trauma caused when an offender continues to attempt to exercise parental responsibility. I am committed to legislating to make a meaningful difference to the lives of people here. Although Jade's law is on the statute book in Britain, it has still not been enacted some two years later, owing to the various agencies and stakeholders involved in making the reforms and the associated legal and operational complexities. We can, and will, learn from there and elsewhere.

Rather than rush through a Bill of this importance and then await its implementation, I have asked officials to consider any policy in tandem with the work that will be required in order to commence any legislation. In that regard, I have already liaised with the Minister of Justice, as any reform will have an impact on the family and criminal judicial systems. I have also asked officials to consider other aspects of parental responsibility reform and potentially other private family law matters that could form part of a wider Bill to assist a wide range of people.

I expect that policy development will lead to a consultation on a number of issues later this year, which will allow work to commence on drafting that important Bill in the early part of 2027. I expect the Bill to be one of the earlier pieces of legislation that will be considered by an incoming Executive and Assembly next year.

Ms Sheerin: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra.

Minister, I thank you for the work that you have done on what is highly important legislation. What engagement have you had with campaigners to date? You have said that you want things to be done properly.

Mr O'Dowd: I have met Women's Aid and other campaigners, and there has been a substantial amount of correspondence on the matter. It is quite clear that there is a need and a demand for such changes to be made. I would like to be in a position to introduce legislation much earlier, but, on reflection, it is only right and proper that we go through the process in a detailed way and learn from the issues that have affected the implementation of the law in England in order to ensure that, when we do introduce the law here, it is implemented immediately and is workable, resulting in the outcomes that we wish to see.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for his commitment to progressing Jade's law in Northern Ireland. Given the high levels of femicide in Northern Ireland, coupled with the long delays in getting cases to court, when Jade's law is introduced here, if it replicates that in GB, it will not be activated until the person is convicted, so the family of little children whose mother has been brutally murdered in devastating circumstances will possibly have to wait a couple of years until the case gets to court to get an answer. That seems really unreasonable to me. What other measures are therefore available through the family courts in the very moment that children are faced with that situation?

Mr O'Dowd: Those are all issues involved in the engagement that my officials are having currently to look at how we can progress the matter. All the questions that arise need to be looked at and interrogated and then, if possible, answered in the legislation. I am conscious that, under current legislation, everyone is innocent until found guilty. That will therefore have to be reflected in any legislation that we introduce. We have an opportunity, however, to learn from other jurisdictions to ensure that our legislation meets the needs of families who are going through that horrific experience.

Mr O'Dowd: The Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill was introduced on 16 March 2026 and passed its Second Stage on 20 April. It is now with the Committee for Finance, and I look forward to further engagement with the Committee on what are important changes. My expectation is that the Bill will pass later this year or early in 2027. It will end child marriage in this jurisdiction by increasing the minimum age for marriage and civil partnership from 16 to 18.

Miss Hargey: Minister, do you intend to legislate to amend the law on divorce and the dissolution of civil partnerships?

Mr O'Dowd: I wish to legislate on that matter. Unfortunately, the paper that I produced earlier this year remains with the Executive. It is vital that we modernise our laws on divorce and the dissolution of civil partnerships to ensure that such matters can be dealt with as quickly and as responsibly as possible. I believe that there is a way forward for doing that.

Mr McNulty: Minister, the minimum age for marriage was raised to 18 in the Republic in 2019 and in the UK in 2023. Is there any evidence that people from either jurisdiction have been travelling to the North to take advantage of our delay in raising the age by participating in under-18 marriages here?

Mr O'Dowd: There has been some indication of that, though not in significant numbers. There has been some indication that there have been people who have travelled to this jurisdiction to avail themselves of our current laws. It is important that we modernise our legislation and protect all young people.

Mr O'Dowd: The draft Baby Loss Certificate Regulations 2026 were debated and approved by the Assembly last Tuesday. That allows my officials to finalise the IT and operational arrangements that are necessary to launch the scheme. I remain committed to ensuring that the scheme is launched by the end of June so that parents who have endured such heartbreaking loss receive the recognition and support that they need.

As I stated during the debate, I am very grateful to members of the public who engaged with the process of developing and delivering the legal frameworks for the scheme. I am particularly grateful to the parents who shared their often painful experiences with us as part of our public consultation exercise. Their input helped us to ensure that we shaped the scheme to meet their needs as fully as possible.

Miss Dolan: I thank the Minister for his answer and for the scheme, which is probably one of the most positive things to come out of the Assembly in this mandate. Minister, you touched on this briefly, but what specific engagement has taken place to ensure that the scheme meets the needs of the parents and groups that campaigned for it?

Mr O'Dowd: More than 1,100 people and organisations took the time to respond during the consultation process. I have also met representatives of Sands and the Little Forget Me Nots Trust. Those organisations provide support to families after the loss of a baby. Alongside work with those organisations, my officials ran a concerted social media campaign to encourage widespread engagement with the public consultation. They also held several stakeholder events to collect the opinions of those who provide specialist services and support to anyone who has been impacted on by such a loss.

Mr O'Dowd: Responsibility for assessing and managing the impact of vacancies on public service delivery sits with Departments, as they are accountable for service delivery and affordability. Departments assess workforce pressures on an ongoing basis and prioritise resources to protect essential services within constrained budgets. Accountability for those decisions has not changed. The role of my Department is to support better, more defensible decision-making. Through the people strategy, more consistent strategy and workforce planning is being embedded across Departments, supported by common guidance and tools, a critical role assessment tool and the Integr8 programme to improve workforce data and insight. The people strategy also includes actions to streamline recruitment. An administrative officer (AO) recruitment pilot demonstrated that the time that it takes to hire can be significantly reduced, which will help Departments to bring capacity in more quickly where it is most needed.

Mr Harvey: Thank you, Minister, for that response. Will the Minister tell the House roughly what percentage of vacant posts amount to long-term dormant posts in the system, and what impact, if any, do dormant posts have on overall budget allocations?

Mr O'Dowd: I do not have those exact figures in front of me, but my interpretation — I may be wrong — is that a dormant post is one that is no longer required. Therefore, if a post is no longer required, in my view, it should not be in the system. Again, however, it comes down to accounting officers, Ministers and their senior teams regularly reviewing their needs when it comes to staffing levels and ensuring that those are updated as often as possible so that we have an accurate reflection of our staffing needs.

Mr O'Dowd: There are two important points to note from the outset. First, derelict properties that are not fit for beneficial occupation fall outside the rating system. Secondly, a revaluation process is simply a means of redistributing the property tax in line with the latest market evidence. It acts as a revenue-neutral process within tax. It is not a policy lever to address the issues that the Member mentioned. When it comes to what the rating system can be used for in that regard, there are a number of proposed steps by which the system can align with wider Executive and local government policy. I am finalising the policy consultation processes with my officials regarding two steps, namely the introduction of a business growth accelerator and increasing the vacant rating charge on empty commercial properties from 50% to 75% and, ultimately, to 100%.

My Department has also introduced the Back in Business scheme, and around 113 businesses have opened in such spaces since the scheme was restored last year. I remain willing to work with all Ministers to address such complex challenges.

Mr Speaker: We move to topical questions.

Mr O'Dowd: It is six months since I published a draft Budget. To date, the Opposition and their leader have not published an alternative Budget. Members around the table and around the Chamber have responsibilities in their individual roles. I have published a draft Budget and submitted it to my Executive colleagues. They have come back to me and reported significant challenges in delivering a Budget based on the quantum that is available to me. I have listened to their concerns and gone back to the Treasury and the British Government to say that this place needs to be properly funded. Further research that I have presented to them makes a strong case in the context of the figures pertaining to Scotland and Wales, and I want a similar funding package for this place.

I am not sure what point the Member is trying to make on the issue. The common cause for us all is to ensure that this place is properly funded. We can then get down to the nitty-gritty of my producing a Budget based on the new figures and delivering it to the Executive. Hopefully, it can then be agreed and brought to the Chamber, where it can be debated and thrashed out. At this stage, however, our energies are better spent in challenging the British Government over their failure to properly fund the place.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, I will always challenge the British Government, but I also challenge you, because that is my job and that of the Opposition. If, as we heard today, small business rate relief money cannot be spent; if, as the deputy First Minister said recently, support for integration, community relations and race relations cannot be disbursed; and if, as the Communities Minister said, money cannot be disbursed to support people in housing need who are suffering domestic violence, it is my job to challenge you and your colleagues on the absence of a Budget and the consequences for the people here.

London is in complete chaos, as your colleagues have outlined, and there is no functioning British Government. Are we genuinely, seriously saying that, until the chaotic, shambolic and utterly leaderless Starmer Government return your calls, the public of the North will have to put up with a 5% cut?

Mr Speaker: Question, please.

Mr O'Toole: Is that the position?

Mr O'Dowd: As the Member knows, each Department has been issued with a contingency expenditure envelope by my permanent secretary. Ongoing programmes can be funded. There are difficult decisions for all Ministers and permanent secretaries to take, as there are in all such cases. Does the Member want me or the Executive to bring forward a Budget with which all my Executive colleagues say they simply cannot deliver public services, or does he want to join us in ensuring that the pressure is put where it belongs, which is on the British Government? Frankly, I do not care whether they are dysfunctional, whether they are deciding who will or will not lead them or what Andy Burnham or Joe Soap will do, but I care about this place and about its being properly funded. It would be better if the Member used his energies on that rather than on going round in an ever diminishing circle. We have the same debate every other week on this matter. Perhaps we will call a truce. [Interruption.]

If we were to call a truce for a short time and work together to ensure that this place is properly funded, I would bring a Budget to my Executive colleagues, hopefully they would agree it, I would come to the Assembly, and you and I would thrash out the detail of it.

Mr O'Dowd: My Department continues to examine that area. As I have said previously in the House, I do not think that I will be able to introduce legislation on the issue within this mandate, but I have set aside resources in my Department to examine the matter further and progress it to a stage at which we will be able to introduce legislation in the next mandate.

Ms Egan: Thank you, Minister. The issue is affecting people now. Homeowners are facing significant fees from some property management companies and cannot wait until the next mandate. Is there anything that you can do in the interim to support people who are facing significant rises in fees from property management companies?

Mr O'Dowd: It is a hugely complex legal area. If there are to be changes to the legislation, proper scrutiny will be required. My advice — this has been my advice since day 1 on this matter — for anyone who has concerns about how they are being treated by their property management company is to consult their contract and, if necessary, a solicitor to ensure that they are being properly and fairly treated.

Mr O'Dowd: As I said during the main Question Time, officials are working their way through that area of legislation. I believe that a change was made via an amendment to a justice Bill in Westminster to introduce what is known as Jade's law. However, that was two years ago. Although Jade's law is on the statute books, it has not been commenced in England because of the huge complexities of the issue. I want to ensure that, when we introduce legislation here, it is commenced when it goes on the statute books.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for that response. Has he or his Department assessed what additional financial or staffing resources may be required to support the effective operation of Jade's law, if and when it is implemented?

Mr O'Dowd: That is part of the ongoing process of looking at the implications of introducing the legislation. It will impact on a number of Departments and areas of responsibility. I have already had initial engagement with the Justice Minister, and my officials are engaging with the Justice Department. When this law is introduced, other areas of support and engagement will be affected for families going through what is already a traumatic process. That forms part of the ongoing deliberations.

Mr O'Dowd: I thought that the DUP had stopped talking about its confidence-and-supply relationship with the Conservative Party. It is one of those areas of life that you should probably put in the dark recesses of your mind and forget about. You may have secured £1 billion, but what did you actually cost us in cuts to public spending as a result of keeping the Conservatives in government for that period of time? You did not secure money; you cost money, because you kept a party in power that was slashing public services left, right and centre.

Anyhow, in relation to your question, projects such as the York Street interchange require significant amounts of spend before any construction takes place. I assume that that is where the money has gone to, but it would probably be best getting more detail from the Infrastructure Minister on those matters. Such projects require alarming amounts of money before a single metre of tarmac is laid.

Mr Kingston: I have learned nothing from the Minister's answer. There has been a failure to deliver not just for North Belfast but for all who sit in the long queues of cars at that key junction at the heart of Northern Ireland's road network. Minister, why was that outcome hidden away until I asked my question for written answer, and what are you doing now, in association with the Infrastructure Minister, to fund the long-awaited improvements to the York Street interchange?

Mr O'Dowd: It was not hidden away. I am just checking my notes on that point. The confidence-and-supply funding was not earmarked for specific projects. Although the York Street interchange was part of the programme that was expected to utilise the funding from the confidence-and-supply agreement, funding legal challenges associated with the project caused significant delays to it. The confidence-and-supply funding allocated to DFI was fully spent on other infrastructure projects and departmental priorities at the time.

Mr O'Dowd: It is such an outdated building, and the cost would be with turning it into a modern, acceptable working environment and making it sustainable going forward, including in relation to energy costs. There is no point in us burning fuel to keep draughty windows and corridors warm. I assume that you will agree with that. Whether there is a climate Act or whatever you want to call it, there is no point in burning public money to do that. The amount of money required to turn that building into a modern, fit-for-purpose facility is at that scale, and I do not think that it is affordable or wise to use it at this time.

Mr Brooks: That be as it may, it remains a significant site in the estate and in east Belfast. Do you have any timeline for action on it?

Mr O'Dowd: I will come back to the Member with more details, but I understand that there is ongoing engagement with the Department for Communities on the listing of the building. We are looking at all options in relation to that building. I am not sure what benefit it is to the citizens of east Belfast at this time. I suspect that, were I to invest £100 million in housing or into the crumbling education estate or into the health estate or into York Street, that would be a much better use of the money than what is currently envisaged for that building.

Mr O'Dowd: Following my meeting with the hospitality sector in February, when I halted the Reval, it has been working on its own proposals. I believe that those are at an advanced stage and will be brought back to me. My officials have been engaging with the sector back and forth on that.

Mr McReynolds: I thank the Minister for his response. That is encouraging to hear. When will you be in a position to set out next steps on revaluation and support for the hospitality sector?

Mr O'Dowd: I await the proposals from the hospitality sector. I indicated to it at the time that I would not take any further actions until I saw its proposals, so I await the proposals.

Mr O'Dowd: My Department has been engaging regularly with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in Whitehall on those matters over a period. I think that it is important that the Executive provide a response to it rather than individual Departments. There may be some issues that are specific to individual Departments, but I think that it is important that the Executive make their views known.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for his answer. Can the Minister outline how often his Department's funding policy interdepartmental working group meets the Northern Ireland Office and whether it has facilitated engagement with the community and voluntary sector and the Northern Ireland Office through that forum?

Mr O'Dowd: I do not have those details in front of me, but I am more than happy to share them with the Member.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister of Finance, as Mr Stewart is not in his place and Mr Beattie's question was withdrawn.

Members should take their ease for a moment, and we will then move back to the Education Inspections Bill.

Mr Speaker: As we return to the Second Stage debate, I call on the Minister to complete his outline of the Bill.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will pick up from where I left off.

My flagship reform programme, TransformED, offers significant opportunities for workload reduction, and we are moving into the implementation stage that will make that a reality. The new curriculum will bring greater specificity and sequencing, taking the guesswork out of what was taught before and what should be taught next. Teachers will be supported through professional development and the provision of high-quality teaching resources. New assessments are aimed at reducing workload and bureaucratic teacher-led assessment. In the meantime, the transitional arrangements that I have introduced will provide low-stake, system-level assessments distributed and marked by the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) — no teacher paperwork, no moderation, no workload. Qualifications reform will provide a significant reduction in controlled assessments, again reducing workload. I will continue to support and empower our vital teaching workforce.

Obstructing a statutory independent process that is designed to safeguard children and drive improvement cannot and should not be considered legitimate industrial action. It is neither consistent with professional standards nor in the best interests of children. The Bill addresses that gap directly. It will place a clear statutory duty on those in education to cooperate with inspections, removing ambiguity once and for all. Where cooperation is not forthcoming, it will be treated as unacceptable professional conduct to be addressed through the profession's regulatory body, the General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland (GTCNI).

That is a proportionate and balanced approach. It establishes clearly and unequivocally that cooperation with inspection is a basic professional expectation. Alongside that, the Bill takes an equally important step in modernising our legislation by removing the long-standing exemption that limits the inspection of religious education. That exemption is outdated and no longer tenable. Religious education is a statutory part of the curriculum and should be subject to the same independent scrutiny as every other subject. The Bill will ensure that it is. It addresses directly the findings of the Supreme Court.

The legislation will bring Northern Ireland into line with the expectation of every other jurisdiction in the British Isles, ensuring that inspection can operate effectively, consistently and without obstruction. It will remove inspection from industrial relations and normalise cooperation, allowing all of our teaching workforce to experience and be empowered through the new collaborative inspection framework.

Over the past two years, we have seen what happens when inspection is allowed to function properly. Schools have entered formal intervention for the first time in a decade, gaining access to tailored and sustained support; weaknesses in safeguarding arrangements have been identified and addressed; and a programme of dissemination of effective practice has been consistently oversubscribed, demonstrating a thirst from our educators to learn from their peers across our education system. The impact is clear, the benefits real and the case for securing inspection in law undeniable.

The Bill is small and focused, but it is critical. It protects a fundamental accountability mechanism, strengthens oversight across all areas of the curriculum and places the rights and well-being of children at its core. As we again face the potential of further industrial action in our education system, support for the smooth passage of the Bill is all the more urgent.

Let us be clear what is at stake. In 2026, are we seriously prepared to argue that our schools do not require consistent, independent scrutiny? Have the harrowing lessons of past abuse inquiries taught us nothing? When systems lack oversight, it is children who pay the price. When systems lack scrutiny, risk does not disappear. Rather, it grows in the shadows. When it comes to the comfort of adults or the safety of children, there is no moral ambiguity. We must choose children.

We have a responsibility to act in the best interests of children and young people. The Bill does exactly that. It ensures that independent scrutiny is not contingent, partial or optional but consistent, robust and guaranteed. Safeguarding is not a procedural issue but a moral one. History will judge us on this simple question: when we had the opportunity to strengthen protection for children, did we act or did we hesitate?

More widely, children are simply not getting a good deal. Without inspection, no one supports schools that struggle to improve and to thrive. Inspection is the engine of improvement. It shines a light on weaknesses, challenges complacency and drives schools to be better for every child. Without inspection, there is no honest mirror. It is only through external scrutiny that schools can truly understand where they are falling short. As Nelson Mandela said:

This is the test of ours.

I look forward to hearing Members' opinions on the Bill's general principles. Let those who wish to oppose it and those who wish to hollow it out explain — Mr Baker smiles smugly, as usual — why they do not believe that the protection of children should be paramount and why they believe that we should have a substandard inspection system to that which exists in the Republic of Ireland or anywhere else in the United Kingdom. I suggest to Members that children ought not to be the playthings of political advantage, which Sinn Féin now seeks to exploit.

The Bill is right for the protection of our children and young people. It is right for school improvement. It was right for the Sinn Féin First Minister, who approved it. It was right for Sinn Féin's Ministers, who approved it at the Executive.

Mr Baker: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Givan: It was right for Alliance Ministers, who also approved it.

I will give way to Mr Baker.

Mr Baker: Are you always going to take it that, if something comes out of the Executive, that is an endorsement? Scrutiny should happen in the Chamber. You should know all about that. You will not let the 'good jobs' employment rights Bill go through. Do you want us to keep blocking everything? Is that what you want us to do, or is that what you are going to do?

Mr Givan: Those are the threats from Mr Baker: Sinn Féin is going to block a Bill for the protection of children because it has thrown its toys out of the pram over a 'good jobs' Bill. Let that ring in Members' ears. Sinn Féin's position is a response to the 'good jobs' Bill. We are actively working through that Bill to see whether we can move forward with it, but Sinn Féin will hold everybody else hostage — it is not the first time that republicans have behaved in that way — by behaving in a despicable manner over a Bill that is designed to strengthen school inspection and the protection of children. Why is Sinn Féin opposed to that? It is inexplicable.

If the Member is telling me that, from now on, when Sinn Féin's First Minister and Sinn Féin Ministers approve a Bill to be introduced in the Assembly, it is the Assembly, not the leadership of Sinn Féin that matters, who is running Sinn Féin? Is it your First Minister and leader, your ministerial team or the Back-Benchers on the Education Committee? Who is actually running Sinn Féin? For Sinn Féin to hold us hostage unless it gets its way and to vote down legislation for the protection of children and the improvement of schools is an appalling way to do business. Let the public see that for what it is: shameful politics from Sinn Féin.

I look forward to responding to all points raised by Members in due course.

Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): As Chair of the Education Committee, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to today's debate. Should the Education Inspections Bill pass at Second Stage, the Committee looks forward to scrutinising it in detail and to engaging with stakeholders and officials.

The Bill received a lot of attention on social media over the weekend, and elected reps in the Chamber will have received a lot of contact about clause 3 in particular. I am speaking now in my capacity as Chair of the Committee, so I will limit my remarks to the scope of the Bill and the Committee's engagement on the issues to date. I will deal with some of the other issues in the Bill when, with your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak as an Alliance Party Member.

Inspection is undoubtedly a key component of the accountability architecture in our education system. It identifies strengths, highlights concerns and supports continuous improvement in the best interests of learners. It is therefore appropriate that we keep our inspection arrangements and the legislation underpinning them under regular review.

The general principles of the Bill are clear. The Assembly is being asked a small number of discrete questions: whether the remit of the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) should be extended to include additional educational settings, whether the religious education curriculum should be inspected on the same basis as other curriculum areas, and whether intentional obstruction of or failure to participate in an inspection should be treated as unacceptable professional conduct. Those are the three questions.

In my mind, there is already a question about whether a single Bill is the most appropriate vehicle for those three very distinct policy areas. Perhaps the Minister can set out in his response why that approach was taken, given that one problematic area, which clause 3 is highly likely to be, may become a major sticking point, which would undoubtedly increase the risk of the entire Bill falling. I am keen to understand why the issue of RE in particular, which is quite a distinct policy area, was not separated.

On specific provisions, the Bill will widen the definition of a relevant establishment so that education-providing institutions that are established, maintained or managed by any Northern Ireland Department but that sit outside Education Orders are open to inspection. Importantly, that would occur only with the consent of the Department responsible. In practice, that gives assurance to the Department of Education that voluntary private preschool settings that receive grant aid but are not covered by existing legislation would fall within the Bill's scope. It also supports Departments such as DAERA, should it wish to continue using ETI to evaluate provision of the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE), and it protects the Department for the Economy's interests where ETI is used to assess the quality of work-based learning. The Committee will be keen to explore those new provisions in detail and engage with any impacted Departments as required. However, on first reading, those provisions look to provide practical and sensible changes.

Under article 102(7) of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, the inspectorate cannot inspect religious education unless a school's board of governors agrees. That exemption has meant that RE has not been subject to the same structured scrutiny as other areas of the curriculum. The Supreme Court judgement in 2025 highlighted that as a serious gap, finding that the RE syllabus and collective worship arrangements in the case before it were not delivered in an "objective, critical, and pluralistic manner". The absence of any structured inspection of RE was also noted in the judgement. The Bill removes that exemption and brings RE within the normal inspection framework, ensuring that it is inspected transparently and consistently, in line with the rest of the statutory curriculum.

I will speak to those provisions in more detail in my remarks as an Alliance Member, but I have no doubt that the Committee will want to engage with that clause in detail, should the Bill pass today. I note that the clause, as drafted, does not amend article 21 of the 1986 Order, which permits boards of governors to establish RE inspection regimes as they see fit and gives Churches rights of access to inspect RE. Those two provisions feel out of step and in conflict with clause 2. I would welcome clarity from the Minister at this stage on whether he plans to address that. Again, I may return to that in my remarks later.

As for the Committee's engagement on some of those issues, we received a pre-legislative briefing on the proposed legislation in September. The briefing was about measures contained in clause 3 in particular, although they were presented to us in a different way at that time. The Bill has undergone some changes since then. The departmental officials explained that the Bill was intentionally limited in scope and was not designed to reform the entire inspection model. The Department made it clear at that stage that the intention of the Bill is to ensure full cooperation with inspection at all times, including during periods of industrial action. The Minister has set out again today that that is the intent of clause 3 in particular.

The Department's view at that stage was that the legislation is required to give assurance to the public and ensure that inspection can operate regardless of the wider industrial relations context. The Committee noted at that time that a range of options had been considered, including contractual changes, negotiated agreements and — what was initially proposed — the creation of a criminal offence. However, the Department has moved on from that, and the Bill before us today now frames the issue in terms of "unacceptable professional conduct".

The Committee heard that consultation responses showed that there was significant opposition from teaching unions and many school leaders who raised concerns about the Bill's punitive effects, but the officials set out that some parents who contributed to the consultation were supportive. The Department asserted, and continues today to assert, through the Minister's remarks, that requiring cooperation is necessary to safeguard children and ensure accountability. Speaking as Chair of the Committee, still, and not in my personal or party capacity, I can say that it is clear that there are strongly held views on those proposals. If the Bill passes today, I have no doubt that that clause will receive substantial Committee scrutiny, and it is likely that there will be Committee interest in amending or opposing the clause, although the party groupings in the Committee will almost certainly align differently on those questions, as, I am sure, will come through in today's debate.

It is important to note — this is a key scrutiny point on which I am keen to hear from the Minister — that clause 3, as drafted, relies on schedule 1A to the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, to be inserted by the General Teaching Council Bill, but that that Bill has not yet completed its passage through the Assembly. The Committee will have to explore further the interaction between that Bill and this Bill during Committee Stage. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister how we are to be expected to agree to that clause when we do not know with certainty what schedule 1A will say — we have access to a version of it in the General Teaching Council Bill, but that Bill has more Assembly stages to go through, and we are not clear on what regulations may arise from it. That will be an important consideration.

Since the Department's initial briefing to the Committee, the Bill has been altered. As has been referenced, that has brought into scope issues with RE inspection, and the criminal sanction proposal was dropped and replaced with the proposal of a sanction of professional misconduct. Should the Bill pass its Second Stage, the Committee will undertake detailed and balanced scrutiny of all those issues, engage closely with stakeholders, examine the evidence and ensure that the Assembly is provided with a clear and thorough assessment of the proposals, notwithstanding the fact that there is clearly significant disagreement across the Committee on some of the core principles of the Bill. We will no doubt hear more of that as today's debate progresses.

I will make some comments in my capacity as education spokesperson for the Alliance Party. To give some important context, we recognise the fact that the Bill is making its way through the Assembly at a time when our schools, teachers and school leaders face immense pressure. Many feel that the system is almost at breaking point and that significant workload issues remain unresolved. Despite many years of workload agreements — those have not been fully implemented — and despite the independent review of teacher workload, there is a feeling among many in the system that they are at tipping point; that is if they do not feel, as many of them do, that they have passed tipping point. That is the context in which we are having the debate, and we cannot ignore that context, because timing of legislation is often critical to whether it is a helpful intervention or an unhelpful intervention in our education system.

I will speak briefly to what, I hope, will be the less controversial aspects of the Bill before I refer to clause 3, which is the clause that so many teachers highlighted as being profoundly problematic. I will cover that clause in more detail. Clause 1, which would bring under the remit of the ETI those institutions that are not currently under its remit, seems uncontroversial. I do not imagine that it will attract significant debate today, and I see no reason why those proposals should not be taken forward for further scrutiny. I will make the point at this stage, which I highlighted in my remarks as Chair of the Committee, that the Bill does three discrete things. I think that it will be possible for us to separate those things out — we do not necessarily need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There may be some things that we think are positive and some things that we think are not, and that is why we have scrutiny processes and amending stages. To my mind, clause 1 seems entirely non-controversial.

Clause 2 removes RE's exemption from school inspections. Alliance is fully supportive of that clause and welcomes it. I have personally lobbied for years on the need for that change, as has my party. RE is not currently inspected unless a school's board of governors agrees to its inspection, and yet the wording of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 is:

To me, the idea that RE can be excluded from our formal mechanisms of inspection and avoid the same level of scrutiny that any other area of the curriculum receives is not acceptable, and it is welcome to see that being rectified. I live in hope that the clause will receive cross-party support, as not only is it necessary to comply with the Supreme Court judgement, but it seems like something that represents a bygone era where RE should be seen as a form of religious instruction that is not subject to rigorous quality assurance. Further, the fact that the Churches retain inspection rights of the subject makes no sense to me in 2026. Again, it is not religious instruction; it is education that should be objective, critical and pluralistic, as set out by the Supreme Court judgement.

I have noted the concerns about the provisions in article 21 that remain on the statute book, which is the freedom for boards of governors to set their own RE inspection framework and for the Churches to retain rights of inspection. I do not see how the proposals in the Bill and the provisions in the education Order that the Bill repeals can sit together, and I would welcome the Minister's providing us with some clarity on that to assure us that it was simply an oversight and that they will also be repealed to ensure that the law that comes out on the other side is coherent and makes sense to schools. Boards of Governors would be left in an incredibly confusing position if we did not deal with the whole package in relation to RE inspection.

Every Member in the Chamber will be aware of the significant concerns that exist around clause 3 of the Bill. If they are not, they must not have logged into their inboxes over the weekend. It is clear that teachers are extremely concerned about the clause as drafted. It was one of the issues that I received the most contact about in the short number of days after I was elected. There are substantial levels of concern and distress. Teachers feel that they are potentially being subjected to very onerous disciplinary measures, and there is a lot of confusion about what the clause does. Again, given that we are relying on provisions that are not yet enacted in law in another Bill, and given the workload context, I clearly understand why teachers feel that way. The clause now defines certain acts, such as obstructing or failing to cooperate with an inspection, as "unacceptable professional conduct". Clearly, teachers' concerns in relation to that are profound, and they are specifically about the insertion of the proposed article 102C into the 1986 Order. As it is drafted, there is complete uncertainty as to what "professional misconduct" would actually mean and what the sanction would be for a teacher. The Bill, to me, is not clear about that. Therefore, as it stands, it is not something that Alliance can support.

We intend to use the Committee Stage to see whether an acceptable amendment can be found, as these sanctions are currently potentially incredibly wide-ranging and unclear. It may be that no amendment can be agreed upon, and, in that case, we will seek to vote the clause down at Consideration Stage. I give that as a firm commitment. It is important to make this very clear. There has been a lot of material circulating on social media and very clear suggestions being put out to teachers who are expressing concern that the Bill cannot be amended or changed, and that, at Consideration Stage, clauses cannot be voted down.

Mr Baker: Will the Member give way?

Mr Mathison: I certainly will give way.

Mr Baker: Does he share my concerns that teachers may be looking at our experience in the Education Committee when our 11 amendments to the school uniforms Bill were not brought to the Floor for debate? Maybe that is what teachers are thinking about.

Mr Brooks: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Member to question a decision of the Speaker?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The point of order has been noted. A more formal note can be issued from the Speaker's Office if required. I was about to intervene to say that we should confine ourselves to the matters at hand, which are the clauses of the Bill and related matters, and not wider issues.

Mr Mathison: I will respond to Mr Baker's question. When any Committee puts an amendment forward on any issue, it is entirely down to the Speaker whether that amendment is selected. That is not to say that we should not do the work to deliver those amendments, but, separate to that, on every single clause in every single Bill that passes through the House, a Member can call a Division if they do not like it and bring it to a vote. It does not require the Speaker or the Minister to work with the Member; it is your free opportunity as a Member to do that. It is important to nail that as a point of fact: at any Consideration Stage, each clause is voted on.

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for giving way. I assure the Member that I am more than happy to work with the Committee to look at that aspect of the Bill at clause 3 and see where we can find common ground on that. The offer is there for me to engage constructively with him and the Committee to address some of the unfounded concerns that have been generated over the past 48 hours. The Member is right: that is the benefit of the Committee Stage. The argument made by the Members opposite about why the Hunting with Dogs Bill should proceed was that the Committee could do the work and that the Committee was the place to look at it all and to interrogate it; it is interesting that the same argument does not suit now.

The clause was already a compromise because people argued that a fine and potential criminal sentence should not exist in Northern Ireland as it does in the rest of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Therefore, that was removed from the Bill, and clause 3, as it stands, contains a referral for professional misconduct. Will the Member agree, however, that it sits somewhat differently from the provisions in the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002? Those provisions reference the powers of the Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI) to inspect our prisons, and section 48(3) states:

Why is it OK to have a criminal offence for prison officers who refuse to cooperate with the inspection to the benefit of prisoners and not to have an offence for teachers — I have removed it — but a referral for professional misconduct? It is strange that Members are saying that a diluted version of the provisions in the Justice Act that apply to prison officers is not suitable for teachers.

Finally, the Member will be surprised, then, that inspection of RE, which is included in the Education Inspections Bill, should have been distinct and different. When he looks at the Justice Bill tomorrow, he will see that it has more amendments and changes to policy areas than the Bill ever introduced.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for his intervention. I cannot guarantee that I will give as much time to each intervention from here on in. The Minister made a short speech. I will pick up on his comments.

I will respond to Mr Baker, because it is an important point. Mr Baker looked sceptically at me when I suggested that he would get the opportunity to vote on every clause in a Bill and that it does not require the cooperation of the Speaker or the Minister. Standing Order 36(2) is crystal clear on that point.

Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way?

Mr Mathison: I want to respond to the Minister's comments first.

The Minister raised a lot of points, and I welcome his offer to engage with the Committee. If there is a mechanism to find the relevant assurances that there will be amendments tabled to clause 3 that are acceptable to the Committee and give teachers the comfort and assurance that they need, I am happy to work with him on that. However, if we cannot find common ground and a compromise position, I am very clear that Alliance absolutely reserves the right to vote the clause down at Consideration Stage, as it is the right of every Member in the Assembly to bring those matters to a Division.

The wider comparison of the criminal justice system with our schools is not comparing like with like, and it is not helpful to get into an endless comparison with hospitals or care homes. We are dealing with education settings and schools, and that is where our focus should be.

Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way?

Mr Mathison: I will give way.

Mr Carroll: It will not take as long as the previous intervention. Do the Member and his party share concerns when the Education Minister — indeed, any Minister — dictates to unions and workers the type of industrial action that is acceptable? That is what the Minister is doing with the Bill. I am deeply concerned that it will set a precedent for other workers to be treated in a similar way. Is the Member concerned about that?

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for his intervention. Yes, we have concerns about that, but that does not mean that we throw the Bill out. I would not like to say that, because we are concerned about that, the Committee cannot work on the RE amendments, which I would love to get right to deal with those issues.

However, as I said, if we cannot find a satisfactory position, we will oppose the clause. I can see no reason why that would not give teachers comfort that there is a process. We can try to improve it, and, if it is not capable of being improved, we can vote it down.

When we consider clause 3, there are, of course, broader policy concerns that are not just to do with the text of the Bill. We are looking at years of incredibly challenging industrial relations, and the fears highlighted by Mr Carroll come out of that context. Teachers rightly and understandably feel concern that the clause is in some way being used as a weapon to threaten them to curtail their right to take industrial action, and there is a sense that the Bill can read as being rather tone-deaf to the fragile industrial relations in the education system at this time. My concern is that, at this time, clause 3 could serve only to damage industrial relations, and, for that reason alone, Alliance retains serious concerns about the capacity of clause 3 to proceed.

Teachers are at breaking point, and the Minister should be focused on working to deliver an effective and serious response to the independent review of teacher workload. This legislation is ultimately a blunt instrument. I 100% believe that inspection is a critical part of the accountability structures in our schools, and we all want to see inspections proceeding regardless of industrial action. Indeed, many of the trade unions have made their position clear and said that they would be reluctant to support such action, given that the new ETI regime has been rolled out much more positively and engagement with schools has largely been seen as a positive intervention. There is a question in my mind about whether there is even an intention to include inspection in any future industrial action.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Mathison: I am not here to speak for the trade unions, but we need to be realistic about the more positive context that we find ourselves in with the ETI regime.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Mathison: I will give way after I finish making the point. I am happy to take interventions.

We are looking at what is potentially a very blunt instrument. While I want to see inspections proceeding, we are at risk of seeing an intervention that will do more harm than good in the system. If the legislation drives further industrial conflict and energises and motivates unions to fight harder against the issues that they see in the system because there is a sense that it is being weaponised in some way, I do not see how that is good for the system. We should try to find a way through the workload challenges, and that is best done through dialogue, engagement and getting the recommendations of the independent review of workload over the line quickly and in a way that teachers feel on the ground.

I will take an intervention from Mr Brooks and then Mr Buckley.

Mr Brooks: I thank the Member for giving way. I agree with an awful lot of what he has just said, because it seems similar to the arguments that I will make during my speech. The trouble that I have is that we cannot say that inspection is critical to the quality of our schools and to ensuring that our schools are safe and so on and then say that we feel that it is imperative that inspection can continue to be used as a pawn in industrial relations. It is open to trade unions and workers to strike. They have those rights and will use them when they need to. I hope that they do not need to. This Minister, in particular, has worked hard to engage with them on industrial disputes and, where possible, remedy those, but inspections should not be the tool. If anything is blunt, it is the use of action short of strike when it comes to inspections.

Mr Mathison: I sincerely hope that inspection is not a feature of any future action short of strike, because we are in a positive and a better space with the ETI regime. However, we have to be realistic about legislation. Timing is everything, and, if you introduce a punitive measure in legislation when industrial relations are in such a poor state, there is a real risk that it will cause damage to the system rather than improve relations.

I will give way to Mr Buckley.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Chair of the Committee for taking the intervention. There is one part of his response to Mr Brooks that I find interesting: he said that he hopes that action short of strike will not be used in relation to inspections going forward, given the issues that we have talked about today. However, that is it: it is just his hope. We cannot predict the future. The Minister and the Department are trying to ensure that we do not run into a situation in five or 10 years' time — nobody can predict future relations — in which, ultimately, child safeguarding issues become paramount, yet there is no oversight from anybody.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for his intervention. I used the word "hope" because I am not here as a spokesperson for any of the trade unions, so I cannot speak for them. I know that the teachers whom I have spoken to feel that the clause would be so profoundly damaging to their relationship with the Department that, it seems to me, it could only be a negative intervention at this time. When we legislate, timing is important.

I know that teachers are concerned about the Bill passing Second Stage, largely because of that clause; in fact, they are concerned only because of that clause. Let me be crystal clear, however: the clause can be amended, but, if an amendment cannot be found to resolve the issues satisfactorily or ends up not being selected for debate at Consideration Stage, the clause can be voted down. I do not know how to be clearer than that.

I have questions about the position that is being taken on voting down the Bill. To me, that does not seem to be the approach that we normally take at Second Stage, particularly when it is an Executive Bill that was agreed to at Executive level. I accept that, often, there will be elements in a Bill that everyone can broadly support and elements that some cannot support. The Committee is the place in which to iron out issues, however, and the amending stages are when we can do the work to remove the bits of the Bill that Members do not like. I notice that Danny is shaking his head, but can he articulate clearly for me why he believes that we cannot vote against a clause at Consideration Stage? Is it his position that we cannot vote against a clause at Consideration Stage?

Mr Baker: No.

Mr Mathison: OK. I am happy to take an intervention.

Mr Baker: I am not saying that that cannot be done; I am saying that I do not trust him. If we hollow out the Bill, we are not going to end up getting what we think that we are going to get. The whole principle behind the Bill is to sanction teachers. That is why teachers are so angry, and that is why we will vote against it. We stand with teachers, not with him.

Mr Mathison: I have no concerns about Alliance's track record of supporting teachers. We need to be clear, however. We can make big statements. The Bill is not all about sanctioning teachers. The Bill does three things, one of which is to sanction teachers. The second is to reform RE inspection, while the third is to widen the ETI's remit to other institutions. The Bill therefore does three things. I would hope that, as legislators, we would have the capacity to manage to hold those things in tension, and, if there is an element that we do not like, we deal with it at Committee Stage. It does not matter how many times you say that you cannot do that or that you do not trust the Minister, because every Member has the opportunity to force a Division on a clause at Consideration Stage. That is a point of fact.

Mr McCrossan: I thank the Member for giving way. It is indeed a point of fact. Does the Member agree that, if Sinn Féin Members felt so strongly about this, its Ministers could surely have blocked the Bill from coming to the House at the Executive? Are we witnessing 'Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid' playing out here?

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for his intervention. That is for Sinn Féin to answer, not me. I cannot speak for that party.

There is an issue. We need to be careful not to spread any kind of misinformation among teachers. Teachers are genuinely and rightly concerned about the content of the Bill; of course they are. Every Member in the Chamber has been contacted by teachers, but there are other ways to deal with the issue rather than voting the whole Bill down.

As I said, Alliance has a strong track record of supporting teachers and challenging the Minister on the workload pressures faced by the teaching profession. If the Bill passes its Second Stage today, Alliance's position will not have changed one iota. We stand in full support of teachers, and we will ensure that the work is done to get the Bill to an acceptable state. The Minister has already indicated that he is prepared to engage with the Committee on the clause that is causing concern, and I hope that his offer has been made in good faith. We will be ready for that engagement, should it be made available. Alliance clearly wants RE to be inspected, and, at the same time, we want to address the serious concerns with clause 3. Surely it is within the gift of the Assembly to do those two things. Surely we can achieve that. Every MLA in the Chamber knows that the legislative process that is available to us allows us to do those two things at the same time.

We will support the Bill's Second Stage. Alliance is crystal clear that the currrent proposals in the Bill on the sanctioning of teachers are not acceptable, and we will oppose them as the Bill progresses. Let us see how we can improve the Bill, however. Let us do the scrutiny work and reassure teachers that the clause that is causing them concern can be dealt with. Anyone who is telling them otherwise is not being honest.

Finally, when it comes to safeguarding, which the Minister raised in substantial detail, I want to be clear that I do not consider that opposing clause 3 or seeking to amend it in any way represents a light-touch approach to safeguarding. If we want to avoid any disruption to inspection, clearly the Minister should seek, if at all possible, agreement with the trade unions that they will not include ETI in any action short of strike that might emerge in the future. I sincerely hope that we can avoid action short of strike because it is not good for our school system. I urge and encourage the Minister to seek that agreement with the trade unions, which would provide assurance and protection for everyone.

Mr Givan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Mathison: I will give way briefly.

Mr Givan: When the Bill was going through the Executive, one of the requests from Sinn Féin and others was to do exactly what he has just set out. We met the trade unions. We asked them formally to enter into an agreement that would take that issue off their list of potential industrial action. There was no meeting and no response. There was silence. I am not prepared to play fast and loose with the protection of our children and young people. I will say this: the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA) and the Department of Health regulate early years childcare and preschool settings. They inspect them. It is an offence not to be inspected by them. Why is it OK to have that level of inspection for children in early years settings, with staff unable to refuse to cooperate, but not for children in P1 when they turn five? I find it baffling that you could have any sort of distinction.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for that intervention. I will reiterate my previous point on that: the industrial relations context that we are in is very fragile. Teachers feel that they are at a tipping point. It is not the time to bring forward legislation with those sorts of potential punitive impacts. It is the time, however, to maximise engagement, dialogue and any mechanisms that we have available to us to protect the inspection regime and ensure that teachers get the long-overdue action that is needed on workload. That work is vital. It has to be done.

The Minister questioned some of this in his opening remarks. It is my understanding that no safeguarding inspection was blocked during action short of strike. I am happy to stand corrected on that. We need to be careful about being seen to whip up any fear around that, if, during those periods of action short of strike, the doors were still open to safeguarding inspections. If there were ways in which that could continue to be maximised, I would support that.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Mathison: I need to make some progress.

Finally, although the Minister says that ETI is the only show in town for safeguarding, safeguarding is absolutely everybody's business. It is the business of us all in the Assembly. It is very much the EA's business. The EA has a critical role in providing support for schools around policymaking and training and for school leaders and teachers on dealing with incidents when concerns are raised and in interactions with social services and the PSNI. The whole system is responsible for safeguarding, not just ETI. We need to be careful not to say that ETI is where safeguarding begins and ends in our schools. If it were, that could mean that schools could be inspected only every four or five years. It is important to note that that is not a satisfactory approach to safeguarding in our system.

Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Mathison: I will.

Mr Sheehan: The latest data that I have heard about inspections is that schools are inspected, on average, every eight to 10 years.

Mr Mathison: Those numbers would be concerning if inspections were the only mechanism by which we could ensure that a school had appropriate safeguarding measures in place. That is important. It would be good to hear the Minister set out how he is addressing safeguarding issues through a whole-system approach. If he wanted to bring forward a Bill on enhancing safeguarding provision across the education system where gaps exist, I would be very keen and happy to engage on that. However, we should not just take comfort from the belief that, if ETI is operating, all is well when it comes to safeguarding. As I said, it is a whole-system responsibility that we should all take seriously.

Feelings run high on these issues. I hope that we will get the Bill to Committee, where we can do the detailed work — the work that we are tasked with doing as legislators — to improve and enhance the Bill. However, I will say this again for any teacher who is listening: the Bill can be changed. Elements of it can be voted down should they not be acceptable to Members. It is really important to note that, even if those processes do not work, the Bill can be voted down at Final Stage, should Members remain concerned and teachers are not satisfied. We need to be so clear that the processes are here to improve and enhance the Bill; narratives to the contrary are simply inaccurate.

I cannot be clearer than that on the Alliance Party's position at Second Stage. I look forward to the contributions of other Members.

Ms Hunter: Minister, thank you for your detailed contribution, which will help people's understanding of the different perspectives when approaching the issue. If the Bill were to pass Second Stage today, I would welcome your engaging with the Education Committee.

Similar to the Chair, over the past 72 hours, the issue has prompted a significant number of messages and phone calls to me from concerned teachers — teachers who are burnt out and teachers who are angry. They feel that this is just the cherry on the cake after years of feeling undervalued. Therefore, I rise on behalf of the SDLP to, sadly, oppose the Bill. From the outset, I want to be clear: that is not opposition to inspection. I agree with the Minister: inspection matters, and accountability and keeping children safe in our classrooms matter. Every child in Northern Ireland, regardless of where they grow up or what school they attend, deserves a system that can be honest with itself, be assessed adequately and improve along the way. The SDLP unreservedly supports and agrees with that principle.

While there is undoubtedly a pressing need for a legal framework that guarantees consistent, independent oversight of educational quality, child protection and safeguarding, we, sadly, cannot support the Bill in its current form. Nothing should impact our teachers' fundamental workers' rights and their sanctity in being able to partake in collective action. Our teachers have spoken: they feel overworked, under-resourced and burnt out. Under the Bill, by failing to cooperate with an inspection due to being on strike, teachers — our teachers — would risk being painted as unacceptable and unprofessional in their conduct. Minister, we know that you see the Bill as bringing Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the UK. However, I feel strongly that there is a context here that really matters: over the past eight years, more than 75% of inspections were disrupted by industrial action. There is a reason for that. Teachers did not and do not step out out of defiance or malice. They do so because, year-on-year, the system has asked them to do more with less, without adequate support, adequate pay or adequate recognition. Our teachers really are exhausted. They bring their own items into the classroom to support our kids. They have a right to strike, and I feel strongly that striking is not them refusing to cooperate; it is just them exercising their fundamental workers' rights.

Mr Givan: I appreciate the Member giving way. Do you take the same position on the profession in the Republic of Ireland and the rest of Great Britain, where there is no inspection boycott during strike action? There have been strikes in the South and in Great Britain, and never has inspection been included in that strike action. I support the legitimate right to strike. There are countless areas in which the profession can engage, and I will mention them when I make my winding-up speech later. Why should Northern Ireland be the only jurisdiction that allows the frustration of an independent inspection process that includes assessing child safeguarding measures? Surely, child safeguarding should be beyond legitimate strike action, as it is elsewhere.

Ms Hunter: I thank the Minister for his valid intervention. I can tell from the debate that he really does prioritise child safeguarding. Upon doing research ahead of today, I noted that, under Scottish legislation, if there is a reasonable reason for a teacher to refuse inspection, that is grounds for them to do so. Minister, we can understand different perspectives on the Bill. However, if we look at other areas, like Scotland, we can learn from them.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member share my concern that the Minister, based on his intervention, would support extending the ban to social workers, who support children and old people who are at risk? Going by the logic of his intervention, he is against those workers taking strike action as well. The Bill seems to be a dangerous, slippery slope, whereby the Education Minister is saying who can strike and when and where they can strike. Does the Member share that concern held by me and others?

Ms Hunter: I take the Member's point and hear his perspective. From engaging with teachers, I know that they feel that their workers' rights are being weaponised against them. I feel very strongly that the debate is not about child safeguarding versus workers' rights. We can find a happy medium and a balance.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. I noted some of the hisses when she gave that example, but I have to say that she has always stepped forward when it comes to safeguarding issues. I have worked with her on many issues pertaining to safeguarding. What the Member outlined, however, seems to be a reason to allow the Bill to proceed to Committee Stage, where those particular issues could be fleshed out. It seems to me that voting against the Bill today would go against what she outlined, which seems to be reasonable and fair, about looking at other jurisdictions to see where the balance is to be struck and ensure that safeguarding is at the heart of the Bill.

Ms Hunter: I take the Member's point and thank him for his kind words. He too has done so much on child safeguarding, particularly on the issue of sex offenders in our communities.

The SDLP was built on the backs of teachers. We know the importance of industrial action and the voice of the people. I reiterate that I do not see this as an issue of child safeguarding versus workers' rights. The Chair's point on how safeguarding is on each and every one of us was extremely valid. Again, I take Members' points from across the House, and I agree with a lot of them, but we need to find a balance.

We have spoken directly to so many teachers who feel so strongly about the Bill, so the SDLP will vote it down. I see what the Minister is trying to do, but, right now, it is important that we listen to our teachers, who are burnt out, overworked and under-resourced, and that is why we will vote the Bill down today.

To bring my remarks to a close, it is important that we listen to our teachers —.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for giving way. You said that you were bringing your remarks to a close, and I just wanted to draw you back to your opening remarks in which you said that the Bill "in its current form" is not acceptable. I entirely agree. My wife was a teacher for nearly 20 years. She is now not a teacher in the system, so I do not have to declare that interest, but I know at first hand how hard teachers work. I visit schools every week in my constituency. Teachers are absolutely at breaking point, so I do not disagree with any of those points. However, you used the phrase "in its current form". Is there not some scope to improve it, and, if we cannot improve it at Committee and do that work, can we not then vote down the clause that causes the concern?

Ms Hunter: I take the Member's point, and he has articulated it very well. Your wife can definitely relate to the challenges that our teachers face, but for us in the SDLP, listening to teachers —. We have seen statistics, and the feedback from our teachers — over 76% — says so strongly that they are totally against clause 3, and understandably so. We will be voting this down. The real challenge of clause 3 is essentially that you are compelling participation in inspections through fear of disciplinary action. That was the bone of contention with our teachers.

Mr Donnelly: I thank the Member for giving way. Just to be clear, does the Member agree that clause 3 could be amended after Committee Stage and voted down at Consideration Stage?

Ms Hunter: I agree. The process by which we can get the Bill to Committee, tweak it and talk about what does and does not work is welcome, but I think —. To reiterate: given the engagement that we have had with our teachers and after listening today, I feel really strongly. Right up until this morning, we were being asked, "How will the SDLP be voting?". I stand shoulder to shoulder with teachers and have listened to their voices. They have been striking over the past number of years, and they feel undervalued. I respect the Member's position and understand that we could take it to Committee Stage —

Mr McCrossan: Will the Member give way?

Ms Hunter: — and tease that out, but a lot of teachers find it insulting. I will give way to the Member.

Mr McCrossan: The Member makes a valid point, but we need to take it in the context that we are in here in Northern Ireland. It is a bit rich that the two lead parties are having a sham fight over the issue, when both of them went on strike from their place of work — here — for multiple years at great cost to the teaching profession and, indeed, our schools. Does the Member agree that that is a bit arrogant on the part of the lead government parties here?

Ms Hunter: I agree with the Member. There are differing beliefs on this issue, but, ultimately, it comes back to the fact that our teachers' workload is unfathomable. I was at that UNISON event and spoke to classroom assistants who are picking up so much work. Teachers and classroom assistants are overwhelmed. It is important to pare that back. We are unapologetic about voting the Bill down today, given the needs of our teachers.

You cannot compel the openness, honesty and professional engagement that make inspection genuinely valuable, because that requires trust. Right now, our teachers feel that that trust has to be earned. They feel really uncomfortable that their workers' rights may be impeded by clause 3.

I represent teachers, parents and families in East Derry who want the same thing as the Minister wants, which is a world-class education for their students. The families to whom I speak know the pressure that teachers are under. There are unmet needs in our education system.

The SDLP's position is straightforward. We support inspection, accountability and the principle that every school in Northern Ireland should be able to demonstrate the quality of what it offers, but we will not support legislation that treats a workforce crisis — a burnt-out workforce — as a compliance problem. We feel strongly that that punishes professionals who are already at breaking point. The Bill has been introduced, yet we have had an explicit objection from the very people on whom it would impact most — our teachers. The Minister should listen to some of the different perspectives that have been expressed today.

It is important to finish on this note. It does not have to be a case of child safeguarding or teachers getting their workers' rights: both can be done. We can find a pathway there. It is important to find balance in the debate.

Mr Sheehan: Ordinarily, if I heard a DUP Member, especially a Minister, quoting Nelson Mandela, one of the great leaders, human beings and political ex-prisoners of the 20th and 21st centuries, I would look on it as a sign of progress. However, in quoting Madiba, the Minister's action was so cynical as to undermine whatever intention he had had in mind. Minister, if you want to talk about Mandela, I will be happy, as someone who met him, was in his company and shared some of the experiences of imprisonment, to do so any time that you want.

The issue arose of the Executive having allowed the Bill to be introduced in the Assembly. The Minister has spoken previously of the Executive's "approving" legislation as they release it from the Executive and allow it to come to the Assembly. Let me say this: Sinn Féin Ministers approving a Bill to move forward to the Assembly is not and should not be taken as approval of any legislation or Bill. The Minister should remember that. He has said that on numerous occasions.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Sheehan: Not at the minute.

Sinn Féin has allowed the legislative and democratic process to take its course in the Assembly. That is what democracy is all about. Legislation comes to the Floor; we have the opportunity to debate it; we go back and forth across the Chamber; we can vote in whichever way, we decide, we want to at the end of the debate; and, as the Chair of the Committee said, everybody has the right to amend or vote down the legislation. That is what will happen. That is the democratic process. I do not know why the Minister is concerned about that.

At the opening of his contribution, the Minister made the point that he has had the Bill since November 2024. One of the issues that need to be nailed is that legislation is formulated overnight. We hear people in the community who do not understand the workings of legislation in particular say, "We need a new law for this; we need a new law for that. Why does the Assembly not bring in a law for whatever?". Of course, it takes time. My private Member's Bill — a small, two-clause Bill — has taken over two years — nearly two and a half years — to get to the stage that it is at now. I accept that Executive legislation takes priority, but the Minister will not get his way overnight. Of course, there will be discussions in the Executive. The Minister cannot just throw down a paper on the Executive table and expect everybody to say, "Oh, yes, let's go. Let's send it to the Assembly".

Mr Brett: Will the Member give way?

Mr Sheehan: Of course there will be back and forth.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Sheehan: I will give way to whichever one of you gets up first.

Mr Brett: I appreciate the Member's giving way. He is always generous with his time. The point that the Minister was making was that it was sent to Executive colleagues in November 2024. I welcome the Member's agreement that legislation that is thrown down on the Executive table should not be simply rubber-stamped or approved and that 18 months should be a period that Ministers expect. Does that also apply to the proposed employment rights Bill from your Minister? Last Thursday, Mr Kearney — your party chairman — gave off about the DUP having looked at that legislation for 24 days. Is it your advice now that we should look at it for 18 months before we allow it into this place?

Mr Sheehan: The Executive should allow the 'good jobs' Bill to come to the Floor of the Assembly. It has been blocked in the Executive for long enough by the DUP. That is not just the case with the 'good jobs' Bill; any amount of pieces of legislation are being blocked. It is probably true that most of them are not Sinn Féin Bills and that Bills from other parties are also being blocked.

Go ahead, Jonny. You are jumping up and down there.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. One thing that he said is true: legislation takes time. Good legislation, in order to ensure that it is right, takes even longer. It is not just the Minister who is confused by the Sinn Féin position. The Bill was submitted in 2024 to all of your Ministers, including your leader in the Assembly — the First Minister — Michelle O'Neill. They then appear to have worked with the Minister and his Department to shape a Bill that had the consent of their party to go forward for debate in the Chamber. I do not know what is happening in the internal ranks of Sinn Féin, but it appears that there is some sort of challenge to authority. Who speaks for you guys at the moment? Is it the First Minister, or is it the Back-Bench rebels of Mason, Baker and you at the Education Committee? There is no sense of structure or meaningful engagement. Who speaks for Sinn Féin? I do not know who does. Maybe you can explain.

Mr Sheehan: At the minute, Jonny, I am speaking for Sinn Féin.

You said that legislation is a lengthy process. It is funny that the Education Minister did not think that when his School Uniforms Bill was going through the Committee; he wanted that process to be condensed. To my shame, we acquiesced to that request because we were told by officials that, once we saw —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Sheehan and others, can we return to the Bill that is in the Order Paper today? I gave a gentle caution earlier. Some latitude has been afforded, but it really is running out now. We need to return to the Bill before us. That advice includes interventions.

Mr Sheehan: Fair enough, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I will make a final point about legislation passing through the Assembly: the Minister has to remember that there is no longer a single-party unionist regime through which he can push through legislation in a ramstam way. This is now a democratic Chamber, and Members will have their say. If they do not like something, they can block it, and, if they like it —

Mr Donnelly: Will the Member give way?

Mr Sheehan: — they can let it pass.

Go ahead, Danny.

Mr Donnelly: Does the Member agree that, if the Bill is voted down today, there will be no opportunity to take evidence at Committee, to shape the Bill, to propose amendments or to remove the clause to which there is so much opposition?

Mr Sheehan: First, we will vote down the Bill today because we do not think that there is a lot of room to change it. The main feature of the Bill is that, if teachers obstruct inspections, there will be a sanction. We do not know what that sanction will be. The Minister cannot even tell us what that sanction will be. Previously, we objected in the Executive on the grounds that teachers would be criminalised if they obstructed an inspection.

There is now to be some other type of sanction, which nobody knows anything about. How do we change that? The issue of amendments has been raised in the Chamber today. We know the difficulties with amendments. There is no guarantee that an amendment will be accepted for debate. The Minister could stand up here later today and say, "I'm happy to change the Bill so that there won't be any sanction against teachers. I am happy to take out that clause". The Chair of the Committee mentioned this on numerous occasions during his contribution, so the Minister could say, "I now understand the fragility of the relationship between the Department and teachers". If the Minister were to say that, perhaps we would take a different view.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for giving way. He referenced the fact that we do not know what the sanction will look like, and that is of profound concern to me. Teachers are coming to me saying that they do not know what it will look like. We are in the strange position of needing another bit of legislation to be passed before we can understand what it will look like. Given that, is the Committee not the forum in which we might get to the bottom of the issues? If we are not able to do that satisfactorily, we will not have to rely on amendments being selected, because parties can take a collective decision to oppose the clause that is causing them concern. That would still give us the opportunity to deliver much-needed, progressive RE inspection reform, which is long overdue. Surely that would be a win-win.

Mr Sheehan: Under other circumstances, I might agree with the Chair of the Committee. We have this dog's dinner of a clause in clause 3, however. We do not think that it can be amended and still have the same scope. We are not sure that, even if we could amend the clause, the amendment would be accepted by the Speaker.

Mr McCrossan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Sheehan: Let me finish this point, and I will then give way to you.

The Education Committee will be very busy between now and the end of the mandate. We know that the Minister has other legislation coming through, that the Committee has its own Bill to introduce and that there are a number of private Members' Bills for the Committee to discuss. This Bill will take up a lot of time in Committee. It will take up time in here. Why waste that time? Why does the Minister not stand up and say, "I'm going to take out the clause. We'll deal with the clauses that are left and then look at the issue again, if not in this mandate, early in the next mandate"?

Mr McCrossan: I thank the Member for giving way. I have a good working relationship with him, but I struggle to understand Sinn Féin's position. If it has such concerns about the Bill, why did it not stop it at the Executive? Ultimately, by taking the action that Sinn Féin is taking today, it is going to stop it. The SDLP's position is very clear. We are against the Bill for a variety of reasons, but we are not against inspections. We do not trust the DUP with the Department of Education, given its 10-year track record. For Sinn Féin to come here today, with teachers listening, to say that it is genuinely concerned about the Bill when it could have stopped its introduction to begin with is a bit contradictory.

Mr Sheehan: One of the reasons, Daniel, is that, if we were to have blocked the Bill at the Executive, the SDLP would be saying tomorrow morning "This place is dysfunctional. You're blocking legislation. Sinn Féin is blocking legislation, and the DUP is blocking legislation". No, we are not blocking legislation. Rather, we are letting legislation come to the House. Clause 3 originally would have criminalised teachers. We said that we were not accepting that. We said that we would not let that provision come to the House. The Minister has since changed the clause to something amorphous. We do not know what the hell it is, but we decided to let the Bill go through, because our argument was that we were not going to allow teachers to be criminalised, and we are not. We are standing with teachers. You cannot have it both ways, Daniel. You cannot tell us to block legislation and then tell us that we should be letting stuff through.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Did not all the parties here, apart from the DUP, agree a number of weeks ago, when the minimum unit pricing Bill was blocked at the Executive, that that was wrong and that it should have been given the opportunity to come to House to be debated? Why therefore would we block this Bill? I agree with my party colleague. You cannot say, "We want to block this and not block that". Either we believe that MLAs have the right to debate the issues and the legislation in the Chamber and make a decision and vote on it, or we do not.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, before we proceed, we are not discussing, according to the Order Paper, Assembly processes. Occasionally, Members will find this amusing, but it really is not respectful to people who are waiting to make serious points to sit and giggle at a request to stick to the Order Paper. That is the first point. I am not sure that political ping-pong and questioning the motives of other parties address the item in the Order Paper either. This is a more stern caution this time, which is against my better judgement because I prefer to give a bit of latitude in said context, but we really are straying way off topic: it is the Bill, the clauses and the associated issues from here on. Mr Sheehan.

Mr Sheehan: I agree with the contribution from my party colleague. Let me just say one thing. Our teachers are safeguarding children every day. Our teachers are safeguarding children every day. Every day, our teachers are safeguarding children. Yes?

Mr Brooks: I agree. The vast majority of teachers are obviously doing a very good job as educationalists but also in safeguarding children. The issue is that, in any sphere, there can be people who are not doing the job as well as they should be or, in some cases, there is a danger. That is what inspection is for; that is what it does. Are we honestly saying that because the vast majority of teachers are good and do everything as they should do, we should not have any inspections to see where there are failings, and certainly where there are safeguarding issues?

Mr Sheehan: I have not once today argued against inspections. Not once. The Bill is about one thing and one thing only: intimidating and punishing teachers. The Minister and the DUP can spin whatever yarn they like about inspections, TransformED or school improvement, but anyone with even a passing knowledge of education here knows exactly what this legislation is about. Its purpose is to undermine action short of strike and to expose teachers to allegations of unacceptable professional conduct for taking part in what is currently lawful industrial action.

I said before that the Education Minister had lost the dressing room, and that is the reality. Paul Givan has failed to convince teachers on the front line to buy into his harmful agenda, so what is his answer? Not engagement and certainly not partnership. His answer is to threaten, intimidate and punish teachers. Rather than addressing the workload crisis in schools and dealing with teacher burnout, recruitment pressures and the many challenges facing our education system, the Minister has chosen to target one of the few mechanisms available to teachers to challenge those conditions.

Are we really surprised by his attempts to intimidate teachers? This is the same Minister who belatedly admitted that a senior civil servant in his Department had accused him of bullying. The same Minister who has repeatedly shown contempt for those who disagree with him and who now wants the Assembly to endorse legislation that places teachers in the firing line for taking part in lawful industrial action.

We should not be surprised by the DUP's hostility to trade unions and workers' rights either. Just look at its approach to the 'good jobs' Bill, a package of measures designed to strengthen rights and protections for workers, yet, time and again, it has sought to delay, frustrate and obstruct its progress. The public see through it, teachers see through it, school staff see through it, and we see through it. The Bill is not about improving education and inspections or supporting teachers. It is about control, punishment and intimidating workers who dare to stand up for themselves, and we reject that approach entirely. The Minister should go back to the drawing board, focus on tackling the real problems facing schools and start working with teachers instead of against them.

Sinn Féin stands with our teachers. We stand with our school staff, and we will oppose the Bill.

Mrs Middleton: I support the passing of the Education Inspections Bill at Second Stage.

Is there anyone here who does not stand with our teachers? I do not think so. The Assembly should have one aim: to make the lives of the people of Northern Ireland better. There is no greater way for us to collectively achieve that than by investing in our future leaders: our brilliant children and young people.

At the outset, I make it abundantly clear that the Bill is not about penalising our schools or our talented educators; it is, as the Minister outlined, designed to empower them. As someone who started her career in the classroom, I am acutely aware of the passion, love, hours of tireless work and incredible work ethic that our teachers put in when it comes to the pupils in their classrooms. Our teachers care so deeply about the work that they carry out that any proposed change needs to be approached sensitively so that there can be no doubt that they have our full support and encouragement.

The Bill leaves room for the creation of a more modern, transparent and robust inspection framework that prioritises the safeguarding of our school pupils. Like my colleagues, I am a supporter of our schools, our teachers and all the staff in those settings. Our teachers deserve an inspection system that works with them, identifying areas of excellence and, where challenges present themselves, offering practical, realistic pathways to improvement. I want the education system in Northern Ireland to be world class in every way, and I am of the firm belief — I know that many Members agree — that proper and robust inspection processes allow that. I do not wish to believe that there is anyone in the Chamber who does not care deeply about the safeguarding and the excellence in education that our children and young people receive and rightfully deserve. However, I put it on the record that, whilst social media can be an immense power for good, using it to play political football on issues pertaining to our children and young people is simply wrong, and, when the full narrative is not published, it is, at best, unhelpful.

Accountability to the people of Northern Ireland is a fundamental pillar of the good governance that each of us has committed to carrying out. It goes without saying that parents across Northern Ireland have a right to know exactly how their children's school settings are performing. Parents, pupils and school settings deserve an inspection system that is reliable, thorough and fair, and I know that teachers share that mindset; therefore, it is imperative to protect it in our law. It is a reality, as opposed to an idea, that action short of strike has affected ETI inspection processes in the past number of academic years, as is clearly stated in published reports of inspections that were impacted on by such action.

Let us be clear today about what the proposed legislation would provide legal standing for. It would provide for detailed, independent evaluation of the quality of the education that is delivered to and the learning that is experienced by our children and young people. It would provide better safeguarding and child protection for our children and young people; surely, nothing that we will discuss today is more important than that. The worthy goal of inspection, carried out by ETI using an independent method, is to promote the highest standards of education and to provide assurances that school settings provide a high standard of education while maintaining a safe and effective learning environment. Inspection is essential when it comes to safeguarding and acts as a sound method for improvement in our educational facilities. If there is, as I believe there to be, a genuine desire for Northern Ireland to have an inspection system that works as envisioned, legislative change is required to enable independent inspection activity to be carried out at all times.

We have an Education Minister who is fully committed to reducing the workload pressures that our teachers have told us that they face. Minister Givan is also committed to reforming education support services. Let us be clear: he has no desire to undermine the right to strike. As in all other jurisdictions in the United Kingdom and Ireland, he is not seeking to remove it. As he has previously proven, he will always work to mediate and, importantly, listen. To best allow for the reforms that will help our teaching staff and pupils, inspections are imperative. There must therefore be no barriers to their taking place. We have to put our amazing teachers, our school staff and, importantly, our children and young people — our very future — at the forefront here.

Mr Burrows: Striking a balance on legitimate and fundamentally important public interest issues is a solemn duty of the people in this place. There is no public interest duty more profound than that of balancing the rights of our teachers, who educate our young people, who are overworked, who are underpaid and who are struggling at times with being abused in our schools by a minority of pupils, which I have talked about recently, with the needs of our children to get the best possible education, to make sure that safeguarding is always paramount and to make sure that, if there is good practice, it is shared and that, if there is bad or dangerous practice, it is identified and dealt with. That is why I take a broadly similar position to that of the Chair of the Education Committee in saying that the Bill deserves to go through for further scrutiny at Committee Stage.

I say at the outset that it is fundamentally right that RE be included in inspections, because it is like any other subject, and we need to make sure that there is quality provision of education. The Supreme Court — as some people in the Chamber struggle to accept, unless it suits them — is the supreme court. It made a decision, and I respect that. I will give you a personal experience to show why I think that not only inspections but RE inspections are so important. I went to a school where one of the RE teachers was a paedophile. He abused my friends. I saw a lot of things that I should not have seen. For many years — probably about 20 years — he abused children in the school that I went to. If an inspection had looked at some of the really disturbing things that he was doing and had had an opportunity to speak to pupils, that abuse perhaps might not have taken place, but Dr Brown got away with it. Our RE classes were never inspected. That was the subject that he taught for years, and he abused a lot of people at Bangor Grammar School. I therefore have a passionate interest in getting this right.

However, we need to make sure that the protection of inspection is proportionate and fair and that the possible outcomes and consequences are properly defined. That is where we should focus our attention at the Committee Stage. Before we consider passing the Bill, it is right that we know what sort of sanction a teacher could get, because, as is clearly stated in case law, we should have clarity and certainty on the law. We need to know what the sanctions might be. There are options to put in amendments to make sure that the potential sanctions —.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Under similar legislation that exists across these islands, there have been no criminal convictions to date, as far as I am aware. Does the Member agree that that is a considerable consideration in trying to offset some of the legitimate concerns that teachers have about the clause?

Mr Burrows: That is a very good point. It is relevant that the criminal sanctions have deterred anybody from engaging in action short of strike and disrupting inspections. I note — I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong — that it is a criminal offence to obstruct inspection in the rest of the United Kingdom and, of course, in our good neighbour, the Irish Republic. Of course, Sinn Féin, as I pointed out last week, has become the party of the hard border on the island of Ireland when it comes to many things, one of which is the issue of inspection in our schools. It is an offence in the Irish Republic, and I presume that its southern colleagues are not lobbying for a change to that law. However, it does not support inspection being protected here even by a disciplinary code.

Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: Whatever the merits of the argument, there is a divergence in its policy. It is now, in many ways, the party of partition.

I will get back to the core of the debate. There are amendments that we could look at to make sure that the sanction is proportionate, that it is not punitive and that it is sufficiently clear. There could be a warning, in the first instance. We need to see this —.

I will give way to Mr Sheehan. Are you looking for me to give way?

Mr Sheehan: Yes.

Mr Burrows: Yes. Stand up, please.

Mr Sheehan: I thank the Member for giving way. One thing that has become clear during the debate is that we do not know what the sanction will be. If we do not know what the sanction will be, how can we amend it? That does not make any sense.

Mr Burrows: That is why the Bill deserves to progress to Committee Stage, where we can look at that specific issue, but, if we —.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way, briefly?

Mr Burrows: To Mr Buckley, yes.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he not think that it is interesting that the Sinn Féin Member avoided the central premise of the question that he has posed: the fact being that there is a criminal sanction in the Republic of Ireland, but a referral to the body in Northern Ireland, which, in theory, is an offence of lesser status? Does he not find the fact that Mr Sheehan missed that point entirely telling of the fact that Sinn Féin just wants to wreck the Bill rather than to get to the fundamental point of the safeguarding and protection of children?

Mr Burrows: I have never really been one to admire the competence of Sinn Féin. Its Members need to be honest on this point: there is a partitionist approach. Perhaps they do not trust teachers in the Republic of Ireland, and they trust them more in Northern Ireland.

I will get back to the nub of the issue. The reality is that we will have the opportunity to look at the Bill at its next stage, to probe it and look at amendments to make sure that we strike the right balance. However, to throw the Bill in its entirety out at this stage —.

Mr Baker: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I will always give way to Mr Baker.

Mr Baker: I am a wee bit confused here, because —.

Mr Buckley: So are we.

Mr Baker: OK. You voted against my private Member's Bill at Second Stage. You had not read it. You had not even looked at it. You ran about to try to get Members to get that bit of legislation to even look at it, but you still walked through the Lobby to vote against it. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, we are dealing with the Education Inspections Bill.

Mr Burrows: On the face of it, it was unnecessary, OK? I also supported putting the holiday hunger Bill through to the next stage, even though I think that there are significant issues —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Burrows, will you also return to the Bill in the Order Paper?

Mr Burrows: I will, with absolute pleasure, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Here is the essence of our position. This is too important to throw out in order to score some points on TikTok. There are two competing interests: the interests of our teachers to be treated fairly and the interests of our pupils to get a quality education and to be protected and safeguarded. We can find the right balance. We should look at the Bill and afford ourselves every opportunity to get that balance right, because nothing is more important than safeguarding our young people. Every other profession has inspections, which is right and proper. We need to make sure that the inspection is fair. I understand teachers' concerns about workload and whether there is a chilling effect on wider industrial rights. It would be easy for me to appeal to populism to try to score some quick points, but the Bill is too important for that. For that reason, I will support its going through —.

Mr Givan: I appreciate Mr Burrows' giving way. He is right to say that people can play to the Public Gallery and be populist on this, but that infers that every teacher somehow agrees with the representations that have been made by others. The teachers whom I know are not afraid of having a light shone on practices that may expose issues of child safeguarding; in fact, they want that. We should listen to those voices and not misrepresent the situation by saying that, somehow, all teachers feel that the only way to get their rights is to deny an inspection of things such as school improvement and child safeguarding practices; quite the opposite is the case with the members of the teaching profession whom I know.

Mr Burrows: I note the Minister's comments.

It is a profession. It is professional. That comes with responsibilities. We should stand up for our teachers, and we need to make sure that we stand up for our pupils. I would not want to have it on my conscience that we did not at least carry out probing scrutiny, at every opportunity, to find agreement on something that could protect even one child in our country. Sometimes there are bad people in good professions.

That is why we have all kinds of systems to make sure that children are safe. For that reason, I support the Bill going through to the next stage.

Mrs Mason: Unlike the Minister, I stand here today in support of our hard-working teachers and school staff, who go above and beyond every day for our children and young people, despite the growing pressures that they face. It is clear that the Bill is an attempt to intimidate and punish teachers who dare to engage in lawful industrial action. The Minister's bullish conduct and language against trade unions today have made that much more evident, conflating the issue of inspections with the punitive crackdown on teachers. The Minister wants to sanction teachers who take part in action short of strike. The DUP wants a charge of unacceptable professional misconduct levelled against teachers who exercise their right to industrial action. It wants teachers who dare to challenge them struck off.

Teachers and unions will take no lectures from the Minister on safeguarding when he has failed to protect all children. He failed to protect children when he removed the guidance for transgender young people. He failed to protect children when children with SEN were placed in settings that do not meet their needs. [Interruption.]

He failed to protect children when many vulnerable children are still left without a school placement.

Mr Givan: Are you for real?

Mrs Mason: I am 100% for real. That is coming from teachers. [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members

and even Ministers, make your remarks through the Chair.

Mrs Mason: The Minister also failed to protect children when he denied girls the basic human right of being allowed to wear trousers to school. He failed to protect children who are sitting in classrooms with rain coming in through the windows and holes in the roof. He failed to protect children when some staff working with the most vulnerable children are without AccessNI checks. [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I made a comment a moment ago that Members and Ministers should make their comments through the Chair. I am really disappointed that I have had to repeat that request so soon. We will resume, and we will take it from there.

Mr Givan: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. So far, not one comment from the Member has been about the Bill. It is just another personal assassination attempt by Sinn Féin against me. It has nothing to do with the Bill. It is purely party political and of a personal nature, which we have become used to with that lot.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister Givan, many Members on all sides have taken some time to set the context. I referred to that earlier. I also said that some latitude would be given in that regard. By and large, however, Members have not spoken across the Chamber. That is why I have now asked twice that remarks be made through the Chair.

Mrs Mason: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

For the Minister's information, the first five paragraphs of my content are directly related to the Bill, as is the safeguarding aspect, which the Minister has brought up on numerous occasions.

I could go on about where the Minister has failed to protect children, but I do not see where the Minister's concerns for safeguarding are on all of these issues. Unions have repeatedly confirmed that inspections relating to child safeguarding have not been obstructed, so we will not sit here and listen to DUP propaganda on a matter as serious as safeguarding. Safeguarding has been protected, and teachers whom I know take it seriously and have the best interests of their children at heart.

At a time when nine out of 10 teachers report experiencing burnout, with workload identified as the primary driver, what does the Minister do?

He tries to silence teachers and undermine their workers' rights, rather than meaningfully engage on the workload crisis, and people can see that for exactly what it is. Teachers are under immense pressure. They are dealing with increasing workloads, growing classroom challenges and a SEN system that is failing far too many children and families, yet, instead of supporting teachers, the Minister has chosen to target their rights. If he truly wants an education system that works, he should focus on the issues that matter most to teachers, families and, most important, our children and young people. I am sure the Minister will continue to dress up the Bill any way in which he wants, but we can see through it. The swathes of teachers who contacted us over the weekend and the concerned parents who see the work that their local teachers do day in and day out can also see through it.

I have no doubt that every Member wants children to receive the highest-quality education possible. Effective inspections that support schools, help teachers improve practice and, ultimately, benefit children are an important part of that, but high-quality education is built on a supported, valued and respected workforce. Outcomes for children are not improved by threatening teachers with professional sanctions. Outcomes for children are improved by tackling workload, addressing burnout, supporting schools and ensuring that teachers can focus on teaching our children. Perhaps the Minister should look at his legislative priorities and focus on the urgent challenges that our education system faces. He should scrap his harmful reform agenda, tackle the workload crisis and sort out the chronic backlog of maintenance issues. Punishing teachers for standing up for themselves, their profession and the children for whom they care will not repair a single classroom, reduce the pressures facing teachers or improve the education of a single child.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Mason: Some may argue that the Bill can be fixed through amendments. If we genuinely believed that, we would have gone down that route. Let us be honest, however: we have been here before. Members need only look at the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill. We have already heard about the difficulties with it. This Bill is broken not because of a drafting error but because of its intent. The Bill's intention is not to improve our schools. Its purpose is to intimidate teachers, undermine workers' rights —

Mr Mathison: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Mason: — and silence those who speak out against the Minister's failures. That cannot be amended away.

Mr Brooks, did you want an intervention?

Mr Brooks: You have identified a litany of issues in our education system: I suggest that funding is a major factor. Will you go to your Finance Minister and ask him whether he intends to fix the issues with the draft Budget that he produced, which would leave our education system with £600 million of pressures next year?

Mrs Mason: Is that in the Bill? Is that what we are discussing here today?

Mr Brooks: It is what most of your speech was about.

Mrs Mason: Is that what we are discussing here today?

Nick, you wanted in.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for giving way. Members have repeatedly made the point that the Bill cannot be amended. It has been said on social media and during the debate. We do not know that yet, because we have not had a Committee Stage. We have no idea whether there is any scope to amend the Bill. If, however, we have a Bill with three clauses that do three things and we like two of them but do not like one of them, I struggle to understand how we cannot deal with the clause that we do not like at Consideration Stage and vote it down, which is absolutely within the gift of Members. I am baffled by the argument that that is not the case. Can we not win on the things that are good and deal with the things we do not like?

Ms Ennis: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Mason: Yes.

Ms Ennis: Blind faith is not a good strategy for approaching legislation. Frankly, the Minister has not earned the faith of the Assembly. I say this to anyone who naively thinks that the Minister will acquiesce to his Bill being watered down: that is a fantasy. If Members doubt what I am saying, listen to the gloating and jeering from the DUP Members on the Benches opposite. Look at how giddy they get at the very mention of sanctioning teachers.

Mrs Mason: I agree with what the Member has said.

On the point that the Committee Chair made, with all due respect, the House voted that it had no confidence in the Minister. I certainly have no confidence that he will change the Bill in any way, shape or form that will make it any better. I repeat: the Bill is broken not because of a drafting error but because of its intent. The Bill's intention is not to make schools better but to intimidate teachers and undermine workers.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. The ChatGPT script will do well online when it comes to all the accusations that have been made, but let us get back to the reality of where we are today. Can the Member explain why, when the Minister , in consultation with other Executive parties, including her party colleagues, amended the Bill to move from criminal sanction to referral to a teachers' professional body, there was no dissent from Sinn Féin, which allowed the Bill to progress? What has changed since Sunday night that has left her party unable even to give the Bill simple scrutiny in Committee?

Mrs Mason: On your point about ChatGPT, I am sure that the many teachers who contacted me over the weekend will be deeply offended by what you have just said, because I am repeating what they said to me, including the fears and concerns that they raised. On your other point, you clearly have no respect for the democratic process. Mr Buckley, I remind you that, just last week, at Second Stage, you voted against the Hunting with Dogs Bill. You tried not to allow it to go through to the next stage to be debated because you did not believe in the intent of that Bill.

I will continue. The Chamber should send a clear message today that we value our teachers, respect workers' rights and understand that the answer to the challenges facing education is not to punish those working on the front line. To every teacher who is watching the debate today — I am sure that they are horrified — I say this: Sinn Féin has your back. We will stand up for your rights. We will make sure that your voice is heard despite the Minister, and we will oppose any attempt to intimidate or punish teachers for taking part in lawful industrial action. Sinn Féin opposes the Bill and will vote against it today. I encourage others across the Chamber to do the same.

Mr Brooks: The Bill would plug an obvious gap in our legislation that leaves children, parents and the public without reliable, independent assurance of the education and safeguarding provided in our schools. School inspections give confidence and assurance to government but also to families that the education that their child is receiving in our schools is of the quality expected and required and, perhaps more important, helps to assure safeguarding practices in the school.

It seems to me that that is a principle that was and is largely agreed, even among the Bill's would-be detractors. It is my understanding from Committee engagement that unions accept that inspection is necessary for that very reason. Indeed, the party opposite seems to have performed another U-turn in a series of U-turns on the Bill, having supported it at the Executive table. Pat seemed to suggest that his party will vote against it today because it would take too much time in Committee. Sinn Féin, in recent times, seems to be spinning like a weathervane, ever unsure of which populist gust to follow next.

Why on earth would some in the Chamber be more keen to ensure that inspection, which is necessary to ensure the quality of education of our children and, furthermore, the safeguarding of those children, can continue to be used as leverage in industrial disputes? I will say this to the Members opposite: in a year's time, a different party may well be in charge of the Education Department, but I assure you that my view on this will be the same. Whatever issues and disputes they encounter with unions, there is no reasonable logic, to my mind, that can justify making oversight and inspection of our children's schools a pawn in that contest.

Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brooks: Yes, I will.

Mr Sheehan: You have made that point on quite a number of occasions today. I am just wondering why you continue to misrepresent our position by saying that we are opposed to inspections when we have not once said that. Can you explain why you keep saying that we are?

Mr Brooks: I can certainly explain. Your actions do not match your words. You say that you think that inspections are important and vital, but, when it comes to it, you are willing to have them used as a pawn in the game.

Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brooks: Yes, I will give way.

Mr Sheehan: We are opposed to sanctions on teachers; we are not opposed to inspections. It is quite simple. That might be hard for you to grasp, but it is really simple.

Mr Brooks: No, it is not hard for me to grasp at all, Pat. The fact is that either inspections are important to the quality of our schools and to safeguarding in schools, or they are not. Therefore, if they are important, how on earth can it be argued that it is reasonable for a teacher to block them as part of their industrial dispute?

The right to strike is open to teachers. We are saying that this is one limited element that should not be used as part of the process of industrial dispute. I do not know what it is that you do not understand about that. I hear you saying that inspections are important, but you are not following that through in your actions in your approach to the Bill. You cannot have your cake and eat it. Frankly, I do not believe that most —.

Mr Givan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brooks: I will indeed.

Mr Givan: Does the Member agree that there is a contradiction in the Sinn Féin position when it says that it does not support this in respect of teachers but it does support police officers being sanctioned for refusing to engage with the Police Ombudsman and prison officers being sanctioned for refusing to engage with the Criminal Justice Inspection? Sinn Féin supports nurses, doctors and other medical professionals being charged when they refuse to engage with RQIA. It supports child settings being inspected by RQIA. Is there not a contradiction? If Sinn Féin is to be consistent on the position that it has set out, now that Pat has announced that he is the leader of the party today — congratulations — will it now repeal all aspects of public-sector ability to refuse inspection? Would that not be the consistent thing to do?

Mr Brooks: That would be the consistent thing to do. However, as you have set out, the contradictions from the Benches opposite are legion.

Frankly, I do not believe that most parents, school leaders or indeed teachers believe that inspection should be optional or subject to cordial relations with the Department. The Minister, in the most difficult financial circumstances, has done everything that could possibly be done to resolve previous pay disputes for our teachers and school staff. That is self-evident. It does not change, however, the fact that, for almost a decade, inspection has been repeatedly undermined by industrial tactics that place institutional interests —.

Mr McCrossan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brooks: Not at the moment; I will make some progress. [Inaudible.]

Mr Brooks: I will give way.

Mr McCrossan: Thanks very much for giving way. I appreciate the Member's stating categorically on the record that there has been industrial action over the past 10 years. However, does he agree and accept that, for part of that time — five years to be precise — it was due to the absence of this place to resolve any of the issues that were frustrating teachers, including pay?

Mr Brooks: The Member has put his comments on the record. I am sure that he is pleased to do so. I am moving on with the debate.

It does not change the fact that, in the decade that we talked about, inspections were repeatedly undermined by industrial tactics that placed institutional interests above the interests of children. Over eight academic years, more than three quarters of ETI inspections were impacted on by action short of strike. We heard that earlier and should hear it again and again in the Chamber, and take it in: three quarters of the inspections that ensure quality and safety in our schools have been disrupted. The result is a catalogue of missed opportunities to identify suboptimal practice, protect vulnerable pupils and intervene where children were at risk. We cannot pretend that that has had no consequence.

We have already heard the retort from Members around the Chamber that safeguarding inspections were permitted to continue. When I asked the questions at Committee, the ETI representative was clear in explaining that inspectors, having returned to schools, found examples of safeguarding requirements not being maintained. Those included schools where mandatory safeguarding training had not been carried out for more than four years even though it should be renewed every two years; where safeguarding policies existed on paper but safeguarding practices were weaker; and where there were concerns that staff confidence in handling disclosures from children was affected and there were training lapses. We know that action short of strike also meant that surveys of pupils and parents, which can help to unearth underlying issues like the one that Mr Burrows raised, were not facilitated during that period. Therefore, while it is, at least, something that safeguarding inspections themselves went ahead, we should not mislead the public into believing that that limited box check meant that safeguarding was overseen as effectively as would normally be the case.

The Bill is not about punishing teachers. As in most professions, the vast majority of our teachers are good, hardworking and a credit to the schools and communities that they serve. Often, they work in facilities and circumstances that are difficult and far from optimal, not least given the underfunding of our education system and its inability to meet all the pressures faced. However, there are always exceptions. Even that need not be alarmist. It does not always have to mean that there are bad or dangerous teachers.

Often, those exceptions are merely about correction, training and sharing best practice, not about persecuting teachers who are doing all that they can. Where there are more serious issues, clearly those will be challenged and dealt with appropriately, but who among us would not want that? What teacher would not want that? While sanction would be a matter for the General Teaching Council (GTC) or other relevant agency, let us be clear: the value and reputation of teachers is rightly protected when suboptimal teaching is addressed, best practice is shared and, yes, in those rare cases where severe incompetence or misconduct is confronted.

Mrs Dillon: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brooks: Yes, certainly.

Mrs Dillon: There is a suggestion in his last sentence around suboptimal teaching that all of the teachers who have contacted us are content with suboptimal teaching — all of the teachers who said, "This is not the right approach". Is that what you are saying? That is what it sounds like.

Mr Brooks: Plainly not. I am not saying that that is what they are saying. That is not what they say in the emails, and I have received them too. However, I am happy to say, plainly, that I disagree with that argument. I absolutely believe that the majority of our teachers out there know the importance of inspection as it applies to the whole system. It not only protects our children but the reputation of the profession, and that is important too. It is in nobody's interest to do anything other than support and develop the potential of our children. The Bill simply ensures accountability. Inspection is the mechanism by which we know whether schools are performing in the way that we expect with regard to teaching and safeguarding. Where there is a vacuum of such inspection, there is no ability to target and deliver the necessary improvements to the benefit of our kids.

I draw attention to what inspection also does: it raises issues that teachers face every day in the course of their work. Dundonald High School, in my own constituency, was rightly praised by the ETI for the work that it does in ageing and poorly maintained facilities: leaking roofs; broken heating systems, with one boiler in five working; and toilets that cannot be used and, it was told by the EA, are too expensive to fix. The ETI helped give further attention to those issues at the school, including through media attention at the time. It rightly said that Dundonald High School was:

but that maintenance issues had material impacts on pupils attending class on time. It pointed out that the lack of appropriate staffroom space was an impact on staff morale and well-being and that children were restricted in their ability to use the library because it was being used as a classroom. Inspections are not necessarily a stick with which to beat the teaching workforce, and we should not talk about them as such. They are a means to identify and shine a light on all manner of issues relating to the quality of our education system and the safety and well-being of our children.

Mr McCrossan: I thank the Member for giving way. The Member will understand that there are a serious amount of potential consequences in taking forward the Bill with clause 3 intact. I am sure that the Member will appreciate that there are huge numbers of questions that have caused great concern for the teaching profession that his Minister does not seem to have any answers to. Who will be the enforcer? Who will make the decision as to what is reasonable or not in this case? You are opening yourself up to a big number of problems.

Mr Brooks: That has been talked about in the Chamber today, and I will come to it further along in my speech. If you have issues around clarity and issues that you want to amend and fix, there are processes within the system to do that at Committee Stage. The question of whether we vote down a Bill today is really about whether you agree with the principle. I will give way in a moment, but do you agree with the principle that inspections in our schools are vital to the operation and quality assurance of our education system? If you do, we should not be allowing them to be blocked as part of industrial disputes.

Mr McCrossan: I appreciate your giving way, Brooksy, but I am telling you now that the truth in this is very simple. We are not against inspections. Sinn Féin Members are not against inspections. Nobody here is against inspections. Clause 3 is wrecking the Bill because you want to criminalise our teachers, who are already buckling under pressure, are very stressed, have been underpaid for a long time, and are very frustrated with this place. That is the point that we are making. We understand the wider intention, but we do not want to punish our teachers.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I ask Members to use names that would be recognised. [Laughter.]

Mr Brooks: No offence taken here, Deputy Speaker, but I appreciate it. I have lost my spot now.

Mr Givan: I appreciate the Member's giving way. This is why the language that we use today is so important. Mr McCrossan has again said that the Bill will "criminalise our teachers". Sinn Féin said that the original Bill would criminalise our teachers. That is why I worked with it. I did not agree with the party, but I worked with it to get the Bill out of the Executive, and I removed the financial penalties and potential conviction, which is in line with the Republic of Ireland and Great Britain. That would lead not to a criminal sanction but to the alternative that Sinn Féin agreed — I will go into more detail about the length of the discussions that I had with it, which will be revealing — which was the referral mechanism to the professional conduct body. That is not criminalisation, so Mr McCrossan and others should resist using that kind of language. The matter would be referred to the GTCNI, and it is for it, the professional body, to make the determination. Do we not think that it will take a proportionate approach to the issue, or do you not trust the professional body for teachers either? Mr McCrossan should watch his language and not misrepresent the Bill. That is the approach that is being proposed and to which Sinn Féin agreed.

Mr Brooks: I thank the Minister for his intervention. The Member is clearly not happy with what he says is the legacy of the GTC, so I hope that he will vote for the Bill when the Question is put to the House. The Member is making a challenge, but he supports inspections. Again, my problem is that I do not see a match between what those on the other side of the House are saying and their actions in seeking to vote the Bill down at this stage. If inspections are vital to the running of our education service, safeguarding and quality assurance, you cannot say that it is OK that they are involved in industrial disputes. It is either vital and should be left aside from that or it is not. That is my point. I will make some progress now, if Members do not mind.

I have listened to the various opinions and read the emails that I, too, have received, but I am not willing to indulge fighting to hold inspections as a tool for use in disputes. I am disappointed that Sinn Féin is playing populist politics on issues as obviously, in my opinion, right as this in an attempt to cover itself from criticisms from the left and, frankly, the lack of delivery that it has shown in its Departments.

Let us be clear on what the legislation does and does not do. The Minister has touched on that already. The Bill does not remove the right to strike. It does not criminalise teachers. It does, however, make cooperation with statutory inspection a defined professional obligation. It provides proportionate professional sanctions through the General Teaching Council where necessary. We would not dream of allowing hospitals or doctors to refuse to participate in RQIA inspections or revalidation respectively. Why would we allow a similar situation in our schools? As has been talked about in the Chamber, that same pragmatic approach is used across the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland. Those jurisdictions do not allow inspection to be used as a bargaining chip. Northern Ireland should not be an outlier on that fundamental point of public accountability. Frankly, I say in the clearest possible terms that I cannot get my head around the position of those who think that it should.

Parents — the people who entrust us with their children — expect and deserve independent assurance that schools are safe and effective. The Bill is child-centred. It will restore independent oversight so that weaknesses in teaching, leadership and safeguarding are identified and addressed. Who objects to that? It will protect vulnerable and disadvantaged pupils, who are most likely to be overlooked when inspections are disrupted. Who objects to that? It will bring Northern Ireland in line with neighbouring jurisdictions and ensure consistency and fairness across this island and the United Kingdom. Is anyone in the Chamber opposed to that? It will embed the inspection of religious education in response to the Supreme Court's findings and ensure transparency about what is taught in the classroom. Does anyone object to that? No.

We must be honest about the balance of consequences. We should cease using the false narrative and straw man argument of harsh punishments as a means of stirring up passion on a false premise. It has not been seen in other jurisdictions. The Bill is about deterring unreasonable and disproportionate actions that, ultimately, impact on our children.

Mr McCrossan: I thank the Member for giving way. He has been very kind about doing so. Does the Member understand that we have not seen such a scale of industrial action in other jurisdictions because their legislators actually worked? They did not disappear for five years. That is why we have such frustration in the teaching profession, and it is time that the DUP and Sinn Féin accept that a huge amount of damage was done to the teaching profession and schools during that period.

Mr Brooks: I am sorry, but other jurisdictions also saw strikes, so the point is null.

I hear the concerns about workload issues, as does the Minister. That is why he has commissioned and published an action plan. That is why he has brought forward the TransformED programme, delivering reforms to reduce bureaucracy and support teachers. However, placing workload and inspection as somehow mutually exclusive adversaries is neither rational nor reasonable. As I have outlined, inspection has a role in further evidencing and validating some of the challenges that school staff and pupils face. The Bill will give reassurance that future disputes will not have elements that compromise the safety and education of children by virtue of their being pawns in those negotiations. Frankly, we should all be able to agree on that, and I despair that we cannot.

Ms Nicholl: I thank the Member for giving way. I wonder whether he shares my observation. I have been reflecting that a lot of the same things are being said today in the Chamber. A lot of Members are saying, "Yes, we need inspection", and, so far, we will vote for the Bill to pass Second Stage so that we can balance what needs to be done. However, I am also hearing that one of the main concerns that people opposed to the Bill have is that they do not trust the Minister. Given that this afternoon's debate has not been conciliatory, how can we garner trust so that teachers who are watching can feel confident that the Assembly is listening, even if Members have different views about how we get there, and that we can put children at the heart of the debate and deal with each other appropriately? It was not acceptable that Members heckled Cathy Mason. They did not do that to Pat Sheehan and others. How do we have a conciliatory discussion about the Bill so that we can move forward together?

Mr Brooks: Listen, I have outlined the way in which the Minister is working to address the workload issues, but, in my speech, using the example of Dundonald High School in my constituency, I have also shown how inspections help to get attention for some of the issues that teachers and schools have with the facilities that they use and the challenges that they face in their school. Inspections are positive things that assure our education system. That helps teachers as well as children. There will always be tension between the Department and the workforce — that is not unusual — but the Minister is working hard to help with the workload and build relationships with teachers. He has done remarkable work in previous industrial disputes in meeting teachers' demands. That is self-evident. The Minister has been building trust with the profession and has done so over the course of his term.

The question here is whether we are truly taking a child-centred approach. Do we think that inspections highlight the quality of education, share best practice and reveal the issues with facilities that I mentioned? Do they shine a light on the challenges and the conditions in which teachers work and children are taught? Do they pick up safeguarding issues too? If so, do we believe that they should be optional? Is one additional element of trade union tactical leverage more important than the oversight that protects our children and assists our schools? That is what is being argued today.

I agree with one element of Alliance's approach, which is to take the Bill to Committee, look at it and amend what you do not agree with, but, given what we are discussing and its importance to our education system, the idea that the context is too tense at the moment and relations are just not good is not a strong enough argument to compromise on something as important as inspections. Let me say very clearly that I stand against the right to hold inspection of schools as a tactical tool. I stand for accountability, for children and for quality education, and it follows that I will support the Bill. I encourage other Members to do likewise.

Mrs Guy: The Bill raises important issues for the Assembly about how inspection operates in Northern Ireland. Members across the House support school inspection; we can at least say that there is broad agreement on that. As a party, Alliance supports the role that inspection plays in accountability, in driving improvement and in providing assurance to parents and the public. How inspection should operate, how it should be enforced and how those decisions interact with the wider pressures facing education here is the key question that we will debate today.

Let us look at RE inspection. Clause 2 is not only welcome but necessary. Following the Supreme Court judgement, the Minister must ensure that religious education is taught in a way that is objective, critical and pluralist. The Bill addresses a clear and long-standing gap. For too long, RE has sat outside the standard inspection framework. That is not sustainable and is not compliant with the law. Inspection of RE is essential not just for compliance but for fairness, equality and confidence across the system. We should be clear that the Minister must act on that issue, and the Assembly should not lose out on that reform because of disagreement on other parts of the Bill.

Clause 3, however, raises significant concerns. It would introduce a new legal definition of "unacceptable professional conduct" that is tied directly to inspection. Let me be clear: Alliance is in complete opposition to the proposed sanction of teachers in clause 3. The Minister must recognise the current context in education. Workload is still overwhelming the education workforce. It has seen no improvement. I was in a meeting on Friday in my constituency with special educational needs coordinators (SENCOs) and principals who continue to feel that there is no real support for them, yet their workload grows. That context is important. The independent review of education outlined how the Department of Education needs to address decisively the issues that have led to industrial action. I do not think that any teacher would say that issues have been decisively addressed.

The Department has placed safeguarding at the centre of its argument: that is not inappropriate. Safeguarding and the best interests of our children in schools must always come first. I know that that is teachers' absolute priority. I meet teachers and school leaders all the time. I go in to bat for them. I am on their side. The Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) has highlighted the fact that disruption to inspection reduces the level of formal external assurance. We must be careful, however, not to overstate what inspection alone can deliver. Safeguarding is not an event but a continuous responsibility. It depends on teachers, school leaders, external agencies and a culture in which concerns are identified early and acted on appropriately. That brings us back to workload.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for giving way. She is always very gracious to me. I commend her for speaking directly about the Bill and for mentioning the Northern Ireland Audit Office report. She said that safeguarding is everyone's business: to an extent, I agree. The report states:

Does she agree that the ETI is the key organisation for ensuring child protection and safeguarding?

Mrs Guy: In the context of that report, that is accurate, but it is not accurate to say that that is the only way in which safeguarding operates in schools or that it is the most important part of it. As I said, there are a lot of aspects that facilitate safeguarding. If we rely on that happening just through inspections, we do not have a robust system.

I was bringing my comments back to workload. If the Minister is serious about safeguarding, he must also be serious about the pressures facing teachers. Teachers need time and capacity to build relationships with pupils, identify concerns, respond appropriately and work with families and support services. The independent review of teacher workload identified systemic pressures that remain unresolved. Addressing those pressures is not separate from safeguarding; it is fundamental to it. Consideration Stage is the opportunity to bottom those issues out and consider whether mechanisms that are more robust and frequent than a four- or five-year inspection cycle are needed.

After Second Stage, it becomes the Assembly's Bill. That is an important point. Voting for the Bill at Second Stage is not the same as endorsing every clause in it. It means allowing the Assembly to scrutinise the legislation, hear evidence and consider amendments to improve the Bill. Some commentary about the debate has suggested otherwise, and, frankly, that has created unnecessary concern among teachers. Supporting the Bill at Second Stage does not mean supporting clause 3 as it stands. Supporting the Bill at Second Stage does not mean accepting the Bill in its current form. Supporting the Bill at Second Stage means recognising that there are provisions that deserve further consideration while retaining the Assembly's ability to demand or remove provisions that do not.

For Alliance, the Bill does three things. It widens the remit of inspection for ETI; it brings religious education within the inspection framework; and, through clause 3, it introduces consequences for obstructing inspection. We support the first two objectives; we have serious reservations about the third. Looking at the way forward, we are looking for a clear commitment today from the Minister to engage meaningfully with teaching unions, teachers and political parties to address the concerns around clause 3. Let me be clear: our support today is conditional on that. The Minister offered that commitment to my colleague earlier in the debate, but he has since intervened a number of times to argue for clause 3 as drafted, suggesting that he is not going to have that engagement. Minister, I do not know whether you are listening, but I ask you now to offer us assurance that you will have meaningful engagement with the different stakeholders to ensure that the next stage will be legitimate and meaningful and that we can change clause 3. If your intention is to simply push it through, our support today is in question. Would you not like to offer that assurance?

Mr Givan: I refer the Member to the comments that I made to Mr Mathison. Of course, I have indicated that there is a willingness to engage and to look at issues of concern. I said that earlier in the debate.

Mrs Guy: We needed to hear that reassurance because, throughout the debate, you have been arguing in a way that suggested that there is no wriggle room with you. Thank you for providing that clarity, and we will consider that as we go forward.

If that engagement produces a workable solution, we will consider it on its merits. If it does not, we will seek to amend the Bill and, if necessary, remove clause 3. To repeat, Standing Order 36(2) is clear. The Assembly will have the opportunity to vote on whether individual clauses stand part of the Bill. That means that clause 3 can be amended or removed at a later stage. Whether you like the Minister or trust him or not, the vote today changes nothing in law. It allows scrutiny to continue and provides an opportunity to secure improvements that may otherwise be lost. Alliance will approach the Bill as we do every issue: by assessing the merits of the legislation before us and acting in what we believe to be the public interest. We expect meaningful engagement, and we expect meaningful amendment. If those expectations are not met, we will have no hesitation in voting against the Bill.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Before I call Danny Baker as the next Member to speak, I am giving Members notice. There is no pressure on Danny to meet this target, but I will suspend the debate at 6.00 pm for about 20 minutes to give everybody a break. I am not saying that you all need a break, but we will be dealing with a lot of legislation, and I think that it is advisable. Plus, maybe we can get some air conditioning. I do not know whether it is just me, but I am roasting, and I only just came in.

Danny, go ahead.

Mr Baker: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

That means you are not getting any interventions.

I have listened intently to the debate today, and I have listened to our teachers, our school leaders and our support staff. It was they who asked us to come here today and vote down the Bill. I share their view that the principle of the Bill, as set out by the Minister and as has been clear from the interactions with DUP Members, is about sanctioning our teachers. That is the premise of the Bill.

I will address the issue of the Supreme Court judgement, because it is really unfortunate that it has been tagged onto this legislation. The Supreme Court judgement requires action, but it does not require that action to be tied to legislation that imposes professional misconduct sanctions on teachers. The RE issues could be addressed through a stand-alone legislative vehicle, subordinate legislation, a revised core syllabus, strengthened guidance or a combination of all of those measures. I take the points that Alliance Members have set out today. I wish them well in trying to amend the legislation, to get the issues ironed out and to get the outcomes that they really want. To be brutally honest, I do not think that that will happen.

To bring people along with you, you need to build trust and confidence. Teachers, school leaders and support staff do not trust the Minister. The House does not trust the Minister. Confidence in him was lost long ago. The Bill is not about safeguarding, RE or inspections; it is about facing down and intimidating teachers, because the Minister does not like scrutiny. At a time when the Education Minister should be working alongside our teachers to tackle workload, he would rather sanction them; in fact, the Minister would criminalise teachers if he got the chance. Let us be honest: just because legislation is coming out of the Executive that is not an endorsement. The Assembly is the place for debate and scrutiny, and it should be open and transparent. We are being so today. We are voting against the Bill at Second Stage, because we believe that the principle of the Bill is to sanction our teachers. We all have an opportunity to stand with teachers today and send a clear message to the Minister.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Baker: Not yet.

The whole point of the Minister's legislation is to come after and sanction our teachers. How do we stop that today? We send a clear message that we do not stand with him. Why? At a time when schools across the North face enormous challenges, I have to ask whether this is really a priority. Schools struggle to recruit teachers and retain experienced staff. School leaders are dealing with unprecedented pressures. The Minister has continued to overwhelm school leaders and teachers with consultation after consultation. We have heard them say that at the Education Committee, but he ignores it. If he does not agree with them or if he does not agree with the responses to a consultation, as we saw on TransformED in respect of AS levels and coursework, he just completely ignores it. All the while, workload continues to increase. I will say that again: our teachers' workload continues to increase. What is the Minister doing here today? He is pushing ahead with legislation to create powers that could ultimately lead to teachers losing their jobs.

Educational excellence can be achieved only by investing in and trusting our teachers. Teachers are not the problem. The teacher who spends evenings preparing lessons is not the problem. The teacher who buys classroom resources or feeds hungry children from their own pocket is not the problem. At a time when the Education Minister should be rebuilding relationships across education, his Bill just deepens division and mistrust. I ask all MLAs to reflect carefully. You have heard his engagement. He has given some commitments and then rowed back from them. You know what he is up to. Our teachers will be watching, and I ask you to vote the Bill down. There are other ways to get the RE stuff done. It will not be a vote on standards or inspection; it will be a vote on creating new dismissal powers linked to lawful industrial action. Today, you either stand with teachers or you do not; no ifs and no buts. You cannot dance on the head of a pin. Why would anybody enable the Minister to intimidate and bully our teachers and school leaders?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I was going to suspend at 6.00 pm, but I will do it now. Members, as I previously advised, when we return, I will ask a member of the Business Committee to move a motion to extend the sitting past 7.00 pm, and the debate will resume after that. I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until —.

Mr Buckley: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Is this the approach that will be adopted for all Executive legislation: that, if the debate goes over a certain time, there will be an adjournment for 20 minutes or more? I ask just for the benefit of Members.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I do not know, Jonathan, but I think that everybody could do with a break, particularly after a couple of hours. I am thinking of the Minister and members of the Education Committee. It is always better to try to be more considerate than belligerent.

The debate will continue after the motion on Standing Orders. Again, I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 6.15 pm.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I have received notification from members of the Business Committee of a motion to extend the sitting past 7.00 pm under Standing Order 10(3A).

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Assembly may sit until 9.30 pm, if necessary — "if necessary" underlined three times. OK?

Some Members: Do you hear that, Paul?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Lads. We will return to the debate.

Mr Buckley: Up early tomorrow morning.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Jonathan.

Mr Martin: We have been debating the Bill for a couple of hours now, colleagues, and I feel more confused by certain positions than I did when I came into the Chamber at around 3.30 pm. The Bill is not designed to punish teachers; it is about inspection. It has four clauses, some of which we have dealt with in some detail this afternoon. It is certainly about safeguarding, and that is what I want to focus my comments on. It should certainly be about children.

I value teachers. I was a lecturer for around 20 years. Can anyone beat that? I see that Pádraig has left the Benches opposite. I know that he was a teacher. Julie was, too.

Mr McCrossan: You are giving your age away. [Laughter.]

Mr Martin: Like many Members, I speak to teachers weekly. They do an amazing job. Many Members have referred to teachers' workload, and they are correct. There is no one who meets teachers in Northern Ireland who would not say that the workload has increased. They would also say that the workload is more diverse than ever. Teachers have to deal with more complicated issues and problems weekly.

Undoubtedly, the most-used word so far in the debate has been "teachers". We have talked a lot about teachers. I intend to talk about children, because it is they who are actually at the heart — or should be at the heart — of what we are talking about. Maybe they have not been talked about enough because they cannot vote. Pause for a second and think about why we are here and why the Bill has been designed in the way in which it has been. I feel a little bit sorry for the kids.

He is not here, but I also kind of feel sorry for the leader of the Opposition, Matthew O'Toole.

Over the weekend, as has been referenced, there was a media flurry around this issue. Last night, Matthew tweeted the following:

I kind of agree. I do not agree with the principle behind it, because the Bill is absolutely right. However, what I have heard today has confused me. It has become clear that Sinn Féin definitely agreed this to get it out of the Executive. If one accepts that, which some may or may not do, one can reason with that a little. What genuinely confuses me, however, is why Sinn Féin amended it first. Why did it, in principle, agree a Bill, and then amend the Bill before agreeing to it again, before bringing it to the Assembly and then proposing to vote it down? That is a pretty fair representation of what is going on today, which begs the question: why amend it? Maybe someone in Sinn Féin will give me an answer to that; I will be happy to give the Floor to them. Why amend something that you will are going to vote down at Second Stage?

Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I will indeed.

Mr Sheehan: First of all, Sinn Féin did not amend anything. The Minister changed his own draft legislation. That is what happened. However, we were not in favour of teachers being criminalised. We were not then and we are not now. That is why we allowed it to follow the democratic and legislative route: on to the Floor of the Assembly, and then, if Members voted for it to go through to Committee Stage, well and good. If not, well and good. That is the process. That is the way that it works. That is the way that it is supposed to work. It is what is known as democracy.

Mr Martin: Thank you very much, Pat. I am not sure that I am much clearer, so I will ask the question back to you. Were you not happy with the Bill initially? Did you ask for it to be amended?

Mr Sheehan: It is not the responsibility of anyone other than the Education Minister to change his own draft legislation. You see, you are using terminology that has a completely different meaning here on the Floor of the Assembly, where people can amend legislation that comes on to the Floor of the Assembly. Were we happy with teachers being criminalised in a piece of legislation? No. We made that clear at the Executive. The Minister changed it. He did not change it in a way that completely satisfied us, but we were prepared to let it go on to the Floor of the Assembly. Tell me what part of that you do not understand, and I will try better to explain it to you.

Mr Martin: Thank you, Pat. I understand it. I am not sure that people out there in the real world will completely follow what has gone on in your party. The Members opposite have said that they have got teachers' backs, "You guys are safe with us", and so forth. What I think has happened today is that, over the weekend, you thought that you were going to be outmanoeuvred by the SDLP, which was going to oppose the Bill anyway, and you suddenly thought that you had better change things. That is just my view.

I want to get on to the Bill. I genuinely want to talk about children. There has also been some chat about whether there have been inspections during action short of strike. I want to clarify that, because some Members, including, I think, the Chair of the Education Committee said quite a while ago that, during action short of strike, the safeguarding inspections somehow occurred or went on or proceeded as normal. My understanding is that that is not what happened. My understanding is that, during action short of strike, inspectors were not allowed to meet designated teachers or safeguarding teams if they were following union advice and action. That is really important. I admit that some schools allowed that to occur, but that was against the advice of their union.

If we are in a situation where — I think that this is where some Members are — we are kind of hoping that safeguarding happens. We are kind of hoping that there is some auditing of child protection measures in our schools. We are kind of crossing our fingers and saying, "Well, I kind of hope that it is going to happen, but we are not going to make it happen. We just hope that it will happen."

That is a very sad state of affairs if that is how the Assembly views safeguarding and child protection.

Should inspections be mandatory to make sure that standards are upheld and safeguarding procedures are underpinned? From listening to the debate, I can tell that everybody loves inspections. Members have stood up and said, "We support inspections. We think that inspections are great". I have not heard a single Member stand up and say, "I think that inspections are a bad idea". Parents will be listening to what we are saying, and parents want schools to improve. I will be the first person in Northern Ireland to say that we have amazing schools. People have gone to other places in the world and have come back to Northern Ireland because our school system is so great. Parents, however, want it not just to be great but to be better. They want it to improve. I am sure that the Minister will touch on that in his closing remarks.

As I said, I will limit my commentary to clause 3, which contains the safeguarding aspect. Mr Burrows referenced his experience at Bangor Grammar School. For transparency, I say that I also attended Bangor Grammar School, and I knew Dr Lindsay Brown. Mr Burrows referenced historical charges, which happened a long time ago. Certainly, for me, it was a long time ago. I am not sure what child protection measures were in place at that time or what safeguarding was like in Bangor Grammar School. I should say that it is now an amazing school, and my eldest son attends it. We are talking about quite a few decades ago. However, Mr Burrows referenced it. We are talking about safeguarding and inspection. Essentially, we are talking about whether the inspection of safeguarding procedures and child protection procedures should happen in our schools. No ifs, no buts: should that inspection happen?

Last year, a guy called Neil Beckett was convicted of sexual assault and sexual grooming after he targeted nine schoolgirls and used his position as a welfare officer at a school in Belfast. His female victims said that the school did not do enough to prevent the abuse that that person inflicted. We do not know what impact action short of strike or strike action had on the ability of ETI to go into that school and audit its child protection measures, because — do you know what? — it did not happen. For the past number of years, as has been documented, that has not been occurring.

We know, however, what the Northern Ireland Audit Office has said about those things. There has been significant political debate in the Chamber today. I remind Members that the Northern Ireland Audit Office is an arm's-length body, and it is not political. It does a brilliant job of looking at specific aspects of governance in Northern Ireland and drawing conclusions on those. I read this out to the Member for Lagan Valley, but it is worth reading it out again and picking up on a few more paragraphs when we are talking about clause 3. It says:

What I did not read out to the Member for Lagan Valley was this next part of the report, which said that ETI was:

schools.

Some of you may be only pseudo listening, so I will explain it. ETI could not give assurances to parents that proper safeguarding and child protection procedures were in place in schools. Why was that? It was because it could not inspect them. Why was that? It was because they were either on action short of strike or on strike action. The best that it could do — this is not debatable; it is factual — was to go in and look at paper procedures. If inspectors wanted to talk to teachers who were on action short of strike, the unions told the teachers not to engage. That is wrong. Teachers have nothing to fear. Inspection is not punitive. It is not going after teachers. The Members on the opposite side of the House used the term "criminalisation", but, frankly, teachers are not being criminalised. That is not what we are looking at today. Use the term as much as you want, but it is not factual at all.

Mrs Guy: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I will give way to the Member.

Mrs Guy: It is factual that they found a gap in the system, but do you accept that it is also factual that they did not endorse the Minister's approach to resolving it?

Mr Martin: I will give the Member the Floor again. I am not sure what her question was. Apologies, Michelle.

Mrs Guy: You said that it is factual that inspectors found safeguarding gaps in the system — I do not dispute that — but do you agree that they did not recommend what the Minister proposes as a way to resolve that?

Mr Martin: I am happy to take that point and agree with it. They did not, but they were being asked to assess the quality of teaching and procedures. They do not give political advice or policy advice; they give recommendations.

The Minister referenced something that is straight out of the Northern Ireland Audit Office document, which states:

We have not talked about SEN. Forgive me: some Members may have touched on it but not in any detail. I have had some correspondence on the issue, and it is worth bringing it into the debate because it applies in the same way when it comes to inspection and assuring quality in our schools, which is exactly what the Bill seeks to do.

The Audit Office report states:

The report goes on to quote the TransformED strategy:

In essence, clause 3 states that we believe that safeguarding and child protection are mission-critical in our schools and that the only way to ensure that they happen — I am happy to give the Floor to another Member if they have a better idea — is to make sure that ETI comes in and says, "We want to do an inspection, and that will include your safeguarding and child protection policies. We want to talk to your teachers and any students who are willing to talk to us. We want to make those procedures better".

Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I will.

Mr Sheehan: Nobody has any doubt that that is the way forward. Let us go and do it. However, if we look at what is happening here, we see conflict between the Minister, teachers and trade unions. If we look at the issue of restrictive practices and the task and finish group, we see conflict between the Minister, the Royal College of Nursing and the Children's Law Centre. If we look at the issue of SEN regulations, we see conflict between the Minister, the Children's Law Centre, the trade unions and other stakeholders. The common theme is that the Minister seems to be in conflict all the time when he should be working collegiately and in partnership with stakeholders to resolve the issues. He does not want to do that, however; he wants to ramstam things through. That is a big part of the problem.

Mr Martin: Pat, you mentioned a lot of the common themes, but you are wrong.

Mr Sheehan: I mentioned three things, not a lot.

Mr Martin: You are wrong, however [Interruption.]

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Lads.

Mr Martin: The common theme in what you outlined was children. That is whom we are here to protect. We are here to make their lives better. Adults — voters and Members of the Assembly — can have political views on those things, but, ultimately, we are not here to protect the interests of special groups or to protect this group or that group; we are here to make sure that the lives of the children in our schools are the best that they can be. We are here to make sure that they are safe in those schools and are getting a quality education. On that, we can agree. Outside of that, it is political opinion.

The SEN code of practice, which I was talking about, states that the ETI must evaluate the effectiveness of schools' SEN policies and their adherence to the code. Action short of strike prevented the ETI from fulfilling that role. We talk a lot about SEN in the Chamber and rightly so, because SEN pupils are some of our most vulnerable pupils. The schools that they attend are not being inspected, however. Some of them have not been inspected for quite a while. As some colleagues have mentioned, given the quality of the workforce that we have in Northern Ireland, teachers have nothing to fear. Our teachers are brilliant. As a lecturer, I was inspected several times.

Mr Baker: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I will indeed.

Mr Baker: Teachers have nothing to fear, but it is also about the timing of the Bill. Inspections have been happening, and changes have been made, but the legislation would sanction teachers.

You talked about our most vulnerable children: I am sorry, but it is the system that makes our children vulnerable. Many of our children are not being placed in the right setting. Our teachers' workload is unbelievable. You are not listening. You are not grasping that, and that is the big problem in the Chamber today. It is clear what the DUP really wants to do through the legislation.

Mr Martin: Danny, I obviously disagree. Kids' placements are not necessarily of relevance to what we are debating today. What is relevant is the quality of teaching, learning and safeguarding in all our schools, especially for SEN pupils. What I want and what the Minister wants is for the ETI to have the ability to help schools if they are having problems. I happily accept that, going back 10 or 15 years, inspection was punitive. I have some knowledge of that. That is certainly how teachers viewed it then, and some Members have made that point this evening. However, most people who know about education in Northern Ireland and who know teachers will say, "Actually, the ETI has changed, and inspection has changed". Teachers are not as fearful as they once were about having the ETI in their school; in fact, I would say that most teachers probably view the ETI as being more collaborative and more supportive than it has ever been. Ultimately, its job is to support schools and make them better.

The couple of areas that I have outlined demonstrate why the Bill is so important. Ultimately, parties will have to defend whatever position they take. I have outlined my party's position, which is that we view safeguarding and child protection as the most critical thing when we drive our children to the school gate and leave them in the school environment, with teachers acting in loco parentis. Those teachers are amazing, but, as I and others have said, no profession is completely unblemished. We have to ensure that that environment is safe. The way in which we do that is by having the ETI in to check procedures and policies. That is what the Bill does. It does not criminalise teachers: we have been absolutely clear about that. The Minister has compromised, whether Sinn Féin accepted that at its whim or not. We now have a slightly different Bill from the one initially talked about in the Executive. That is why I fully endorse the Bill. Teachers have nothing to fear from it. Teachers who are listening to the debate today will have been confused by some of what they have heard — I know that I have been. I stand here with the clear position that, if we are serious about child protection, about safeguarding in our schools and about making that better, we need inspection. That is what the Bill delivers.

Mr Buckley: 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.

Mrs Dillon: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: Absolutely.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. I agree with you that, of course, there are bad actors, potentially — in fact, if we go by the figures, almost definitely — even in this Chamber. We need to be honest about that. Do you agree that the swathes of teachers who have contacted us are not all bad actors? They have genuine, honest-to-God concerns about this legislation.

Mr Buckley: 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.

Mr Martin: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: 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.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for giving way. I want to check that his understanding of the Bill is the same as mine. There has been a lot of chat about it banning strike action and so forth. Is his understanding the same as mine: that the Bill does not ban strike action or action short of strike but looks at a very specific area of inspections that is very important because it deals with safeguarding?

Mr Buckley: 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.

Mr Baker: There is a democratic process.

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

Mrs Dillon: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will.

Mrs Dillon: Is the Member suggesting that, if legislation makes it out of the Executive, let us just forget about debating it in here — do not bother — because what is the point if all those who are in the Executive have already made a decision? There is no guarantee that legislation will be supported on the Floor because it has made its way out of the Executive. We saw that last week with the Hunting with Dogs Bill, and we see what happens when legislation does not make its way to the Floor for Members to debate it. The DUP is the master of that, I can tell you.

Mr Buckley: 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 —.

Mr Baker: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will give way, yes.

Mr Baker: The Member has said an awful lot, but this is his party, and it will use a petition of concern (POC). How is that democracy? His party is going to do it again, but we have to listen to him whine on and on about it.

Mr Buckley: 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 —. [Inaudible.]

Mr Buckley: 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.

Mr McCrossan: 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.

Mr Martin: Will the Member give way?

Mr McCrossan: 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.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr McCrossan: This Bill —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order. Throwing "This Bill" in, and then not discussing the Bill is not going to happen. Everybody has had a pop at one another politically, and that is fine. I advise the Member to return to the Bill.

Mr McCrossan: 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:

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:

— whatever that means —

The Bill includes powers of:

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.

Mr Martin: Will the Member give way?

Mr McCrossan: 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:

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.

Mr Martin: Will the Member give way?

Mr McCrossan: 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".

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

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

Mr Martin: Thanks, Danny. For one wee second, I did not think that I was your friend any more, given the way you were talking about me.

The Member says that he supports inspection, but he does not support inspection enough to make sure that it happens in our schools. How important does the Member think inspection is?

Mr McCrossan: 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 —.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr McCrossan: 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.

Mr Buckley: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. When it comes to the conduct of debate, I find that language to be totally inappropriate anywhere, never mind on the Floor of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: It is inappropriate language, but the Member realised that and apologised immediately. Let us not use those words, please.

Mr McCrossan: 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.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr McCrossan: 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 — [Interruption.]

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Every Member, when on their feet, needs to be heard. Equally, I say to Members who are on their feet: if you open the door, do not be surprised if people walk through it. All that I am saying is this: please return to the Bill.

Mr McCrossan: — the Bill.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No. You are waving the Bill.

Mr Martin: You are not talking about it.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Peter, I am chairing, if you do not mind.

Daniel, while some of us are enjoying this, I would really appreciate it if you could return to your points. Thank you.

Mr McCrossan: 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.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for giving way. It is clear that there are concerns about everything that you have set out on the second part of clause 3 on sanctions for teachers. However, you have been around this place long enough to know that there is every opportunity in the stages that follow this one to get rid of that clause in its entirety if you do not like it. When it comes to the other issues that you have raised with clause 3 — that its powers are too broad and unclear — surely the proper place to find out what those powers really represent and deliver is at Committee Stage? I am just not clear on the SDLP position that we have to throw everything out.

Mr McCrossan: I will make it very clear: I do not trust those two parties with legislation. Do you know why? It is because, when we come to the end of a mandate, everything is rushed through. Look at the unintended consequences of various Acts that were passed last time, such as the Hospital Parking Charges Act 2022 and the Integrated Education Act 2022. There were others. They were rushed through without due consideration being given. I do not believe that the Bill will be given the consideration that it needs. The cost of putting it through with clause 3 fully intact is too great. It is far too dangerous for the entire teaching profession. For that reason, very clearly, categorically and absolutely, the SDLP will stand with our teachers until that clause is removed. I make that very clear to the House.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr McCrossan: I want to make progress, because I am conscious that Members want to move on.

It is important that the House recognises and acknowledges, in the strongest possible terms — not just with warm words but with actions — that we appreciate the work of our teachers across Northern Ireland. However, the Bill sends a difficult message. Clause 3 sends a warning signal that, if you dare step over the line, you are in big trouble. That is not the right message for the House to send. I do not believe that the House and two parties in particular have the right to dictate to anybody who can or cannot go on strike. If the Bill passes Second Stage, I do not have faith that it will be given the full-time consideration that is needed to fix it. That is why, given where we are in the mandate — God knows what will happen in the time ahead — my party will vote the Bill down to stop this madness in its tracks.

Mr Gaston: What we have seen here is the blame game in all its glory. Members have been in full flow looking for media clips. I find it hard to follow Mr McCrossan, who is championing. He championed the 27% increase for MLAs to then have his wee flippant remarks, and I liken him to Keir Starmer, because, indeed, that is the man whom his party partners over on the Benches of Westminster. On that basis, those are hollow words from Mr McCrossan. Moving on, I will get back to the Bill that we have in front of us, but I could not let that go past without clipping Mr McCrossan's wings.

Mr Buckley: Thank you to the Member for giving way. I find Mr McCrossan's comments about rushed pieces of legislation that have been a disaster interesting, when the SDLP itself voted for those particular pieces of legislation.

Mr Gaston: Indeed, they were champions of those pieces of legislation. Look at the climate change legislation as well. Based on its own record, the SDLP cannot lecture anybody else in the House. That party wants to get back into the Executive and take up ministerial posts. I have no doubt that, if people endorsed it, the SDLP would rush back and champion the Executive at every opportunity.

Back to the Bill that we have here in front of us. I thank you very much for your patience, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will focus my attention and my short remarks tonight primarily on clause 2 of the Bill, as it has largely been passed by. That clause removes the exemption for religious education from inspections. In order to recognise what is happening here and why a profound change is being proposed, we have to remember the unique situation here in Northern Ireland. We need to remember that, while Protestant denominations handed over their schools to the state, the Roman Catholic Church has never handed over its schools. The only reason that the Protestant Churches handed over their schools was based on the legal assurances that they were given. Chief amongst those was the transfer, and that was dependent on provision of biblical instruction within the school day by Christians committed to the school ethos of it.

Minister, I am somewhat unclear, going by the Bill that is presented to us today, based on that and the 1986 Order. If the legislation passes and goes to the next stage and clause 2 is removed, does that create an opt-out and give teachers an opt-out not to teach RE? I am happy to give way to the Minister as I go through my speech if he wants to clarify that.

Mr Givan: I am happy to do so. To reassure the Member, there is no opt-out when it comes to teaching religious education in our schools. Quite the opposite: it is a legal requirement that religious education and religious instruction are carried out in our schools. That includes acts of collective worship that take place in our schools. I am delighted to have been in so many schools where there is collective worship on a daily occurrence, which ought to be encouraged.

Mainstream denominations have welcomed inspection because they want to make sure, as we introduce a new curriculum on RE, which is being developed under Professor Noel Purdy's leadership, that that has academic rigour. They have nothing to fear from that being inspected, and, where it can be improved, as inspection does carry the purpose of improvement, that will enhance the teaching of religious education in our schools. I hope that that has assured the Member. Far from diluting religious instruction and education in our schools, I am seeking to enhance it.

Mr Gaston: I certainly welcome the Minister's clarification on that, because I do have a concern that there is an imposition here of state inspections that will weaken the Churches' perceived control. However, the Minister has given that reassurance, and I trust that that is the case.

Minister, can I take you on and ask you directly: what measures have you put in place, or will you put in place, so that, when clause 2 is taken out of the Bill, it will protect the schools? There are many schools in North Antrim that have a Christian ethos. That is their very DNA and their selling point to the local people to attract people in. Christian parents like me look at a school based on what they offer and what their ethos is. Are there any further measures that you want to put in place to protect that Christian ethos as we move forward? You have given reassurance that you have talked to the denominations, but I have a concern that removing clause 2 from the Bill would mean that there are not the same protections as there once were.

Mr Givan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: Yes.

Mr Givan: Some Members have talked about wanting to amend clause 3, but I have not yet heard anyone say that they want to amend clause 2. On the inclusion of clause 2, while it was not a clear, direct judgement of the Supreme Court, it was critical of the Northern Ireland education system in that judgement because RE was outwith the scope of the inspection process. That is why we need primary legislation to remove that prohibition so that the inspectorate is able to carry out that inspection. Largely, many of the denominations were not carrying out inspections, even through the transferor representatives on their boards of governors. Many RE teachers will welcome the inclusion of RE in the inspection process, because many teachers want the inspectorate to affirm that they are doing the right thing. We do not need to create any fear about the ethos of our schools being undermined by the inclusion of clause 2. We can welcome it in that respect. Hopefully, that has given the Member some reassurance.

Mr Gaston: Absolutely. It is very important to have that on the record and bring that up in the debate, because the removal of clause 2 is something that has largely been passed by. I sought assurance on that.

Mr Mathison: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way.

Mr Mathison: Will the Member clarify what "the removal of clause 2" refers to? Are you arguing for its removal, or do you want to see clause 2 in the Bill? I am not aware of anyone suggesting that clause 2 should be removed.

Mr Gaston: It is the removal of the exemption for religious education. For clarity, it is essentially putting that provision in the Bill to take the removal out. Concerns have been raised with me on that very issue.

I turn to clause 3. We have heard quite a bit about the safeguarding aspect, and, in essence, the majority of the debate has centred around it. I have had emails in the same way as everybody else. I have also been contacted by a number of teachers who have said that this situation has been generated in the past 24 to 48 hours. It very much feels as though it has been generated for political purposes. Sinn Féin was the first out of the hatch with its social media clips and videos. That sparked a reaction from the SDLP. In 24 to 48 hours, the whole situation that we have experienced today was allowed to develop. On that basis, it is not so much information-led as social media-led. If safeguarding is paramount, as it is in my eyes and head, the concerns — there are legitimate concerns out there — can be worked through at Committee Stage.

I want to make a point on what we have heard about safeguarding. Minister, I contacted you about a safeguarding concern at City of Armagh High School in March. We have heard plenty from the DUP about safeguarding today. That issue has not been resolved, and I want to put you to the test on that issue. You have said that it is an EA issue. I want you to take it on board. Two parents are in the position where they have lost all faith in the school and its safeguarding policies because of what happened and the threats that were made by a newcomer child to their children. On that basis, Minister, I trust that we can meet in the coming days and that I can bring those parents to you so you can hear at first hand about the threats that their children received. They are the victims, yet they have been left in the situation where the child who carried out those threats has been permitted to come back in September, while the victims have been left out in the cold, and their concerns have not been addressed. My primary purpose today has been to seek assurances regarding the religious education element of the Bill and a commitment from the Minister. We hear plenty about safeguarding concerns. I want the Minister to be put to the test and agree to a meeting.

Mr Givan: I appreciate the Member giving way. I am aware of the case, just as I am aware of a number of cases that have been brought to my attention. Those are the cases that we know of and that are being investigated.

The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that an effective inspection process is in place to identify safeguarding practices where we do not know of cases. We need to make sure that the framework gives the best possible opportunity to capture information that may show that safeguarding is not being effectively carried out in our schools. That is the purpose of the Bill.

I reassure the Member that I am aware of the case. It has to follow the normal processes in how it is considered. However, the inspection process has been able to identify the issue, which is why I welcome the fact that, as I mentioned, inspection has to be information-driven. I have received the same emails. I have received them from DUP voters. The easy thing for me to do politically would be not to move on the matter, but that would not be the right thing for me to do. I will have to lead my constituency as to why we are doing this.

The information that the Member referenced and the basis on which we should take decisions is that, in 2024-25, two schools needed urgent child-related action as a result of inspection. Similarly, in 2025-26, two schools required further inspections because of safeguarding concerns. On school improvement, 10 schools were put into formal intervention to support them because they were not providing the right academic support, and 13 schools have required further follow-up. That is the information that should lead us to vote accordingly, not hyperbole politics and misrepresentation. Considered information should inform how we take forward the Bill, and I welcome the Member's view on how we should do so, despite the emails that he has received from some of his constituents. In due time, people will, I believe, see that this is the right thing to do for the children.

Mr Gaston: I thank the Minister for that intervention, but I did not hear him say that he would agree to meet me and those parents. He may have forgotten to leave that in. If he wants to come back in and commit in Hansard to that meeting, I would very much appreciate it.

There are concerns about the Bill, but I see no reason why, at this stage, Members should not support it to get to Committee Stage, where it will go through the usual process of Committee scrutiny. Let us see what comes out at the other end. Members will have the opportunity to amend it at a further stage, so I am happy to see the Bill go to Committee with those stipulations and safeguards in place.

Mr Carroll: A lot of scorn was poured on the fact that trade unions got in touch with MLAs, with some suggesting that it was political. God forbid that trade unionists get involved in political debates. I welcome the contact from trade unionists from the NASUWT and from the Irish National Teachers' Organisation (INTO) as well as principals and others who emailed me and, I am sure, other Members over the weekend. That was important. It is important that our legislation be shaped by the people who are primarily affected by it, who, in this case, are education workers and teachers. I declare an interest: I have three siblings involved in the teaching sector.

The Bill is a Trojan horse. Nobody disputes that religious education needs reform and oversight. The Supreme Court was clear on that, and schools deserve urgent clarity. Nobody in the Chamber should be in any doubt about that. However, not just in my view but in that of many people, the Minister has deliberately used that legal necessity as cover for something far more sinister, which is a provision designed to punish teachers — I repeat: punish teachers — for taking lawful industrial action. I am concerned that it could create a chill factor for anyone to be told that a Minister can dictate to unions what action they can or cannot take. I fear that that would send a bad message and set a bad precedent. We have to be honest about what is happening. The two issues in the Bill are entirely separate and should be treated as such. The religious education provisions arise from a specific court judgement. The ETI proposals are something else entirely. They are highly controversial, have serious implications for workers' rights and remain deeply contested across the teaching and education sector. I am opposed to the Bill not just because of how it would punish teachers in that regard but because it could and would set a precedent.

The Executive have underfunded education for years. Schools are in debt, buildings are crumbling, SEN is in crisis and teachers are dealing with workloads that the Department's independent review described as "unmanageable". Rather than break that cycle and invest properly in the profession, the Minister wants to muzzle teachers who dare to challenge his agenda. The NASUWT is in a formal trade dispute with the Minister and the Department because they have failed to implement the recommendations of that workload review. To introduce these proposals against that backdrop is to act entirely in bad faith, and the Minister knows it. It damages trust between teachers and the Department at exactly the moment when meaningful engagement is needed most.

Teachers do not want to take industrial action; they want to do what they do every day — educating the next generation — but they have been doing that in an increasingly unsustainable and unsafe environment. When teachers take industrial action, they do so on behalf of the entire school community. An attack on them for that is an attack on the entire trade union movement and, more broadly, on people who believe in democracy.

The Minister said that the legislation is just about safeguarding. The short Bill — it consists of four pages — uses the phrase:

five times. It is clear what the Minister is trying to do. If we were to take him at his word that he really cared about safeguarding, he would deal head-on with the following risks: the fact that our children are being taught in schools that are riddled with black mould, which is unacceptable; the fact that our classroom assistants and teachers face physical violence in the course of their work; and the fact that our education workforce, including school leaders, has passed the point of burnout and exhaustion, because staff have been managing societal crises in mental health, poverty and SEN complexity with little or no support. Whatever their view on religious education reform — I think that we all agree that change is overdue — I urge all MLAs to ask themselves whether threatening teachers with sanctions for taking part in lawful industrial action will fix our broken education system.

I oppose the Bill. Everyone in the Chamber who says that they value our teachers should vote against it as well.

Ms Sugden: Like other Members, there are aspects of the Bill that I support — indeed, I support two thirds of it — but there is an area that concerns me. Members will not be surprised, given the debate, to hear what that area is.

I will start with the provisions relating to religious education. It seems that there is broad recognition across the Chamber that the Assembly simply cannot ignore the Supreme Court judgement. The court identified a gap in the current arrangements. It is therefore our responsibility as legislators to respond to that judgement. I have no difficulty anyway with the principle that religious education should be subject to inspection in the same way as other areas of the curriculum; of course it should be. Inspection is ultimately about transparency, accountability and ensuring that standards are met. If we expect that to happen elsewhere in our education system, it is difficult to argue that religious education should sit outside that framework.

Similarly, I understand the rationale behind extending inspection arrangements to education providers that currently sit outside existing structures. Where public money is being invested in education provision, there is a legitimate public interest in ensuring that provision can be assessed appropriately.

Members will not be surprised to learn that my concerns relate almost entirely to the provisions on inspections, cooperation and disciplinary action. Like other Members, I have received many emails from teachers, school leaders and union members. What struck me most about those emails was that I was being asked to reject the Bill outright in very few of them; in fact, many explicitly supported the religious education provisions and accepted that legislative change is required in that area. Their concerns, as we have heard, focused on the disciplinary provisions. I do not believe that teachers are raising those concerns because they are opposed to accountability, nor do I believe that they are arguing that schools should never be inspected. I hear something quite different. Teachers talk about increasing workloads, the growing administrative burden, recruitment difficulties, retention challenges and the increasing complexity of the issues that they are dealing with every day. The school day does not end when the bell rings. Lessons have to be prepared, work has to be marked, reports have to be completed, parents have to be contacted and pastoral issues have to be managed. That work does not begin and end in term time. I think that many of us assume that, for teachers, school's out for summer, but many of them spend significant parts of their evenings, weekends and school holidays preparing for the year ahead, because, while they are teaching our children during the day, much of that additional work has to be done outside the classroom.

Increasingly, teachers help children to navigate challenges that extend far beyond education. They are identifying safeguarding concerns, supporting young people with mental health and special educational needs and dealing with the consequences of pressures that, elsewhere, our public services are failing to deal with. The reality of today's classroom is very different from what it was even a number of years ago. As support services have come under pressure, more and more responsibility has fallen on schools and, ultimately, on our teachers. We speak regularly in the Chamber about waiting lists for child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS), pressures in special educational needs, difficulties accessing assessment and the growing complexity that we now see, yet we do not always acknowledge the impact that those pressures have on teachers and on the environment in which they work.

For years, teachers have been telling us that the demands placed on them are becoming increasingly difficult to sustain. Sadly, many teachers do not look at the proposals and see support; many see another layer of pressure being added to an already stretched profession. Many feel that they have not been listened to for years. What they see in the Bill is not support: they see another sanction. That may not be the Minister's intention, but that is how the provisions are being received by many in the profession. That really should concern all of us.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sugden: Yes, please go ahead.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member accept that our nursing workforce and our care workers face huge pressures as well? They work in systems that are not funded enough, and they are not paid enough. There are huge issues in those systems as well, but we would not stand in this place and argue that one of the solutions to that is to allow them to not engage with inspections, with regulators or things of a similar principle. I have to say that I am surprised by the stance that the Member has taken, because, when the issue is looked at rationally, that does not make sense. Why would we stop inspections in our schools? I have heard nobody here argue against the right of teachers to take industrial action, the right to strike and all of those things. Those levers will still be available. We are asking for one element — inspections in our schools — so that we have quality assurance and safeguarding. I ask the Member to reconsider the issue. I really do not understand and cannot get my head around how people are landing on voting this down as being an issue worth fighting for.

Ms Sugden: I thank the Member for his contribution. If he had focused on the start of my contribution, he would know that I mentioned that it is not about not having school inspections; it is about the sanction that follows. Ultimately, it is an enforcement issue. Is that the right mechanism?

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sugden: Yes, go ahead.

Mr Brooks: There is no point making that argument if you are not willing to have some kind of deterrent. We can argue about what that is. Those on the Benches opposite want to make out to teachers that the prison vans are coming to take them away, which is utter nonsense. Some kind of sanction for not engaging with inspections is not unreasonable. We can talk about the nature of that sanction, and the Chair of the Education Committee has made it clear that he will engage with that in Committee. It is entirely reasonable for not engaging with something as important as inspections. The bizarre thing is that everybody around the Chamber continues to emphasise how important, they believe, inspections are. Put your money where your mouth is. If they are that vital to the system, we should defend them, and defending them includes saying, "Look, there are a number of options to take industrial action and to express your grievances, but inspections should not be one of those levers".

Ms Sugden: What you propose is using a stick, rather than a carrot, to enforce the inspections.

Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sugden: I will give way in a second.

That is the frustration that we hear from the teaching profession: too often, we approach this negatively. I am not unrealistic or naive enough to assume that there are not situations in which we absolutely must take action, but teachers feel that this is being levied on all of them, even though everybody in the Chamber, including the Minister, knows how incredible our schools and our teaching profession are. At the other end, it is not good either.

I am not saying that I will vote down the Bill, but I have a concern about the mechanism that we are using to enforce inspections in the way that we are. To me, it is a dogmatic way of looking at this. I take your point about other professions, but those things have existed and are part of their framework and part of how we move forward. If we are looking at this, we have to put in place something in the form of engagement.

I do not even know what the sanctions are. If you let me progress with my contribution, I will ask those questions of the Minister. That is important. Teachers are not sitting here tonight because they do not want to be held to account; it is quite the opposite. They just want to know what it means for them and whether it will mean another burden in a job that most of them went into because they love it. They do not want to feel every day of the week that they are doing something wrong — to feel that shadow over them.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate the Member giving way. I share her concerns. This is the Department cracking the whip instead of consulting. She will be aware that, when there is a health strike — the Member to my right referred to health strikes — the health unions put in place derogations, which, as I understand it, is not in legislation but is done through cooperative working and talking between the unions and the trusts and the Department. Does the Member agree that that is generally a better approach than the cracking-the-whip approach that the Department has taken with this Bill?

Ms Sugden: The work that we do in the Chamber is done on behalf of the people whom we represent, and that includes teachers as well as parents and kids who go to school, so, absolutely, we have to bring people along with us, as they are important stakeholders in the conversations. I do not feel that the Bill necessarily does that. The last-minute approach that most of us got in those emails show that they feel like they have been a bit wronged. Maybe all of us, whatever side of the debate we are on, need to take a step back and listen. There is value in doing that at the next stages of the legislative process.

Mr Givan: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sugden: Yes, please, Minister.

Mr Givan: The Member might want to seek some information in due course, and I will try to provide that.

Mr Carroll helpfully highlighted how the health trade unions remove areas from their strike action. The RQIA has a legal right to inspect; that is a legal requirement so the health trade unions never invoke in that regard. Will the Member call for the teaching unions to remove obstruction of inspection as part of their industrial leverage when they go on strike? I have asked them to do so. If they were to commit and agree to that, it would be of a lot of help in the process. Does she agree that trade unions should not use inspection as leverage in industrial action, as they did as recently as last year, given how many areas they can use? I support their right to do so, even though I do not want them to do so. If they could absent themselves from obstructing inspection, all of us would be in a better place, but they have not given that commitment. Will she call on them to do that?

Ms Sugden: I thank the Minister for that, and I get it. The general point is that they call for action because they feel that they have no choice. Do I agree with that? Not necessarily, but we would be better to understand the why rather than the how, as all of us would then end up in the appropriate place. If I was to sum up my contribution, it would be that we need to talk, communicate and understand more. This feels like a dogmatic, stick approach from the Department when teachers are saying, "You know what? Just support us, Minister. Support us and understand our workload". I declare an interest: my husband is a lecturer in further education, and I fully appreciate and sympathise in respect of the workloads, the strains and the additional difficulties. Sometimes, the only support that they get, Minister, is from their trade unions, and even that is limited. To an extent, I sympathise with the trade unions: they are using every tool in their box because they feel that they have no choice. I do not necessarily agree with that, but let us understand why they are doing it rather than just saying no.

I return to the point that I was making before David's intervention: inspection is an important part of our education system. Parents rightly expect standards to be monitored. Every Member in the Chamber, as a taxpayer, expects that. Children deserve a system that identifies problems and supports improvement. Safeguarding arrangements must be effective. Every Member in the Chamber should agree that none of those objectives should be controversial. To come back to what the Minister was talking about, is the mechanism proposed in the Bill the right one?

Originally, the Minister consulted on criminal sanctions for obstructing inspections, but that proposal is no longer before us, thank goodness. I heard the Minister describe what is in the Bill as a compromise, but I will say to him — it is worth listening to this — that teachers still feel that it uses a sledgehammer to crack a nut and are concerned because, whilst the outcome might not be a criminal conviction, it still makes them feel vulnerable.

If there are issues in our teaching system, that is, in most cases, probably because of the pressures that teachers are under. We therefore have a responsibility to recognise not just the crime, if that is what you like to call it, but what leads people to commit it. I would apply that across every Department.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. I recognise her point about workload. A lot of complex issues increasingly fall to teachers, who then have to manage them on top of their already busy workload. But if the principle is reducing risk — in theory, inspection should reduce risk, particularly safeguarding risk — has the Member any suggestions about how we can ensure that inspections are not used as a bargaining chip? I can understand why a union would do it — I do not agree with that; neither, I think, does the Member, given that she has said as much — but we need to ensure that it does not happen. It is interesting to note that, in the other examples in the other jurisdictions that have a criminal sanction, it has never resulted in criminal proceedings. I am interested in the Member's view on how we can, in essence, crack the nut to ensure that we put safeguarding at the heart of this legislation.

Ms Sugden: Support and communication: we have to support our teachers more. I understand the budget pressures that the Minister is under in trying to provide an ideal education system that supports teachers in the way that many of us advocate. However, we are going down a route of, "Well, if it doesn't happen, let's just sanction people", and that is where the difficulty is. People are desperate for additional support — I genuinely mean it when I say that they are crying out for help — and, in doing so, they are now faced with potential sanctions because they are not working in an environment that provides that support, and then these mistakes happen, potentially.

That is not to say that we should not hold people to account for mistakes, but the purpose of doing so should not be to get someone in trouble; it should be to improve things. Equally, however, we can improve things if we support teachers more. My approach would be to speak to teachers on the ground — speak to the unions, but speak to the teachers on the ground as well — and ask them what would improve the inspections. As the Minister said, teachers welcomed inspections in religious education because they helped bring a standard to it; most teachers do. I receive emails from teachers across my constituency saying that they have had a wonderful ETI report, and I congratulate them on that. They are really proud of that. If anything it sets a standard and a bar. The difficulty with the legislation is the sanction that it imposes. That is not to say that we should not move to that in future if people do not play ball, but we have to give them the cards to play with, and we are not giving them the full deck.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sugden: Yes, David: go ahead.

Mr Brooks: I know what the Member means, but we have to be clear about the sanctioning of teachers. What any sanction would be is to be decided, but it would not be out of line with, and would probably be more moderated than, what happens in other professions. It would be imposed in response to one thing only, and that is refusal to engage with inspections that, we all agree, are vital to the system. In the discussion, it is almost as though people are actively seeking to sanction teachers, but, as has been said, we are looking at taking one element — inspections — out of the toolbox of action short of strike. The Bill does not outlaw action short of strike; it does not outlaw strike action. It is about one limited element, and it seems a strange thing to go into the trenches for.

Ms Sugden: If that is the case, there is a significant misunderstanding. Why is there a significant misunderstanding? It is not —.

Mr Brooks: It has a lot to do with the Members over there.

Ms Sugden: In fairness, it is not just about the Members over there; it is about the number of emails that we have received from across Northern Ireland. If it was one or two, maybe we would accept that as an anomaly, but what we received —. I know that, to an extent, that is driven by the unions, but that is why they exist. It points to a systemic issue. I have said a number of times that I would rather we deal with it upstream so that, if there are problems, they do not get to that point. If they do so, ultimately, who suffers? It is our children.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sugden: Yes.

Mr Brooks: I understand. We all get emails, and I suggest that, on many issues, the reason for such emails is to try to influence the way in which we will vote. Last week, it was the Hunting with Dogs Bill, and, this week, it is this Bill. There is a job for us to do to understand what the legislation does and to raise some of the issues. We have the job of leading and explaining what the Bill actually does to those who get in touch with us, rather than being led simply by the fact that we have received x number of emails, all of which say the same thing, and just adopting that position. That does not make for good legislating. I am not saying that the Member would generally do that, and we can all be influenced by that, particularly in the run-up to an election, but I encourage the Member — all Members — to look at what is actually proposed in the Bill. She does not seem to be opposed to what we are talking about in principle, but she is right that there is misinformation out there and that people are being whipped up by whatever means and by whomever. I encourage her to take a stand and explain to people what is actually proposed and that nobody is out to get teachers. There is no interest for any of us in going after teachers. Everyone wants a good education system, and that would not be possible without our excellent teachers.

Ms Sugden: I take that point. Equally, although it may be a copy-and-paste email, everybody who puts their name and address to such an email feels strongly enough to want to send it. I would not undermine that. Indeed, I respond to every such email that I receive, because I respect the fact that those people have taken the time to engage with it. I appreciate the fact that that may be led by someone who exists to lead it, but I would not seek to undermine those emails just because they all say the same thing, because the people who send them feel strongly that what it says represents how they feel. I cannot reiterate that point strongly enough. The Minister and his party may disagree with that, but we need to recognise that that is how people feel and that that is how they interpret the Bill.

I will quickly make progress. I have a few questions. The Member has talked about what the Bill says and does not say, but is it clear? Is what it says enough? What exactly constitutes a failure to cooperate? What protections exist for those who participate in lawful industrial action? How will disciplinary powers be exercised in practice? What safeguards will prevent disproportionate sanctions? How do we ensure that legitimate professional disagreement is not conflated with misconduct? There are important and necessary elements in the legislation, and those warrant progression. I want to be clear, however, that my support for the Bill at this stage — believe it or not, David, I will support it at this stage — should not be interpreted as support for every clause as it is currently drafted, nor should it be interpreted as support for the Bill at Final Stage.

I recognise the value of the legislative process. It is disappointing that some would seek to not allow it to progress, but I hope that the majority in the House will, because it is at the next stage that it can be heard. If we all support about two thirds of the Bill, my concern is about what will happen to that two thirds if the Bill is voted down tonight. What will happen to the obligations from the Supreme Court judgement? Will they just lie on a shelf until the next election or until we get a further court ruling? It would be bit irresponsible to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I am confused by parties taking that position. Everyone seems to support the other two clauses but not that one particular clause, and we can address that in the other stages of the Bill process. I agree that, if we cannot shape the clause in the way we need to, we should just vote it down and take forward the Bill that was probably intended from the outset.

The concerns that have been raised by teachers deserve to be taken seriously. The Minister needs to demonstrate not only what problem he is seeking to solve but why this particular approach is necessary and proportionate and that it will be accompanied by the appropriate safeguards. Equally, can the Minister achieve his objective in a way that teachers understand and support? Ultimately, that is why we are here and spending so long on the Bill's Second Stage. I am not a teacher. I have sympathy for them, because I have a partner who works in that area, but I am not raising these concerns out of my own interests; I am raising them because a number of people whom I represent have raised them with me. One message that I hear consistently is that teachers need support, not more challenge. In some ways, that is why teaching is different from other professions. Other professions have this process in place, but we are bringing it in for teachers at a point when it feels like just another thing that they have to deal with. That context is really important, particularly if we want to implement the Bill effectively for the reasons that we say we do and with the intentions that we say we have. We need to bring people along with us. I am not entirely sure that we are doing that with the approach that we are taking. Hopefully, the legislative steps will allow us to do that.

The debate, at its heart, is about the balance between accountability and trust, between effective inspection and professional autonomy and between protecting educational standards and maintaining positive industrial relations with a profession that is already under considerable strain. I am content to support the Bill at Second Stage, but, if the concerns raised by teachers are not addressed through scrutiny and amendment, Members should not assume that I will support it at Final Stage. We will see whether we get that far.

The Minister still has time to build confidence in the provisions. I look forward to seeing how he will do that as the Bill progresses through its stages. If he does that, the Bill will become stronger. Would it not be wonderful if everybody got what they wanted out of the Bill and everybody supported it so that it could achieve its intended aims? However, if he does not do that, I suspect that Members will reach a different conclusion when the Bill returns to the Chamber. The wonderful thing is that, if the Minister does not do what needs to be done, the House hopefully will.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion.

Mr Givan: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members from across the Chamber who contributed to the debate. At times, the debate was somewhat more robust than I might have expected for a Bill that received unanimous support at the Executive.

I will get to the substance of some of the points that Members made, and they did so very sincerely. The key question that many are asking is this: why has Sinn Féin performed a U-turn? I still cannot understand it. Why the abrupt departure from previously agreed ground? Sinn Féin has articulated in the Chamber a new approach to governing in the Executive. Do not trust that any decision that it puts through the Executive will be binding in the Assembly. That is what Sinn Féin has said today, and it was articulated by Mr Sheehan.

Mr Sheehan: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Givan: That is a new way of doing business in the Assembly and through the Executive, and his party is applying it to this legislation. Mr Sheehan wants me to give way.

Mr Sheehan: Once again, the Minister has misrepresented the position. There was not unanimous support for the legislation at the Executive. There was unanimous support to let it proceed to the Floor. There may be certain voting rules that apply to the ministerial team in the Executive, but they do not apply to parties. We are absolutely clear: we will not allow teachers to be criminalised, and we will not allow sanctions to be placed on them, especially when no one knows what the amorphous, nebulous sanctions that have been talked about will look like. We will not have teachers suffer because you want to ramstam a piece of legislation through so that you can say, "Oh, look what I've done. I'm a great guy".

Mr Givan: Again, that is revealing of the mindset and attitude of Sinn Féin, as articulated by Mr Sheehan. It confirms what I said at the start of my speech: this is the new way in which Sinn Féin intends to operate the Executive. When Michelle O'Neill approves something being on the agenda and Sinn Féin Ministers approve its going through the Executive, that is not worth the paper that it is written on. That is what Sinn Féin has said today about this legislation and how it will now operate the Executive. The policy that has been outlined by Sinn Féin causes me huge concern for the effective administration of the Executive. I still have not got to the bottom of why it has carried out a U-turn. Is it because of Mr Carroll? It has been speculated that Sinn Féin is afraid of Mr Carroll. He is quite right to articulate the position that he holds, but is his policy dictating what Sinn Féin is now doing? Is that a concern for West Belfast? I do not know.

Mr Brooks: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Givan: Let me just elaborate a little more, Mr Brooks, and then I will give way.

Is it because Sinn Féin has not been able to withstand pressure from the leader of the Opposition? People have said that, in the past 48 hours, Mr Carroll came out against the Bill, the SDLP came out against it, and Sinn Féin was not able to resist the pressure. What is the reason for the change? Mr Brooks might be able to help me.

Mr Brooks: Thank you, Minister. I do not know whether I can help with that, but I am curious about this: if the Members opposite believe that agreement to proceed is not agreement, why does the Minister believe that they are holding up the 16-to-18 legislation?

Mr Givan: Sinn Féin is holding up the 16-to-18 legislation. That is the contradictory position that Mr Sheehan outlined. On the one hand, Sinn Féin says that legislation gets put through the Executive because it is for the Assembly to decide, but, on the other hand, it continues to block the 16-to-18 legislation drafted by the Office of the Legislative Counsel. That legislation has been sitting ready to be introduced in the Assembly for a long time. No Minister has objected to it. Sinn Féin says, on the one hand, that the inspection Bill got to the House because that is what you do — you just put it in to the Assembly — but, on the other hand, says, "Oh, no, no. You're not going to get your 16-to-18 legislation". There is a different approach.

I still do not know why Sinn Féin has done this with inspection legislation. The process that I outlined commenced when I submitted a policy paper to the Executive in November 2024. People said, "It is not the right time. There is industrial action taking place". I worked to resolve that industrial action. We got pay for our teachers, which showed my support for them, and they now have pay parity with a lot of their counterparts across the water. I addressed that issue by showing my support — financial support — for our teachers, whom I deeply value. It was still not the right time to introduce the legislation, however. Sinn Féin wanted me to engage on it, and I did. Michelle O'Neill asked me to meet Caoimhe Archibald, the Minister for the Economy. I met the Minister and talked through the issues in the legislation. After that meeting, I continued to update the Executive. The First Minister asked me a series of questions to which I provided responses, and we then changed the legislation by removing the provisions to do with fines and potential court action. I had a protracted period of engagement directly with Sinn Féin, and, when the legislation was approved, there was not one word of opposition from any Sinn Féin Minister on the Executive: not one word.

My party has approved legislation going through the Executive, and I and my colleagues on the Executive have said, "We're not blocking this. We are letting it go through but are indicating that we are opposed to it for the following reasons". I know that Mr Sheehan has never been on the Executive, but I have, and that is the normal way in which Ministers and parties articulate that they are opposed to legislation. If the Bill before us is so obnoxious and so intimidatory, as the Sinn Féin Members who spoke said that it is, towards the teaching profession, why was Sinn Féin silent at the Executive?

Mr Buckley: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Givan: Why did it not continue to block the legislation, which it had blocked since November 2024? Sinn Féin says that it is such appalling legislation. I would never let appalling legislation out of the Executive. If I felt that legislation was that bad, I would not let it out of the Executive. I would exercise our veto. Sinn Féin has a veto, but it did not exercise it for this Bill; in fact, it engaged with me to get to the Bill that is before us today. Why the U-turn?

I give way to Mr Buckley.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Minister for giving way. He sets out a detailed timeline of legitimate conversation, discussion and compromise with Executive colleagues, which is the right thing to do. Will he agree that it is of significant worry that it appears that the Sinn Féin First Minister and her Executive team seem to have turned 180 degrees following pressure from its three Back-Bench Members on the Education Committee? What does that say about leadership in Sinn Féin?

Mr Givan: That is of concern. Is it because of Mr Carroll? Is it because of Mr O'Toole? Is it because of the by-election results in Dublin Central and Galway West? Is it because of Mr Sheehan personally? I do not know. He got up in the Chamber today and said, "I speak for Sinn Féin". That is duly noted. On education, he speaks for Sinn Féin. I know that he has not been on the Executive. Is that a problem for him? I do not know. Maybe the Sinn Féin ministerial team has lost the confidence of its Assembly group. If, as a Minister from the DUP, I had taken legislation to the Executive that my ministerial colleagues had approved but DUP Members behind me then dictated that I do —

Mr Baker: Will the Minister give way.

Mr Givan: — a U-turn, that would say to me that I had lost the confidence of those Members. It appears to me that the Sinn Féin leadership team has lost the confidence of rank-and-file Sinn Féin MLAs.

I will give way to Mr Baker.

Mr Baker: For the past seven minutes of your winding-up speech, you have been talking about something coming out of the Executive. What is really hurting you right now is that you know that we will not support the principle of what you want to do. It is being set out clearly that the Bill that you really want will not get through its later stages. You have really lost today, and that is what hurts you the most. Get on to your Bill and stop worrying about us.

Mr Givan: The arrogance — the absolute arrogance. I have not lost anything today. Do you want to know who will lose if we do not get the Bill passed? Children. Children will lose. Maybe it is of no concern to Mr Baker that we do not have an effective inspection regime to identify child safeguarding issues. He uses it as a political game. I think that the public will see that for what it is: a frenzy that that party has whipped up, claiming to speak on behalf of teachers. Trust me: Sinn Féin does not speak on behalf of teachers. The party is using that.

Other Members have raised what I regard as legitimate issues, which, I trust, we will be able to address. I will seek to do that. However, there has not been one change to the Bill that Sinn Féin approved. No amount of spin and distraction, which is what it is, will change that. When you approve a Bill and engage in the Executive, the draft legislation is produced and brought forward and, for whatever reason, you are then against it, you have to create the drama. You have to throw up the smokescreen. I have been in politics long enough to know how the game works. That is what has gone on with Sinn Féin in the past 48 hours. Pat has pulled rank. He has given the order, and now we have the smokescreen that has been created by Sinn Féin. That is distraction politics. That is what you do. Maybe the real reason will come out in due course. I have not lost anything today. I fear that it is the children to whom we ought to be giving protection who could lose as a result of that.

Since the Bill was approved by the Executive and introduced to the Assembly, not one iota of it has changed — not one clause, principle or word of substance. The only thing that has changed is the position of Sinn Féin. There has been much talk of workload, which I am addressing in a meaningful way. I would go further and faster if more resources were provided by the Department of Finance. Some of the 27 recommendations that were identified by the independent panel on teacher workload require resources. Do you know the pressure that I am under from the Sinn Féin Finance Minister to make cuts? "Find £600 million and cut it in your Education Department". That is Sinn Féin. We can all talk in the Chamber about workload and supporting our teachers. However, when it comes to actually implementing a process that will address workload, I am having to do that in an environment where the Sinn Féin Finance Minister is not giving me the resources that I need. The schools that I visit that want budget increases are not blaming me. They expect me to stand up and fight for them in the Executive, which I am doing.

There cannot, however, be a trade-off between workload and children's safety. While I absolutely understand and agree with all the frustrations that many Members have articulated on teachers' behalf about the stressful environment that they are in and the workload pressures that they are under — that is why we are taking forward the reform of our education system, and that will take time — let us never get to a place where we trade off the frustrations about workload and pressures in our school environment with children's safety. We would not do it for our elderly people in nursing homes, the young children who are involved with social services or those who are in the early years settings that are regulated by the Department of Health and the RQIA. It would not matter how much pressure those public-sector workers were under in the health service or social services. I do not believe that a single Member would stand up and say, "No inspections are allowed in our nursing homes". They would not do it — quite rightly. You should not call for that. It would be wrong. Why is it different when it comes to education? Why is it different to trade off workload pressures with an appropriate inspection regime that helps school improvement and can help to ensure that appropriate child safeguarding measures are in place?

You do it in the face of information. You do it in the face of clear evidence that real issues have been identified.

I will ask this simple question: why should the protection of a prisoner — Sinn Féin Members are good at standing up for the rights of prisoners; some of them were in prison —.

Mr Sheehan: You quoted a former prisoner earlier.

Mr Givan: I quoted one earlier. I hoped that I could find, somewhere in the deep recesses of Mr Sheehan's heart, his conscience, so I invoked Mr Mandela. Mr Sheehan will not listen to me, so I thought that he might listen to his good friend Madiba, but not even that will stir him up.

Why should the protection of a prisoner be regarded more highly than that of a child in school? Maintaining an undisrupted programme of school inspection is key to delivering an education that meets the needs of all children.

A number of Members have spoken about the importance of trusting the teaching profession and of ensuring that nothing in the Bill undermines teachers' dedication, professionalism and integrity. Let me address that point very directly. The Bill is not an attack on teachers; far from it. I should have said this at the start, but forgive me: my sister is a schoolteacher. I declare the interest in the appropriate places. I have other family members who are teachers. I benefited — as you all did — from teachers. The idea that I would somehow want to undermine and attack our teaching profession is utter nonsense, and it would only be done for the reason that Mr Buckley referred to: distraction. The Bill does not undermine teachers; it is a recognition of the critical importance of teaching as a profession and of the standards that rightly accompany that status.

At its core, cooperation with inspection is a fundamental element of professional practice. Inspection is not about catching schools out; it is about helping them to improve. We talk about improvement as if it just happens on its own, but it does not. Improvement happens when we are challenged. It happens when we are seen clearly. Most importantly, it happens when we are willing to confront the truth. That is why inspection matters. It is the moment when we stop and ask ourselves this: are we truly giving every child the education that they deserve? Every child only gets one chance: one chance at a lesson; one chance at a year; once chance at their future. Without inspection — without that external lens — it is all too easy to believe that we are doing enough, when we could be doing so much more. Inspection shines a light. Inspection shows our strengths and where we must do better. It challenges complacency. It can raise expectation. It demands that we do not settle. Inspection ensures that we do not stand still. It ensures that no child is overlooked. It ensures that excellence is not an aspiration but an expectation. Put simply, what we inspect, we improve, and what we improve challenges lives. That is why I was delighted when, as soon as the action short of strike ended, principals proactively reached out and said, "Please inspect my school". They wanted to know whether they were doing the right thing; whether they could do it better; whether it could be improved. They did not fear inspection; they welcomed it.

Here is the problem with the trade union approach. The trade unions and ETI engaged directly with the Department of Education and the inspectorate and redesigned the inspection process — they changed it. No more is there a publication that says, "Your school is outstanding", "very good", "below average" or "unsatisfactory". That is gone. There is no public, outward-facing criticism of any school. The inspection process was redesigned with the unions. The unions endorsed that inspection system. They welcomed it. Overwhelmingly, those who have gone through the new inspection process have said that it was a positive experience for them. My problem with the trade unions, though, is that they continue to refuse inspection during industrial action, despite the reformation of inspection and despite the fact that, as every Member in the Chamber has said, inspection is good for education and we all support it.

Only last year, when industrial action was re-engaged for a brief period, what was deployed? Refusal to allow inspection.

That cannot be right. We cannot trade off inspection against frustration. Some things ought to be beyond the reach of industrial action. I contend that inspection is one of those things, because of the critical importance that it plays in school improvement and in identifying child safeguarding issues. Surely that should put it beyond the reach of industrial action. The only way to do that is to have some form of deterrent. Otherwise, it is meaningless.

We are seeking to prevent the use of inspections in the way England, Scotland, Wales and the Republic of Ireland have prevented it. Not once has there been a financial penalty or a prosecution in the courts, because obstruction of inspection has been taken out of the options for industrial action leverage. They do not use it. In fact, trade unions are shocked that their counterparts in Northern Ireland can deploy it. It has never happened. I do not want any teacher to ever be referred for professional misconduct. It happens, just as it does in any profession. A ruling professional body will look into the conduct of its members. We all accept that as normal and acceptable, but I do not want any teacher to go through that. I do not want them ever to be referred for non-cooperation with inspection. I never want that to happen. However, the only way that we can ensure that it does not happen is to remove inspection as part of the toolkit of deployment.

Mr Delargy: I thank the Minister for giving way. The Minister has made it very clear, particularly in the past few minutes, that his objective is to smash unions and remove the right for teachers and education staff to have access to campaign for better conditions and fair pay. When I was teaching, that was the reason that we engaged in industrial action. It was because Ministers in the Department of Education consistently failed to stand up for teachers. The biggest issue in the teaching workforce today is retention, and the reason is that teachers feel undervalued. They feel intimidated by the Bill. That is what they have told us time and time again. You should listen to the unions, not to your Department.

Mr Baker: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Givan: 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:

listen to this, Members —

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.

Mr Sheehan: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Givan: I believe unequivocally that it will.

I give way to Mr Sheehan.

Mr Sheehan: I agree with what you say, insofar as children should be at the centre of the Bill. However, as I mentioned in an intervention when Mr Brooks, I think, was speaking, when it comes to the issue of restrictive practices on children, you cannot come to an agreement with some of the foremost organisations that have expertise in that field. Similarly, you cannot come to an agreement on the issue of inspections and trade unions. There are other areas in which that is true as well. I said earlier that the theme was the Minister, but it is not: the theme is conflict, and the common denominator is the Minister. For whatever reason, you find it impossible to work with trade unions, the Children's Law Centre, the RCN and other stakeholders in all of those areas of conflict. Why can you not do that for the sake of children, child safeguarding and the protection of children? Why can you not come to an agreement? Instead, you want to withdraw the rights of workers to take industrial action and impose some sort of sanction on them.

That is only thing that you want to do. You want to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut, when negotiating and coming to agreement is the way in which to move forward on all the issues that involve child protection and child safeguarding.

Mr Givan: The Member had the chance to make a lengthy speech earlier. He is now trying to reframe it. On restrictive practices, has he not been following the comments that one of the parents involved in this debate has been making about his position? She is against it. She does not support your position. That is somebody who suffered restrictive practices. I suspect that the Member has heard directly from the individual, who is actively saying that Sinn Féin has got it wrong. Whose voice are you listening to? I trust that you will listen to that individual, who wants you to support the Bill.

On restrictive practices, we are working through all the issues, but the trade unions are in conflict with the Royal College of Nursing. There is not an agreed position between the teaching profession and the RCN's position. It is in dispute what the RCN believes should happen in schools and what many teachers and classroom assistants say they have to deal with in our schools. Whose side is the Member now on when it comes to that issue?

Mr Buckley: I thank the Minister for giving way. Does he agree that Mr Sheehan is entitled to his own opinion but certainly not to his own facts on the matter?

Minister, do you find it interesting that, when you returned to the core issue in the Bill, which is child safeguarding, and outlined clearly your intent to safeguard children, Mr Sheehan immediately objected in order to try to reframe the debate almost to make you the abuser rather than have it in the Bill that children have the foremost protection that this place can offer them?

Mr Givan: It is the tried and trusted tactic, particularly from the three Sinn Féin members of the Education Committee. Mr O'Toole referred to it in a previous debate. Let us make the Minister the bogeyman. Let us make him the problem. That avoids the difficult issues, you see. It is too easy to pin it on the Minister and say, "You're to blame, you're to blame". That is why I need broad shoulders and to take responsibility and be alert. We know the tactics that are being deployed. I could not believe it when Mr Sheehan referred in his earlier comments to unionist majority rule. That was unbelievable. He said that he would not stand for unionist majority rule and that those days are gone. My goodness, when we are talking about such an important issue, that is where Sinn Féin had to go to.

Mr Sheehan: Will the Minister be corrected on what he said?

Mr Givan: I am always happy to be corrected by Mr Sheehan.

Mr Sheehan: I never mentioned majority. What I said was "single-party unionist regime". Those were the old days, when you could push through whatever you wanted in a ramstam way. In 50 years, nationalists succeeded in having only one piece of legislation enacted, and that was about wild birds. Those days are over. They are gone, and they are not coming back, I am sorry to tell you.

Mr Givan: I do not want the debate to descend to point at which it did before we broke, but this is not the place to have that conversation when we are discussing inspection and child safeguarding. I say to the Member that his party is the biggest party in the Executive, much as that pains me. You are the biggest party. Your party holds the position of First Minister of Northern Ireland. Sinn Féin has a veto. It put the Bill on the agenda, and it approved it at the Executive. That is what the biggest party in the Executive did, and now it has U-turned in the Assembly.

A couple of Members commented on the actual substance of the Bill. I think that I have addressed most of the concerns that were raised. Mr Mathison spoke about the question of RE inspections being a part of the Bill. I think that the Bill is the most appropriate vehicle for dealing with that issue in as timely a fashion as possible. I appreciate that the Education Committee has a heavy workload. Mr Sheehan said that there were multiple Bills, and he is correct.

However, I trust that the Committee will be able to navigate through a Bill that includes RE inspections.

Mr Mathison mentioned that things are fragile on the issue of inspection, but there is not going to be a perfect time to do this. In my view, this legislation should have been dealt with over a decade ago. We should not have had nearly a decade of action short of strike, which frustrated inspection. That would have been the best time to have this Bill. I suspect that there is never a good time to manage something like this through the legislative programme, but, ultimately, it is the right thing to do because the intent behind it is important, and that is where we need to remain focused.

I appeal to Members to use whatever influence they have with the trade unions. If, as part of their collective action, they prevented inspection in all areas, I think that most Members would agree that that would be debilitating for the school system. I ask Members to appeal to the trade unions to take inspection off the table voluntarily. This legislation would not be necessary if they were to make an agreement. I asked them to make an agreement with me. Sinn Féin and the Alliance Party asked me at the Executive table to engage with the unions. I did engage with them, and they did not provide a response. If the trade unions were to step forward and announce that they would no longer use inspection as part of industrial action, we would not need clause 3. They have not said that. Maybe they will, and maybe that could be a justification for some Members taking the approach that they have argued for. Encourage the unions to step forward to do that. I would certainly welcome their doing that.

I recognise the sincerity with which Mr Mathison and Michelle Guy raised their issues. I have given an assurance that I will work with them to seek a way to address those concerns and ensure that there are appropriate guard rails around what a referral to the professional body would look like. There should be scope to amend the Bill to reflect that in a way that would be helpful. That is the approach that I intend to take, and I will work with the Committee to do that.

Ultimately, though, this is Assembly legislation, and this is the point at which I agree with the Chairman of the Education Committee. I cannot prevent a single Member from tabling an amendment. I cannot prevent any Member from tabling an amendment that states, "Clause 3 does not stand part of the Bill". I cannot prevent any Member from doing that, and the vote will happen accordingly. This is now an Assembly Bill. It was approved at the Executive by Sinn Féin and the DUP.

Ms Ennis: Tell the truth, Minister.

Mr Givan: The Chief Whip of Sinn Féin says, "Tell the truth." The truth is that the Bill was agreed at the Executive, it was endorsed by Sinn Féin, and the First Minister put it on the agenda. I do not know how many times I need to say that. The facts speak for themselves. [Inaudible.]

Mr Givan: I see no Ministers here. Sinn Féin did not object.

Ms Ennis: It was not endorsed by Sinn Féin.

Mr Givan: Sinn Féin did not object.

Ms Ennis: Tell the truth, Minister.

Mr Givan: Sinn Féin did not object.

Ms Ennis: Tell the truth.

Mr Givan: Sorry, if the Member wants to stand up and call me a liar, she should feel free to stand up and say, "The Minister's telling lies", and I will happily correct her.

Ms Ennis: Minister, you have continued to misrepresent Sinn Féin's position because it is convenient for you. You talked about smokescreens. You want to create a smokescreen to deflect from the fact that the Bill has no support from the unions and no support from teachers. You want to make Sinn Féin the story to deflect from the Bill's failings. That is the truth of the matter.

Mr Givan: That is not the truth. I am nearly finished because I know that Members want to vote. It is nearly 9.00 pm, and this is the start of many a long night as we approach the end of the mandate. I have outlined the truth, and it is an uncomfortable truth for Sinn Féin. It did not support the Bill at the start. Sinn Féin engaged with me directly. It authorised Caoimhe Archibald to sit with me in a room, which I did, and we worked through the Bill. The First Minister asked me, "Can you remove these elements of the Bill?", and I removed the elements that Sinn Féin did not want and replaced them with an alternative, which Sinn Féin supported. Not only did it then support it, but after that direct engagement with Sinn Féin, the First Minister approved it on the agenda, and it went through the Executive unopposed. That is the truth. It may be an uncomfortable truth for Sinn Féin, but that is exactly what happened.

This is focused and proportionate legislation. It closes a long-standing gap in our legal framework, brings us more closely in line with other jurisdictions, supports improvement and, most importantly, protects children. Every parent whom I have ever met wants to know whether their child is likely to get a good education at their school. The question before us is simple: are we prepared to ensure that a fundamental safeguard in our education system can operate consistently, effectively and without obstruction? I believe that we should be.

We should never forget that the ETI's primary purpose is to champion the right of every child to a decent education. Above all else, the inspectorate is a champion for children. We want to see high standards and positive outcomes for all children. As a society, we start to tackle disadvantage by opening new doors and creating new opportunities and better life chances, but we will not do so without regular, consistent external inspection. We can always do better, and we should never stop striving to do better, especially for the most disadvantaged and vulnerable. This is an area where we can and must do better. Our children deserve nothing less. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs wrote to the Speaker today to advise that he has withdrawn the regulations and, therefore, will not move the motion. He will lay the regulations again in due course. As the regulations have been withdrawn, the motion in the Order Paper cannot be moved, and I will not invite the Minister to do so.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The motion has not been moved. I understand that the Ulster Unionist Party will seek to have the motion rescheduled, which is, of course, a matter for the Business Committee. Thank you, Ms Armstrong.