Nick Mathison
Strangford · Alliance Party · Northern Ireland
“That second part is important. In the scrutiny of the Minister's Bill on school uniforms, we got a little tied up over how we could build in provisions on PE, but, when we got to work on this Bill, we found that there is a simple formulation that will ensure that participation in sport and PE, which, we should remember, is a statutory par…”
“<BR /> <BR />On the basis of that feedback and the other evidence that we received, two draft approaches to developing the Bill were considered. The first was to create a separate, stand-alone Bill with a stand-alone right for pupils to be afforded the choice to wear trousers and to set that out in law.”
“Many schools do that really well, but others, regrettably, do not. To me, only legislation will guarantee the behaviour change that we need. It is not good enough for a Minister to say to young people, "But I give you permission to go and campaign. You run the campaign. Look at Rhea and Astrid: didn't they do so well?".”
“I will name a few: the school uniform must be affordable, so schools have no autonomy on that; and schools must consult with parents when they are changing their policy, so they have no autonomy on that. I could go through every one of the guidelines.”
“depending on the activity. That was to ensure that the need for appropriate clothing for sporting activities was reflected. <BR /> <BR />Ultimately, it is a permissive Bill. It is simply focused on creating a universal right to have the choice to wear trousers and enshrining that in the guidance.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will not speak for long, and I do not plan to rehearse everything that has been said. However, I begin by doing something that I overlooked when I spoke at the beginning: thanking the Deputy Chair of the Committee who first proposed the Bill.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,029 lines we hold for Nick Mathison, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 21.
“I thank the Minister for his update. I will highlight the point that, when I was on the council back in 2019, it was already a long-standing saga to get the project over the line, so the people of Newtownards would welcome any progress. On that basis, can the Minister provide any timescale, given that we are years and years into the development of the project? When will the people of Newtownards see a new, redeveloped, fit-for-purpose library in the town?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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?”
“I cannot be clearer than that on the Alliance Party's position at Second Stage. I look forward to the contributions of other Members.”
“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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />Feelings run high on these issues.”
“I need to make some progress. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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.”
“Alliance is crystal clear that the current 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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />We will support the Bill's Second Stage.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. That is for Sinn Féin to answer, not me. I cannot speak for that party. <BR /> <BR />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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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.”
“I do not know how to be clearer than that. <BR /> <BR />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?”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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 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. <BR /> <BR />I will give way to Mr Buckley.”
“<BR /> <BR />I will take an intervention from Mr Brooks and then Mr Buckley.”
“I will give way after I finish making the point. I am happy to take interventions. <BR /> <BR />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 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.”
“<BR /> <BR />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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“<BR /> <BR />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.”
“I want to respond to the Minister's comments first. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“<BR /> <BR />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.”
“<BR /> <BR />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.”
“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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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:”
“<BR /> <BR />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.”
“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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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.”
“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 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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“<BR /> <BR />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. <BR /> <BR />As for the Committee's engagement on some of those issues, we received a pre-legislative briefing on the proposed legislation in September.”
“<BR /> <BR />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.”
“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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”