Debate contribution: Budget 2025-26
Debate contribution by Mr Peter Martin on .
- MLA
- Mr Peter Martin
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 19 May 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Budget 2025-26
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4968681
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I speak on behalf of my party but also as a member of the Education Committee. I will address some short remarks to the Budget as it pertains to the issues under the remit of Education. There are a range of projects and programmes that Members in this place, not least me — I reflect on the recent comments made by my colleague behind me — would love to see delivered in our schools and for our young people through the auspices of the Department. The Minister doubtless shares such enthusiasm, but, as Members will be aware, he is limited by the parameters set by the Finance Minister through the Budget allocation. It will be no surprise to any Member in the Chamber that he has made it clear that he does not believe that the Education allocation is nearly enough; in fact, in March, the Minister said that he was facing pressures of around £400 million. However, I also recognise that the Finance Minister is in a precarious position, but there can be few greater priorities than the education of our children, both ethically and in terms of the investment that it delivers for our society. Specifically, I note the resource DEL allocations contained in the PFG priorities. First, to deliver:
"more affordable, accessible, high-quality early learning and childcare".
I note that £50 million has been made available and will remain centrally held for allocation. I also acknowledge the Finance Minister's reference earlier today to an additional £5 million from June monitoring that would be added to that. Under the priority area:
"Better Support for Children and Young People with Special Educational Needs",
some £15 million has been allocated. Both of those are PFG priorities, and, whilst we are speaking about the 2025-26 Budget today, it would be short-sighted not to make the point — if there is a point in this speech, I imagine that this is it — that those will need to be replicated and increased in 2026-27.
The independent review of education outlined the fact that our education sector literally requires additional hundreds of millions of pounds to address long-standing shortfalls, and there is a range of other consistent demands on the Education budget. I am sure that I could speak for hours — apparently, I am limited to seven minutes — but I will not do that. However, it is also worth addressing the pressures on special educational needs. I will quote directly from the new SEN reform agenda, which says the following:
"Whilst some actions contained within this Delivery Plan can proceed without additional funding, full implementation will require significant investment. The high level estimated cost of delivery is £570m over a five-year period."
There is also significant pressure on the capital budgets in the Department. That includes major capital projects, which is new schools, school enhancement programmes (SEPs) and minor works. I also want to acknowledge the ring-fenced SEN capital that the Education Minister has introduced specifically to build new schools for special needs kids. I will reflect the fact that members of the Education Committee, mainly from Executive parties, regularly asked the Minister to do more: raise funding for schools, reintroduce programmes or, perhaps, refurbish more buildings, all of which are very notable and worthwhile. It is worth making the point that the Education Minister can spend only the money that is allocated to him. He has no magic money-creating wand, certainly not one that I am aware of, so, if you want him to do more, more must be given to him and the Department to enable them to achieve that. While the 2025-26 Budget demonstrates a commitment to Education through increased allocations and targeted investments, it is my understanding that significant funding gaps remain. Addressing those shortfalls is imperative to ensure that every child in Northern Ireland receives the quality education that they deserve.
645 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.94).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.72 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.21 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.07 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:38 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.