Debate contribution: Budget Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Pat Sheehan on .
- MLA
- Mr Pat Sheehan
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 24 February 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Budget Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5404477
Read the official Assembly record
Text
As my party's education spokesperson, I put on record our support for the approach set out by the Finance Minister. He has been frank about the scale of the financial challenge facing the Executive. After years of underfunding by successive British Governments, our block grant does not reflect the level of need here. The gap continues to limit what we can do. The reserve claim secured this year was not about expanding services; it was about stabilising them and protecting Health and Education. We will continue to press the British Government for a fair funding model that delivers based on objective need. It was almost laughable to hear the back and forth between Brian Kingston and Matthew O'Toole about who was responsible for securing the reserve claim. According to Brian, Gavin Robinson went and whispered in Rachel Reeves's ear and asked her for extra money. How long has Brian been involved in politics? He knows that that is not the way that it works.
Yes, I will.
OK. If you had let me finish before you intervened, I would have explained to you how we get money from the Treasury. What happens is that the Executive negotiate, through the Minister of Finance, any extra moneys coming here. It was the Minister of Finance who secured the reserve claim. It was nothing to do with Gavin Robinson and — I am not attacking Matthew here — nothing to do with the SDLP MPs either. That is the way that the world of politics works. The Member has been around here long enough. I thought that he would have known that by now. Apparently not. I will move on. In a constrained budget, priorities matter. The Department of Education, led by the DUP, manages a budget of over £3 billion. That is a substantial allocation, yet we have seen hundreds of thousands of pounds spent on a phone pouch gimmick, millions of pounds directed towards panels and reviews with predetermined outcomes and further millions of pounds earmarked for a harmful reform agenda that teachers and school leaders are telling us is overwhelming them and the system. The Minister is also eyeing up pouring another couple of million pounds into a new managing authority for controlled schools; a policy that has no evidence base and is contrary to the expert recommendations of the independent review of education. I have asked the Minister on a number of occasions about that proposed managing authority for the controlled sector. His argument is that the Catholic sector has its own managing authority, so the controlled sector needs its own managing authority, because, when it gets that, it will improve educational outcomes in the controlled sector. If that were a cost-neutral issue, I would say, "Fill your boots. Go ahead. Let's see what the outcome is", but it is not: it will cost £1·2 million to set up and millions of pounds of resource funding over the time ahead. The Minister has been unable to produce one scintilla of evidence that setting up that managing authority will improve educational outcomes in the controlled sector.
Go raibh maith agat as sin, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
My issue in raising that was the cost to the public purse of setting up something for which there is no supporting evidence. There has been no academic research. That is what we need to see. I will leave it at that. I have not seen any evidence so far. In order to fund all his so-called priorities, the Education Minister is taking aim at our most vulnerable learners. At the direction of the DUP, the EA is looking at a cost-cutting exercise around the future of one-to-one classroom assistant support. All that is happening while schools struggle with escalating special educational needs pressures, classroom assistants are deeply anxious about their future and principals and teachers face relentless workload pressures. Of course, the Education Minister highlights funding pressures. We all recognise the growth in demand, particularly in special educational needs. However, it is not unreasonable to ask whether the more than £3 billion — £3 billion — that is already allocated is being deployed in the right way. Efficiency in transformation must be reflected in decisions that prioritise learning and support for children and young people. In Education, every pound must be focused on delivering better results and opportunities for our young people. The priority has to be supporting vulnerable learners and backing the teachers and classroom assistants, who work tirelessly every day in our schools. In the challenging financial context, our duty is clear: secure fair funding.
A few years ago, Sinn Féin was being accused of economic illiteracy, and there was always talk of a begging bowl. I am glad to see that every party in the Assembly is now on board with the assertion that we have been underfunded by the British Government for decades. The cost of running this place is still not being met by the British Exchequer. I welcome the fact that other parties have moved on to our ground. In that challenging financial context, our duty is clear. It is to secure fair funding, spend it wisely and ensure that we prioritise our vital public services.
Sure. I will give way.
Of course I agree with that. In fact, the regional economy in the North is outperforming that of every other region in the UK at the moment, apart from, I think, the south-east. I do not know why you thought that I would disagree, but there you go. Sin mise críochnaithe. Sin a bhfuil le rá agam.
930 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: 0.15 (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 (0.89).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.91).
- Subject area: Education structures, integration and community division.
- 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 | 0.09 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.10 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.09 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.15 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.91 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.02 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.06 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.81 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.06 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.05 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.04 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.03 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:02 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.