Debate contribution: Waste and Inefficiency in Government

Debate contribution by Mr Pat Sheehan on 23 March 2026.

MLA

Mr Pat Sheehan

Party at the time

Sinn Féin

Date

23 March 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Waste and Inefficiency in Government

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5466027

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Before I get into the main body of my contribution, I have to say that I was astounded that Timothy Gaston was able to speak for almost five minutes on his most unhealthy of obsessions: who goes into the women's toilets. The one thing that we should be thankful for is that it is no longer a case of, "No popery here": it is now "No wokery here". Good man, Timothy. I almost choked on my cornflakes this morning when I read the motion. I genuinely had to read it twice, because I could not believe that the DUP — the party of RHI — was standing up to lecture anyone on waste and inefficiency. It is the party of the "Fill your boots" mentality and the party of economic and financial illiteracy. The successive Education Ministers from that party have made an art form of waste and inefficiency. Let me be clear: when the Minister of Education blows his budget, he does not pay the price. Do you know who Paul Givan wants to pick up the tab? He and the DUP want our rural schools to pick up the tab; they want children with special educational needs to pay the price; and they want to threaten the future of our classroom assistants to balance the books. Against that backdrop, what is the Minister proposing? At a time when the independent review of education has called for simplification and a move towards a single management authority, he wants to go in the opposite direction: more duplication; another management body; another layer of bureaucracy. How many more millions of pounds is that going to cost?

A dedicated unit has been set up in the EA. Of course, the Minister's ideological crusades are more important than efficiency when it comes to the public purse. Then we are asked to listen to lectures about value for money. I will give another small example of the DUP's cavalier attitude to public finance. The Education Committee is bringing forward a Bill that would give every pupil the right to wear trousers to school. The DUP has said that it is not going to oppose the passage of that Bill. Drafters do not come cheap. It costs thousands of pounds to draft a piece of legislation. With the stroke of a pen, the Minister could issue a statutory guideline to all schools to ensure that every pupil had the right to wear trousers, but the DUP is not interested in money that might be saved. Look at the DUP's record, particularly in Education, where it has been in charge for a decade. The Audit Office found that, despite hundreds of millions being spent on SEN provision, neither the Department nor the Education Authority could demonstrate value for money.

Hundreds of millions have been spent, and there is no evidence of the DUP delivering. At the same time, we see hundreds of thousands of pounds spent on a phone pouch gimmick. The Minister was at pains earlier today to tell others that there is an "off" switch on their phone, but he is happy to spend £250,000 on a pet project. Millions have been poured into a regressive and harmful reform agenda that was lifted straight from a failed experiment in England. Lucy Crehan, who carried out the Minister's curriculum review, was at the Committee last week. She was asked whether academic selection distorts and skews the curriculum in primary schools. Her answer was yes, yet she was not given a remit to look at the curriculum in primary schools. Again, it is about the Minister's ideological crusades. He is not really interested in the public purse or proper reform. We have school buildings with roofs at risk of collapse and classrooms that are not fit for purpose, and we are told that there is no way to prioritise fixing them. Somehow, however, there is money for a state-of-the-art pitch at a school that is already awash with sporting facilities. Let us not forget that, as Mr Burrows mentioned, taxi operators were being given £83 a mile to bring kids to school, and, according to the EA, at least 30 taxi drivers are being paid over £1,000 a week out of the education budget. How can anyone take the motion seriously? Our amendment brings the motion back to reality. It supports the need for efficiency but focuses on doing it properly —

— by reducing reliance on agency staff, strengthening internal recruitment and ensuring that reform is thoughtful, not reckless. Most important, it recognises this simple truth: if you are serious about tackling waste, you do not create more duplication and do not add more bureaucracy. You do not have any wokery here, Timothy. Good man.

797 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Second assessment

Jev’s answers did not settle this record, so a second model, claude-opus-5-5, read the same text (without the MLA’s name or party) and gave its reasons on 21 October 2026. How the second assessment works

Verdict

Not flagged

Public interest or divisiveness

Mixed

Against the published rubric

Most of the speech is a sustained attack on the Department of Education's spending record. It cites RHI, the Audit Office finding on special educational needs provision, a £250,000 phone pouch scheme, school transport costs, a new management body and agency staff, and it supports an amendment on efficiency. The opening and closing lines do carry identity content: they deride another member's concern about single-sex toilets as an "unhealthy obsession" and liken the party to the sectarian slogan "No popery here", now recast as "No wokery here". These jabs are an identity-based dig at a party, but they are brief asides that frame a contribution whose main thrust is waste, budgets and service delivery.

Public interest or divisiveness

The bulk of the contribution scrutinises government spending and education policy, which serves the public interest even though it is sharply partisan. The "No popery here" comparison and the mockery of the single-sex spaces debate are identity-based point-scoring that keep a communal and gender-identity row going. They are repeated at the start and the end for effect, so the divisive element is noticeable alongside the substance.

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:08 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification