Debate contribution: Summer Schemes in Special Schools: Cancellation

Debate contribution by Mr Pat Sheehan on .

MLA
Mr Pat Sheehan
Party at the time
Sinn Féin
Date
31 March 2026
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Private Members' Business
Heading
Summer Schemes in Special Schools: Cancellation
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5471177

Read the official Assembly record

Text

It is often said that society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable citizens. Among our most vulnerable citizens are our children and young people with additional needs — some with very complex needs. They deserve to have a summer scheme, and their families deserve to have some respite from the 24 hours a day that they spend caring for their children. Those children and their families are paying the price for the failure of the Education Minister. Our most vulnerable citizens have been cast to the side by a Minister who believes that there are more important issues, such as spending a quarter of a million pounds on phone pouches, which is one of his pet projects. Summer schemes for children and young people with special needs are often the only opportunity that parents get to have a holiday. I wonder whether Paul Givan —.

I absolutely agree. If anybody wants to see my email inbox, I can show you the number of parents who have contacted us about the issue. I wonder whether Paul Givan thought about those parents when he was in Washington recently rubbing shoulders with the notorious rapist in the White House, or when he jetted off to Israel to hobnob with wanted war criminals — the very people who are responsible for killing 25,000 children in Gaza and the destruction of the complete education infrastructure. Of course, the Minister's conscience was not pricked then, so why should we be surprised that he would deny a summer scheme to relatively few children with special needs here? I do not detect any empathy there at all. I am sick, sore and tired of asking the Minister and his officials about the level of cooperation and collaboration that exists between his Department and the Health Department, particularly in relation to children with special educational needs. Unfortunately, it is clear from the answers that I am getting that there is no collaboration. Paul Givan has known for months — for months — that the summer schemes were not going ahead. Can he tell us how many times he lifted the phone and called Mike Nesbitt to try to get it sorted out? Can he tell us what his officials did to resolve the issue? I can tell you what was done: zero; zilch; nothing. The Education Minister obviously thought that it was not an important enough issue for him to bother intervening in — until, that is, it blew up in the media. I will tell you what he will say. He will say that it was an operational decision for the EA and nothing to do with him. Time and time again, children with special educational needs and their families are paying the price for the failure of the Education and Health Ministers to work together. That is a disgrace of epic proportions, and it is that Minister's fault.

No.

In fairness to the Education Minister, perhaps he was too busy with other issues. Last week, for example, just before recess, he managed to get two written ministerial statements out. One attacked two female MLAs from the Education Committee who had had the temerity to criticise some of his policy. The Minister does not like criticism, especially when it comes from women. The other statement was a correction to an answer that he had given in the Chamber to a question on whether he had ever been accused of bullying. Yes, the Minister is a busy man. I welcome the Minister's U-turn on the summer schemes, even though the matter should never have reached this point. However, we are hearing from sources within the EA that it still might not be capable of ensuring that the summer schemes will go ahead, so we need to hear unequivocally from the Minister today that they will proceed. He needs to urgently publish a timeline so that families know when schemes will take place and when they will receive the information that they need.

Briefly, yes.

I could not agree more. At the outset, I said:

"society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable citizens".

I hope that society in general will not be blamed for this debacle. That distinction belongs to the Education Minister, Paul Givan. Stand up and take a bow, Minister. You will always be remembered for withdrawing bursaries that went to children from disadvantaged backgrounds to enable them go to the Gaeltacht. Now, you can add another string to your bow, as the Minister who could not be bothered to organise summer schemes for children with special educational needs.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.35 (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 (0.81).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (0.82).
  • Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
  • The overall probability was low and the text did not adopt any identity-based framing.

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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.09No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.07No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.12No
Controversy escalation0.52No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.81Yes
Overall judgement0.35Between thresholds
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.82
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.05
Adopts it0.13
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits0.99
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.01
No identity-related subject0.00
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:16 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