Pat Sheehan
West Belfast · Sinn Féin · Northern Ireland
“I thank the Member for giving way. Does she agree that the Minister's School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill was poor legislation and a missed opportunity?”
“The last point that you made reminded me of one of the witnesses — a young girl — who came to the Committee. During the winter, she wore her own overcoat, but she had to take it off 100 yards from the school gate because she was not allowed to wear it into the school.”
“Agus iad ag ullmhú le haghaidh scrúduithe GCSE agus ard-leibhéil, féadann an imní agus an éiginnteacht sin drochthionchar a imirt ar a n-oideachas agus ar a bhfolláine.”
“Is scannalach go deo an foréigean ciníoch a chonaic muid le seachtain anuas. Tá ionsaithe ar theaghlaigh, ar thithe agus ar ghnólachtaí doleithscéil, agus tá siad dochosanta. Níor cheart eagla a mbáis a bheith ar dhaoine neamhurchóideacha mar gheall ar a gcine, a gcúlra ná a gcreideamh.”
“One of the reasons, Daniel, is that, if we were to have blocked the Bill at the Executive, the SDLP would be saying tomorrow morning "This place is dysfunctional. You're blocking legislation. Sinn Féin is blocking legislation, and the DUP is blocking legislation". No, we are not blocking legislation.”
“I have not once today argued against inspections. Not once. The Bill is about one thing and one thing only: intimidating and punishing teachers.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,694 lines we hold for Pat Sheehan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 34.
“It is time for the world to stand up against the Israelis to end the genocide now.”
“They have consistently broken international law; they have used starvation as a weapon of war; and they are involved in the genocide of the Palestinian people. <BR /> <BR />Steve Aiken can sit and laugh all he wants — I have no doubt that he will get up and defend that genocidal regime — but, perhaps, some day, he will show one small bit of humanity. Contrary to what his colleague Doug Beattie said the last time that we talked about this, the attacks on the flotilla came from Israeli drones that dropped flash grenades on to some of the ships, not flares, as Doug Beattie tried to assert in the Assembly. <BR /> <BR />I send my best wishes to all who were involved in the flotilla and those who are still illegally imprisoned at the hands of the Israelis and are receiving ill treatment and brutality.”
“The activists on the flotilla are the best of us. They are the best of humanity. Given that the Israelis have attacked other flotillas, in particular, the Mavi Marmara ship, on which 10 activists were murdered by the Israelis in 2010, it was an act of great courage for those 500 activists to join the flotilla and try to break the illegal Israeli blockade of Gaza. <BR /> <BR />There are Irish activists on the flotilla, not least our comrade and colleague Senator Chris Andrews and Tadhg Hickey, who is a well-known activist from Cork. Reports have come out about the brutality and ill treatment that the 500 activists have received from the Israelis. Remember: the seizure of those vessels in international waters is a war crime. It breaches international law. Of course, the Israelis do not care about international law.”
“The Global Samud flotilla is made up of 500 activists from 44 countries in 40 vessels. It was trying to break the illegal blockade of Gaza and the Israelis' use of starvation as a weapon of war. The flotilla was carrying baby formula and medicines for children who are being starved and whose mothers cannot feed them because they do not have milk in their breasts.”
“There is no point in saying, "Trust me". Trust has to be built, and you did not try to build a relationship with the Committee in any way during the whole process. I reiterate this point: there has been a lack of integrity at every single stage of the process, except the Committee Stage.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. One of the reasons why we are so sceptical is that there was so little integrity in the process. The only real integrity in the whole process came into it at the Committee Stage, because we were misled on a number of occasions. We were told that guidelines were imminent and that they would be with us the following week, but they never arrived. Of course, Minister, you gave a different account of that at Consideration Stage, during which you said that the guidelines would follow the legislation. We were misled in that sense. <BR /> <BR />Other issues have arisen. For example, Minister, half an hour before Consideration Stage, you called the Chair of the Committee in to ask him to withdraw the Committee amendments, but you did so in the knowledge that he could not do that.”
“I just do not think that you are serious. Will the Minister give way?”
“Our job is to stand with those families, and that means keeping the protections and provisions that were agreed at the previous stage. I agree with the other Members who said today that we have lost an opportunity. There is a missed opportunity. We had a real chance of bringing forward a strong and robust piece of legislation that would have driven down the cost of uniforms and made them more affordable for hard-pressed families. Unfortunately, the Bill has been weakened to such an extent that we are not confident that that will happen.”
“The Minister made a case about having listened to experts and about experts having said that the term "declaration" has a legal meaning that means that schools would have to provide evidence of value for money, but I do not accept that. I am not an expert, but for the ordinary person on the street, the word "declaration" has a particular meaning, and it does not mean, in any definition that I have seen, that the school would have to provide evidence. <BR /> <BR />That, therefore, is not real accountability; it is a loophole, and the sweetheart deals could effectively continue, as will the rip-offs. Parents will be left carrying the cost. Families are watching the debate. They want to know whether we in the Assembly are serious about cutting costs or whether we are content to let schools and suppliers carry on as before.”
“It is a technical addition to link guidance to Key Stages; again, there is no difficulty there. The real battle is over amendment Nos 3 and 4. At Consideration Stage, we agreed a strong package to end the rip-off of single-supplier arrangements and the sweetheart deals that some schools and suppliers enjoy at families' expense. Schools would have been required to ensure that at least one independent retailer could sell every item, and they had to publish their supplier contracts. That is how you bring real competition into the system and stop families being ripped off. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 4 is offered as a replacement, but it is clearly weaker. It allows exclusive supplier deals to continue so long as a school says that a deal offers value for money.”
“The issue of guidelines has been raised on a number of occasions during the debate. The content of the guidelines will be critical, because that is what will ultimately dictate whether the Bill will make any difference to hard-pressed families. As a member of the Education Committee, I place on record again my frustration at the fact that we have still not seen draft guidelines, despite having been promised sight of them before recess by senior officials from the Department. <BR /> <BR />I will speak in support of amendment Nos 2 and 6 and in opposition to amendment No 3. Amendment No 2 is straightforward. It broadens the guidance on practicality to cover academic work, play, sport and outdoor learning. That is sensible, and we can support it. Amendment No 6 is similar.”
“<BR /> <BR />I ask him to look at schools, such as Craigavon Integrated College, which is able to provide a uniform for £2 less than the uniform grant. If you are really serious about driving down uniform costs, that is what you need to do. There is no indication here that "best estimates" and so on will make any real, concrete difference to the cost of uniforms.”
“You mentioned in your response to Nick that this is about identifying outliers, but the Bill should not be about identifying outliers. The outliers, of course, should be tackled to make sure that they make their uniforms affordable, but quite a few more schools than just the outliers need to be brought to a position where school uniforms become affordable. <BR /> <BR />Our difficulty is that we do not believe that you are intent on tackling the main offenders. There are some outliers whose uniform costs are really prohibitive — we are talking between £600 and £800 for a school uniform — but there are others at a level just below that that also need to be tackled for their uniform policies. There is no indication in what the Minister is doing with the Bill that he is intent on doing that.”
“<BR /> <BR />If the Bill is to have any degree of success in cutting costs for families, we need to see real accountability and transparency. Scrutiny, reporting and enforcement are key areas of the Bill, and they should be enhanced, not undermined.”
“Families need real evidence that costs are coming down, not just the Department's best guess. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 8 is another attempt by the Minister to weaken his own Bill by slipping in the word "undue". That would create a loophole that could be easily exploited. The Bill is meant to be about fairness and should therefore be about protecting young people and their families. The current wording does that. It makes clear that no child should be disadvantaged because of uniform rules. We will not support any weakening of those limited protections. <BR /> <BR />We have no issue with supporting the technical tidying-up in amendment No 7, and we welcome amendment No 9, which will insert a Public Services Ombudsman report as a trigger for departmental action. That gives parents another credible route for redress.”
“Very well. The Minister has a view on how the provision is being strengthened. In our view, however, the amendment does not strengthen it; it dilutes it. Members just have to read the amendment. It is crystal clear to us that it does not, in any way, strengthen the Bill. As far as we are concerned, amendment No 12 is a weaker version of what was agreed at Consideration Stage, and that is not good enough. <BR /> <BR />Parents who are struggling to pay for a blazer or a PE kit deserve clear evidence that costs are being driven down. We do not see how that will happen. We have still not seen the guidelines, of course. Clause 5 as ordered to stand part at Consideration Stage will give parents factual information on costs. Amendment No 12 enters the realms of aspiration and warm words rather than action. Does the Minister not agree?”
“I take the opportunity to speak in opposition to amendment Nos 5 and 8 and in support of amendment Nos 1, 7, 9, 10 and 11. <BR /> <BR />Two weeks ago, at Consideration Stage, the Assembly supported measures that gave the Bill some teeth. Throughout our scrutiny of the Bill in Committee and as we engaged with the public, families were clear: they wanted fairness. They will not get fairness if there is no scrutiny, no reporting and no enforcement. <BR /> <BR />We are content to support the relocation of the scrutiny duty as proposed in amendment Nos 1 and 11. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 5 and its relationship with amendment No 12 is concerning. The Minister seems to be trying to dilute his own Bill, attempting to strip out the strong reporting duty agreed at Consideration Stage and replace it with a weaker version under amendment No 12.”
“Cé go bhfuil teip ar Rialtas na Breataine maidir lena ndualgas morálta cur i gcoinne an éagóra uafásaí seo, is féidir linn ról a imirt. Ba mhaith liom aird a tharraingt ar an fheachtas Troscadh ar son na Córa agus an iarracht is déanaí acu Troid i gcoinne Mhaoinitheoirí an Chinedhíothaithe, troscadh 24 uair an chloig a bheidh ann go náisiúnta an 10 Deireadh Fómhair, ag comóradh dhá bhliain ó na hionsaithe is déanaí, agus a mbeidh agóidí lena linn ag oifigí na ndaoine a éascaíonn an cinedhíothú seo. Go dtí seo, tá breis is €200 míle bailithe ag Troscadh ar son na Córa do UNRWA.”
“Tá cinedhíothú ar obair le dhá bhliain anuas. Tá i bhfad níos mó ná aitheantas stáit de dhíth. Ba chóir don Bhreatain tacú le feachtas BDS ar a laghad, in áit coir a dhéanamh de. Ba chóir don Bhreatain a bheith diongbháilte i dtaca le lucht déanta an chinedhíothaithe a thabhairt chun cuntais, gan bheith comhpháirteach ann. Mar a dúirt Liam Óg agus é ag labhairt leis na meáin agus lena lucht tacaíochta i ndiaidh an cháis:”
“<BR /> <BR />Rinneadh ionsaí arís ar Global Sumud Flotilla an tseachtain seo caite, agus tuairiscíodh gur buamáladh 11 cheann de na longa a bhí ag iompar cabhrach, cabhair a bhfuil géarghá léi in Gaza. Ba é freagra na Breataine ná "aitheantas" a tabhairt do stát na Palaistíne ar mhaithe le:”
“Tarraingíodh siar na himeachtaí dlí in aghaidh Liam Óig Uí Annaidh, feibh is cóir. Bhí Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh os comhair na cúirte in Westminster arís an tseachtain seo caite, ar chúiseamh a cuireadh go héagórach ina choinne. Arís eile, sheas Feisirí de chuid Shinn Féin i gcuideachta na gcéadta eile taobh amuigh den chúirt le tacaíocht a thabhairt do Liam Óg. Theip ar ionsaí polaitiúil na Breataine ar Kneecap mar ghuth i gcoinne an chinedhíothaithe. <BR /> <BR />Tugadh triúr ball den ghluaiseacht Baghcat, Dífheistiú agus Smachtbhannaí (BDS) os comhair na cúirte an tseachtain seo caite i mBéal Feirste as damáiste coiriúil ó tharla iad a bheith ag agóid i gcoinne earraí Iosraelacha agus na siopaí a dhíolann iad. Sin ceartas na Breataine agaibh, coir a dhéanamh den agóid i gcoinne cinedhíothú.”
“in importing a massive amount of weapons that were used to kill innocent Catholics. Your party formed that organisation.”
“Thanks for giving way. You should focus on your party”
“No. <BR /> <BR />Any published legislation that underpins the proposals will indicate whether the British Government are, in fact, serious about delivering in good faith on their commitments to repeal and replace the Legacy Act and deal with the British state's role during the conflict. Resources will be critical to deliver that package. The onus is on the British Government to provide the resource that is required to deliver that new framework. There should be immediate discussions with the Finance Minister.”
“<BR /> <BR />Our position has always been that all the victims, survivors and families who have been affected should be included in any legacy process. Sinn Féin will scrutinise the fine detail that is provided and urge that the underpinning legislation be published without delay. We will engage with victims' families, advocacy groups and the legal and human rights practitioners who work with them.”
“From its narrow point of view, state killings were OK, so I do not think that it should get too high on the horse of righteousness, particularly when we remember that the DUP had its own armed wing — Ulster Resistance. That was founded and led by DUP leaders, whom we saw flouncing about in their lovely red berets. Of course, Ulster Resistance imported hundreds upon hundreds of weapons, and the Police Ombudsman's report into Operation Greenwich confirmed that weapons that Ulster Resistance brought in were supplied by UDA death squads and murder gangs in the north-west. Therefore, when people on the opposite Benches ask republicans to stand up and come clean, those in the DUP should maybe listen to their own advice.”
“<BR /> <BR />Despite the DUP rhetoric in the debate, the Irish Government have an important role in this process. They are a co-guarantor of the peace process, the Good Friday Agreement and, indeed, the Stormont House Agreement. Only when both Governments have worked together has progress been made. It is crucial that there be a joint approach to legacy matters. <BR /> <BR />The DUP has a political view of whom it classes as victims. That does not include a huge number of victims. Over many years, it fought against victims of the state who were seeking truth and justice. It fought against inquiries such as the Bloody Sunday inquiry and the Pat Finucane inquiry. It praised shoot to kill by British forces, supported the use of plastic bullets against children and fought against lawful inquests.”
“Our focus has been to ensure that any approach to legacy is human-rights compliant and capable of commanding the maximum confidence of families. We have also held firm on the view that all outstanding legacy inquests that were halted on 1 May 2024 should be completed. There should also be an independent investigations unit that is capable of conducting article 2-compliant investigations and, separate to that, an information retrieval mechanism. <BR /> <BR />The absence of a British commitment to grant a public inquiry into the murder of Sean Brown is deeply concerning. Announcing a long-fought-for public inquiry into the Sean Brown case could be crucial to building trust in this British Government's publicly stated intent of helping to bring truth, justice and acknowledgement to all victims and survivors and their families.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Our thoughts are very much with the victims of the conflict on days like today. Those families who refused to be silenced have forced this British Government to recognise that the cruel and callous Legacy Act needs to be repealed and replaced. The key test of the intent of the two Governments is not in what was promised last Friday but what will be in the final legislation when it passes into law. <BR /> <BR />The approach of British Governments since the Stormont House Agreement, which was agreed in 2014, has been deliberate delay and obstruction. Ten years on from the Stormont House Agreement, we in Sinn Féin remain in problem-solving mode on the delivery of previous legacy commitments.”
“The First Minister will no doubt have seen the report that was issued through the UN Human Rights Council. It provides definitive confirmation that the Israeli state is engaged in genocide against the Palestinian people. Does the First Minister agree that the international community must take a principled stand against the ongoing genocidal attacks and the aid blockade against the people of Gaza?”
“Sin mar atá ag páistí scoile in Gaza de dheasca ionsaithe Iosrael. <BR /> <BR />"Aoibhinn beatha an scoláire," ach ní in Gaza, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Ní in Gaza.”
“<BR /> <BR />Níl ann ach gairm in aghaidh gaoithe do dhuine ar bith a bheith ag trácht ar an 15,000 mac léinn atá anois marbh in Gaza de dheasca ionsaithe Iosrael. Ní dhéanfaidh sé lá difir do na Comhaltaí sin. Déanfaidh siad leithscéal eile d’Iosrael, dá áiféisí.”
“<BR /> <BR />I ndiaidh dom bheith ag éisteacht le cuid de na hargóintí a rinneadh sa Teach seo le gairid, nuair a chuala mé cuid de na Comhaltaí go fóill ag dul ar leithscéal Iosrael, ag dul ar leithscéal Iosrael as páistí a mharú agus iad ag iarraidh oideachas a fháil agus ag dul ar leithscéal Iosrael as mná a scaoileadh agus iad ag fanacht le bia a fháil, thuig mé faoi dheireadh go bhfuil cuid de na Comhaltaí ar nós cuma liom faoi fhíricí. Féadann Jews for Justice for Palestinians, B’Tselem, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch agus na Náisiúin Aontaithe, féadann siad uilig go léir uafáis Iosrael a chur ar a súile dóibh, agus tabharfaidh na Comhaltaí sin an chluas bhodhar do na fíricí.”
“Sin na focail a chan cailín óg ó Gaza sa ghearrscannán ‘Soft Skin’. Bhí páistí scoile in Gaza ag caint sa scannán ar an nós atá anois ag máithreacha in Gaza. Scríobhfaidh na máithreacha ainm an pháiste ar lámh nó ar chos an pháiste sula bhfágann an páiste an teach. <BR /> <BR />"Aoibhinn beatha an scoláire," ach ní in Gaza. Bhí an Lá Idirnáisiúnta chun an tOideachas a Chosaint ar an Ionsaí ann tá coicís ó shin. Bliain is an t-am seo, thug mé óráid uaim ar an ábhar chéanna. Thug mé staitisticí agus fíricí faoi líon na mac léinn, na múinteoirí agus na léachtóirí ar mharaigh fórsaí Iosrael iad. Thug mé cuntas ar na scoileanna agus na hollscoileanna ar scrios fórsaí Iosrael iad. Thug mé le fios go raibh an scrios Iosraelach ar an oideachas chomh holc sin gur cheap na Náisiúin Aontaithe focal dó, mar a bhí: an léinn-díothú.”
“I say now to the British Government and the other states that have decided to recognise Palestine, "Don't stop at this point. Let's take action that will save lives. End the genocide. Free Palestine now."”
“It is time for all countries to come together now and isolate that rogue, genocidal state. We had the report from the UN Commission. We recently heard from the International Association of Genocide Scholars that what is taking place in Gaza is a genocide. We had already heard that from B’Tselem, an Israeli human rights organisation; Jews for Justice for Palestinians; Amnesty International; and Human Rights Watch. We did not need all that. Anyone who looks at the situation there and is honest will say that genocide is taking place. <BR /> <BR />We need now, all of us in the international community, to bring in a campaign of sanctions and boycott on Israel in the same way that the apartheid regime in South Africa was isolated internationally, and that, eventually, brought an end to that particular egregious regime.”
“There was a Palestinian state in existence before the Balfour declaration and a Palestinian state there before the establishment of an Israeli state. In one sense, the Palestinian people do not need affirmation from the British Government that there is a legitimate Palestinian state. However, all we can hope is that that is a small step towards more concrete actions rather than the British Government attempting to cover their own back for complicity in the genocide that is currently taking place in Gaza and the West Bank. <BR /> <BR />The British Government should now stop all arms and weapons going to Israel. You cannot claim to be appalled by what is happening in Gaza and, at the same time, supply the bombs and missiles that are being used to blow women and children to pieces.”
“The Minister will be aware that the Audit Office previously reported that, despite hundreds of millions being spent on SEN, neither his Department nor the EA could demonstrate value for money. What assurances has the Minister given his Executive colleagues that, this time, it will be different and that any expenditure that goes into it will go to maximising support for pupils with special needs?”
“You have sort of made the point that I was going to make: there are schools where girls are allowed to wear trousers, but there are schools where they are not. The issue here is whether girls should have the right to wear trousers or not, not whether it is at the whim of some principal of the school or the board of governors or whatever.”
“That may well turn out to be the case, but I do not know why the Member is so confident that it will be. If the amendments from the Committee had been selected, there would have been absolute clarity for that family and that young girl. By the way, that is the same young girl who used to take off her overcoat 100 metres from the school. That is how bad the situation is. She also said that, because her family could not afford the uniform, she was not going to do sport. There would have been clarity in those amendments: there is no clarity now. I do not know why the Member is so confident that there will be, because nobody else is.”
“I am trying to get it out of my way. I will reiterate my point. There were proposals in the amendments that would have allowed girls to wear trousers, which is an issue of equality; allowed parents to buy generic clothing; permitted the use of sew-on crests; and guaranteed adjustments for pupils with disabilities. Unfortunately, none of those amendments was accepted. In my view, that was to the detriment of the Bill, but we will support the group 2 amendments.”
“Go raibh maith agat arís, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.”
“Asking people to blindly trust the Minister and his Department is no longer going to work. Frankly, families cannot afford to trust the Minister on this issue. That is why we worked with others to try to table amendments that were prescriptive and would ensure that affordability, equality, comfort and practicality were built into the legislation. We have missed an opportunity. We could have had proposals that would have allowed girls to wear trousers, allowed generic clothing, permitted the use of sew-on crests and so on.”
“We are being asked to debate the Bill without having seen the draft guidelines, which, we are being told, will make this work. Perhaps, at some stage in the future, we will get clarity on whether the guidelines follow the legislation, or whether they were being worked on and, for some reason, a decision was made not to show them to the Committee. We were promised sight of them months ago. I voted in favour of shortening the Committee scrutiny stage when the Minister asked us to, but I was wrong to do so. I think that the Minister was trying to rush things through, without giving due consideration to all the issues. He was concerned about getting this through as quickly as possible. At that time, we accepted his bona fides in all that, but I am not so sure that we would accept them now.”
“It was raised with us that there might be only one supplier in some rural areas but the contract that a school has with that supplier might provide value for money. If that is the case, and the school can prove that there is value for money, there is no obstacle to it. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 7 requires schools to publish contract details annually. Transparency will shine a light on sweetheart deals and monopolies. If a deal is genuinely value for money, no one should have anything to fear. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 13 tidies up commencement provisions. It is minor but necessary for clarity. <BR /> <BR />As my colleague Cathy Mason said in relation to the previous group of amendments, we need to look at the wider context.”
“That is common sense. Pupils wear the uniforms, and parents pay for them: it is only right that they should have a voice in those matters and, more importantly, that their voices be heard. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 6 is one of the strongest affordability measures. It ensures that uniform items are available from at least one non-exclusive retailer, breaking the monopoly of school-appointed suppliers. We all know that some schools have sweetheart deals with suppliers and get a kickback from those. That is one of the things that the Committee focused on. We wanted to end that practice because, while the school may benefit from a sweetheart deal, the people who suffer are the parents who have to pay for it. We did not rule out schools being able to keep contracts if they can prove value for money.”
“Sinn Féin will support all the amendments in the group. I will take the opportunity to speak briefly to amendment Nos 2, 3, 6 and 7. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 2 changes "may" to "must". Without that, the Department could dodge issuing guidelines altogether. With it, the Department will have a duty and families cannot be left in limbo. This is an opportunity for us, as MLAs, whatever we think about the legislation, to say clearly that, at the very least, guidelines will be issued. Whether they are good enough guidelines is another matter. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 3 requires consultation with:”
“The Minister has been around this place long enough to know that the procedure is that the Executive give approval for Bills to go ahead but that, to coin a phrase, the Executive are not across every jot and tittle of Bills that come through. If you were true to your word, you would never amend any Bill that comes through the Executive because, as far as you are concerned, "That's it. The Executive have approved it". <BR /> <BR />My difficulty is that you are sitting here being disingenuous about aspects of the process to bring forward legislation. That is a fact.”
“The difficulty is that, even today, the Minister appears to be disingenuous on a number of issues, including the guidelines. Officials in the Department were working on guidelines from as far back as when the Bill was first introduced, yet the Minister says that the guidelines follow the proposed legislation. Officials were working away on them. They told us that they would be ready within a week. They told us, "Do not worry about amendments. As soon as you see the guidelines, you will know that there is no need for an amendment". So, what were the officials doing? By the way, I am not blaming the officials. I have no doubt whatsoever that they were instructed from above to say that — no doubt whatsoever. <BR /> <BR />The Minister was also disingenuous today when he said that it is an Executive Bill, as if it is not his Bill.”
“We came at this in the right frame of mind. We know what we want, and we know what we want the legislation to achieve.”