Debate contribution: Executive Budget

Debate contribution by Mr Jon Burrows on 14 September 2026.

MLA: Mr Jon Burrows
Party at the time: Ulster Unionist Party
Date: 14 September 2026
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Opposition Business
Heading: Executive Budget
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5685401

Text

It is a basic responsibility of any credible Government to have a Budget. It is disappointing that one has not been agreed. There have been too many years of stop-start Government and single-year settlements, and we badly need a multi-year Budget. We are still the only Administration that is underfunded. Wales and Scotland are funded at least at their need, but we are not. We should be funded at around 128%, if we look at the best figures. It is imperative that we continue to negotiate hard with the UK Government and get the settlement that the people of Northern Ireland deserve in order to have sustainable public services. We in the Ulster Unionist Party will continue to negotiate, and I am pleased that the Government have moved — not far enough yet — to offer roughly £1·5 billion. However, we have to accept that this place lacks credibility when we look the Secretary of State or anyone in the UK Treasury in the eye. We have failed to upgrade and optimise our Assembly in its institution and operation. We have continued to waste money. We have continued to fail to deal with transformation. We have continued to fail to deal with waste as regards changing things such as procurement. Vast sums of money go down the drain. Too often, we are penny wise and pound foolish. As much as we need to press the Government to give us the appropriate funding settlement, we have to look in the mirror and accept that we are part of the problem as well. There is a good case for saying that Northern Ireland has particular problems because of the legacy of the past. There are histories of mental health issues and trauma, victims and all kinds of litigation. We have a divided society. Were we starting with a fresh piece of paper, we would not design the delivery of public services in the way that it is, but we are where we are, and it will be a long time before we address the underlying issues. Therefore, we need that additional support. We need pay parity. It is simply not acceptable that we face uncertainty, meaning that our front-line workers may not get their pay awards and may have to consider going on strike. I come back to this point, however: the First Minister is in Cardiff today, signing the manifesto of Plaid Cymru and the SNP. Even if no public funds were used to pay for that trip — I asked a question for priority written answer today to that effect — there is an opportunity cost, because Ms O'Neill is paid by the taxpayer. She should be here, not away on a party political stunt. It goes to the very essence of our problems that someone who is paid a wage to be here and deal with the issues in Northern Ireland is signing the manifesto commitments of two other separatist leaders. It shows where the priorities are all wrong. In essence, let me say this: the SDLP is right to raise issues about how dysfunctional this place is and how much waste there is. I get that the Opposition should have motions on Opposition day, but look at the vast waste of money that this place spends on other kinds of motions that are tabled by all parties, because they are there to bring them. There is hour after hour of fanfare for non-binding motions on all manner of things, with Hansard staff typing away, Ministers being brought away from their day job and MLAs sitting here despite the fact that they could be doing all kinds of other things. They then go out and say, "We agreed a motion", and the public, who pay our wages, think for a moment, "Oh, will something change?". The answer is no. It is a sixth-form debating society, albeit a rather grand and nice one. What a waste of time and money.
Let us be quite clear. Non-binding motions are here, and we will use our fair share of them for the most appropriate things. By the way, that is a non-binding motion on aversive training tools. The Alliance Party, through its Justice Ministry, could have banned those tools, but, no, it has not done so, meaning that dogs can get electric shock therapy —
Yes. It does not cover that. Here is the reality: we use those motions, but they are a waste of time. We need to negotiate hard with the UK Government, get a multi-year Budget and move this place on to fixing things. We must stop paying for pothole repairs and, instead, start putting down proper road surfaces the first time. We need to stop being penny wise and pound foolish so that we can look the Government in the eye and say that, if they give us that money, we will spend it wisely and reform our Government. Therefore, I agree, in essence, with what the SDLP is trying to do, but, of course, it will make no difference because it is a non-binding motion.

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

Assessment

Awaiting analysis

This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.

Disagree with this assessment?

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

Challenge this classification