Debate contribution: Executive Budget

Debate contribution by Mr Colin McGrath on 14 September 2026.

MLA: Mr Colin McGrath
Party at the time: Social Democratic and Labour Party
Date: 14 September 2026
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Opposition Business
Heading: Executive Budget
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5685846

Text

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. Well, isn't the Budget process that we are talking about just bonkers? Here we are, on 14 September, eight months after the Finance Minister brought forward his supposedly transformative three-year Budget, which the Executive could not agree. We are five — nearly six — months into the financial year and the Executive have still not agreed a Budget at all. It is five months into the financial year, and the people charged with governing this place still cannot agree how to allocate nearly £20 billion. That is not normal government, nor is it responsible government: it is bonkers. As expected, throughout the debate, Members from Executive parties came forward with their prepared defences of what the Executive are doing — or, rather, failing to do. We could have written the script before the debate: "The Brits aren't giving us enough money"; "We are being subjected to austerity"; "We need to protect public services", and so it goes on. Here is the thing, however: there is truth in some elements of the Executive's argument. The financial settlement is incredibly difficult. The draft Budget proposed an increase in non-earmarked day-to-day spending this year of just 0·8% in cash terms against pay awards, inflation and increasing demands for services. Therefore, yes, of course we should press the British Government for a better settlement. Nobody disputes that, but this is where it becomes bonkers: a difficult Budget does not become less difficult because you have refused to agree one. All parties sought power on the understanding that they would work to deliver better public services for this place and that they would put in the hard yards and take the hard decisions. Operating without a Budget does not remove those decisions; it delays them, and that delay makes things harder. That is the central point that Executive parties simply cannot answer. You cannot protect public services by refusing to budget for public services. You cannot give certainty to workers by refusing to make decisions about their pay. You cannot transform services while denying Departments the certainty that they need for transformation. You cannot seriously tell voluntary organisations, community groups, schools, health trusts or businesses that refusing to take a decision is somehow an act of responsible government. The reality is that the Executive just cannot, or will not, agree a Budget, and so Departments are currently relying on emergency arrangements that ultimately permit spending only up to 95% of last year's starting point. The Fiscal Council is explicit that, once that limit is reached, the options are stark: the Assembly passes a Budget Act, Westminster legislates for one or Westminster changes the legal framework. That is about as bonkers as it can get.
Of course.
Absolutely. It will create more austerity because it will deliver an even bigger cut. Running in at the end with a big pot of money does not solve the problems. If you go to an organisation six months into the year and say that you are cutting its budget by 50%, it will have nothing left for the rest of the year. It is irresponsible to try to govern in that way. We restored these institutions so that locally elected Ministers could take decisions. We have a functioning Assembly, and we have an Executive, although I do not know whether I would call them "functioning". We have a Finance Minister and departmental Ministers, yet we are drifting towards circumstances in which Westminster may ultimately have to legislate because the Executive here cannot perform the most basic function of government. That is an abdication of responsibility. What is really going on? Have the Executive suddenly coalesced in some great united front against the big, bad Brits? I am not buying that, and I do not think that the public are buying it either. The failure to set a Budget has become a fig leaf for something much deeper: the Executive are entirely impotent when it comes to reaching agreement and are now prepared to lay public services and people's financial futures at the altar of disagreement. What a disgrace.
Yes.
That is about the most ridiculous thing that I have ever heard. You refuse to set a Budget, which means that —. Take health trusts as an example: how can they plan? Are they employing any new staff at the minute? Probably not, because they do not know whether they have money or not. Why not give them the budget for this year and, at the same time, ask for the extra money? Nobody is saying, "Do not ask for the extra money".
I remember as a kid getting my £1 pocket money. If I had wanted £1·50, however, I would have asked for the extra money. I would not have said, "Don't give me the pound". That is a silly way in which to do things.
Yes, but I am well into my allotted time.
We do not need to. The public sector is having to do it anyway, because you will not take the decisions that you have to. It is being left to have to make cuts. In health, the trusts have had to put together a plan to slash investment, because you will not give them any money. It is not about their not having money for the future but about the uncertainty that they face today. That is why we say that the responsibility for that lies at the door of Stormont Castle, where the Executive sit and refuse to find agreement. I will run through some of the things that other parties mentioned. Miss Hargey made some reasonable points about responsibility. Responsibility needs to be taken for the implementation of our finances. If we are serious about having a new Ireland, we must show, and prove to, the people of this island that we can take responsibility and make decisions. Setting a Budget on time is crucial to displaying that we can be serious and take responsibility. The DUP mentioned supporting the Sinn Féin amendment. Of course you will. When it comes to delivery, you are two sides of the same coin. You can have all the sham fights that you want for your social media accounts, but when it comes to the fiscal management of this place, there is barely a paper's width between the two of you. In its amendment, Alliance suggests that agreeing to the Budget would have resulted in drastic cuts, but it is missing the point spectacularly. Not agreeing a Budget does not make the cuts disappear. Rather, it simply leaves Departments trying to manage them without having certainty, without the ability to plan properly and without the ability to make long-term decisions. Making the UUP's contribution, Mr Burrows, who has been a native of this parish for the past number of months, took to telling us how this place works. Thankfully, my 10 years' experience of this place has helped me understand what happens here. Yes, a non-binding motion is, of course, non-binding. It is meant to be used simply to raise awareness of issues. As a legislature, however, we should be dealing in legislation. In an open and transparent democracy, an Opposition day motion is a pillar. It allows a Government or an Executive to remember that they cannot take unilateral decisions without there being accountability and the awkward and difficult questions that can be asked in public. As an Opposition, we will make sure that we ask those questions. Several references were made to our not having alternatives. We do have alternatives, and we have published them, but let us not let the truth get in the way of having a good dig at the Opposition. As the leader of the Opposition said, however, we do not have access to the full, detailed costs, because, unlike what happens in other parts of these islands, the Executive will not give us access to the figures and costings. Openness and transparency, anyone? I will now turn to the Minister's remarks. He is a Minister who has not delivered a Budget. He is in a situation in which public services are threatened with being slashed. As a result and a consequence, we have a fiscal landscape that is totally uncertain. His reply to all of that is, "Well, where's yours?".
Seriously, how can we have an alternative to a Budget if it does not exist in the first place? That is why we are asking for one to be delivered.

1,418 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