Motion or amendment: Agreement on a Budget - Amendment 2
Motion or amendment by Mr Eóin Tennyson on .
- MLA
- Mr Eóin Tennyson
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 8 September 2026
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion Amendment · Private Members' Motion · to “Agreement on a Budget”
- Heading
- Agreement on a Budget - Amendment 2
- Assembly identifier
- Document 497202
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Agreement on a Budget - Amendment 2
Leave out all after ‘Fiscal Council’ and insert:
‘confirms that funding Northern Ireland equitably with other devolved jurisdictions would be worth between £1 billion and £3.5 billion more per year to the Executive; supports efforts to secure a fair and sustainable funding settlement from the UK Government; recognises that agreeing the draft budget without additional funding would have resulted in drastic cuts to public services; agrees that repeated cycles of government collapse, the waste associated with segregated public services and the failure to transform those services have contributed significantly to the Executive’s financial pressures; calls on the Minister of Finance to urgently outline how he intends to address the crisis facing public services in Northern Ireland and secure agreement on a Budget; and further calls on the new UK Government to engage constructively with the Executive throughout this process.’
146 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Also tabled by
Each MLA who tabled or co-signed this item has their own record:
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.10 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.91).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.87).
- Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying threshold.
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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.10 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.87 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.11 |
| Adopts it | 0.02 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.66 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.22 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.07 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.04 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:27 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.