Debate contribution: Budget Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Ms Diane Forsythe on .

MLA
Ms Diane Forsythe
Party at the time
Democratic Unionist Party
Date
19 February 2024
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Executive Committee Business
Heading
Budget Bill: Second Stage
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4223438

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the Finance Minister for addressing the House today. As we speak on the Budget Bill, it is important that a significant difference is noted and emphasised between this Budget Bill, which covers the approvals for the remaining six weeks of the 2023-24 financial year and the commencement of 2024-25, and the separate, important issue of the full debate and scrutiny of a complete 2024-25 Budget, which should be completed as soon as possible in the coming months and put in place to underpin the key priorities and objectives of the new Programme for Government. Today's Bill is being presented under accelerated passage, due to the circumstances of timing, to enable our Departments to function in the meantime. We are not where we would have wanted to be, and I trust that, in future, we will enjoy much more appropriate scrutiny of Budgets. It is important that the Budget Bill passes to enable the operation of our Departments at this time, but it is not defining the future of our public spending. That remains the responsibility of the Executive and the Assembly as we move into the 2024-25 Budget process. The UK Treasury has indicated that the way in which Northern Ireland is funded will be altered, moving forward. However, we, unfortunately, remain in a position where the details of that incorporation of a process and a model that appropriately reflects Northern Ireland's true need has not been concluded.

I hope that we receive an improved financial position moving forward and, on that basis, that we can effectively plan for the future delivery of Northern Ireland public services in the 2024-25 Budget process.

I note that the Budget Bill also affords Departments the ability to commence 2024-25 spending at 65% of Vote on Account until a new Budget is adopted. Again, I note that that is necessary to enable the Departments to function, but it needs to remain a priority to develop the new 2024-25 Budget as soon as possible in order to capture the priorities of the new Programme for Government and put us in the best place to deliver them in the years ahead. I have a question for the Minister to address at the end, if she pleases. One matter of particular importance is the payment of public-sector workers across all sectors and divisions. Can the Minister assure me that this Budget will make full and proper provision for all the vital members of staff in our public services, without whom our public services could not function? If not, for which groups of workers will it not be guaranteed? I also want to make a critical point about context. It is vital that we consider this Budget, and, indeed, the next, in the proper context of our funding from Treasury. The Hillsborough proposals, adjusted slightly by the Treasury letter of 13 February, are very important. There are two major problems. First, the Hillsborough package is logically an unsustainable arrangement, both in recognising the need to fund Northern Ireland to need from 2024-25 onwards and in recognising the need to provide funding for two years to plug the gap arising from the impact of being funded £3 billion below need in two consecutive years from our baseline funding. We are effectively funded to need for 2024-25 and 2025-26. That means that we will be funded to need in those years but will again plunge below need in 2026-27. Secondly, although the Government have moved some way on recognising need, subject to the problems set out, they are hoping that we will settle for an arrangement that involves just one, half-baked aspect of the protection that Wales has enjoyed and continues to enjoy. To protect its block grant funding from falling below need, Northern Ireland must fully benefit from both aspects of the protection that is afforded to Wales. We need a fiscal floor, defined need and an uplift. The UK Government's funding of Northern Ireland is an urgent issue and needs to be addressed. We are facing critical challenges with health, education, the economy, childcare, agriculture, infrastructure, an increase in our minimum wages from 2024-25 onwards and many more issues. We need to put in place a multi-year Budget for Northern Ireland to deliver for everyone here as soon as we practically can. Today, I support the Budget Bill to enable Departments to be able to function. I also support the need for the Assembly to prioritise and deliver on the new Budget as soon as possible in order to underpin the new Programme for Government. As to the amendment, I note that recognition of the Fiscal Council is an important issue. I believe, however, that it deserves a full piece of its own. To add to the Member's point, its ability to have full scrutiny and power is very important, and it should be addressed as an item on its own.

815 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: 0.03 (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 (0.93).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
  • The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging 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

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 framing0.03No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.01No
Dog-whistle messaging0.02No
Controversy escalation0.02No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.93Yes
Overall judgement0.03At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
No identity-related subject0.95
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty0.05
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00
Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:37 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