Debate contribution: Supply Resolution for the Northern Ireland Spring Supplementary Estimates 2023-24 and Supply Resolution for the Northern Ireland Estimates: Vote On Account 2024-25

Debate contribution by Mr Eóin Tennyson on .

MLA
Mr Eóin Tennyson
Party at the time
Alliance Party
Date
9 April 2024
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Executive Committee Business
Heading
Supply Resolution for the Northern Ireland Spring Supplementary Estimates 2023-24 and Supply Resolution for the Northern Ireland Estimates: Vote On Account 2024-25
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4481873

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I support the resolutions, though, in doing so, I am conscious that the debate on the spring Supplementary Estimates is largely academic given that the detailed spending plans have already been legislated for in the Budget Act. It has been said that these are exceptional circumstances. They are, but too often in the Assembly is our Budget process exceptional: upended by stop-start Government and subsequently progressed, through necessity, hastily and in the absence of the levels of scrutiny and debate that the people whom we represent rightly deserve and expect. That is why Alliance has consistently and persistently advocated for the reform of these institutions.

There is no point in other parties coming to the Chamber to bemoan the process that we are in or the damage to our public services and public finances caused by repeated suspension if they are not willing to commit to the reform that is necessary to ensure that it never happens again.

In recent debates on the Budget Bill and on public-sector pay, successive MLAs from the two largest parties pretended that there was no consequence from not having had a Government in five of the past seven years and that we merely stood still. That is a convenient lie, told to justify the huge damage that has been done. That damage was evident in the Main Estimates predicated on the Secretary of State's punishment Budget, which implemented a swathe of cuts across the public sector that could not be undone in the final few weeks of the previous financial year. The most significant movements from the Main Estimates to the spring Supplementary Estimates are a result of the financial package that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirmed on 15 February. I will address some of the issues pertaining to that pot of money. There is no doubt that the over £1 billion made available in 2023-24 has provided much-needed relief to public services, as well as significant and welcome progress on addressing a range of outstanding public-sector pay claims. In previous debates, I have raised the issue of non-teaching pay, as Mr Brett has done today. I recognise the progress that has been made by the Department of Education and the Department of Finance since restoration. It is welcome, and I trust that the matter can be resolved swiftly. It has been well rehearsed by now, however — I will not dwell on the point — that the package in its entirety did not provide long-term stability. There is an urgent need for a renewed fiscal framework and a properly baselined fiscal floor, set at the appropriate level. The challenges pertaining to underfunding are perhaps evident nowhere more so than in our justice system. Since justice was devolved, the Department of Health has seen an increase in its budget of 68%, while the Department of Education has seen one of over 35%. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice has seen an increase of just 3%. That is further compounded by the fact that, as more and more people fall through the gaps in service elsewhere in the system — be it in mental health, addiction, early years, education, employment or housing — more and more falls to the Department of Justice as the provider of first and last resort. I do not believe that anyone in the Assembly can argue that, despite dwindling police numbers and pressure on prison capacity, the current funding arrangements are adequate to meet the needs of victims or our wider community. No doubt, during today's debate, a similar story of pressure across the public sector will be told. While I entirely respect the fact that negotiations on our funding arrangements with Treasury are ongoing, I am concerned that, seven weeks on from the previous debate on the Budget Bill, we do not have a great deal more insight into the direction of travel: the powers being sought for fiscal devolution; how the Minister intends to address conditionality around revenue raising; and whether and when an independent commission to advise on our funding formula will be established. Given the impending spending review within the next year, the urgency cannot be overstated. Another challenge arising from the UK Government's financial package has been the removal of ring fencing for Fresh Start funding for integrated schools. It is important to emphasise that, while ring fencing has been removed, the money has not been and is not lost to the Executive. It is disappointing that, despite requests, there appears to have been no serious effort by the Finance Minister or the Education Minister to re-profile that money for its original purpose, which was to support integrated education and to seek to educate more of our children together. That is vital for our society and for our education system's financial stability.

I will, yes.

It is important that we are accurate about this. In fairness to the Ministers, the decision to remove ring fencing was not theirs. The Member said that, and it is important that we are accurate about it. Capital money has been found for other projects, however, so it is a question of priority as to whether the Ministers want to return that money to its originally intended purpose and provide funding for the 10 integrated projects. They absolutely should. While I would be the first to argue that Northern Ireland has been chronically underfunded in recent years and that a failed policy of Tory austerity has decimated our public services and damaged our economy, we cannot shirk our responsibilities to deliver a programme of public-sector transformation in this place. Indeed, if we are to secure substantive progress in negotiations with Treasury, we must demonstrate that we are serious partners and are able to take the long-term decisions necessary to improve efficiency and outcomes for the people whom we represent. It was therefore galling to be present at the debate yesterday on the future of funding for NI Water, during which the Minister could not even commit to an expert-led review of the funding and governance arrangements of that organisation, despite the Northern Ireland Audit Office's clear recommendations. Taking an ostrich approach, despite the overspills polluting our rivers and Lough Neagh and the constraints on development hampering housing supply and damaging our economy, is an abdication of responsibility and is symptomatic of the inertia that has pervaded successive Executives and walked us to the financial and environmental challenges that we now face as an Executive. I support the resolutions today, but I will put down a marker at this stage: going forward to the Main Estimates and the Budget Bill for this year, we need to see a step change in approach. We must return at the earliest opportunity to multi-year budgets, properly invest in the transformation of our services and learn from international best practice on green budgeting to ensure that our Budget process better protects our environment and upholds our climate commitments.

1,154 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: 0.05 (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 (0.99).
  • Subject area: Education structures, integration and community division.
  • 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 framing0.05No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.04No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.06No
Controversy escalation0.05No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.93Yes
Overall judgement0.05At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.99
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.01
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Education structures, integration and community division0.93
No identity-related subject0.06
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.01
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:53 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