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 Mike Nesbitt on .

MLA
Mr Mike Nesbitt
Party at the time
Ulster Unionist 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 4481910

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Like many Members who have spoken, I am somewhat frustrated at, shall we say, the suboptimal manner in which we are dealing with this business. I imagine that the Minister is also frustrated by that. Multi-year Budgets are a sensible and desirable idea. It is inevitable that those Budgets will come, and not before time. Part of my frustration is at the way we do business, and I want to use the next couple of minutes to make a plea for thinking about doing it differently, but, before that, I will turn to money already spent. As party spokesperson on the economy, I was on the Economy Committee when the Minister chaired that Committee. We scrutinised the energy strategy. In December 2021, the Department published 'The Path to Net Zero Energy', which, I think we will all agree, is a keynote document on climate change and the need to get to net zero. On page 26, there is a table estimating capital investment and savings. I am sure that departmental officials will say that those are indicative figures, but they are interesting because, in terms of additional capital investment, the table says that the investment will be £1·2 billion per annum starting in 2021 with net savings of £301 million. There is no evidence whatever that those funds were allocated. Of course, not all of that investment would have been public money, but a significant amount would have been, and I can find no indication that I can find that additional funds were made available to meet that £1·2 billion annual investment. On the Estimates, it seems to me that we are saying, "Let's look at what we've done before and give Departments 65% of that annual figure". I am not sure that that is at all the way to go. Recently, in Committee, we were talking to the Department, and I asked about five of its arm's-length bodies or non-departmental public bodies: Tourism Northern Ireland, Tourism Ireland, Invest Northern Ireland, InterTradeIreland and Northern Ireland Screen. The question was, "What is the return on the investment?"; in other words, "For every pound of public money that we put into those bodies, how much do they generate in return?". Surprisingly, the Department's officials were not able to answer that question. I believe that they are still working on it, but I was surprised that they were not able to say in any detail what the return on investment was. However, they were all certain that Northern Ireland Screen would come out on top. Of course, that makes me think that return on investment is not just about the finances. What about the impact that Northern Ireland Screen has on promoting a positive global image of Northern Ireland? It is more complex than a straight financial transaction, but, if we are concerned about value for money, surely we need to know the financial return on investment from those five bodies. The other frustration for me is that in May 2016 — nearly eight years ago — we agreed that our Programme for Government would be an OBA — outcomes-based accountability — Programme for Government and that cross-cutting measures would be at its heart. For example, when it comes to educational underachievement, we would no longer point the finger simply at the Minister of Education and say, "That's your problem", because we understand that healthier children do better at school, so the Minister of Health has a role to play with the Minister of Education. We also understand that children in better housing are likely to do better at school, so, suddenly, the Minister for Communities has a role to play. There is then the question of transport, so the Minister for Infrastructure is at the table, as is the AERA Minister, who has responsibility for rural affairs. Tackling educational underachievement is therefore an all-Executive issue, and it needs budget. However, if we look at these Estimates, we see that they are divided up, Department by Department. We know that, when money is tight, Ministers will look at everything that they do that costs money and divide it into two columns: statutory responsibilities and non-statutory responsibilities. If you are in the latter, God help you, because you are more than likely to be cut,. That will affect cross-cutting and outcomes-based accountability government, which will affect how we deliver for our people. Another issue — I say this as an outgoing member of the Policing Board — is that the police are now looking at the number of events that they attend that are health incidents and not crime incidents. I think that they are also looking at the number of hours that police officers spend in corridors outside emergency departments, waiting to hand over patients, particularly mental health patients, and sign them off to the hospital. That is a cross-cutting thing. The old saying is, "Police officers' response vehicles carry defibrillators; ambulance crews do not carry handcuffs". The police tend to be the responders of first and last resort. It may be that that is the best way to keep people safe. We have to have that debate, and, if the answer is, "Yes, the police are the best-placed service", the second question is, "Is that reflected in the Budget?". Currently, the answer to that is, "Absolutely not". If the police are going to do health duties, we have to have a debate about how the money is divided. Those cross-cutting things are really important. Unless they are embedded in the Budget, as well as in the Programme for Government, I suspect that we will not deliver as we want to for our people. I know that that is for another day, but we need to have a fundamental review of how we do budgets and align them on a multi-year basis to Programmes for Government.

973 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: 0.02 (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 (0.95).
  • 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 framing0.02No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.02No
Controversy escalation0.02No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.95Yes
Overall judgement0.02At 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 subject0.85
Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits0.10
Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies0.02
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.01
Education structures, integration and community division0.01

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