Debate contribution: Budget 2024-25
Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on .
- MLA
- Mr Matthew O'Toole
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 28 May 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Budget 2024-25
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4492179
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Before I begin my remarks, I thank the Deputy Chair of the Finance Committee, who will step into the breach. I had two statutory roles to perform today, and it would have been difficult to do full justice to both, given my role as leader of the Opposition. I thank the Deputy Chair for doing that. It is good news that we finally have a Budget to debate. Here it is: the 2024-25 Budget. This is the first time in two or three years that we have had a Budget to debate and vote on. It happens in unique circumstances, because not only were the institutions restored three and a half months ago, but we have a UK general election coming up for which two Ministers in the Executive formed just a few months ago to restore devolution and rescue our collapsed public services have indicated that they will step down. At the core of government is taking responsibility, and it is frustrating for the people of Northern Ireland that some of us who were elected to take responsibility and then were trusted with ministerial office have already indicated that they will step down or will step down should they be successful. We have passed Budget Bills and Supply resolutions, which are simply legal authorisations of spending, but the Budget statement is supposed to be a statement of priorities, of strategic intent and of the choices that the Executive wish to make to improve public services and make lives better for the people of Northern Ireland, the people whom we have collectively let down for most of the past decade by not being here. Being here is not enough. Simply marking time or seeking credit for being here is not enough. As I said, of course, two Ministers will not be here should they be successful in the election. Today's Budget statement is not a statement of strategic priorities. Given the now dozens of motions that have been passed, particularly by Executive parties, promising action on everything from Lough Neagh to holiday hunger, waiting lists and a range of other things, we would expect to have seen a statement of strategic priorities. We are not seeing that in this document. No one expected miracles, but they did expect a plan for how we will rescue public services or, at least, a broad statement of priorities matched to Budget lines. First, as we in the Opposition have said consistently, I acknowledge that we are not in a position that any of us would seek in terms of our allocations from the UK Government. I commend the work that the Finance Minister has done to engage with the UK Government and the Treasury in that regard. There is no reason, however, why the Budget statement could not have been a more strategic and forward-looking set of priorities for how the Executive were going to go about making decisions on the allocations that they wish to make over the next three years, what they wish to prioritise and, by extension, what they are not prioritising. We have not had that yet, and the public were entitled to expect it. Turning to the document, there is a foreword from the Minister that sets out a difficult context. It says:
"The Executive recognises the need for transformation and reform. We need to look at options to deliver efficiencies, generate revenue, enhance borrowing powers, and explore the potential for more fiscal powers."
I am not sure that too many people would disagree with that, but we have not yet seen any firm substance or clear statement of intent on any of those things. The Minister goes on to say:
"Financial sustainability in the longer term will require brave decisions, collaborative working, and a relentless focus on innovative and efficiency"
— there is a typo; it should say "innovation and efficiency" —
"in service delivery. This can only be delivered through partnership working, a willingness to accept change, to challenge the status quo and to make long term strategic decisions."
Well, we have not seen any of those long-term strategic decisions. The public in Northern Ireland have a right to expect them, given that, for most of the past decade, the institutions have been down. Indeed, for the two years or 18 months that followed the 2022 Assembly election, the Executive parties were meeting in private to discuss priorities and a Programme for Government. Not only do we not have a Programme for Government; we do not even have a strategically focused Budget. I will come on to some of the details in the Budget. There are, of course, specific allocations that we welcome. We have acknowledged the progress that the Finance Minister has made on the fiscal framework. The fiscal framework in and of itself is welcome, but I want to wind back to what was said when the Executive financial restoration package happened. There were fevered denials from some Executive parties that they had agreed to any revenue raising; well, in plain black and white, in the new fiscal framework, there is a commitment to look at revenue raising. It would have been helpful if the Executive parties and Ministers had been upfront from the beginning with the public on that. There is also an additional £24 million. Of course, I welcome that, to the extent that it was ever really in doubt, which is debatable. I also welcome and want to be constructive in acknowledging the fact that the Minister has said that, in the June monitoring round, she will allocate the money that has been indicated by the UK Government. I challenge the Minister to commit that if, in the months ahead, a new UK Government produce a comprehensive spending review (CSR), she will come back as soon as possible to the Chamber with a multi-year Budget and that it will be aligned to the Programme for Government that we have been promised by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. We need a multi-year Budget. We need a Programme for Government. We need a proper, strategic set of priorities. We have not got them yet, nor do we have clarity on some important priorities. We do not yet know how Casement Park, which is critical to delivering what could be a genuinely transformative international sporting spectacle for the city of Belfast and the whole region, will be paid for; we have no idea. It would have been helpful to have some clarity on that. We do not know about school buildings for integrated schools, which were promised funding but had it removed from them by the Executive. Despite some of the evasions that have come about on that money, Executive parties made those decisions: a ring fence was removed, and they then hastily called up the integrated schools affected and told them that they would not be getting the money. It would be helpful to have clarity on those points. I agree with the Finance Minister that it is welcome that we are debating the Budget, despite its limitations, before the recess. I acknowledge that, but I say sincerely that the Budget is only as good as the statement of priorities that it contains, and it does not contain a serious statement of priorities. In her opening remarks, the Minister said that the people who stand up in the Chamber and suggest areas where money can be spent rarely provide solutions for where that money can be raised: that is a reasonable point. In our Opposition motions, we have consistently said where we would raise the money, and we did so in relation to ending the two-child limit. Presumably, the Minister would include Sinn Féin, DUP, Ulster Unionist and Alliance MLAs in that observation, because all those parties have tabled motions in the Chamber — motion after motion — promising action on everything, as I said, from Lough Neagh to holiday hunger to waiting lists but without specificity on how it will be paid for. The public did not expect miracles, but they did expect a plan. This Budget is not a plan. It is not enough simply to be here. It is not enough simply to allocate money that has been granted by the Treasury, even if, as I acknowledge, the money coming is not enough of a financial settlement and austerity has had a pernicious effect on our public services. It is not enough simply to pass on those allocations and expect to be patted on the back by the public. The public expect real prioritisation and real choices. They also expect us to do our jobs. They did not expect miracles; they expected a plan. They have not got a plan.
Ministers who took the Pledge of Office just a few short months ago have spent the time since telling us how difficult public services are to run, about the fact that they are near or beyond collapse and about the fact that they are in a genuinely parlous state and that Ministers do not have enough money to improve them. The public expected those Ministers to be in office to implement this Budget and to be working hard on a Programme for Government. Instead, at the last count, more than 10% or 20% of the Executive are scurrying off to run for election. That, I am afraid, is the wrong priority, and the priorities in the Budget are the wrong ones.
We should be setting priorities and delivering on them for the people of Northern Ireland, and I am afraid that this Budget does not do so.
The Opposition will be voting against it.
1,607 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
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: 0.06 (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 (0.89).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.05 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.54 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.32 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.06 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.04 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.02 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:31 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.