Debate contribution: Budget 2024-25

Debate contribution by Mr Eóin Tennyson on 28 May 2024.

MLA

Mr Eóin Tennyson

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

28 May 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Budget 2024-25

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4492220

Read the official Assembly record

Text

It is an understatement that this is an extremely challenging Budget, set in the most turbulent of circumstances. The fact that we are only now in a position to have this debate, two months into the financial year, is testament enough to that. Like so many of our Budget processes, this one has been upended by delay and disruption due to the absence of an Assembly. The constant stop-go cycle of government means that this is the tenth single-year Budget in a row, and the timing of the return of the Executive has placed us in an invidious position where the Budget must progress hastily, in the absence of a Programme for Government and without adequate consultation. Stalemate has robbed us of key opportunities to transform health and education and to negotiate a fair funding settlement with Treasury from a position of strength and stability. That cycle of chaos and crisis is not good enough, but nor is it good enough for parties to come to the Chamber and bemoan the process that we are engaged in if they are not willing to advocate the reform that is necessary to ensure that it can never happen again. That is why Alliance has consistently and persistently led the charge to scrap the vetoes and remove the ability of any single party to hold the Assembly to ransom. Today is not about whether we believe that the funding envelope available to the Executive is sufficient — it is clear, after a decade of Tory austerity, that it is not — but about whether we believe that the Budget before us is a fair attempt at allocating the insufficient available resources and enabling a process of further negotiation with Treasury on an improved settlement. We have heard criticism from the SDLP and the Ulster Unionists in the media, but I have not heard a single costed or credible alternative from either of those parties — not one.

Of course I will.

For a start, that proposal would not close the £800 million gap in the Health budget. I am glad that the Member has raised the matter of the Westminster election. It is an opportunity for us to send a message that we want to put an end to stop-start government and legislate for the reform of these institutions. Westminster is also key to a fair funding settlement to ensure that our funding formula represents objective need. We need to send strong, progressive voices to Westminster that will stand against Tory austerity and advocate for the people of Northern Ireland. Therefore, I believe that the Westminster election is important, and I am proud that strong candidates from the Alliance Party are standing. As I said, we have heard criticism, but not one alternative has been forthcoming. The Member has demonstrated that clearly.

In a moment. Indeed, the Ulster Unionist finance spokesperson has spent more time advocating a cut in corporation tax than fair funding for our public services, which would have left us in an even worse position. More than that, their approach risks upending the negotiations with Treasury and squandering the progress to date. The £3·3 billion financial package is contingent on a Budget being in place. The additional funding and flexibility in the interim fiscal framework would not have been possible without Executive agreement on a Budget, and any hope of an improved funding formula will be lost without Assembly agreement on a Budget. It is utterly bizarre — in fact, it is plain reckless — for anyone in the Chamber to suggest that we simply roll the dice and cross our fingers. The stakes are far too high and the consequences far too serious. We have heard a suggestion that we delay the Budget. Not only would there be no practical benefit in doing so but it would be at odds with our legal responsibilities. However, it underlines a key point: this is simply the opening position. It is likely that significant additional funding will flow through June monitoring and a UK spending review later this year, hopefully under a new Government. There are stark and difficult choices for all Departments — there is no doubt about that — but there is an onus on those of us in the Executive to stand up, show leadership and actually govern. Despite the challenges, the Executive have managed to prioritise an additional £25 million for early years and childcare, an issue that has been spearheaded by my colleague Kate Nicholl. When combined with the existing UK scheme, that will save parents with two children in full-time childcare about £8,000 a year. Despite the spin, the Department of Health has received over 50% of the available funding. Health funding is up 6% on the opening position last year, and spending on health will increase by £2 billion in comparison with 2020. We must all recognise that, while health is undoubtedly a priority, it is bigger than the Department of Health. Investment in prevention and early intervention through education, quality housing and an effective justice system is essential for good public health. We also have the highest spend per head on health in the UK but the worst outcomes. Therefore, it is about more than money, and the Finance Committee has consistently heard in evidence about the need for reform and transformation. Instead, key recommendations for reform gather dust on a shelf, and we have seen precious little by way of plans for reconfiguration or to tackle the spiralling locum and agency costs, which have been sitting at £400 million since the Executive returned. It is hugely disappointing, however, that, despite assurances from the Finance and Education Ministers, there is no ring-fenced allocation for the pay and grading review of the Education Authority (EA). They have, in fairness, set out a strategy of seeking permission from the Treasury to reprofile money in the financial package. Failing to agree a Budget will set back those efforts. Therefore, we will support the Budget today. I am also clear, however, that, should the flexibility not be forthcoming, the buck stops with the Education Minister to find the money in his allocation. Simply submitting bids and wringing your hands when the allocations are inevitably insufficient is not good enough. The Minister needs to prioritise, come to the table with proposals to tackle the cost of division and stop ignoring the independent review of education and the Audit Office when it comes to projects such as Strule.

That brings me to some of the challenges with our capital projects and allocations. I will give way.

The Minister has not provided the necessary information to the Committee for Health for any Member to bring forward a costed plan: therein lies the problem. We need to see prioritisation from the Department of Health, and we need to see priorities for the additional money that becomes available throughout the year, so that Members can prioritise them in terms of the available options.

It is for the Department of Health and the Minister to bring forward those proposals. We have led the way on a fair funding settlement, and we will continue to work with others to oppose Tory austerity and deliver the funding that —

— Northern Ireland deserves.

1,207 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

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.

Challenge this classification