Debate contribution: Budget 2024-25
Debate contribution by Dr Steve Aiken OBE on .
- MLA
- Dr Steve Aiken OBE
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 28 May 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Budget 2024-25
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4492252
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I will respond as the UUP's finance spokesperson to the Budget 2024-25 that has been presented today. Other members of my party will speak on their specific areas of responsibility. At the outset, I thank those who gave evidence to the Finance Committee. In particular, I thank the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council for its 2024-25 Budget assessment report and Sir Robert Chote and his team for the evidence that they gave to our Committee. The Fiscal Council's 2024-25 Budget assessment is an exemplar of clarity and detail, and it is presented in a manner that is readily accessible and authoritative. Its 50-odd pages are probably the most concise budgetary and financial fiscal overview available. It should be compulsory reading for us all. I would like to report that the information from our own Government that was made available to me and my fellow MLAs on our scrutiny Committee was as detailed, but, regrettably, I cannot. We are being invited to approve the programme for expenditure for 2024-25 without a Programme for Government, evidence of any prioritisation, any form of public consultations or impact assessments or any other normal procedures. Some, including the Finance Minister, have alluded to the importance of passing the Budget quickly in order to prevent, yet again, our Departments running out of cash and the consequent cascade of public service collapse. Members will, of course, remember the Budget Bill that was before us on 19 February, which went through all of its stages in two days by accelerated passage. That was described at the time as a measure that would not be repeated and would give us, in exceptional circumstances, a Vote on Account of 65%. That was agreed to allow space for a Programme for Government to be agreed before the next Budget was brought forward. However, since February, there has been no Programme for Government or even a discussion on the prioritisation of budgets. If we look at the Fiscal Council's report, we can see clearly how that should have happened but has not. The question for the Northern Ireland Executive should be, "Why?". As we can see by the speed and haste of the previous Budget Bill, which was accelerated through its stages in 48 hours, the argument of legislative and time pressure does not hold. That the Budget under discussion today is challenging is not in doubt. In real terms, compared with the out-turn from last year, it is a 2% reduction. The figures showing the Departments' pressures and priorities in light of that position, from an Executive direction, are all lacking. We have not seen reports from all our scrutiny Committees on their analyses of their Departments, probably because they are not in receipt of the information. That question is important, because most Departments are aware of the considerable adjustment — at least a quarter of a billion pounds — that is due in the June monitoring round. That is a point that I will come to later. Sir Robert makes it clear in his report that there is, in real terms, a fall in resource and capital for Northern Ireland. He also makes it clear that, in Northern Ireland, unlike in the rest of our great nation, health has seen a below-level uplift; in fact, we have had a 2·3% cut in the Health budget. Members will be aware that, in the absence of a Programme for Government, even after 100-plus days back, it would be expected that prioritisation would be based on the parties' manifestos, as it would be in any normal democracy. On the basis of the commitment made by the Minister's party and the DUP to give an extra £1 billion to Health and the numerous commitments made around the negotiating table at Hillsborough Castle to prioritise Health, it could reasonably have been expected that Health's allocation of the Budget would reflect that across the rest of the United Kingdom; instead, in Northern Ireland, we are taking a cut of 2·3%. We have heard much about Health being 50% of the Budget, but that is the same in the rest of our nation: it has always been 50% of the Budget. It is just not enough. Our Health Minister has made it clear to our constituents and vital health workers the challenges that those substantive cuts will mean. No Minister could deliver on those unless there had been appropriate prioritisation, which there has not. That is a question that the electorate might ask when or if Sinn Féin, DUP or Alliance candidates knock on their doors. The Health Minister offered, at risk to delivery, to reduce what he needed to around an additional £2 million to £3 million on top of his allocation. That offer, as well my party leader's request for all parties to engage in intense closed-room negotiations with Departments to solve the Budget crisis, was rejected. That reminds us of how an Ulster Unionist Party Health Minister in a previous Assembly had his request rejected, yet, when a DUP Health Minister took over the role, the required funding was allocated immediately. We were told to accept this Budget and the cut and to agree, even though no other party does, to collective responsibility in the Executive on the position that there was no more money. That was two weeks ago. Then we had last week's Finance Committee.
I am grateful to the senior officials from the Department of Finance who informed our Committee that a ballpark figure of around an extra £200 million, as well as ongoing Barnett consequential adjustments, would come into play in June monitoring. That is 30 days or less, Minister.
For the sake of argument, I have simplified this figure to around £0·25 billion, allocating funding in June monitoring. In response to questions at the Committee as to how this would be allocated, it was indicated that it would be bid for by Departments through the Executive. Some would argue that £0·25 billion is, in the overall context of a nearly £16 billion Budget, is small change. However, it would enable many of Health's challenges to be met, help bring Health's allocation more into line with the rest of our great nation and would, at least, fulfil a quarter of the commitment made by both Sinn Féin and the DUP in their manifestos. That would require party negotiation, of which there has been none; a Programme for Government, which there is none; and adequate analysis, prioritisation, consultation and receipt of June monitoring, which of course, there has been none, especially as a Budget is again being fast-tracked through, without due diligence and full account of the likely funding envelope. Yet Sinn Féin, the DUP and Alliance would have you vote for a Budget that could, in all probability, as indicated by the Department of Finance, have an extra £0·25 billion allocated in less than 30 days. How can any self-respecting MLA support this Budget as it is?
1,156 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.11 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- 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 (0.97).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.07 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.11 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.97 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.03 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.91 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.03 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.03 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:32 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.