Debate contribution: Budget 2024-25

Debate contribution by Mr Gary Middleton on .

MLA
Mr Gary Middleton
Party at the time
Democratic Unionist Party
Date
28 May 2024
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Executive Committee Business
Heading
Budget 2024-25
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4492730

Read the official Assembly record

Text

There are words that are commonly used when we look at any Budget that comes to the Chamber, and they have been used to describe the Budget today: "challenging", "difficult" and "frustrating". There is not one area of our public sector or public services that we would say has enough funding. Whether it be the health sector, education or policing, their Departments' budgets are under much pressure. The Finance Minister has produced a Budget of which we now have sight. There is no doubt that many of us share the frustration at, at times, its lack of detail and the level of that detail, but we are working within the time frames that we have. That leaves political parties with two options: either they get behind the Budget, acknowledging, of course, the challenges and difficult position that we are in, and try to make it work within the envelope that we have or they vote against the Budget, while offering no solutions or, in the worst case, walking away from their ministerial portfolios. Walking away or opposing the Budget is not a responsible thing to do. It is even more irresponsible to do that without offering one single alternative suggestion for how we can improve the budget envelope for each Department. It may seem like a politically —.

I will indeed.

I thank the Member for his intervention. That question has already been posed. Of course we look at the budgetary position in a sensible manner, but we also have to acknowledge the time frames that we are operating within and the legal responsibilities that we have. What is completely irresponsible is for Ministers to walk away from their portfolios for various political reasons. As I was going on to say, those who do that may think that it is politically expedient in the short term, but if all parties were to take that narrow political stance, the consequences would be the creation of further instability and uncertainty, not only for Departments and those who work in them but for constituents, who very much rely on us to show leadership. As a member of the Economy Committee, I see an opportunity for the Economy Minister and the Department in the budget envelope with which he has been provided. Is there enough funding? Of course not, but there is opportunity with what has been provided: funding for, for example, the city and growth deals, particularly in the north-west; the maritime museum; the riverfront project; and the medical school. Without the Budget, none of those would happen. There is no alternative other than asking for more money. At this time, no solutions are coming forward about from where else that money might come. The medical school at the Magee campus is an example of having to invest in order to save. Hopefully, we will see the fruits of that in the near future. We need to grasp the opportunities that we have in this Assembly mandate to make a real difference to our communities. Investment in the tourism sector is another area in which we can see growth over the next few years if there is a proper events strategy from the Minister. We have an opportunity to bring world-class events to our shores but also to nurture home-grown events, such as the North West 200 and many others in my constituency. It is for local Ministers to prioritise and bring forward plans and ideas to improve their Departments. The lack of a plan or a vision in the Health Department to address the ongoing challenges is deeply disappointing. In the past, we have seen numerous examples of how the foresight and vision of previous Ministers were able to address challenges in the midst of a difficult Budget. The radiotherapy centre at Altnagelvin is an example. An Ulster Unionist Party Minister, Michael McGimpsey, stopped that project because of what he cited as a difficult Budget. Mr Speaker will know too well that it was a DUP Minister, Minister Poots at the time, who delivered the radiotherapy centre at Altnagelvin. That is an example of how, under tight budgetary pressure, if we prioritise, we can address and deliver on some of the challenges that exist. We need to see the Health Minister bring forward a plan. It is not good enough simply to say that there is not enough money. The reality is that people see that the Health Department takes more than 50% of the Budget; nobody argues that it should not, but the Minister needs to bring forward a plan to address the issues that continue to exist. Each Minister has a responsibility to bring forward a vision for their Department. I urge each of them to do so, and I urge those who are opposed to the Budget to step up to the plate and join the rest of us in delivering for a better society in Northern Ireland.

819 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: 0.06 (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 (0.84).
  • 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 framing0.04No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.03No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.04No
Controversy escalation0.04No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.84Yes
Overall judgement0.06At 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 subject0.81
Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies0.09
Another identity-related subject0.06
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.02
Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice)0.01

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:35 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