Debate contribution: Budget 2024-25
Debate contribution by Ms Sian Mulholland on .
- MLA
- Ms Sian Mulholland
- 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 4492767
Read the official Assembly record
Text
My apologies, Mr Speaker, I was not expecting you to get to me. I will support the motion on the Budget. I do not think that we have much of an alternative. I would rather be agreeing a multi-year Budget that is linked to a Programme for Government. That would be preferable, and, absolutely, we would rather see that today. Bear with me. I am so sorry, Mr Speaker. I was told that I was not on the list to speak. When it comes to the impact of the Budget on the Department for Communities, put simply, there just is not enough in the pot. There is not enough to do all the things that we want to do to make people's lives better. The Department for Communities is the Department that most affects people's daily lives in Northern Ireland, and we need to get it right. We are in a housing crisis, and money needs to be invested to ensure that everyone has a safe and secure place to live. The cost of temporary accommodation continues to rise, and the housing stock desperately needs to be maintained and made more energy-efficient through retrofitting to make sure that we meet our climate change obligations and people's health needs. Housing is at the core of our society. Having a stable tenure that is suitable for an individual's needs helps with mental and physical health and their ability to participate in society. Housing cuts across all Departments. We urgently need a housing supply strategy that addresses those key concerns. There is a worrying downward trend in capital DEL over the past three years, with a substantial decrease this year. That massively limits investment and long-term improvements. We are in a stop-start, short-term firefighting cycle. We are facing a cliff edge when it comes to welfare mitigations. Whilst we received what the Minister bid for, it will not be enough to look at offsetting the two-child limit by introducing the Better Start larger families payment, restoring the £20 uplift in universal credit or introducing additional support for carers through a carer's recognition grant, all of which are recommendations from Les Allamby's independent review of welfare mitigations. It is really difficult to ascertain exactly what pressure will be put on the arts and culture sector by the Budget, because this year's allocations and past allocations are not outlined like for like. That is really concerning. It is a concerning situation that urgently needs clarity from the Minister, because, as we know, the arts and culture sector is not a hobby or a nice add-on. It actively feeds into our health system — mental and physical health — our economy and our education system. The best example that I can provide of the fact that the Budget does not link to a Programme for Government is the disconnect on issues relating to children. The responsibility for children falls between many Departments. When a situation requires the responsibility to push forward and drive a programme, it becomes difficult, in that it requires cross-departmental cooperation. If we had, as Mr Nesbitt pointed out, an outcomes-based Programme for Government linked to the Budget, we would see very different results. Whilst I support the Budget, because we have no other sensible choice, I want to highlight how we could make the money work better for the people of Northern Ireland through resource pooling. It involves collaboration and the sharing of resources, such as personnel, technology, facilities and expertise, among Departments to achieve common objectives. That approach fosters a spirit of teamwork and cooperation, leading to substantial cost savings and improved service delivery. That is exactly what the Children's Services Co-operation Act 2015 intended, but I feel that it has not been utilised to its fullest. Resource pooling reduces duplication of effort and leverages economies of scale, leading to cost savings and a more efficient use of public funds. Collaborative efforts lead to better outcomes for children: we know that. When Departments work together, they can create more effective and innovative solutions to address the complex needs of children and families. Integrated services are more accessible to families, reducing the burden of navigating multiple systems and ensuring that support is available when and where it is needed. Ireland's Jigsaw initiative provides youth mental health services through pooled resources from various Departments and helps to prevent more severe mental health issues that require costlier interventions. Early and accessible mental health support can save the healthcare system a significant amount, with estimates suggesting savings of up to €5,000 per young person annually, by reducing hospitalisations and emergency care needs. In Ireland, early intervention programmes such as the Meitheal model have been shown to save substantial amounts by addressing issues before they escalate. Studies there have shown that early intervention can save up to €10,000 annually per child. Whilst I support the Budget, it is important that we take the difficult decisions in the future to reform, change the way that government works and collaborate. I hope that we can commit to restructuring and making the changes necessary to ensure that our resources are used much more effectively for the betterment of all our people by the time we face our next Budget, which will hopefully be a multi-year one that is linked to a Programme for Government.
885 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: 0.03 (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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.46 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.39 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.13 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 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.