Debate contribution: Budget 2024-25

Debate contribution by Ms Sinéad McLaughlin on .

MLA
Ms Sinéad McLaughlin
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 4492771

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker; I was not expecting that either. As we debate the Budget, I want to acknowledge that it is good that the Assembly is in the position to discuss government spending priorities and exercise our legislative scrutiny role. At the start of this year, that was by no means guaranteed; indeed, some of us had lost faith that it would be back up and running any time soon. I also worry, however, that, due to the understandable relief that the Government are up and running again, we have set the bar much too low. I will make a number of points, first on the Budget and the process in general, before moving on to speak as the SDLP economy spokesperson to address that Department's allocations. This is the tenth year in a row when a single-year Budget has been agreed, despite repeated calls from parties across the Floor for a multi-year Budget. Also, the Budget was agreed in the absence of a Programme for Government, which is really regrettable. In essence, we are funding pressures instead of planning for our priorities. Clearly, the Budget will be agreed in a difficult context with a much higher proportion of unmet bids than in previous years. There is little doubt that the years of underfunding and brutal cuts from Westminster have taken their toll. The failed economic strategy of the Government across the water, in Westminster — the bleak and cruel lifespan of which will, fortunately, finally come to an end in the coming weeks — has consistently undermined the ability of this place to deliver public services that meet all the needs of our people. It is not the fault of the Tories alone. This morning, the chair of the BMA committee in Northern Ireland spoke about the end of the health service. Our public services are in complete free fall, collapsing before our eyes. We cannot just blame the Tories: this Government have failure writ large all over them. The absence of the institutions for many years and our hokey-cokey Government have broken our public services. Across Northern Ireland, thousands of people are effectively shut out of our health and education systems. The gap in healthy life expectancy between the poorest and the most affluent areas is still between 11 and 15 years. That is unacceptable, and we all bear responsibility. The Budget is a consequence of failure: the failure to sustain political stability here. Nobody can move away from the fact that, in a large way, that is due to the two biggest parties in the House. It is also a consequence of the failure of the UK Government to understand or even to empathise with our needs and of the failure of the Government here to generate the inclusive growth that is needed.

In the absence of competence and, too often, in the shadow of callousness, this Budget has come after the start of the fiscal year, and the reliance on short-term financial support has continued, while more and more people are forced into chronic and crippling poverty.

That includes families who are struggling with childcare costs, and many of us were pleased to see the announcement last week by the Minister of Education about childcare costs. We know that that is only the start, as £25 million will never represent the kind of transformation of the early education and childcare system that we need to see. The fact that childcare bills have been allowed to spiral to such a significant extent is an indictment of the political failure here for many years. We must see much more ambition from the Executive in the coming months.

I turn to the specific allocation made to the Department for the Economy. It is clear that the Department faces a number of significant challenges, including with Invest NI, where the £3 million pay pressure has remained unfunded and no specific funding exists to implement the findings of Sir Michael Lyon's review or the transformation of that organisation. Higher education is particularly badly affected, as the £7·5 million shortfall in the teaching grant has not been addressed, and the increase in student hardship funding made last year has not been repeated. It represents an effective cut to students who are already struggling to make basic ends meet. We are forcing students into poverty while they struggle to invest in their education. Those cuts are even more damaging when we consider that the Sinn Féin Minister for the Economy has rolled back on the DUP Minister's commitment to a full review of higher education. Since February, we have been asking about that review, which was supposed to consider support for the teaching institutions as well as for the students. The Minister has only been able to tell us that officials are still considering it. Well, that is not good enough. The Budget effectively cuts support to higher education, which is morally indefensible and economically illiterate. It is good to see some funding allocated for the expansion of the Magee campus, albeit with a lack of clarity on its exact purposes, and, admittedly, it is a fraction of the amount that is likely to be needed. More worryingly, I am concerned that no funding appears to exist for the recommendations produced by the Magee task force. This cannot be pushed on to future years. The task force is likely to make recommendations in the coming months, and we need to see a ring-fenced budget to implement them. In totality, it is concerning that there is no provision to screen any of this funding for regional balance. There has been a lot of talk about regional balance; there is no money for regional balance in any of the budgets, and there has been no meaningful screening with targets. It is supposedly one of the Minister's top priorities, but, too often, the Department has not been able to answer my basic questions for written answer on regional balance. The Minister has not been able to identify who is responsible for leading the work on regional balance. When pressed, he effectively told me that it was everyone's responsibility. Well, if it is everyone's responsibility, it is nobody's responsibility. Finally, we know that the public is crying out for a change in the way that we do politics here. We only need to look at the COVID inquiry in the past few weeks to see proof of the devastating impact of the silo mentality. We need to see more —

— coherence and cohesion in this Government. We will not support the Budget.

1,099 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: 0.08 (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 (0.92).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (0.98).
  • 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 framing0.05No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.04No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.09No
Controversy escalation0.04No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.92Yes
Overall judgement0.08At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.98
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.01
Adopts it0.01
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
No identity-related subject0.83
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty0.05
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.05
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.02
Another identity-related subject0.02

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