Debate contribution: Budget (No. 2) Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Eóin Tennyson on .

MLA
Mr Eóin Tennyson
Party at the time
Alliance Party
Date
2 July 2024
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Executive Committee Business
Heading
Budget (No. 2) Bill: Second Stage
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4529338

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Further to Assembly approval of the Supply resolutions yesterday, I rise on behalf of the Alliance Party to support the Budget Bill at Second Stage. I also support the Bill proceeding by accelerated passage in order to ensure that Departments have the statutory authority needed to draw down cash and avoid the risk of reaching the spending limits set in the previous Vote on Account. The Executive's agreement on the final Budget for 2024-25 has enabled us to get to this point, and, as has been rehearsed on multiple occasions, it has occurred in turbulent and challenging circumstances. The restoration of the Executive on 3 February left an incredibly short time for the Budget to be developed and meant that we are now proceeding in the absence of proper consultation and in the absence of a Programme for Government. We also come to this debate off the back of a period of sustained underfunding by Westminster, loss of EU funds due to Brexit and a cycle of stop-start government at the Assembly that has left our public services creaking under enormous pressure. That damage will not be undone in a matter of weeks or months or even over the course of this year; rather, it will require sustained effort over many years, underpinned by stable, functioning and effective institutions. The Assembly is as stable today as it was the day before it last collapsed. I may sound like a broken record, but, if we are to create the political certainty and stability that is required to support transformation of our finances and public services, we must reform the institutions and ensure that no single party can ever again hold them to ransom. We must also build on the progress of the interim fiscal framework, hopefully, in partnership with a new UK Government. That must include a fiscal floor that is appropriately baselined and set at the correct level, recognising our unique policing and justice need and incorporating issues such as taxable capacity and benefit rate sensitivity. Convincing Treasury of those arguments will require strong independent evidence, and time is of the essence ahead of the potential spending review later this year. Aside from the establishment of a Budget sustainability team in the Department of Finance, we are not clear on the timetable of when that evidence will be provided or how the independence of that evidence will be safeguarded. It remains my view that an independent commission should be established at the earliest opportunity to provide evidence on our funding formula. The devolution of additional fiscal powers should also be on the table, though we are still largely in the dark around the Department's priorities in that regard. A phased and pragmatic approach should be adopted, recognising the risks associated with devolution of additional powers and the capacity of the Executive to take on significant new powers. However, there are obvious contenders, such as landfill tax and stamp duty, that could be levied in a manner consistent with the Executive's priorities and agenda. There are also areas where there is significant consensus, for example, the expansion of reinvest and reform initiative (RRI) borrowing powers, increased Budget flexibility and the ability of the Executive to carry a reserve. There is also a need for significant public sector transformation, and I welcome the progress that has been made under the Minister in setting up the interim public sector transformation board. The Executive must finally break free of the inertia that stymied their predecessors, particularly in the two largest-spending Departments. That includes finally setting out a pathway to reconfigure and transform our health service, as envisaged by Bengoa, and taking steps to assess and reduce the costs of division in our education system and in our wider society. We are aware that, even if all those elements were in place, the state of our finances would still largely be dependent on decisions taken at Westminster. No amount of local revenue raising could mitigate the cuts that have been implemented at Westminster over the past 14 years, nor, I would argue, is it fair that people in Northern Ireland should be asked to pay more and receive less. That is why our engagement with whomever is in government after Thursday's election matters. I hope that there will be a strong team of MPs from Northern Ireland there not just to advocate fair funding but to scrutinise our fiscal rules and to champion a fair and progressive system of taxation that properly invests in our public services. It is important to say that, despite all the constraints and challenges, progress is being made in many important areas. A £25 million investment in childcare sends an important signal about the Executive's direction and priorities and will provide essential relief to working families. The £40 million announced for the pay and grading review for education workers represents significant progress for often undervalued workers. There are, however, also areas where more work is required. While the additional funding for Lough Neagh announced yesterday is welcome, it does not match the scale of the problem, the ambition of the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs or, I am sure, the Finance Minister or the expectations of the public. Indeed, I remain concerned more broadly that climate change is not being adequately considered by the Department of Finance when assessing bids and that a fundamental reappraisal of the draft investment strategy does not appear to have happened either following the publication of the climate change legislation or the Economy Minister's economic vision. Again, I understand the time constraints in this mandate. I know that we are just back, but I hope that, when we are talking about future Budget Bills, we will have made significant progress in those areas. I want to reiterate that, when we debated the Budget in May, we were told by some that we should oppose it. That would have been an enormous act of self-harm, upending our negotiations with Treasury, putting at risk the progress made to date and plunging our public services into even further disarray. The folly of that strategy has been laid bare. If we want to be taken seriously as a negotiating partner and secure the additional funding in our public services that, we all agree, is needed, we must govern responsibly. The passage of today's Budget Bill is an important step in that direction.

1,065 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: 0.03 (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 (0.94).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (0.97).
  • Subject area: Education structures, integration and community division.
  • 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 antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.03No
Controversy escalation0.03No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.94Yes
Overall judgement0.03At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.97
Reports or questions it0.01
Criticises or condemns it0.02
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Education structures, integration and community division0.78
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty0.09
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.07
No identity-related subject0.06
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:57 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