Debate contribution: Budget (No. 2) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Alan Chambers on .
- MLA
- Mr Alan Chambers
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 2 July 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Budget (No. 2) Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4529359
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I welcome the chance to make some remarks on the Budget (No. 2) Bill. The Bill provides formal legal authority for Departments to incur expenditure as set out in the Main Estimates that we discussed yesterday. The substance of my remarks will focus on what the Estimates mean for the health service in Northern Ireland and for all the staff working across it. Yesterday, some MLAs tried to skirt over the impact of their decision to support this year's Budget, but the reality is that the stark warnings that were raised in April and May are still valid today. No one in the Assembly ever tried to suggest that it would be an easy Budget, but many people took some comfort from the fact that, when the institutions were re-established in early February, there appeared to be a genuine cross-party assurance that the health of our people would be put first. Parties collectively committed to prioritising our health service and all those who rely on it by putting our shoulder to the wheel to tackle its many challenges, not least the appalling waiting times. Promises were made, but, unfortunately, through the Budget, those promises are being broken. This spending plan completely fails to recognise the sheer magnitude of the challenges facing the health service in Northern Ireland. No matter how you assess it, there has been an abject failure to be honest with the public about the real-life impacts that the Budget will have. There has been zero measure of its impacts and zero recognition that a funding shortfall in the health service has significantly greater consequences than a shortfall in many other public services. I could list countless examples of how the Budget will make things worse rather than better. For example, providing not a penny for pay awards is likely to lead to growing demands for further industrial action in the autumn and all the huge disruption that that would bring. In addition, even after all the public statements about how parties are committed to doing all that they can to tackle waiting times, the 2024-25 Budget did not include a penny extra for cutting waiting times other than the £34 million that had already been announced long ago by the UK Government. From presentations that the Health Committee received, it is obvious that the Department of Health was asked what additional efforts to reduce waiting times were deliverable this year. Within only a couple of weeks, a costed plan amounting to £135 million was produced. In addition to maintaining time-critical work, the Executive and the Assembly had the opportunity to support almost 70,000 extra patients by delivering greater levels of outpatient activity as well as focusing on those waiting the longest. The Executive and the Assembly also had the opportunity to reinstate a reimbursement scheme, like the previous cross-border scheme, but, again, it did nothing. However, I still hear MLAs brazenly call for the introduction of the very initiatives that they are preventing through their support for the Budget. It is also worth noting, when some try to proclaim that this was the best that could be done with the money available, that the Education, Agriculture and Environment, Justice and Infrastructure Departments all receive proportionately greater increases to their general allocations than the Department of Health. The fact of the matter is that, before yesterday's belated intervention with the agreement on the monitoring round, the Department of Health's budget had been cut by over 2% compared with where it was just a few months ago. Whilst some still try to refute that, I remind them that that fact was recognised in the most recent report published by the Fiscal Council. That is the exact opposite of prioritising healthcare; indeed, even after yesterday's allocation, the Health budget is still less than what was spent last year. At a time of increasing demand, with annual health inflation rising to 6% and, apparently, a policy, on paper at least, of retaining pay parity, it is clear that something is going to break. Unfortunately, it seems as though it will be patients and staff who will be left at that breaking point. Having seen how the vote on the 2024-25 Budget went in the Executive at the end of April and in the Assembly at the end of May, I suspect that the outcome of today's debate is a foregone conclusion, but I will still use this chance to urge MLAs who are genuinely worried about our health service, as we should all be, not to support the allocations to be confirmed today. Whilst I absolutely accept that there should be an onus on the Department of Health to make the best use of every penny that it receives, ultimately, MLAs must recognise that, by tying one arm behind its back, the Assembly will make the Department's problems worse rather than better. That, unfortunately, is what the Budget does. Speaking as a father and a grandfather who cares about the health of the people of Northern Ireland, my conscience will not allow me to support the Budget today. I confirm that that is the position of my party.
857 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 (0.96).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | 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 | 0.97 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.02 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
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.