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

Debate contribution by Mr Mark Durkan on .

MLA
Mr Mark Durkan
Party at the time
Social Democratic and Labour Party
Date
2 July 2024
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Executive Committee Business
Heading
Budget (No. 2) Bill: Second Stage
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4529376

Read the official Assembly record

Text

During the previous Budget debate, I criticised what I described as a lackadaisical approach to governance. Presenting a Budget without adequate time for scrutiny undermined the democratic process and our ability, as MLAs, to reflect and represent the needs of our constituents. The publication of the June monitoring round yesterday, just three days before an election, does nothing to alleviate my significant concerns about the transparency and accountability promised by, and pontificated about by, leadership parties. Ironically, however, the less transparency, the more people will see through what is going on. It is worth noting that grabbing pre-election headlines around funding announcements was deemed more important than doing what is right. Funnily, yesterday, a Minister accused me of electioneering for quoting facts that were provided to me by his Department in response to an Assembly question. The Finance Minister has acknowledged that allocations have been made at risk. Essentially, shoehorning a monitoring round in before today's debate not only just about sums this place up but potentially places the impartiality of the Civil Service at risk. It really goes to show that the current leadership will always put political gain before people's best interests. However, I digress. I will get down to the truth of the matter. The Budget falls dangerously short on the most critical issues facing the North, namely child poverty and homelessness. The Budget document lacks sufficient detail. There are no timelines or anything of the like. I suppose that we are waiting for a Programme for Government. Greater transparency and detailed planning are essential for public trust and the effectiveness of proposed spending. That point was made by my Committee Chair, Deborah Erskine. Speaking, as she did, to the Budget's Infrastructure allocations, I welcome the inclusion of large-scale infrastructure and long-awaited projects, such as the Irish Government's contribution to the A5, although questions still remain — the Infrastructure Minister was unable to answer them this morning — about the small funding contribution from the Executive in this financial year for not only that project but the A6. Is it ever going to be finished? Once again, the DFI budget does little to alleviate pressures. It threatens the delivery of basic front-line services and safety on our fast-eroding — crumbling — road network. For example, without even dwelling on the Swiss cheese road network around Creggan in my constituency, it is difficult to spot a street in that area that has a road marking intact. We are talking about a very busy community with thousands of homes and with businesses and schools, but the basic ask of line repainting cannot be accommodated.

That top-down approach may lead to a misallocation of resources and fail to address the pressing needs at the grassroots level or, literally, on the streets.

Northern Ireland Water needs £1·9 billion to upgrade its infrastructure. The Committee was told in no uncertain terms that, without adequate investment, the development of 19,000 new homes was at risk. We could see widespread flooding, significant pollution in coastal waters and watercourses, a risk to public health and the likelihood that hospitals, schools and businesses could, if their waste water cannot be treated, have to close. Our rivers are being filled with raw sewage. In the face of such a bleak picture and a bad smell, it is difficult to comprehend a £137 million allocation for this year. The reform and sustainability of our public transport network are merely a pipe dream. The public has been forced to foot the Bill through mounting fare increases due to the Executive's persistent failure to invest in that key area. Both Translink and Northern Ireland Water have had to plunder their legally required reserves, now dangerously depleted, to keep the show on the road: paying salaries and providing services. In the latest monitoring round, bids from both organisations to plug those gaps were, sadly, unsuccessful. I turn briefly to housing. It is of deep concern that B&B and hotel non-standard accommodation, once deemed a last resort, has become the norm. I have spoken in the Chamber of the huge cost financially, yes, but, even more significantly, socially of that practice. We welcome yesterday's allocation of £20 million for the building of new social housing. The dire lack of investment from the Budget in that area was notable and is still extremely concerning. I place on record our gratitude for the campaigning efforts of housing organisations. They provided the detail on what that investment neglect would mean for this year's social housing development programme. The Executive owe it to every individual waiting in desperation for a place to call home to detail how many new social homes will be built this year and whether targets can be met. It is of deep concern that social welfare seems to have been overlooked. The Budget does not adequately address the needs of the most vulnerable populations in the North. With rising living costs and increasing inequality, I hoped to see investment in more comprehensive and targeted interventions to support low-income families, the elderly and those with disabilities. What is notable — I come back to the 'L' word — is the apparently lackadaisical approach to child poverty and the absence of the promised secondary welfare mitigations package to tackle the five-week wait for universal credit, the benefit cap and the draconian two-child policy. Ms Bunting spoke of the PSNI's bleak budgetary situation, which could see police numbers here shrink to the lowest levels in the service's history. Those cuts would not be acceptable or tolerated anywhere else. Given the sensitive historical and current political and policing situation here, it is even more important to have a sufficient police workforce. That is yet another glaring example of where the Budget falls short, the latest in a long line of Budgets to do so.

I thank the Member for his intervention. I listened avidly to his contribution, which was not exactly replete with solutions. I have also read his party manifesto, which is also quite lacking in such solutions . The failure to protect the rates support grant has led to a 75% reduction in that budget since 2008. That disproportionately affects less affluent council areas, including my home council area and the council areas of many Members, particularly in the west, which consistently rank highest in the number of households experiencing rates arrears. Once again, I am disappointed but not surprised to see no mention of a rates support grant in the Budget, but I implore the Minister to work with the Communities Minister to seek protections in statute for that lifeline for less well-off councils. The derating grant has received immunity to departmental budget cuts, and the same protections should be afforded to the rates support grant. The mental health crisis in Northern Ireland is not adequately addressed in the Budget. Despite increased awareness — thanks, in large part, to the stellar efforts of the fantastic community and voluntary sector — and increased demand for mental health services, the allocated funds are insufficient to expand and improve those critical services. The promises of parity of esteem have not been actioned or are not evident in the Budget unless the plan is to underfund Health in its totality so that all services become as bad as the worst.

I thank the Member for his intervention. I do not believe that one Department has been singled out in the Budget for swingeing cuts, and I am sorry if it came across that way. That has not always been the case. In the past, Departments, including Health when the Minister was from the Member's party, were deliberately targeted by other parties. That was not because of the Department but because of who was at the head of it. We have seen that happen again and again with Departments that are headed up by Ministers from smaller parties in the Executive. We should all be vigilant about that in the months and, hopefully, years ahead. The Budget does not tackle the core issues that I have given a flavour of. Let us not be fooled by empty promises and half measures. If the proof is in the pudding, the Budget will leave us with a bad taste in our mouths. Much worse than that, it will, sadly, result in many going hungry.

1,384 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 (0.93).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
  • Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
  • 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 messaging0.12No
Controversy escalation0.06No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.93Yes
Overall judgement0.08At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.99
Reports or questions it0.01
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits0.66
No identity-related subject0.22
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism0.06
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.05
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.01

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 01:20 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