Debate contribution: Budget (No. 2) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mrs Diane Dodds on .
- MLA
- Mrs Diane Dodds
- Party at the time
- Democratic 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 4529392
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the Budget debate, and I will confine my remarks to my policy area of health and social care. As a first step, I reiterate my and my party's priority for our health and social care system. I believe that, despite the political wrangling, all of us across the House want to see a health service that is fit for purpose and serves us and our families in times of need in an efficient and practical manner. It is important to stress those issues when debating the Budget Bill. In the last few contributions, we have heard political manoeuvring around the Health budget, but, as someone who has been consistently out on the election trail for a number of weeks, I have to warn people: our constituents have little time for this, and they recognise that there is a considerable amount of work for us all to do to sort out what are fundamental issues for the health and well-being of our society.
No, I want to make progress. I have absolutely no doubt that this is a difficult Budget for all Departments. The Health budget accounts for 52% of the total block grant to Northern Ireland and, in the Budget allocation, was awarded over 50% of the additional funding that was made available to Northern Ireland. In the last couple of years, the Health budget has seen a considerable increase in its allocation, yet some in the House have tried to indicate something different by comparing an end-of-year settlement with a beginning-of-year settlement. I warn Members: our constituents are not fooled by that nonsense and are clear that, whatever the problems in health are, that kind of wrangling is of little use to them. They want the issue sorted, and they are tired of the nonsense. I welcome the additional £122 million from the June monitoring process. As my colleague said, that represents about 57% of the funding that was available. I look forward to the Health Minister giving an update on the impact of the additional funding, just as the previous Health Minister was so keen to give us his letter on the funding gap. I hope that the new Health Minister will work with Executive colleagues to secure more funding from Treasury and not continue the sham fight on the issue. As colleagues have said, it was my party leader, Gavin Robinson, who started the work on getting a better settlement from His Majesty's Treasury because he recognised that Northern Ireland was not funded on the basis of need. We now have a more generous settlement, but, if we are to rebuild our public services and really make them fit for purpose, it will take all of us in the House working together to secure that objective of additional finance.
That is work in progress, and I know that the MPs from my party will take it up with renewed vigour after the general election.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I respect your ruling. Minister, as you are here in the House, I want you to acknowledge that there is work to do with the Health Department to avoid its continuous underspends. The Northern Ireland Audit Office report published on 24 May records that, in 2018-19, the underspend was £32 million; in 2019-2020, it was £69 million; in 2021-22, it was £25 million; and, in 2022-23, it was £27 million. In total, £153 million that could have been spent on health was handed back. That included £88 million of non-ring-fenced resource DEL that could have been used for the benefit of our health and social care system. We all know that that funding would have made a difference. Therefore, I urge you, Minister, to ensure efficient monitoring so that all allocated funding is utilised for the benefit of those on long waiting lists, waiting for care packages or red-flag cancer patients who have difficulty accessing prompt healthcare. We all want a Budget that is fit for purpose, and I and my colleagues will not be found wanting in working to achieve that. Having outlined that, I also want to put it on record that funding is but one part of a complex set of problems and issues that require solutions in order to have a health and social care system that is fit for purpose. We need a comprehensive plan for the restructuring of services. Our Health Ministers have been good at telling us what they cannot do, but they now must tell us what they can do with the 52% of the total budget that is allocated to Northern Ireland. We need to know what those priorities are. On 15 April, in the House, I asked the former Health Minister when he would bring forward his plan for restructuring the health service in Northern Ireland. He told me then — it is on record — that it would be in a couple of weeks' time. We still do not have that plan. We in the Health Committee cannot hold the Department and the Minister to account if we do not see the plan. We need to see it. In closing, I stress that I acknowledge how difficult the Budget is for all Departments, particularly the Health Department. The Minister said yesterday in the House that health is a personal issue. It is personal to every one of us, to our families and to our communities, and we need to work together to fix a system that is essentially broken. Too many of our constituents are on waiting lists and in pain. We on this side of the House will not be found wanting in working together with the House to ensure that we fix the problem within the term of the Assembly. While this is an extremely challenging Budget, we hope that we will see better times and better funding so that we can direct it towards those most in need.
991 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: 0.04 (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 (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 | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 | 0.98 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 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.