Debate contribution: Budgetary Pressures

Debate contribution by Ms Diane Forsythe on 10 September 2024.

MLA

Ms Diane Forsythe

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

10 September 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Budgetary Pressures

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4517436

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. We are all well versed on the current budgetary pressures in Northern Ireland. I welcome Members tabling the motion to keep our finances front and centre of discussions in the Assembly, as the finances available define the parameters of what we and the Executive are able to do. The huge pressures facing departmental budgets and the delivery of public services in Northern Ireland have been building for years largely because of the Barnett formula causing spending to grow at a slower rate than in other parts of the United Kingdom. With a mounting list of inescapable pressures and projected departmental overspends of hundreds of millions of pounds, the Assembly must speak with one voice and make the strongest possible case for change from the UK Government. In light of that, the DUP successfully led the campaign for a new needs-based funding model for Northern Ireland. The previous Government were forced to accept a new definition of need, which will apply to future Barnett consequentials received by the Executive. While that is a step in the right direction, it does not address the impact of that historical underfunding on the size of our block grant. Had Northern Ireland been funded in keeping with the new 124% relative need factor since April 2022, core budgets in our Province would be worth at least £500 million more every year. The failure of the previous Government to ensure that that was the case has left the Executive's finances in an even more precarious position. While the other parties welcomed the financial package presented by the Government on the return of devolution earlier this year for those reasons, the DUP made it clear that what was offered fell well short of what was required to put our public finances on a stable footing. The failure to baseline the effect of the new formula from the point at which spending in Northern Ireland dropped below need in 2022 will lead to a further cliff edge in just two years' time. At that point, funding levels will again drop below what is required to fairly and sustainably fund services on a comparable basis to those in England and potentially stay there for decades. The Alliance Party motion calls for a baselined relative need factor above 124% to take account of our policing and justice requirements. However, it is not entirely clear whether it is advocating that that be applied retrospectively from April 2022 or purely on a prospective basis. That is why we have sought to amend the motion. It is important that, as an Assembly, we are clear and ambitious in pursuing a long-term fiscal framework that is fair and provides the quantum to deliver and transform effective front-line services. The Northern Ireland Fiscal Council made it clear in its updated assessment of relative need in March 2024 that adopting a slightly higher or lower estimate of relative need than 124% will not have much near-time impact on the Executive's spending power if it is not baselined from the point when Northern Ireland dropped below need. Our amendment also seeks to amend the reference to the cost of division in the motion. The Executive's interim fiscal framework makes no reference to that in the context of the Executive's requirement to publish a sustainability plan. We want to see Departments tackle waste and duplication wherever it is found, but we are also aware of the fact that language is important and that streamlining the delivery of services must not be viewed as an attack on the various national and cultural identities in our society. Notably, the independent review of education and previous studies in Scotland have highlighted that the existence of separate school sectors, for example, does not necessarily lead to additional costs. Where savings could be made, they should not be exaggerated. Indeed, the key finding standing out from the independent review is that, even if all the savings identified were realised, a significant funding gap would remain. The stabilisation package offered by the Government, while welcome, does not provide a long-term solution to the problems that we have outlined, nor will it provide the impetus or space to take forward the public services transformation agenda in a meaningful way. It also comes with —

I thank the Member. I am not saying that; I am saying that, by quoting the independent review of education in Scotland, the savings should not be exaggerated.

Of course, we are willing to take any steps to identify waste, and we do not want to see it in our finances. There is no room for waste. We need efficiencies to deliver our services.

Going back to the £114 million additional revenue that we have been asked to find, we are clear that it is wrong for Government to simply ask hard-pressed householders to pay more when they have no realistic expectation of seeing better outcomes. Ratepayers in Northern Ireland should not be expected to plug holes in our public services when those holes have been created largely by the Treasury's failure to provide reasonable funding in the first place. Until a fairer, long-term settlement is agreed with Treasury, that will continue to be the DUP's position. I commend the amendment to the House.

879 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:02 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