Debate contribution: Budgetary Pressures
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Frew
- 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 4517525
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. When it comes to politics and governance, it is all about priorities and choices, especially for sovereign Governments. That is why I despair when I hear Chancellor after Chancellor talk about there being black holes here and black holes there, because there is no such thing as a black hole with a sovereign Government. If they do not have enough money, they raise more money or prioritise what they spend money on. For a sovereign Government such as the UK's, which spends billions, what they spend that money on is a choice. The Labour Government's decision to cut winter fuel payments is disastrous. It will cost them money in the long run, but it will also cost lives. It is different in the case of a devolved Government. Devolved Governments have to settle for funding settlements: envelopes of money or, more realistically, packages of funding. Although we have limited fiscal powers, we have limited reach when it comes to the ways in which we can raise money. The ways in which we might raise money through revenue raising are primitive. That is a challenge that we have to face. The Finance Minister will have to face that challenge, along with the sustainability plan. Not only do the UK Government want a published sustainability plan but they want to see £113 million in additional revenue. That is a challenge for everyone in the House. How do we get that reve? Do we take it from our people?
No, I will not, because I have only five minutes. It is about tough decisions in this place. The question that I pose today is this: are we up for making those tough decisions to assist our people? I am glad that we now have a Programme for Government, because, when you talk about a finance situation and a budgetary burden, money must follow strategy. It is bonkers to have a Budget without a Programme for Government, and it is bonkers to have a Programme for Government that is not aligned to a Budget. The closer we get to the position where the two are aligned and run in parallel, the better it will be for our people and for this place. I am disappointed that the SDLP and Alliance will not support our amendment, because we should place it on record every time we get the opportunity that funding for this place has fallen below need and should have been retrospectively paid. Think about it like this: if it were not for the various agreements, including the confidence-and-supply arrangement and the money that came from that, we would be in a much worse place. I am aggrieved that the mover of the motion, of all the spending that has taken place since the Alliance Party has been in the Executive, picked on the £250,000 of spend by the Education Minister that will assist teachers and principals and assist with addressing cyberbullying and the massive mental health and well-being problem that we have in our country.
I will not, because I have limited time. The Alliance Party blames not supporting our amendment on the fact that we have withdrawn the "division" part of its motion, but I remind the Alliance Party that it supported division. It supported and voted for a vaccine certification scheme on the basis of the lie that it stopped transmission. The scheme coerced and discriminated against people, creating a "them and us" society. Some £21·5 million was spent on that division. The Alliance Party is a party of division. The SDLP, of course, wanted to go further: it wanted to sack nurses. The Alliance Party cannot wash its hands of that recent decision, which, of course, was implemented by the UUP. We will not let it off lightly either. When we talk about budgetary pressures, we should talk about the cost of the lockdown that those parties also supported. The cost to our people's health was in the millions of pounds, and we still live with those consequences.
674 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: 0.20 (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 (0.68).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.73).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- 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 | 0.10 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.08 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.30 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.25 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.68 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.20 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.73 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.22 |
| Adopts it | 0.05 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.34 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.33 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.16 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.09 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
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.