Debate contribution: Budget (No. 2) Bill: Final Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Colin McGrath on .
- MLA
- Mr Colin McGrath
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 23 September 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Budget (No. 2) Bill: Final Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4543663
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The first thing for us to welcome today — yes, we welcome it — is that we are actually at the Final Stage of a Budget Bill. Unfortunately, it is not a three-year strategic Budget that will be aligned to the priorities in a Programme for Government. However, it would be unfair to land all the blame for that at the door of the Minister. What we have instead is our tenth single-year sticky tape Budget in a row. We need to recognise that this is not the way to deliver proper or sound fiscal policy, and we really need to overcome that. We appreciate that this is a tight Budget. It would be foolish to think, or even try to portray, that the amount of money that has been given to us to deliver public services is at the level that we would like to see it at. The amount that we have in our Budget is not enough. That is a fact. However, one has to wonder how long it can be credible for the Executive to have a policy of high-level spending aspirations that are not met by the level of their Budget and simply bemoan that we do not have enough money. While it is accepted that the levels coming from London have not been enough in the past, and may not be enough in the future, I cannot help but wonder whether the Executive and Finance Minister are preparing the inevitable plan B that needs to run alongside such a reality. You need to be honest with the public. Are you prepared to revenue-raise or cut budgets? In the face of insufficient funds from London, one or other of those will have to happen. I repeat that we cannot lay all the blame at the door of the Finance Minister, but the Budget required accelerated passage, which is not a good form of government. However, the collapse and chaos of the Executive's stability, delivered by Sinn Féin and the DUP, have resulted in stop-start government. That has had an inevitable impact on the finance-planning process and the delivery of Budget Bills over the past decade. An important process and part of any budgetary cycle is the delivery of the in-year monitoring rounds. Members will be aware that that means that the little cash pot that accrues is divided among Departments at various points during the year to help them with their work. That often brings relief to Departments' very tight budgets, and it enables the delivery of public services that might not otherwise have been delivered. It is well recognised that that is popular with the public because things that may not have happened suddenly do happen. I reiterate the Opposition's perspective: it was shameful that the Executive delivered a monitoring round in the week of an election. That could have been perceived as an abuse of the process of these institutions to win favour with the electorate at election time. It is right and proper that the process for that decision-making, as part of our financial cycle, is fully examined by independent eyes to determine whether it could have been done differently. The Budget is not what we want it to be. It is not the right amount of money. It is not set against strategic outcomes. It does not look to the long term, and it is wanting in many places. However, the Opposition recognise the specific circumstances that exist. It could have been different. The Executive will deliver stability and be able to set priorities properly with their spending plans. We expect to see the deficiencies in this year's process addressed from next year's Budget onwards.
614 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: 0.06 (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 (0.83).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.06 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.83 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.91 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.04 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.03 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:03 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.