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

Debate contribution by Mr Eóin Tennyson on 23 September 2024.

MLA

Mr Eóin Tennyson

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

23 September 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Budget (No. 2) Bill: Final Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4543671

Read the official Assembly record

Text

The Alliance Party has consistently warned about the scale of the financial challenges facing the Executive. At every opportunity, we have challenged Westminster austerity, championed fair funding for Northern Ireland and called for proper investment in public services. As I said at Second Stage, the Budget process for 2024-25, like so many before it, has been upended by the stop-go nature of the Assembly. The seemingly endless merry-go-round of crisis and collapse over the past decade has meant that this is our tenth single-year Budget in a row. The timing of the Assembly's return meant that the Bill commenced Second Stage without proper consultation and in the absence of a Programme for Government.

Notwithstanding the obvious impact on our public finances, on our public services and on public confidence and in spite of warm words about the need for stability and delivery, neither Sinn Féin nor the DUP has shown any willingness to surrender its veto or commit not to wield it during the remainder of the mandate. There is no reason for either party to cling to its sectarian veto, unless it is an intention to use it or the threat of it to block progress. Without action, that inherent instability will continue to cast a long shadow over the Executive and our finances and will stymie our ability to deliver meaningful long-term transformation. That is why Alliance remains consistent and unequivocal in our calls for reform, with proposals that uphold power-sharing and the principles of the Good Friday Agreement but seek to address the fundamental structural flaws and inequalities that have held us back and damaged our services and finances. Since agreeing to the Budget for 2024-25, we have all become familiar with Ministers coming to the Chamber to outline the enormous challenges facing their respective Departments. We now know that Departments are reporting £767 million in pressures. The Minister has outlined her intention to allocate £500 million in anticipated Barnett consequentials, which I support, but it is clear that even that will fall short of the funding required. In one sense, it is no surprise that the biggest pressures face the biggest-spending Departments: Health, Education and Justice. A significant portion of the pressures arises from pay review body recommendations in England, and, of course, we all want to see our public-sector workers properly supported. What is surprising, however, is that some Ministers seem to treat their overcommitments more seriously than others. Despite the enormous overspend facing the Department of Education, the Minister saw fit to approve further discretionary spend, including £250,000 for magnetic pouches for just 10 schools, on top of ignoring the recommendations of the independent review of education and the Audit Office and, seemingly, indicating that he wishes to see more duplication in our system in management bodies, rather than less. In my view, those are all bizarre priorities, given the enormous pressures facing that Department and the Executive as a whole. Compare and contrast that with the Department of Justice's approach. The funding challenges facing Justice have been well rehearsed, and there are specific and historical challenges relating to the underfunding of policing and justice, yet the projected overcommitment in the Department is significantly less. There are clear plans to transform the Department through the speeding up justice programme, and, on the basis of previous debates, I hope that, as bids come through the system, there will be unanimous support for the recovery plan for the PSNI, which will address those overspends.

I will, indeed.

That is a hobby horse of Members and has been raised in a number of Finance debates, but I think that we all agree that, in a residential setting such as a prison, where we have prisoners in our care, it is appropriate to have fit-for-purpose canteen facilities. No one in the Chamber would argue that that expenditure is not essential or unavoidable where the current provision is not fit for purpose. The Member made an admirable attempt to draw a comparison with the Department of Education's spending decisions, but it does not stand up to any scrutiny.

I will do, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, but, in fairness, that speaks to why we have deviated from the Main Estimates that were legislated for in the Budget (No. 2) Bill. It is important that we touch on those overcommitments, because that is the legislative authority that the Assembly has given to Ministers, and it is wrong for them to disregard it in a cavalier fashion. There is no doubt that navigating the enormous challenges that face every Department will require leadership from every Minister. Failure to grapple with the challenges before us will carry potentially grave consequences. The Minister outlined that fact when she spoke of the potential for Treasury to recall the £559 million that had been written off. That could upend our ability to deliver a meaningful fiscal framework for Northern Ireland and disrupt our discussions on the Executive's sustainability plan that provide us with an opportunity to chart a pathway to sustainable finances and to make our case for that revised fiscal framework. The Alliance Party remains of the view that it wants to see the cost of division properly addressed as part of that plan. There are other areas where significant progress is needed. The Executive have already made strides on revenue raising. I appreciate that the Finance Minister announced today that she intends to bring further proposals for revenue raising to the Executive. Our test remains that any revenue raising must be progressive and fair and must ensure that those with the broadest shoulders bear the greatest burden. We will judge the Minister's proposals on that basis. The truth remains that no amount of transformation of public services or revenue raising by the Executive will ever counteract the underfunding of public services by Westminster. We are committed to speaking with one voice, together with the Finance Minister and other parties, to deliver the fair funding that is required. If we are to make that case, we have to be willing to show responsibility and leadership in the Chamber. That is why the Alliance Party will support the Budget (No. 2) Bill. It is not a question of whether we believe that the Budget is sufficient, as, clearly, it is not; it is a question of whether we believe that the allocations proposed by the Finance Minister in the Budget that we are legislating for are a fair attempt to allocate insufficient resources, and we believe that they are.

1,083 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

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.

Challenge this classification