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

Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on 23 September 2024.

MLA

Mr Timothy Gaston

Party at the time

Traditional Unionist Voice

Date

23 September 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Budget (No. 2) Bill: Final Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4543716

Read the official Assembly record

Text

The first thing that I observe about the Bill is clause 1(2):

"In that year, the use of resources by the persons mentioned in subsection (3) is authorised up to the amount of £28,772,794,000."

I have not been here long, but I have been here long enough to know that one of the things that Members excel at in the House is complaining about the lack of money that comes from Westminster. The reality is that, without tax-raising powers, all that we can do is divide up the cake that we have been given. Whatever way in which you seek to divide it, the truth remains that £28,772,794,000 is a pretty big cake. That figure is much more generous than what we would have if we were part of the Irish Republic that all those to my left in the Chamber fantasise over. We need to remind ourselves that people in the Republic do not have a health service free at the point of need. People can be charged for calling out the fire service, and they do not have a personal allowance. Thankfully, we do. That is because we are part of the United Kingdom. That having been said, there is a case to be made that Northern Ireland should be funded even more generously. Shamefully, unionists returned to this place having sold a false bill of goods to the people in terms of what the 'Safeguarding the Union' —

— Command Paper delivered regarding the protocol.

Yes. I have the Bill in front of me.

If you give me time to expand, I will mention the Budget (No. 2) Bill —

— like the rest of the Members who have spoken. That was a fundamental betrayal of the mandate secured by the DUP at the most recent Assembly and council elections. We also had the nonsense peddled that a financial package had been secured. Let me be clear: I do not believe for one moment that unionists should have betrayed their word to those who trusted them, regardless of how many pieces of silver were on offer. Nor should the public be blind to the reality that, generous as the block grant from Westminster is, it could and should be even more generous. On two occasions already in the House, I have highlighted the fact that, in 2007, the Welsh Government appointed Professor Gerry Holtham to examine funding from Westminster to the devolved regions. Professor Holtham found that, in order for people in Wales to enjoy the same level of public services as people in England, the Government, because of the higher need in Wales, needed to spend £115 per head for every £100 spent in England. In Scotland, the figure was £105 per head, and, in Northern Ireland, it was £121 per head. Since 2012, Westminster has accepted that block grant funding to Wales should not fall below the Holtham definition of need. Why have the Executive parties not been pushing for the same principle to apply to Northern Ireland's funding? I have quoted those figures before, but I remind the House that the funding of Northern Ireland was £3 per head below the UK definition of need in 2022-23 and 2023-24. Generously funded as Northern Ireland undoubtedly is, especially when one considers the alternative of an all Ireland in which one would have to pay to visit a GP, pay for a stay in hospital and even pay to get the fire brigade out, we could and should be funded even more generously. It is an indictment of the establishment parties in the Chamber that, in all the crisis talks that they have had with the Government over the years about money, they have failed to make that simple and basic argument. You cannot come here week after week to debate pointless motions complaining about the lack of money for this or that when you have not made the argument for a sustainable, long-term funding solution from which another devolved region already benefits. Two weeks ago, the Communities Minister challenged MLAs about what we would do differently in order to save the winter fuel payment. I laid out some changes that I would make to how we spend money. This place is prepared to spend £9 million annually for an Irish language Act that will only increase division.

In the Budget (No. 2) Bill —.

I was mentioning the Budget (No. 2) Bill, one line of which says that this place spends £1·6 million annually to maintain prison buildings at the Maze, which, it seems obvious to me, will become a shrine to terror. In the Budget (No. 2) Bill, the Assembly will spend between £35 million and £45 million a year on useless North/South bodies and the North/South Ministerial Council, which operates as normal while border posts are built at Larne, as the noose of the protocol tightens day by day. When I highlighted those proposed savings, Minister Lyons dismissed them with a smirk, claiming that the redundancies involved would cost us money. Laying off staff who are employed by virtue of money from the Budget (No. 2) Bill in an organisation like Safefood would have a long-term benefit for Northern Ireland, because not one of them is employed on this side of the border. Minister Lyons even made the bizarre claim that, if we lost the North/South bodies, we would have no one to promote Northern Ireland as a tourism destination. The truth is that, shamefully, no one promotes Northern Ireland as a tourist destination on the international stage. Tourism Ireland promotes the island as a single destination, and it does not make a very good job of promoting the unique tourism experiences of places such as my constituency, which boasts both of Northern Ireland's World Heritage Sites alongside world-class hotels and golf courses. Minister Lyons may be pleased with the crumbs —.

Yes, I am.

It is all part of the money —.

I will finish the point that I was making before I move on to my next point about the Budget (No. 2) Bill. Minister Lyons may be pleased with the crumbs from Tourism Ireland, but I want to see Northern Ireland being promoted in its own right. In 2016, a former head of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board made the argument that we needed our own tourism strategy and that we were getting a raw deal from Tourism Ireland for the money that we invest. Almost a decade on, nothing has changed and nothing has been done to change that sad fact. When it comes to the achievements of the Executive on financial issues, the reality is very different. This morning, on the radio, the DUP leader and the Education Minister claimed as a great victory the funding package for childcare in the Budget (No. 2) Bill. When we strip back the spin, however, the reality is very different. Last week, in response to my question for oral answer, the Finance Minister had to admit that the Executive received £57·2 million of Barnett consequentials for 2024-25, following the announcement in the spring Budget of the expansion of the 30 free hours of childcare scheme in England. However, Stormont's 2024-25 Budget provides just £25 million to support the development of a childcare strategy. That means that more than £32 million of our share of money that should have gone to childcare has not been committed to that issue. Far from connecting with the priorities of ordinary people when it comes to childcare, Stormont is selling the people short to the tune of £32 million, which it is spending on other things. That is not an achievement; it certainly is a disgrace. If I may change direction slightly, I will focus a wee bit on local government. When the review of public administration (RPA) finally happened in 2015, we were told that we would see savings. In some cases, three councils merged into one. I argue that, instead of seeing savings, Stormont created bloated organisations without providing any real scrutiny to ensure that our councils provide value for money. Take Mid and East Antrim Borough Council, to which I was first elected in 2014. After the election in May 2023, we were called to a crisis meeting where we were told about the financial turmoil that the council had got itself into and that external expertise was required to sort out the mess. After spending upwards of half a million on external consultants, we were told that the deficit was of the order of £7·2 million and that an additional £1·4 million was required from the 2024-25 rates to complete all the recommendations. As time passed, my concerns grew. By using the narrative of a £7·2 million deficit in February 2024, the majority of councillors inflicted the worst rates rise in the council's history on householders and businesses, with a rise of 9·78% and 11·8% respectively. In England, such a rise would have incurred a local referendum, whereas in Northern Ireland that increase was agreed after 22 councillors voted in favour of it and 14 voted against it, without any oversight or input from Stormont. Furthermore, it now transpires that the £7·2 million deficit turned into a healthy £1·4 million surplus. With some imaginative counting, the unaudited accounts that the council submitted show that break-even was reached after the reserves were bolstered and a new members' fund had been set up to keep councillors sweet. I have further concerns about directors being recruited through long-term agency contracts rather than being directly employed, which would make savings for the ratepayer. We have the bizarre position where two directors are engaged through an agency to which ratepayers are paying a daily finder's fee for the privilege. That is insulting. No local authority should be paying in the region of £1,060 and £960 plus expenses per day to any agency worker. Having directors earn more than the chief executive is not a sustainable model for running any business, never mind a council. Where is the oversight from Stormont? Where is the value for money for the ratepayer? I will vote against the Budget (No. 2) Bill. I ask the other unionists in the Chamber to think about why they will find themselves voting in the same Lobby as Sinn Féin. Why is it that, instead of passing a Budget, you are not all locked in crisis talks with the Government over winter fuel payments? Sinn Féin was prepared to bring this place down over the bedroom tax. Why has it meekly rolled over and accepted the Westminster decision to cut at this time? I will tell you why. Sinn Féin has unionism exactly where it wants it. It has its eye on the bigger goal. We heard at the weekend all this chat about unionist unity and reaching out to other unionist parties, but you need to bear in mind that not having the threat —.

I am still going on to the Budget (No. 2) Bill.

I quoted it a lot more than other Members did. You gave them latitude, but you have not given me the same latitude.

At least I did that more than other people.

To bring my remarks on the Budget (No. 2) Bill to a close, I will just say this: once the Bill passes today, those who support it can no longer chime and complain about the Labour Government and what they have done. This is your Budget. You now own it. Any decisions that flow from it are on the heads of those Executive parties that vote the Bill through today. I, for one, will not support it.

1,941 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Qualifying Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty

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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification