Debate contribution: Budget (No. 2) Bill: Final Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on .
- MLA
- Mr Gerry Carroll
- Party at the time
- People Before Profit Alliance
- Date
- 23 September 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Budget (No. 2) Bill: Final Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4543780
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I will speak briefly about the Budget Bill. It is clear that this Budget Bill, alongside the wider process of Budgets, does not meet the desires and needs of working-class communities across this society. The housing crisis is completely out of control and there is no appropriate funding allocated to tackle that problem in this Budget Bill. Health is continually underfunded, with a rocketing crisis ripping through all of society. There is no appropriate funding for Health. All the while, people cling to the Bengoa scheme, which is designed to cut, dice and reduce our important health service. No thank you. Lough Neagh continues to be strangled and to die, but there is no appropriate funding in this Budget Bill for it. That just scratches the surface of what this Bill will not do. It is even worse when you see what meagre tax increases on the rich would bring in. I raised that in the Finance Committee in the past two weeks, and it is worth repeating on the Floor. A 1% tax increase on the wealthiest 1% would bring in £25 billion of extra funding for public services, and the black hole would be completely gone. The €13 billion that Apple owed in taxes would transform public services right across the island. Where is the Executive's strategy to tackle those issues, to highlight them and to fight them? They do not have any plan to do so. It cannot be business as usual while corporate profits are out of control. The Budget Bill is definitely business as usual, and, for that reason, I will vote against it.
269 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: 0.04 (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 (0.90).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.85 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.07 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.05 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| 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.