Debate contribution: Waiting Times/Care Packages: Budget 2025-26 Allocation
Debate contribution by Dr Caoimhe Archibald on .
- MLA
- Dr Caoimhe Archibald
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 28 January 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Waiting Times/Care Packages: Budget 2025-26 Allocation
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4763888
Read the official Assembly record
Text
With the Speaker's permission, I will answer questions 1 and 10 together. The Department of Health was provided with a resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) budget of £7·7 billion in 2024-25. The Department received a further £479 million during in-year exercises. The 2025-26 draft Budget proposes a resource budget of £8·4 billion for the Department of Health. That is an increase of £672 million or 8·7% compared with the 2024-25 non-ring-fenced resource DEL opening baseline. The financial package that accompanied the restoration of the Executive included £34 million specifically for health waiting lists in 2024-25. That was provided as a ring-fenced allocation. Similar funding was not provided by the financial package for 2025-26. To provide the Health Minister with the maximum flexibility in managing his budget, I have not proposed further ring-fencing of funding for waiting lists or care packages in 2024-25 or 2025-26. Whilst that could be considered as part of the final Budget following the consultation exercise, it would require ring-fencing part of the current budget proposed for the Department of Health, reducing the flexibility available to the Health Minister or reducing other Departments' budget allocations.
188 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: 0.02 (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 (0.87).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.87 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 | 0.99 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:53 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.