Debate contribution: Supply Resolution for the Northern Ireland Spring Supplementary Estimates 2024-25
Debate contribution by Mrs Diane Dodds on .
- MLA
- Mrs Diane Dodds
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 17 February 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Supply Resolution for the Northern Ireland Spring Supplementary Estimates 2024-25
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4803020
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I rise as the DUP's health spokesperson to make a few remarks on the 2024-25 budget for Health. The Health budget of 2024-25 saw huge pressures in Health but also significant in-year allocations. That allowed the Minister to meet the pay requirements for HSC staff. We should say that and congratulate the Minister when he has done a good job. It was an important outcome. As I have said often, the staff whom we have working in Health and Social Care are the glue that holds together a very broken system. It has to be said, however, that the announcement of the pay award was made on the same day that the Minister announced the appointment of a new permanent secretary on an eye-watering salary. Only time will tell whether he is worth that salary. I presume that the Minister of Finance had to OK such a breach of salary rules. We will need to see significant reform and transformation of healthcare if we are to avoid a continuation of what we have now. Northern Ireland still has the most expensive health service per head of population in the United Kingdom, yet it has the worst outcomes. Almost half a million people are waiting for a first appointment with a consultant. The most recent figures for breast cancer referrals show that, for women who had discovered a lump in their breast and were waiting for that first consultation, only one in 10 appointments in the Southern Trust met the 14-day target. The corresponding figure was much lower in the Northern Trust and South Eastern Trust. That is not an acceptable place for our health service to be in, so we need to get on with the reform that will drive better outcomes for people. The Minister of Health achieved a balanced budget despite his predecessor's dire predictions. The previous Minister engaged in a strange calculation of the figures in the 2024-25 Budget. Guess what? The incumbent Minister is doing that all over again with the 2025-26 Budget. The draft Budget equality impact assessment that the Department published indicates that it is in line to receive only a 2·6% increase on the 2024-25 end-of-year position, but that is not comparing like with like. Compared with the starting position of £7·76 billion in 2024-25, the proposed £8·4 billion allocation to the Department of Health represents an increase of more than 8% on that position. If the anticipated sums —.
No. I want to make some progress, because I have quite a lot to get through. If the anticipated sums for the immigration health surcharge and National Insurance contributions of employed staff are included, that increases to 11%. We all want to see as much as possible in the Department of Health budget, but, in a time of constrained budgets, we have to be realistic about being able to deliver the best possible outcomes. Some of my colleagues talked about looking after the money that we have in the system. There is a lot of money in the health system, yet it has some very poor outcomes. In September 2024, I asked about the amount of PPE that the Business Services Organisation (BSO) was holding on the Department of Health's behalf, and the answer that came back was quite startling. It seems that about £97 million worth of PPE stock will expire by 2027, yet the Department of Health was seeking more money for additional PPE. It would be interesting to know the reasons for that. We need to be really clear and transparent with the money that we have in the system. Last Thursday at the Health Committee, I quizzed the Minister and the permanent secretary about the current estimated cost of the new children's hospital. The Committee has visited the new maternity hospital, which is an absolutely amazing building, but we were told during that visit that the cost of the contract for the children's hospital had now risen to £670 million. I would be interested in hearing the Finance Minister's view on that. The investment strategy delivery tracking system report, which is provided to the Committee every month, indicates that the value of the children's hospital contract will be greater than £1 billion. We would like to know the nature of the discrepancy between the figure of £670 million, which is the cost of the contract that was signed, and the figure in the investment strategy delivery tracking system report. We need clarity and transparency on the Department of Health's capital investment. The maternity hospital issues have still not been resolved. It is an amazing building that will make a huge difference to mothers and babies and to families with the most vulnerable children in our society, but we still do not know the cost of making it safe for those babies. That is something that we need to know as well.
I also draw the Minister's attention to the energy scheme for the Belfast Trust. A total of £9·5 million was spent on an energy project that the Department of Health, in a recent letter to me, stated is red-flagged and cannot be delivered.
The challenge is to get better outcomes for people, but it is also about managing money better, which is really important. I hope that the Minister will look at some of those figures and ensure that we are more efficient in what we do and more realistic in how the Department spends money.
908 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 (0.96).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | 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 | 0.76 |
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.11 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.07 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.04 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:01 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.