Debate contribution: Fiscal Devolution
Debate contribution by Mr Eóin Tennyson on .
- MLA
- Mr Eóin Tennyson
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 29 April 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Fiscal Devolution
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4921714
Read the official Assembly record
Text
As other Members have said, this motion comes at a time when our finances are in a precarious position, following 14 years of Tory austerity that has now turned into Labour austerity, which carries grave consequences for the Executive and for households and businesses in Northern Ireland. I am a supporter of increased fiscal devolution for a number of reasons. First, it is more democratic to bring decisions about tax and spend closer to the people whom we represent and those we elect so that they can have more say over those policies through the democratic process. It also offers more incentive for the Executive and the Assembly to prioritise things such as productivity and growing our economy, because there will be rewards through the taxation system. Importantly — this is, perhaps, the most important argument for fiscal devolution — it gives the Executive and the Assembly an opportunity to levy taxation in a way that is more progressive and fair, that supports economic growth and that aligns with our social and economic priorities. Particularly at a time such as this, when all the parties in the Chamber are so critical of the UK Government's response, we should all want more control over those levers. I am not glib about the complexity or the dangers associated with fiscal devolution, some of which Diane Forsythe set out. It is important that we approach this in a balanced and measured way. The first challenge is that the most important factor affecting our public finances is our needs-based formula, which affects the block grant. If we conflate fiscal devolution with a fair funding formula for Northern Ireland, there is a risk that we could find ourselves landed with trade-offs that do not serve our public finances well. That risk is evident if you look to the experience of Wales. It is important, therefore, that we decouple those two arguments. Secondly, a fact that has been skirted around is that, frankly, the Executive do not have a good track record when it comes to dealing with the revenue-raising powers that they have currently. As we do not have sustainability of the institutions, I fear that they could be absent in the face of an economic downturn or crash and, therefore, that we could not respond adeptly and quickly enough to those challenges on behalf of those whom we represent, or, indeed, that we simply would not find agreement amongst the Executive and vetoes would be deployed on key issues. Fundamental reform of our public finances cannot, meaningfully, be decoupled from reform of our governance structures or political institutions to ensure that they are sustainable and stable. I am disappointed that the Minister, irrespective of his views on the debate, is not here to respond. The very least that the Minister could do is to come to the Chamber and set out his priorities for fiscal devolution, given his party's apparent commitment to it. Whilst we are involved in ongoing engagement with the UK Government on our fiscal framework, I agree that our immediate priority needs to be our needs-based formula. There may, however, come a time when we can move beyond that debate and start looking at wider fiscal devolution powers. The very least that the Minister could do is to set out his priorities in that space. On that basis, we are content to support the principle of the motion, notwithstanding some practical considerations and our concerns about the risks that come with fiscal devolution, which need to be seriously thought through.
589 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: 0.03 (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 (0.93).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 | 0.82 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.18 |
| 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 12:27 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.