Debate contribution: Fiscal Devolution
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Frew
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 29 April 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Fiscal Devolution
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4921721
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Opposition are definitely right to say that the motion is concise, but there is no detail in it. It states:
"funding arrangements for public services in Northern Ireland are not fit for purpose".
I do not think that anyone here would disagree with that; in fact, our party, the DUP, has campaigned for a long time for the relative need formula. We were the first party to voice concerns about relative need, and we have been the consistent party all along in pushing for that formula. Even when it came to the restoration of the Assembly, we pushed for it, and we warned that we had not got the right financial package. Setting the baseline at the level of the spending review of 2022 would have injected £0·5 billion a year extra into our coffers to spend on our people. If we get more fiscal powers, is that £0·5 billion a year in the range of what the Opposition want to raise? There is a danger with that. If we get more fiscal powers, can the British Government — our Government — not say, "You have fiscal powers now, so stop complaining about the package that we give you and raise your own revenue"? There absolutely is a danger in that. The focus of the Executive and the Assembly should be on making sure that we are funded properly and appropriately, according to relative need. We are not there yet, so our focus should be on making sure that the funding package for this devolved region is sufficient to cater for the needs of our people. We talk about fiscal powers as though they are something that we will use progressively, which was one of the words used, while "fairly" was another. Really? Corporation tax has been devolved: why have we not used it? We have not used it because there is pressure to put it down. The Opposition have tabled the motion. I am also interested to hear from Sinn Féin, because it holds the Ministry. What fiscal powers do you want? Do you want to raise income tax? Do you want to raise VAT? Rises to both of those fiscal levers would cause massive damage to our economy, our people and our growth. So what is it? What do the Opposition want? Why have they not put that down? Do the Opposition want to raise £0·5 billion from income tax or from VAT? We do not even have the Finance Minister here to tell us what his plan would be. I agree with the Opposition that that is shameful: the fact that the Finance Minister is not here to address the debate is contemptible. It is not only contemptible to the Opposition; it is contemptible to the House. It is absolutely contemptible. We need detail. Our party is clear: we do not support any more fiscal powers for the reasons that my colleague Diane Forsythe outlined. We do not have the capacity or the capability, and that is not only in the political class but in the Civil Service class. Why do I say that? Some people might say that that is unfair. Look at our track record. Sinn Féin laments the fact that the Republic of Ireland can do this and that so much better than Northern Ireland, yet Sinn Féin has been in government for the duration of the Assembly. How much blame does Sinn Féin put on itself?
Yes, I will give way.
The Member has made a valid point. Why has Sinn Féin not moved on corporation tax when it holds the role of Finance Minister, even though it could synchronise our corporation tax with that down South? Why not? It will take a cut in our block grant: is that the issue, or is it that they are champagne socialists? Is Sinn Féin enjoying the money that it gets from the United Kingdom? We have been given more money by our Government this year than ever before; yet, I agree that it is a challenging Budget. Sinn Féin enjoys that amount of money. It is a cry — a mantra — to say that it wants more fiscal powers. Of course, it is — that is all that you hear from the party. It is all that you hear from the Opposition, too. What would they do with those fiscal powers? Nobody has told us. Nobody can tell us, because they do not have a clue. They do not have the foggiest. We will not support the devolution of fiscal powers until we get a proper settlement and are assured that we have the capability and capacity to deal with those powers and that the parties opposite will not hurt our people and drain them of all their resources and hard-earned cash.
800 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: 0.18 (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 (0.83).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.80).
- 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 | 0.11 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.14 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.57 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.09 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.83 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.18 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.80 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.20 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.71 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.25 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.02 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 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.