Debate contribution: Budget 2025-26
Debate contribution by Miss Jemma Dolan on .
- MLA
- Miss Jemma Dolan
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 19 May 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Budget 2025-26
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4968631
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Minister for outlining the details of the Budget. I begin by recognising the ongoing efforts of the Finance Minister to prioritise the delivery of public services in challenging financial circumstances due to increasing costs and the British Government's continued policy of austerity. Funding to reduce health waiting lists, to support childcare, to end violence against women and girls and to protect the environment are just some examples of how the Budget reflects the priorities of the Programme for Government. Health's receipt of almost half of the entire Budget reaffirms the commitment of the Finance Minister and the wider Executive to support our health service. The specific allocation of £215 million to cut health waiting lists is a welcome intervention and will help to alleviate the pressures that are currently being faced. I have had positive interactions with many constituents about the reinstatement of the cross-border health scheme, which was announced by the Health Minister earlier this month, as a result of that investment. It is vital that we continue to do all that we can to support hard-working families. Therefore, the doubling of the funding available for the early years and childcare strategy to £50 million, which has enabled the childcare subsidy scheme to be extended, is another welcome measure that will help parents to remain part of the workforce or return to work. The investment in city and growth deals, including the Mid South West growth deal in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, will be a key driver in helping to address regional economic imbalance and will see the delivery of a vital piece of infrastructure in the A4 Enniskillen bypass. The continuation of funding for welfare mitigations is an example of locally elected representatives stepping forward to protect the sick and disabled at a time when the British Labour Government are continuing the legacy of their Tory predecessors and attacking some of the most vulnerable in our society. I am conscious that the Minister intends to move towards multi-year Budgets following this year. That has the potential to enable Departments to make plans on a longer-term strategic basis. However, we also need to see those in Westminster change direction and invest in public services in order to increase the capacity and ability of services here. I reiterate my support for the ongoing work of the Finance Minister with the British Treasury to ensure that we are fairly funded, reflecting our level of need. We also need to see more fiscal powers devolved, which will provide more flexibility for us to shape policies that are suited to our local needs until constitutional change enables those elected here to have full control over our own political and economic affairs.
454 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: 0.05 (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 (0.86).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.97).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- 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 | 0.07 | 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 | 0.86 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.97 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.02 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.40 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.37 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.10 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.07 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.06 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:38 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.