Debate contribution: Budget 2025-26
Debate contribution by Ms Cara Hunter on .
- MLA
- Ms Cara Hunter
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 19 May 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Budget 2025-26
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4968724
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Budget is not just a set of numbers; it is a test of whether the Executive can turn words into action or whether they will continue the cycle of failure, short-termism, blaming and shifting that has held the North back for far too long. Let us be clear: the public deserve a Budget that works and matches resources to the priorities of our people with clear targets and outcomes that improve everyday life. Instead, what have we got? Despite receiving the largest block grant in the history of devolution, just 2% of the Budget has been allocated to the Executive's Programme for Government priorities, resulting in 98% of public spending being disconnected from the very goals that, Ministers claimed, they would deliver on: reducing waiting lists, building homes, investing in childcare and, of course, growing our economy. The Budget does not reflect ambition; it reflects complacency. It reflects a Government more concerned with managing political optics than with delivering for the people whom they seek to serve. We were told that things would change when the Executive returned in February and that there would be transformation, fiscal sustainability and, of course, reform. Instead, we have a rerun of the same, tired approach of siloed spending, political self-interest and an unwillingness to grasp the tools of real change.
While the Executive blame Westminster — yes, the funding model is deeply flawed — they cannot continue to pull the wool over the public's eyes by ignoring their failure to act.
Three years ago, the independent Fiscal Commission provided the Executive with a roadmap to devolve more tax powers, expand borrowing flexibility, establish a reserve fund and strengthen fiscal autonomy. Sadly, not one of those recommendations has been implemented. Instead of building the future, the Executive borrow the excuses of the past. In the Programme for Government, the Executive identified childcare as a top priority, but, while Ministers tell us that we need to spend £400 million a year for proper early years support, they have allocated just £50 million to it. That is not investment; that is neglect, and parents will tell you the same thing. Meanwhile, public services are crumbling around us: agency staff costs in health have doubled to £400 million; overspends on major capital projects now total £3 billion; and the cost of division or political dysfunction and failure to build shared services drains another £800 million every year. Furthermore, the Budget does nothing to address the glaring failures in our education system, which faces a financial crisis. We hear of the ongoing concerns of teachers, principals and our communities who feel that their children are being failed. We urgently need more funding to ensure that schools can support their students effectively. We are witnessing an education system under significant stress that is not equipped to deal with the growing demands that are being placed on it. I would like to refer in particular to mental health services, especially those for our students, as they remain woefully inadequate. Mental health support in schools is not a luxury but a necessity, yet the response has been to underfund that area while disregarding the root causes of mental health distress, such as poverty and, of course, a wider lack of support. Our children are growing up in an environment in which their mental health is overlooked, and, as a result, their future is put at risk. I also feel strongly about child poverty and inequality, which also continue to be ignored. A recent report by Barnardo's shows that a quarter of parents struggle to provide enough food for their children. Despite those alarming statistics, no meaningful action is being taken to tackle the structural causes of poverty, and, as a direct result, children are left without the basic necessities and schools are expected to pick up the slack with inadequate resources. Most troubling is the recent decision to fine teachers up to £2,500 for engaging in lawful union action, which is a direct attack on their rights. Rather than focusing on resolving the underlying issues that have driven our teachers to take industrial action — chronic underfunding, overwork and inadequate support — there have, sadly, been moves to criminalise their efforts to improve their working conditions and our wider education system. That move only deepens the crisis and further demoralises an already burned-out and overburdened teaching profession. The SDLP has published a credible, costed and ambitious alternative — with fancy logos. Our plan for change starts with the basics. We would like to commit at least 10% of departmental spending to the Programme for Government priorities, backed by time-bound targets for change by 2030. We would publish departmental business cases, create a public spending dashboard and empower the Fiscal Council to monitor delivery. That is transparency and accountability. We would grasp fiscal devolution, starting with the taxes that the Fiscal Commission identified. We would reform superparity measures not by cutting what is essential but by ensuring that every pound delivers maximum social impact. We would establish a Northern Ireland regional investment bank, backed by unspent capital and designed to unlock investment in housing, green energy and, of course, enterprise. We would work with the Irish Government to develop shared budgets, because health, infrastructure and economic development do not stop at the border. Above all, we would future-proof our finances by introducing a future generations Bill, ensuring that every spending decision reflects our shared priorities, promotes sustainability and delivers for the next generation and not just for the next election. That is not a theory or aspiration without action; it is a plan, grounded in reality, driven by values and very much ready to go. The North can no longer afford a Government who pick fights over flags. We need leadership that is focused on affordable childcare, decent jobs, clean energy and homes that people can actually live in. People here are tired of promises. They want results; they want public money to be spent wisely; and they want a Government who plan beyond tomorrow. This Budget fails that test, but the SDLP is ready and has a better answer. The people of the North deserve a Budget that works not just for headlines but for homes, hospitals and hope.
1,039 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: 0.07 (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 (0.95).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.53).
- Subject area: Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials.
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.09 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.10 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.53 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.02 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.45 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.63 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.21 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.06 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.06 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
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.