Debate contribution: Budget Allocations 2025-26
Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on .
- MLA
- Mr Gordon Lyons
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 2 June 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Ministerial Statement
- Heading
- Budget Allocations 2025-26
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4980800
Read the official Assembly record
Text
That is exactly why I have made the announcements that I have made today. The musical instruments fund is not focused on one area but spread across Northern Ireland; the funding for artists in residence is for every district and borough council in Northern Ireland; and the small grants scheme focuses on areas outside Belfast. The Arts Council has a number of inescapable pressures — some things continue to need to be funded — but where there is flexibility and where I have been able to allocate extra money, I have ensured that that has been done in a regionally balanced way, because I do not want anyone to have less opportunity to participate in and enjoy the arts simply because of where they live. I have made concrete announcements and proposals today on how we will do that.
I believe that the Member is referring to the Supreme Court ruling against Scottish Ministers. It is absolutely right that all Departments are aware of that. Some like to say that the judgement does not apply to Northern Ireland because the Equality Act 2010 does not apply to Northern Ireland, but that is completely wrong. It does apply; of course it does. Of course it will impact on us. I welcome the judgement. Above everything else, it was a common-sense judgement, but there are requirements that have come from it. The highest court in the land has made a declaration on same-sex spaces in particular, and that has consequences. I will not be found on the wrong side of that.
I do not want to fall foul of the law or open us up to any challenges that might come our way.
I know that others in the House have struggled with that reality and with the court judgement, but I will not be found wanting in ensuring that we protect ourselves by following and implementing the law. That is not dependent on me waiting for advice from anyone else. We will take our own counsel on it and ensure that we give out the guidance and, where necessary, the instruction to make sure that we are on the right side of the law.
I thank the Member for her lobbying for Bloomfield Community Association and for inviting me out there. We had a fantastic morning a few weeks ago, and there is a photograph to prove that. I am delighted to provide that support along with Belfast City Council, ensuring that it has the facilities that it deserves. With regard to Your School Your Club, my priority is to make sure that existing facilities or areas where facilities can be enhanced are given the support that they need for that to happen so that we can help schools and, at the same time, ensure that there is community access. I am more than willing to look at all options. I know that the Member is vociferous in her lobbying, and I have no doubt that I will hear more from her on that matter soon.
I am grateful to the Member for his question and for inviting me, when I was in a previous job, to his constituency to hear about the plans for the maritime museum. I am pleased to confirm to the Member that, this year, I am allocating £500,000 to the development of the maritime museum. It has an incredible story to tell. There is so much history there and a story that is often not told, but I want to make sure that we can tell that story. I hope that the half a million pounds of funding will contribute towards that.
The statement is about budget allocations for 2025-26. The Member will be aware that there is no confirmed overall budget in place for Casement Park that comes anywhere close to our being able to proceed with that development. That is why I have not allocated money for that purpose. I am happy to announce once more that, after 14 years of the football fund being held up, it is progressing. I look forward to that money being spent, and I will make a statement on it in due course. Whether that money is allocated and spent during this financial year and how much money there will be are yet to be seen.
It is absolutely the case that illegal immigration is having an impact when it comes to housing costs in Northern Ireland, and those who say otherwise are lying to you. It is a real problem, and it is time that we had a bit of honesty when it comes to the debate, because, ultimately, it is a supply issue. I can inform the House that close to 2,600 individuals in Northern Ireland are being supported by the Home Office while awaiting a decision on their application for asylum. Those are obviously issues for the UK Government. They pay through the Home Office for that accommodation, but that still has a pressure on housing costs here, because of the increased demand and the prices that Mears is often able to pay in relation to that. The causes of homelessness have mostly remained relatively consistent over the past nine months, but those who are transferring from being the responsibility of Mears to being the responsibility of the Housing Executive — no accommodation in Northern Ireland under section 95 — are in the only category that has shown clear growth. Numbers in that category rose from 365 households last July to 578 households in March this year. As a result, it has now become the fourth most common reason for temporary accommodation. It is an issue that primarily lies with the UK Government. That is why it is so critical that they get their immigration policy right and deal with those who are coming here outside of the immigration policy that is in place.
I share the Member's delight at the money that is being allocated to Carrick Castle. That £1·6 million will be used for works to the castle vaults and officers' quarters and refurbishment of the cannons and the main gate. I do not know whether that takes them entirely back to the working order that they may have been in some time ago, but I have been told that the cannons are being refurbished anyway. There will also be works to the castle sea tower, along with conservation works to Carrick town walls and Carrick gasworks. The castle is an incredible resource in East Antrim, but it has been underutilised and underdeveloped in the area's tourism potential. I hope that it will encourage more people to come to Carrickfergus to visit the castle and to spend more time in East Antrim before they head up to the Causeway coast.
I am grateful to the Member for raising that question, because it is raised frequently with me. There was an Arts Council event a couple of Saturdays ago in the town hall in Ballymena for those who applied to the musical instruments fund, and it was raised with me time and time again how the application process could be better. Therefore, I have tasked officials with reviewing the application process to make it much more streamlined in order to ensure that it does not become an obstacle to application.
I thank the Member for raising Rhys's incredible success at the Olympic Games in Paris last year. I will see him today and will get an update on the funding that I made available for the medal winners from Paris 2024. That was split between those who were successful, and the funding has been used for new equipment and to expand opportunities to participate in sports. Building on that fund, I am pleased to announce a £1 million capital investment programme under the theme of Olympic legacy, and that funding will enable our sports clubs and community groups to develop or modernise their facilities or buy large items of equipment. The objective of the fund is to generate a substantial legacy for sport in Northern Ireland following Paris 2024 and to improve infrastructure and equipment provision.
1,352 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: 0.23 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- Criteria met: Sectarian or communal antagonism (0.64).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.81).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.49).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- 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 | 0.13 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.64 | Yes |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.05 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.57 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.15 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.81 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.23 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.48 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.02 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.49 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.68 |
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.31 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:40 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.