Debate contribution: Budget (No. 2) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr John O'Dowd on .
- MLA
- Mr John O'Dowd
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 9 June 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Budget (No. 2) Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4997121
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I beg to move
Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
The Second Stage debate today follows the Assembly's approval on Tuesday 3 June of the Supply resolution for the expenditure plans of Departments and other public bodies as detailed in the Main Estimates 2025-26. Accelerated passage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill is necessary to ensure that Royal Assent is obtained before any Departments reach the cash limits for 2025-26 set in the Vote on Account that was agreed by the Assembly earlier in the year. As I have said previously, I am grateful to the Finance Committee for confirming that, in line with Standing Order 42, the Budget (No. 2) Bill can proceed under accelerated passage. The Assembly's agreement of the Executive's final Budget for 2025-26 on 19 May 2025 allows me to bring the Budget (No. 2) Bill to the Assembly to seek legislative authority for the expenditure of the Departments and other bodies for the remainder of the financial year. Standing Order 32 directs that the Second Stage debate should be confined to the general principles of the Bill, and I shall endeavour to keep to that direction. The purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the Main Estimates for 2025-26 and authorise the cash and use of resources on services to allow Departments and other public bodies to operate for the remainder of the 2025-26 financial year. Copies of the Budget Bill and the explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM) have been made available to Members, and the Main Estimates 2025-26 were laid in the Assembly on 21 May 2025. The Bill will authorise the use of £27,431,599,000 from the Consolidated Fund and the further use of resources totalling £30,772,659,000 by Departments and certain other bodies listed in schedule 1 to the Bill in the year ending 31 March 2026 — this financial year. The cash and resources are to be spent and used on the services listed in column 1 of each of the schedules. The Budget (No. 2) Bill will authorise temporary borrowing by the Department of Finance for 2025-26. Up to £13,715,800,000 may be borrowed and is to be repaid no later than 31 March 2026. That is a normal safeguard to allow the efficient management of the Consolidated Fund and does not authorise any additional expenditure. While the vast majority of expenditure by all Departments is done on the authority of the statutory powers provided through legislation and passed by the Assembly, there are occasionally some unusually small functions that may be done on the sole authority of the Budget Act. Table 5 of the Main Estimates 2025-26 sets out a summary of expenditures resting on the sole authority of the Budget Act. For some of those items of expenditure, the amount involved is greater than the Assembly would normally be asked to approve or is over a longer period. I assure Members that legislation is being developed to deal with those matters. The numbers contained in the Budget Bill are significant, and I am sure that Members would agree that it is not an easy task to translate those figures into the delivery of public services on the ground. The reality is that this crucial legislation is required to ensure that all the day-to-day public services that we rely on can continue to be delivered to our citizens for the remainder of the financial year. On that note, I conclude. I am happy to deal with any points of principle or detail of the Budget (No. 2) Bill that Members wish to raise.
Will the Member take an intervention?
I know that the SDLP runs the alternative Hansard in here, but, even in the SDLP's alternative Hansard, I will not be found to have said the words, "You should be grateful".
632 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: 0.10 (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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.89).
- Subject area: Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy.
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.16 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.40 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.36 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.10 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.89 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.04 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.05 |
| Adopts it | 0.02 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.54 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.33 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.09 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:45 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.