Debate contribution: Budget (No. 2) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Eóin Tennyson on .
- MLA
- Mr Eóin Tennyson
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 9 June 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Budget (No. 2) Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4997159
Read the official Assembly record
Text
As I open my remarks, I will say that it is notable that, although the Opposition talk a good game about paying close attention and holding Ministers to account, not one member of the Opposition, official or unofficial, is in the Chamber to scrutinise crucial Budget legislation. Perhaps the Opposition will reflect on how effective they are in their role in the Chamber. It is all well and good to make grand speeches for the camera, but, when the real work needs to be done, the Opposition are nowhere to be seen. I support the Bill at Second Stage, and I also support its proceeding by accelerated passage in order to ensure that Departments have the statutory authority that they need to draw down cash and avoid the risk of their reaching the spending limits previously set down by the Assembly. I will discuss some of the context of the Bill, which comes after an unprecedented number of years of financial challenge, be that the cycle of crisis and collapse at the Assembly, a global pandemic, Westminster austerity or the decision to leave the EU, which deprived us of vital funds locally. We know that working families in our constituencies also face that enormous financial pressure. Our job in the Chamber is to come together to offer hope and transform our public services, economy and communities. The additional funding provided through the UK autumn statement — hopefully, there will be further funding through the comprehensive spending review — is significant, but it falls far short of the pressures that Departments face. It is important to note, when we discuss the context of our financial position, that the UK Government have, in many ways, added to the challenges that we face as an Executive, not least through the increase in employer's National Insurance contributions, which has short-changed our public services by about £60 million. Tory austerity has, in many respects, been replaced by Labour austerity, with cuts in support dealt to the elderly through changes to the winter fuel payment — it is positive that there appears to be progress on that this week — to the sick and disabled through welfare reform and to farmers through inheritance tax changes. As we await this week's spending review, I say gently to the Chancellor that it is not too late to change course to finally pursue progressive taxation, invest in our public services and deliver the change that was promised at the general election last year. Whilst those of us who are in the Chamber cannot possibly mitigate every cut that is made at Westminster, such cuts underline the importance of our having a local Executive in place to take difficult decisions and prioritise spending in line with Programme for Government priorities and in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. It is important to reflect on the progress, despite the challenging circumstances, that has been made in this year's Budget, be that the £215 million that is ring-fenced to cut health waiting lists and invest in elective care; the doubling of investment in childcare to £55 million, with a 15% childcare subsidy scheme rolling out to eligible families with primary-school-aged children from September; or, being made available through the public-sector transformation board, the £61 million to improve access to GP services, £27·5 million to enhance support for children with special educational needs and £21 million to speed up our justice system. I am proud of the role that my party has played in the Executive, in working with other parties to secure that progress and in negotiations prior to the Executive's formation to make the case for dedicated funding for transformation of public services, which made much of that investment possible. In Alliance, we are keen to see the remaining £102·5 million of public-sector transformation money made available as soon as possible to support that vital work. Undoubtedly, there are areas in which we must go further, but I want to be fair and say that I recognise that it is the opening position and that we are likely to see some funding flowing through monitoring rounds as the year progresses, albeit not to the level that we experienced last year. I am sure that every Member in the Chamber will agree, as will the Minister, that we want to see stabilisation of the PSNI and an uplift in PSNI officer numbers. To achieve that, it is vital that we see progress made on the PSNI's business case, which is under consideration. It is also true to say that every Member wants to see additional investment in and progress made on social housing, but it is not all about money. Where I do agree with the leader of the Opposition is where he said that we must go further with public service reform to ensure that the money that we invest goes further. We often hear Ministers decry the lack of available funding, but those same Ministers are often less forthcoming when it comes to honest reflections on the need to do things differently. NI Water is a classic example of that. It is refreshing that, this year, we have returned to a normal budgetary cycle for the first time in many years. It has to be said, however, that it is depressing that that seems to be a novel feat for the Assembly. This is the eleventh single-year Budget cycle in a row, largely as a result of the cycle of crisis and collapse that I mentioned earlier that has deprived our public services and the community and voluntary sector of key opportunities to plan for the medium term and the longer term and to make crucial reforms. As I say every time that we debate a Budget Bill, we cannot have financial sustainability without political stability underpinning it. Reform of our institutions therefore remains crucial. Unlike last year, however, a 12-week public consultation was undertaken on the underlying Budget policy, which enabled the public to make their views known. The Minister's commitment that the Budget will be the final single-year Budget of this mandate is, of course, welcome. I hope that we will be in a position this time next year to debate a strategic multi-year Budget, with the benefit of multi-year clarity, which will hopefully be forthcoming in this week's spending review announcement. Alliance has consistently argued that the 124% needs-based factor that was provided for in the restoration package does not adequately account for Northern Ireland's relative need, not least because of the particular considerations for policing and justice but also because of issues such as the rurality of our population and the significant role that agriculture plays in driving our economy. It is welcome that the Department commissioned a study by Professor Holtham, which will build on the progress that was made by the interim fiscal framework. We all, I think, eagerly await the outcome of that work and that negotiation, which the Department of Finance and the Treasury are undertaking. It is also vital, however, that we hear more from the Minister about his priorities for a new and permanent fiscal framework, including on issues such as fiscal devolution, so that we can make our system fairer and more progressive and support economic growth. Ultimately, as is always the case, the fundamental question before us is not whether we believe that each individual spending decision of every Minister is wise. Nor is it whether we believe that the Budget is adequate or sufficient to meet the scale of departmental pressures that we face. First and foremost, the question is whether we believe that the allocations are fair in the circumstances. More fundamentally, however, it is about ensuring that Departments have legislative cover to continue to deliver public services without interruption. With the Assembly having been back in place for just over a year, progress towards having more sustainable public finances has been made. Alliance will continue to work with the Finance Minister and with other parties to secure the investment in our public services and communities that we so desperately need and that they so desperately deserve. The Second Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill is another important milestone on that journey, so Alliance supports its progress.
1,374 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: 0.04 (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 (0.91).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.09 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.54 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.25 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.19 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 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.