Debate contribution: Budget (No. 2) Bill: Final Stage
Debate contribution by Ms Diane Forsythe on .
- MLA
- Ms Diane Forsythe
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 16 June 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Budget (No. 2) Bill: Final Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5011188
Read the official Assembly record
Text
We have discussed the Budget (No. 2) Bill at length as it has progressed via accelerated passage, and the DUP will support it today. We are now three months into the 2025-26 financial year that started on 1 April and are operating under a Vote on Account, so it is necessary that we pass the legislation to ensure that our public services have the authority to continue to run. We know that the Budget faces immense pressure at a time when many public services are under incredible strain, with all Ministers bidding for well in excess of what they were awarded. It has never been as critical that every Department demonstrate value for money in how it spends its allocation. We need to see demonstrable improvements in financial management and processes in 2025-26. We also need to see improvements across public procurement, contract management and the management of multimillion-pound capital projects. It is unacceptable to see reports of the ongoing waste of public-sector money with no signs of improvement. An overspend of £100 million on one hospital means that there is £100 million less to spend on another hospital, while we have other serious health needs in places such as Daisy Hill Hospital or the long-overdue mother-and-baby unit for Northern Ireland. That is unacceptable. We have seen some improvements in the financial position through the comprehensive spending review announcements last week, but it is imperative that we proceed with caution and financial prudence.
Through the Finance Committee, I know that the officials in the Department of Finance are highly capable and that they play a pivotal role in the monthly reporting of each Department's forecast versus out-turn, which requires explanations for significant or unexpected movements. Their role will continue to be critical throughout 2025-26 as we target a balanced Budget. The DUP has been committed to fighting for a long-term, fair funding package for Northern Ireland and continues to do so. We look forward to hearing the outcomes from the Holtham review as progress is made. We must be prudent in our financial management and, at the same time, be ambitious with our plans for public-sector transformation. Under the agreed Programme for Government, significant commitments have been made. The move forward to having multi-year Budgets presents an opportunity to secure huge potential for strategic planning. We are therefore now in a position to work together to deliver for people and really make Northern Ireland work. The DUP supports the Budget (No. 2) Bill at its Final Stage.
417 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: 0.03 (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 (1.00).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.86 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.97 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:53 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.