Debate contribution: Multi-year Budget
Debate contribution by Ms Diane Forsythe on .
- MLA
- Ms Diane Forsythe
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 25 November 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Multi-year Budget
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5258701
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank the Opposition for tabling the motion. It highlights once again the importance of moving to multi-year Budgets in Northern Ireland. While the leader of the Opposition has put on his last show of 2025, it is a serious issue. The positive impact that multi-year Budgets can have on financial governance here is an important topic. As we have an agreed Programme for Government (PFG) with agreed shared priorities, it is important that our Budget is set to underpin those and enable the finances to flow in support of them. We all know that having to plan and manage one year at a time, with a hard cut-off at the end of the financial year, drives a different mindset and set of financial behaviours than a Budget spanning a number of years would. At present, Departments have to spend their budget by 31 March each year or lose it to another Department or back to the centre. There is often panicked year-end spending, which is not sensible and is unlikely to deliver the best value for money. It is also not sensible for a funded project to be at risk because of a slip in timing across the financial year for unforeseeable reasons. A one-year Budget does not provide the opportunity for strategic planning, and it creates undue pressure and uncertainty for many services, including our partners in the community and voluntary sector. A multi-year Budget will allow Departments to plan on a longer-term basis. For it to be successful, however, Departments need to transform and cut down on their waste, which is what our amendment emphasises. In order to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland, we need local Ministers to spend every pound and penny wisely. That can happen only when every Department cracks down on waste and when every party in the Executive avoids party political pet projects. That is what this party is about doing. It is not simply about getting more money but about using current resources better. Look at what Minister Lyons is doing in his Department to utilise financial transactions capital (FTC) for intermediate rent in particular. We need to see reform, transformation and efficiency. We in the DUP are focused on delivering the scrutiny and accountability that people deserve. As a party, we have long said that the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) is in serious need of reform. We have called for modernisation in order to improve public service delivery. There are many hard-working individuals throughout the service who contribute substantially every day to the organisation. There are, however, areas in which Departments lack the right people, skills, know-how and experience to deliver the transformation and major projects that our communities are crying out for. The DUP wants to get to grips with the opportunity to transform public services in order to deliver efficiencies and better value for money. We want to see a review of the high number of quangos and to see some efficiencies realised. We have highlighted in our amendment how the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) report on the delivery of major capital projects shows that the Civil Service lacks the skills and expertise to deliver them. That is something that the NICS must urgently address, alongside developing capacity and capability to deliver major capital projects successfully, without undue delay or preventable soaring costs. With a projected overspend exceeding £3 billion and rising, the need for transformation is urgent. We can look at the eye-watering costs associated with the new regional maternity hospital. The original completion date was December 2015 at a cost of £57·2 million. Ten years later, we still have no new hospital, and the latest estimate for it is £97·1 million. It is appalling that large procurement projects are delivered late and cost so much more than expected. We should not be numb to such a damning indictment. As regards public procurement, each year in Northern Ireland around 5,000 contracts are awarded by public bodies that, together, are worth between £2 billion and £4 billion. The Northern Ireland Audit Office found that there is little evidence that the board has been effective in providing the strategic direction to ensure that procurement has operated effectively in Northern Ireland. With a history of recurring high-profile procurement failures that diminish stakeholder confidence in public bodies' ability to manage procurement, we need to take steps to ensure that all money spent in the public sector is spent wisely. Household budgets are managed closely to deliver value for money. We need to ensure that the up to £4 billion per year that is spent in the public sector is managed closely too. All Departments face a long list of issues to address, with limited resources and funding to do so. A multi-year Budget can help Departments make long-term plans for transformation. Finally, our amendment recognises that the UK Budget is due tomorrow. We await the news that will come from it. The multi-year Budgets, which are in draft and to which Departments have contributed, will need to reflect any significant outworkings. Our call is for the multi-year Budget to be delivered as soon as possible so that all that can be captured. Together, we face a significant challenge, and we really need to work together to deliver meaningful multi-year Budgets for the good of everyone who lives and works here. I commend the amendment to the House.
905 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 (0.96).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.05 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | 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 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:48 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.