Debate contribution: Multi-year Budget
Debate contribution by Ms Paula Bradshaw on .
- MLA
- Ms Paula Bradshaw
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 25 November 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Multi-year Budget
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5258705
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The motion recognises something that has been obvious for far too long: Northern Ireland cannot continue to run public services on a one-year Budget. The last time we had an agreed multi-year Budget was in 2011-2015. Since then, instability, collapse and short-term allocations have trapped our system in crisis management. The result has been stalled reform of our public services, rising costs and a workforce and public left without certainty. A multi-year Budget is not a luxury; it is a basic foundation for credible planning, fair pay and long-term investment. If we are serious about long-term stability, we must also be serious about the evidence. Independent analysis from the Fiscal Council and Professor Holtham is unequivocal. Northern Ireland's relative funding is significantly higher than current allocations recognise. The Fiscal Council estimates need at 124%, and there are other estimates ranging from 126% to 132%, with a best estimate of 128%. Delivering on that evidence must be an urgent priority if the Executive are to put public finances on a stable footing. Securing a fiscal floor that reflects real need is not special pleading; it is evidence-based policy, and it strengthens our case for long-term funding certainty. However, we cannot ignore the reality that Treasury declined to engage with that evidence ahead of the recent spending review. That is disappointing, but it cannot be an excuse for inaction here. In fact, it underlines the need for the Executive to be proactive, and any future discussions must not be simply about asking for more but must demonstrate responsibility, reform and a credible multi-year plan. That brings me to a crucial point. We weaken our negotiating hand if we refuse to address the inefficiencies in how we spend our money. We cannot demand fair funding while continuing to pour resources into duplicated services, for example, in education, into services shaped around division and into structures that pull funding into parallel provision rather than shared outcomes. Transformation, particularly in health and education, is not optional; it is essential if we are to spend our money better. A multi-year Budget gives us the tools to do that, to shift investment towards prevention, to support service redesign and to move away from annual firefighting and short-term thinking. It also gives us the financial flexibility that has been missing for too long, and a greater ability to move capital and resource across financial years would allow us to respond to shocks more effectively. The motion also raises the question of revenue. The Alliance Party has been clear: we cannot continually demand better services while refusing even to explore how our services are funded. In principle, enhanced fiscal devolution can bring decisions closer to communities, incentivise growth and productivity and allow fiscal policy to align with the social, economic and environmental priorities that are set out in the Programme for Government. We must be honest about context. Households are under pressure; public services are under strain; and costly interventions, such as cutting corporation tax, are not palliative or prudent at this time. Any move towards greater fiscal powers must be grounded in local capacity and administrative readiness, not driven by the Treasury's preferred case. We will not support the DUP's amendment today, as we feel that removing any reference to devolved fiscal powers negates the need for us to have an honest conversation about how we fund our public services. That said, we fully acknowledge that fiscal powers work only if there is a functioning Executive to use them. Our institutions remain one political crisis from collapse.
We cannot risk having a situation in which powers are devolved but no Government are in place to respond to a downturn. Stability is a precondition for long-term budgeting, not an afterthought.
Any draft multi-year Budget must be a genuinely cross-Executive exercise. Fiscal strategy cannot sit in a departmental silo. Every Minister must contribute, every Department must align with the Programme for Government and every decision must be driven by outcomes, not carve-ups.
662 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: 0.05 (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 (0.87).
- Subject area: Education structures, integration and community division.
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.05 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.87 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.11 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.37 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.35 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.23 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.04 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
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.