Member's statement: Multi-year Budget Proposals

Member's statement by Ms Diane Forsythe on .

MLA
Ms Diane Forsythe
Party at the time
Democratic Unionist Party
Date
12 January 2026
Type
Member's statement
Business
Members' Statements
Heading
Multi-year Budget Proposals
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5311240

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Happy new year, Mr Speaker. I, too, welcome my colleague Gareth Wilson to the Chamber. Last week, when we were in recess and without agreement from the Executive, the Finance Minister issued a written ministerial statement outlining his proposals for a multi-year Budget. It was disappointing that he issued that without agreement and outside the opportunity for scrutiny, setting up a week-long media platform on which he distanced himself from the outworkings of the proposals, which fail to prioritise front-line services. Let me be clear: the draft Budget is John O'Dowd's Budget. It is a Sinn Féin Budget that has not been agreed on and is not supported by the DUP. It fails to put essential public services first. We recognise the very real financial pressures faced in Northern Ireland. The choices and allocations set out by the Sinn Féin Finance Minister are deeply flawed and will require significant changes to gain our support. Sinn Féin joined other Executive parties in agreeing the Programme for Government and its key priorities, yet now it is failing to fund it. Childcare is a huge issue for our working families and the economy of Northern Ireland, and it is an agreed priority in the Programme for Government, yet Sinn Féin has stopped progress on childcare by applying a real-time cut to its funding. We have repeatedly heard Sinn Féin in the Republic of Ireland blast the Irish Government about social housing, and we have an agreed priority to deliver housing in Northern Ireland, yet Sinn Féin is not providing the funding to enable the Programme for Government housing targets to be delivered.

In 2025, when the Communities Minister brought forward an anti-poverty strategy, it was slammed by Sinn Féin, but that strategy has no funding in the proposals. For a party that campaigns in support of workers, housing and childcare, it is shocking that it fails to provide funding allocations to deliver those strategies. We very much welcome ring-fencing for waiting lists, but that area needs to remain ring-fenced unlike in previous years. We need to see the efficiencies driven by Budget proposals, which need to be aligned with Programme for Government priorities. Front-line services must be prioritised.

A multi-year Budget is not a "prize", as John O'Dowd said, if it is delivered just to tick a box. It needs to mean more than that. We want to see a multi-year Budget in place to enable longer-term strategic planning, but it must be realistic and achievable and put essential public services first to ensure that taxpayers' money is used efficiently and delivers for families and communities across Northern Ireland. As we enter the eight-week consultation period, I encourage members of the public and all organisations to respond to ensure that any Budget brought forward delivers, as the Programme for Government says, "what matters most" to people and communities in Northern Ireland.

478 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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).
  • Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.91).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (0.97).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.08No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.03No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.07No
Controversy escalation0.04No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.91Yes
Overall judgement0.10At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.97
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.03
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
No identity-related subject0.85
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.07
Another identity-related subject0.05
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty0.02
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.01

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:13 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.

Challenge this classification