Debate contribution: Budget Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr John O'Dowd on .
- MLA
- Mr John O'Dowd
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 24 February 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Budget Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5404612
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I assure the Member that I take an interest in the matter and share her frustration at the costs and delays. It is not only about the costs and delays but about the very fact that patients and staff are not getting into the premises to enjoy the modern facilities. I am just pointing out that I do not have any direct role in holding the Department of Health to account on that matter. I do not have any direct control over it. Collectively, the Executive, the Committee and others should play a part in ensuring that there is a proper return on public investment in a timely manner and that, where mistakes are made and where faults lie, accountability kicks in.
Yes.
While we are on the subject of the Department of Health, I turn to Colin's comments on the AME funding. I think that it was around £820 million. As the Member will know, that funding is not used for day-to-day spending. The reduction was mainly due to two accounting adjustments in Health, as there has been provision in the Health accounts for two items that are no longer required due to court cases having been successfully litigated in the Department's favour. I will get the Member more detail on that. I have spoken about the infrastructure issues. Understandably, a lot of issues were raised. A lot of them fall within the role of individual Ministers and Departments. I do not think that it is appropriate for me to go through them. It is not the role of the Finance Minister to mark the homework of individual Ministers. A number of infrastructure issues were raised, and it is understandable, given the amount of money that was handed back in relation to the A5, that that matter came up regularly. Mr Kingston raised it and questioned why the money was not used earlier in the financial year. The reality was that there were significant, complex legal issues to overcome before the Department for Infrastructure could return the moneys to me for redistribution. The Department was dealing with land compensation etc. It was not clear until very late in the day exactly how much money would be handed back in this financial year. That is the reason for those delays. The Department for Infrastructure is not the only Department to hand back significant moneys. The Department of Education handed back £24·8 million throughout the year from the Strule project. Again, that is a reflection of the challenges in delivering major capital programmes. The scale and size of the Civil Service and the need for work on that issue was raised. During Question Time, I was asked about the Audit Office report. The Department will respond to that report in due course. Work is ongoing on all those matters. I think that I have covered the generality of the issues that were raised in the debate. I welcome the fact that there seems to be unanimity among Members, apart from Mr Gaston, on a unified approach to the British Government's need to properly fund this place. Pat Sheehan summed it up well when he said secure proper funding and "spend it wisely". That should be the strapline for us all. That should be the way forward in ensuring that we have proper funding for this place. There is a responsibility on all of us to ensure that that money is spent wisely and accounted for. I will continue to debate those issues, but I will draw my remarks to a close. I tried to respond to as many individual issues as possible and the broad thrust of the debate. It is imperative that the legislation that we debated continues its passage through the Assembly so that public services can continue to be delivered to our citizens without delay or interruption. I ask Members to support the Budget Bill, thereby authorising spending on public services by Departments in 2025-26 and the Vote on Account for 2026-27.
664 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 (0.84).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.84 | 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 | 0.95 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.05 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:02 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.