Debate contribution: Budget Bill: Final Stage

Debate contribution by Ms Diane Forsythe on .

MLA
Ms Diane Forsythe
Party at the time
Democratic Unionist Party
Date
10 March 2026
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Executive Committee Business
Heading
Budget Bill: Final Stage
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5436844

Read the official Assembly record

Text

As it has progressed under accelerated passage, we have all spoken about the detail of the Budget Bill in recent weeks. However, I will highlight, once again, the importance of fully scrutinising the finances; looking at the agreed priorities in our Programme for Government and seeing where our Budget flows to enable their delivery; and looking at how funding is allocated to deliver all the services in each Department. The Finance Committee gets excellent briefings, and that has happened on the Budget Bill. I thank the Department of Finance officials and the Minister for facilitating engagement with the Committee. Whilst they lead the way and issue guidance across other Departments, it has been clear from the debates that not all Committees get the detailed briefings that we do. I hope that that improves, especially now that the Budget consultation has closed and allocations are close. Departmental budgets will need to be closely scrutinised by all our Committees, once allocations have been made. We are, once again, in the position of using accelerated passage for the Budget Bill. Whilst that is generally the position, we recognise that, although it is not ideal, the Bill would not have been able to progress without accelerated passage. The Budget Bill passes the points of resolution, which have been debated, on the finalisation of the 2025-26 figures, as well as the rolled forward Vote on Account, enabling our services to keep running into 2026-27. We have now seen the £400 million reserve claim applied to the 2025-26 projected overspend, with the repayment profiled over the next three years, and an additional £380 million Barnett consequentials over the same period. With the multi-year Budget consultation now closed, it is critical that all those things and the open-book exercise interconnect to deliver a meaningful Budget plan for 2026-27 and beyond. I hope that the Minister can give us an update today on how the open-book exercise is going. This is a critical opportunity that we need to take. The DUP has long called for reform of the Northern Ireland Civil Service and transformation of public services in order to move away from siloed working and to transform how our business is done. There is a genuine opportunity to transform and reform how our public services are delivered and how our public finances are managed and scrutinised. While some are eternally pessimistic and say things like, "There won't be a multi-year Budget", I do not believe that there is a fundamental lack of will. We want to see a multi-year Budget, because that will facilitate better strategic planning, secure our voluntary and community sector and remove year-end panic spending, which is rarely done well. However, we want to see the progression of a multi-year Budget that prioritises quality front-line public services, that is achievable and deliverable and that aligns with the Programme for Government priorities. Not just any multi-year Budget will do; it needs to be right. There is disappointment that the local growth fund is not referred to in the multi-year Budget proposals. At lunchtime today, some of us were at the all-party group on the voluntary and community sector, where it was highlighted, once again, that some 400 jobs are due to go in just two weeks' time, if there is no intervention. NICVA's NI Can't Wait campaign rings very true. On the use of the sole authority, I note that the black box total has increased, which is far from ideal. However, the Finance Committee has scrutinised at length the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill and the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council Bill, which, once passed, will, we will be pleased to see, remove a substantial amount of funding from the black box. The Committee Stages of both Bills are on track for completion in the weeks ahead. It is clear for all to see that we are operating with huge financial pressures on our public services. That reflects our entire society, in which every home and business is feeling the pressure. It is our duty to do our best to ensure that every pound and penny of public money is spent properly and delivers measurable value for money. We will support the Budget Bill as an opportunity not just to roll forward last year's position but to work forward with transformation, including through the open-book exercise, as we enter the years ahead.

727 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: 0.02 (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 (0.94).
  • 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

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 framing0.03No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.01No
Dog-whistle messaging0.03No
Controversy escalation0.02No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.94Yes
Overall judgement0.02At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
No identity-related subject0.96
Another identity-related subject0.02
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty0.01
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.01
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:12 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