Debate contribution: Budget 2026-29/2030: Reports

Debate contribution by Miss Deirdre Hargey on .

MLA
Miss Deirdre Hargey
Party at the time
Sinn Féin
Date
11 May 2026
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Committee Business
Heading
Budget 2026-29/2030: Reports
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5524033

Text

I welcome the debate and, indeed, the Fiscal Council's report and the Committee's work over the past couple of months. Members have touched on presentations and comments on the Budget from the likes of the NERI. They all highlight the starkness of the Budget situation that the Executive find themselves in. It is a constrained financial position that means, put simply, that we do not have the appropriate amount through the block grant to deal with the demand and pressures on our public services. That has been exacerbated, as was said, by over 15 years of austerity during which successive British Governments have stripped out vital public services and resources. That was followed by COVID and the cost-of-living crisis, which, due to the illegal war in Iran, has been sharpened in recent months by spiking fuel costs that are hurting workers, families and communities. Our public services here are not immune to those global shocks, as we see from that spike in fuel costs. We have witnessed the British Government's failure to respond to those rising costs and the hardship across our community. That shows a complete disconnect between Whitehall and the reality on the ground felt by communities, workers, local businesses and, of course, our front-line public services. The same disconnect is shown in the British Government's attempt to respond to the fiscal situation here by repeating their script that the Executive have received a record settlement and need to agree a Budget and just make the tough decisions — language and a script that the Opposition here are only too happy to adopt and to parrot. We know that the funding formula used here is flawed, and it is people here who feel the consequences of that. Last year, the Finance Minister, with the support of the Executive, laid out to the British Government the underfunding situation and our level of need. The British Government again attempted to distract and to parrot the old lines that we get more money here than those who live in England. That was disproven when the Finance Minister secured the fiscal framework and an acknowledgement that we were indeed funded below the level of need and that our need would rise to 124%, which, of course, it did. However, that is still below what Scotland and Wales get. The Barnett formula drives fairness on the basis of comparison with services delivered in England, but we know that our history, our geography and, indeed, our need here are not reflected by that formula, nor are they comparable with those of people who live in England. We must also recognise that, recently, the British Government had to give English councils over £2 billion because they, too, were struggling with the budget that Westminster had given them to sustain their public services. That is on top of a crumbling NHS and waste water infrastructure that has been privatised and stripped of funding: out of the public purse and into shareholders' pockets. Despite the funding challenges here, we have stood against such privatisation of our waste water infrastructure or any attempt to shift the financial burden to workers and families. Inside and outside the Chamber, others have championed water charges, cutting wages and sacking public-sector workers. Sinn Féin will continue to resist those regressive policies. As I have said, last year, the Executive stood together when arguing for a needs-based funding formula. In recent weeks, again, they stood together to highlight the challenges of the current Budget, and they have asked for a direct meeting with the British Government and the British Prime Minister to discuss the dire fiscal situation. It is time for the British Government to proactively and meaningfully engage with the Executive. The British Government must change their direction of travel and properly fund our public services. Recent elections in Scotland and Wales have shown what we have known in the North for a long time: Westminster has not acted, does not act and will not act in our best interests. We will not wait for Westminster. We will not be the afterthought in their regressive decisions, and we will not stand by and watch while the Government there manage decline and insular politics. We have an alternative: constitutional change whereby our future interests would be decided by people here. In the interim, we will continue to work and fight for our public services and for a fair funding settlement that meets the needs of our workers, families and local businesses.

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

Assessment

Not qualifying

Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.

  • Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.18 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
  • None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
  • Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.87).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (0.95).
  • Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
  • The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying 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 framing0.12No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.05No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.09No
Controversy escalation0.06No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.87Yes
Overall judgement0.18At or below not-qualifying threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.95
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.05
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty0.93
No identity-related subject0.07
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00
Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:38 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification