Debate contribution: Northern Ireland Fiscal Council Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Eóin Tennyson on 5 May 2026.

MLA

Mr Eóin Tennyson

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

5 May 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Northern Ireland Fiscal Council Bill: Consideration Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5524818

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I, like others, welcome the opportunity to contribute to the Consideration Stage of the Fiscal Council Bill. I welcome the progress that has been made on the Bill to date and the steps that have been taken towards placing the Fiscal Council on a statutory and permanent footing, following the New Decade, New Approach agreement. The Fiscal Council was created to bring independent scrutiny, transparency and long-term thinking to our public finances. Since 2021, it has been doing that. Its detailed Budget assessments and work on Northern Ireland's funding formula and issues such as the sustainability and viability of NI Water have been indispensable to all of us as elected representatives and brought greater transparency for the media and the public about how exactly the Executive spend their money. If ever there were a time when those qualities of transparency and scrutiny were needed, it is now, as the Executive look into yet another budgetary crisis, with shortfalls affecting every Department, service and family across Northern Ireland. Our constituents see that pressure in their schools and hospitals, in crumbling roads and in long housing waiting lists. Those pressures have not developed overnight. We have a duty not only to stabilise our finances but to respond with honesty about the structural challenges that lock Stormont into a cycle of overspending and short-term fixes. That is precisely what amendment No 4 in my name and amendment No 5 in Matthew O'Toole's name seek to address. Those amendments seek to go some way towards grappling with one such structural challenge: the cost associated with running duplicated public services in a divided society. The cost of division has been spoken about repeatedly in the Chamber over the years. It has been estimated, debated and, at times, acknowledged, but, most of the time, it is avoided. Previous estimates have suggested that the cost of division could be up to £833 million every single year owing to duplication in education, leisure and community provision; segregation in housing; and the additional costs associated with policing a divided society. Allow me to be the very first to acknowledge that not all those costs are direct costs to the Executive or entirely avoidable, but we know that that duplication exists and that it is a reality. Tackling that cost, from my perspective, is not only about driving down the financial costs associated with division but about looking at the real benefits that exist for our society. According to research from Pivotal, there is an overlay, if you like, between levels of division in our society and levels of deprivation. There should be a real imperative on all of us to look at how we can better integrate communities. There is also the social benefit of children and young people growing up in communities where they are mixing, playing, working and socialising with people from different community backgrounds. That will be crucial if we are to build the more integrated, shared and reconciled community to which, I believe, the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland aspire. Amendment Nos 4 and 5 seek to increase the transparency of and focus on the cost of division by asking the Fiscal Council to consider those costs as part of its thematic financial sustainability reports. Contrary to what some other contributors have said, this is not about forcing a particular policy outcome, nor is it about encroaching on the independence of the Fiscal Council, as others have claimed: far from it. It is about equipping ourselves with the facts and acknowledging that the cost of division is a reality; not some abstract concept but rather a real burden on our society. I accept that the Bill has been developed in line with OECD principles, and it is right that the Bill reflects international best practice, but so too must it stand up against the lived reality of our communities and our public services locally and respond to our local needs. We have heard that, by being specific about wanting the Fiscal Council to look at those issues, we are interfering with its ability to be independent. I do not accept that. How far does that argument travel? If we are to place any parameters in the Bill on what the Fiscal Council should look at, does that impinge on its independence? We are not saying that the Fiscal Council should come with policy recommendations about how to deal with the cost of division. It may well report that there are some direct costs to certain Departments because we are a divided society. There may, then, be a political choice by Assembly Members to sustain those because they feel that that is the best way forward. That is a political judgement, but none of us should be afraid of being confronted with the available evidence. More than that, I think that, by putting that in legislation, we are insulating the Fiscal Council from allegations of acting politically, and we are empowering it to use its discretion to look at the issues. In every debate in which I have participated, the DUP and Sinn Féin have been entirely reluctant to discuss or confront the very real costs of division that exist in our society. If the Assembly legislates to give the Fiscal Council permission to look at those issues, that will protect its independence when it presents its findings to the Assembly. I want to look at the leader of the Opposition's amendments in turn. Amendment No 1 deals with enabling the Fiscal Council to report on, effectively, how the profile of spend reflects commitments made in the Programme for Government. I certainly have no difficulty, representing a party that is in the Executive, with that ambition. If a Programme for Government is to mean anything, we should be able to evidence that those priorities have been followed through in Budget allocations. If you look at the Executive's capital profile, you see that there is a specific issue where, effectively, the delays in delivering infrastructure projects and the lack of an investment strategy mean that capital priorities often reflect the priorities of Executives gone by, rather than those of current Ministers. I believe that amendment No 1 is not overly onerous, nor is it in any way political, because the Executive are setting their priorities, but it would give the public and Assembly Members greater insight as to whether funding is following through on what has been agreed in the Programme for Government. Turning to amendment Nos 2 and 3, I was fairly hesitant when the issue was first raised by Mr O'Toole in the Finance Committee. At that stage, we were having a discussion about the potential for economic forecasting. My view was and is that forecasting is not necessary for the Fiscal Council and that we do not have a huge range of tax-raising powers devolved to the Assembly at this point, though it may be an issue that we would want to look at in the future. I acknowledge, however, that Mr O'Toole has revised that proposal significantly and, amendment No 3, which is my preference, simply says that the Fiscal Council's conclusions in its sustainability reports:

"may include consideration of the potential impact of the proposed budget on the economy of Northern Ireland".

Again, that gives the Fiscal Council permission to go into that space, while not requiring it to do so on every occasion, ensuring that we protect its independence and giving it the flexibility to draw its own conclusions. I am happy to support amendment No 3. Likewise, if my amendment No 4 falls, I will be happy to support amendment No 5. In relation to my amendment No 4, I recognise that the Fiscal Council is not the be-all and end-all when it comes to the cost of division. Diane Forsythe said that there is a job of work for Departments and arm's-length bodies to do, and I agree with that. For quite some time now, I have been calling for the Finance Minister and the UK Government to lead an independent assessment of the cost of duplication and division in our public services. A lot of us saw the cliff edge coming. Once we reached agreement with the Treasury in 2024, we saw that there would inevitably be new challenges over the horizon. The opportunity has not been grasped to have a serious conversation about where money could be saved through tackling division in our community and reducing duplication in our public services. If the Member's argument is that Departments and arm's-length bodies should do that, why not place that scrutiny and transparency on a statutory footing so that the financial watchdog can ensure that Departments follow through with those commitments? I absolutely commend the Bill's Consideration Stage, and I commend the amendments that have been tabled. If Members are serious not just about scrutiny but about building a reconciled and integrated community, and if they are serious about funding our public services and not segregation, I ask them to support the cost of division amendments that are before us today.

1,514 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

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 reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification