Stormont: Assembly budget goes through despite opposition

A budget has been passed successfully at Stormont - despite outgoing Health Minister and his Ulster Unionist Party members voting against the plans.

It was a long debate in the Assembly yesterday (Tuesday) with the spending proposals finally going through late in the day - 61 votes to 21.

In his last day in post, Mr Swann warned that the budget allocation for his department would inflict "irreparable" damage on Northern Ireland's health service, while his successor, Mike Nesbitt, urged MLAs to delay the vote for a number of weeks until the potential of up to an extra £300 million of Treasury funding was made available.

After a lengthy debate in the Assembly chamber, MLAs backed the budget by 61 votes to 21. There was sufficient cross community support within the group of members voting aye for the budget to pass.

Ahead of the vote, Mr Swann said his "greater responsibility to defend and protect vital services" was the reason he was breaking ministerial rules to oppose a budget agreed by his ministerial colleagues.

"In voting against this budget today, I'm very conscious that I am not complying with the Ministerial Code," he said in speech from the back benches.

"I don't do that easily, but I have a greater responsibility to defend and protect vital services, to stand up for patients and staff, to oppose cuts that I believe will cause real harm."

He added: "The Ministerial Code requires ministers to support and to act in accordance with all decisions of the Executive Committee and the Assembly.

"I have to say I did not always see evidence of that during the pandemic. We had collective Executive decisions publicly undermined within hours and, of course, we had Executive Covid restrictions and guidelines blatantly breached by other ministers.

"On my final day of office, can I just say that it has been an honour of my political life to twice serve as Minister of Health and I am absolutely certain Mike Nesbitt will serve with similar commitment and pride."

The minister is stepping down to focus on running in the Westminster election.

In advance of the debate, he warned fellow Executive ministers that no UUP minister would introduce the cost-saving measures he says are required to balance the department's budget.

That raises the prospect of Mr Nesbitt overspending the departmental budget when he takes over the role.

The UUP had argued that the budget should be delayed to factor in further Treasury funds that will be available to Stormont in the June monitoring round - part of the in-year process of reallocating returned or new money to departments.

As it stands, the health service has been allocated more than half of the Executive's £14.5 billion resource budget.

Ministerial deliberations on the budget last month focused on £1 billion of uncommitted funds. Mr Swann had bid for all that money but ultimately received just over £500 million.

In his contribution to the Assembly debate, Mr Nesbitt insisted there was an "alternative" to voting on Tuesday.

"I am a little disappointed at the number of speakers who are calling us reckless, who are saying we don't have an alternative, we had an alternative," he said.

"The alternative was to wait a few weeks because we know from the Department of Finance, the June monitoring will yield £200 million or maybe even as much as £300 million."

He added: "So we did have an alternative, which was to wait, see what the £200-plus million can do for the budget and then go from there."

However, Sinn Fein Finance Minister Caoimhe Archibald warned that delaying the passage of the Assembly budget would risk departments running out of cash.

Ms Archibald acknowledged the Executive was in line to receive "significant" extra funding from the Treasury in-year.

But she said the timeline for receiving confirmation on the amount had been pushed back as result of the General Election being called.

"I am aware that some believe that this budget should be delayed to allow these additional allocations to be included," she said.

"However, Assembly approval of this budget cannot be delayed.

"Not only is such an approach not permitted under Section 64 of the 1998 Act (Northern Ireland Act), it also carries real risks - risk of overspending, as departments would be delayed in taking decisions to live within allocations, and, worse still, perhaps leading to decisions being made later in the year and having harsher impact on citizens."

Ms Archibald said if she was unable to bring the formal Budget Bill to the Assembly before the summer recess then departments may reach the limit of the cash they have been authorised to spend pending the Bill's passage.

"I cannot contemplate a situation where departments could be unable to access cash to deliver services," she said.

Ms Archibald also warned that a Treasury pledge to write off a £559 million debt, on the condition that Stormont puts its finances on a more sustainable basis, could be withdrawn if the Executive overspent its budget.

"If a balanced budget is not agreed, the write-off of £559 million provided in the financial package is potentially at risk," she said.

"Repayment of such an amount would severely impact on our budget for 25/26. Therefore, we simply cannot delay Assembly approval."

DUP MLA Diane Forsythe acknowledged the budget was "challenging" but she criticised the UUP stance.

"Every minister in the Executive was disappointed by their award, but every minister, bar one, has put the interests of Northern Ireland first," she said.

"The budget is challenging, and we have two options. One is to take it as the best that we have right now and work hard to deliver the best outcomes whilst continuing the fight for more funding for services.

"The second option is to reject it, meaning that nobody gets anything - services come to a halt because the money stops, voluntary and community sector organisations immediately hit the cliff edge, as nothing can be approved beyond June, and the people of Northern Ireland have no public services and face despair.

"The people of Northern Ireland deserve better. They deserve to have an Executive and ministers committed to doing their best to maximise delivery where they can. Our DUP ministers are doing that by delivering where they can."

Alliance MLA Eoin Tennyson said parties were elected to govern, rather than "vacate responsibility".

"This is a hugely challenging budget owing to a prolonged period of Tory austerity and stop-start government. Every minister and department has been left facing difficult choices without the resources they need," he said.

"All parties agree the funding envelope from Westminster is not sufficient, but the only way we are going to make further progress in negotiations with Treasury is if we have a budget in place.

"For some to grandstand in the absence of any costed or coherent alternative is reckless in the extreme, and amounts to gambling with vital public services."

The SDLP voted against the budget.

SDLP MLA and leader of the Opposition Matthew O'Toole said the plan lacked any strategic planning or prioritisation.

"The public didn't expect miracles, but they did expect a plan," he said.

"This budget is not a plan. It's not enough simply to be here. It's not enough simply to allocate money granted by the Treasury, even if I acknowledge that the money coming isn't enough.

"It isn't enough of a financial settlement. And austerity has had a pernicious effect on our public services.

"It's not simply enough to pass on those allocations and expect to be patted on the back by the public. The public expect real prioritisation and real choices."