Opened the debate and provided procedural guidance, noting no amendments have been selected for discussion.

Introduced the Bill's provisions, emphasising its necessity in authorising the use of resources by Northern Ireland Departments and public bodies, ensuring continuity of services and protection of public finances despite the absence of an Executive. He outlined details on budget allocations (£27 billion for resource, £14.2 billion for capital) and temporary borrowing limits (£11.395 billion).

Acknowledged the need for funding but expressed concerns over the lack of political leadership in Northern Ireland, citing a £800 million budget gap and 3.3% real-terms funding fall as significant issues. Emphasised the Labour party's support for local decision-making and urged the Secretary of State to consider additional measures within his power to aid Northern Ireland.

Supported the Bill, highlighting its necessity due to budget constraints and service pressures. Advocated for the restoration of Stormont as a means to improve governance and decision-making in Northern Ireland.

Interjected briefly, asking for consideration on maintaining an Audit Committee despite the absence of Stormont. Did not make a formal contribution but indicated support for governance and scrutiny.

Mr. Baker thanked all parties involved in the Bill's passage and expressed gratitude to Labour Front Benchers for their constructive approach. He emphasised the necessity of setting a balanced budget despite the pressures on Northern Ireland’s public finances, aiming to protect frontline services. Mr. Baker acknowledged that decisions should be taken at Stormont but maintained that until that happens, the Bill will ensure continued functioning of public services.

Mr. Benn thanked his predecessor and acknowledged the necessity of the Bill due to unsustainable pressures on Northern Ireland's public services. He raised concerns about the political vacuum affecting various Departments, including health and education, and urged for clearer Government plans to restore Stormont. Despite not opposing the Bill, Mr. Benn emphasised that restoring local governance is essential.

Highlights that the budget lacks political steer and direction, reduces funding despite inflationary pressures, and will disproportionately affect vulnerable groups. Calls for urgent ministerial decisions to provide clarity and strategic direction.

Mr. Baker responds to Mr. Wilson's concerns by acknowledging the challenges faced but emphasises the need for compromise. He argues that failing to support Northern Ireland could lead to a loss of faith in the Union, and suggests that working towards improving Northern Ireland’s situation is the best path forward.

Hanna emphasises the need for a reformed Stormont where everyone can make decisions together. She warns that prolonged refusal to work towards governance will lead to conversations about Northern Ireland's constitutional future. She also highlights economic implications such as an investment conference set against a backdrop of governance failure and lack of wastewater infrastructure development.

Intervened to acknowledge the validity of Gavin Robinson’s arguments about the financial challenges but also emphasised the need for transformational change in delivering public services. He suggested that a functioning Executive at Stormont could lead to bold decisions and more efficient use of resources, arguing that this is an opportunity missed without such changes.

Mr. Farry calls for a twin-pronged approach to address Northern Ireland's financial needs, stressing the importance of restored parity based on need and transformational approaches with clear targets. He also highlights the crisis in special educational needs funding, which is not meeting levels of demand.

Mr. Baker agrees that a restored Executive could work positively with the Government but emphasises that the budget sum available is the same as it would have been if an Executive were in place.

Mr. Robinson points out that last year’s budget was £322 million less than what an Executive would have needed, this year it is £431 million less, and next year's projection is £458 million less, suggesting a significant funding gap.

Paisley critiques the budget as unfair and inadequate, suggesting it is a 'punishment budget' designed to punish Northern Ireland for political circumstances. He highlights severe cuts in various departments such as education (-2.7%), justice (-1.5%), economy (almost -1%), impacting public services and infrastructure. Paisley also raises concerns about potential water charges without sufficient investment, threats to agrifood industry due to the Windsor framework, and morale issues within the police force. He argues that the budget will discourage investors and impede economic development in Northern Ireland.

Baker briefly interjects to disagree with Paisley, suggesting that such a negative outlook would not be helpful for investment in Northern Ireland. He emphasises the strength and potential of the private sector in Northern Ireland, stating that improving political quality to match this high standard could greatly benefit Northern Ireland's economy.

Underlines the view that setting budgets for Northern Ireland without an Executive is problematic. Emphasises the importance of proper scrutiny by the Northern Ireland Audit Office, expressing disappointment in current funding levels. Suggests discussions on extending powers to the Assembly's Audit Committee. Argues against Secretary of State directly making decisions and calls for a better plan from the Government.

Critiques the budget given to Northern Ireland Departments as insufficient. Cites figures of £297 million being taken from allocation and discusses impacts on health service waiting lists, crumbling school estates, scrapped road plans, and underfunded public sector pay awards. Criticises the Government for acting on contentious issues without addressing financial needs, urging for more funding to restore Stormont and improve services.

Ms. Foy argues that the absence of an Executive in Northern Ireland combined with austerity measures from Westminster create a toxic mix, politically and socially. She cites evidence highlighting crises in health services, including maintenance issues and long waiting lists. In education, she asserts that cuts are unacceptable and will increase poverty while widening achievement gaps. Ms. Foy also raises constitutional concerns regarding the lack of consultation with the Irish Government and mentions the exploitation by criminal gangs due to civil society cracks. She calls for the return of an Executive in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Shannon supports fair and equitable treatment for Northern Ireland, advocating for adequate funding similar to Wales. He highlights the need for infrastructure projects such as the Ballynahinch bypass and deepening Ardglass harbour for economic growth. He also emphasises the importance of special needs education funding and criticises policies affecting religious and sexual education without proper consultation mechanisms.