Philip Smith
Strangford · Ulster Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“I welcome this public inquiry and thank the Minister for his consultation on the process. Unfortunately, this is yet another failure of this dysfunctional Executive — that the Northern Ireland electorate will go to the polls without an output from this inquiry, due to the failure to set up an inquiry well over a month ago when we first ca…”
“Why has the Minister not insisted on a preliminary report so that the Northern Ireland electorate can go to the polls with some relevant information on the scandal? Why has he not confirmed a timeline for publication and outlined a process for the independent appointment of the two panel members referred to in the report?”
“I have to say, though, that, in most people's eyes now, having the fingerprints of a SpAd on anything will not be seen as much of an endorsement. <BR /> <BR />I have questions that, I hope, the Minister will reflect on and address when he gets an opportunity to make his comments on the regulations.”
“First, why did it need the threat of an election to generate a response to mitigate the impact of the scheme on the public purse? The Minister, as we all know, has had the Northern Ireland Audit Office report since July. Lack of action to date has already cost taxpayers over £16 million since then.”
“Have we not learned the hard lessons from the failures of the scheme?The question is raised in the report of the Examiner of Statutory Rules of whether this instrument is intra vires under section 24 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 because of its incompatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights, specifically article 1 of prot…”
“Like Mr Bell, I sincerely hope that these proposals end the £85,000 per day cost of the RHI scheme, but the proposals must be more than a pre-election panic measure in the hope that the public will forget the incompetence and the arrogant response to the scandal.”
The complete record
Every one of 185 lines we hold for Philip Smith, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 4.
“Northern Ireland's housing legislation is both older and more complex than that of Great Britain, making our process more challenging. When the housing associations were classified in England in October 2015, Parliament was fortunate enough in that the Housing and Planning Act 2016 was already under way and could be amended to include a package of deregulatory measures, but even with that running start, the process is likely to take 18 months before Royal Assent. In this jurisdiction, we will have to start the legislative process from scratch. I encourage the Minister to get the process under way, as time is against us. It would have been useful to at least have got some outline today of what a timetable would need to be and also an understanding of what the initial engagement has been with the Treasury around this derogation.”
“Essentially, the reclassification is based on the degree of control the state can exercise over housing associations' corporate policymaking, and legislation will be needed to reverse the ONS assessment.”
“It is also ironic, to my mind, that, as the public-sector voluntary exit scheme comes to an end, we are potentially adding 3,000 workers to the public-sector payroll. There are massive ramifications of this that need to be aired, and the debate was timely and required, despite what the Minister might think. <BR /> <BR />Everyone is agreed that we have no alternative but to seek a derogation from the Treasury to allow us the space to legislate to deliver the changes needed to reverse the ONS decision. What changes are needed? First, the Department's direction of governance will need to be changed: consent before disposing of land, powers relating to the dissolution or winding-up of an association and powers relating to the disposal of proceeds funds will all need to be changed.”
“While this is a statistical change to the presentation of national accounts, as my colleague Andy Allen outlined when moving the motion, there are critical elements to the ONS reclassification of Northern Ireland's housing associations as public bodies. There is the obvious impact on the provision of public and affordable housing in Northern Ireland. Without the ability to access private funding, it will be impossible to achieve the Executive target of 8,000 social housing starts. The Finance Minister has already made it clear that the only alternative under the changed accounting rules is to fund future builds from the Northern Ireland Budget. Frankly, that is totally untenable.”
“At least, Minister Ó Muilleoir tweeted yesterday that he was looking forward to the debate and referenced "good partnership work", which is what, I think, everybody was trying to bring forward today. I presume his busy schedule did not allow him to attend despite the tweet, but at least he was making the right noises. We have had to endure a patronising lecture from the Minister. Frankly, when he and his colleagues can deliver good government, I will take a lecture on opposition from him. Until that time, he can, frankly, keep it to himself. <BR /> <BR />I want to address the substance of the debate.”
“I thank Mr Allen for his point. I totally agree: the Minister spent 15 minutes saying very little. He did it very well, but he said very little. <BR /> <BR />The one thing the debate has brought out is a ministerial statement, such as it was. It has delivered that output — on a hugely serious issue, as the Minister admits. Otherwise, we should do what Mr McCann expected and take it that everything is all good. We were told the Executive approved a paper last Thursday, so we could all sleep easy. The question for me is this: why did the Minister not proactively take the issue to the Floor? Where is the openness, transparency and respect for the House?”
“I support the motion and the amendment, which I urge all Members to support. As many said during the debate — I listened to many of the comments — if we had not tabled the motion, when would this important issue be debated? I, for one, certainly do not believe we are wasting our time; we are bringing out key issues that need to be aired. When we as a party formed, along with the SDLP, the official Opposition, we said we would be constructive and positive. Today I hope we have shown that through the intent of the motion and the amendment, which I believe can and should get the Executive parties' support. That is why I have been surprised at the attitude and tone of some on the Executive Benches. The response seems to be "How dare you ask a question?". I am afraid we will continue asking questions, whether you like it or not, frankly.”
“The Minister will be aware that the rate of transferred functions grant was going to be reviewed when regeneration powers were devolved to councils to give them the resources necessary to deal with their extra RPA powers. Given the decision by the Executive to walk away from this previous commitment to transfer these functions, this review never happened and councils are still working from a figure that is now a year old. Can the Minister give a commitment that the Executive will now bring forward a new 2016 regulation to increase the grant?”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. Has he considered cross-departmental cooperation on the issue, such as the implementation of projects such as university technical colleges for 14- to 19-year-olds, as is done in England?”
“Local and international business and investors need to hear that Northern Ireland is a clean place to do business and invest in and that any corruption, either financial or political, will not be tolerated. That is why we need a full and proper statement form the First Ministers on those issues. <BR /> <BR />I understand that much cannot be said about the details of live criminal investigations. However, First Ministers, the public need to hear from you nonetheless, or do you abdicate leadership on this to the BBC, with the public having to await the next instalment of 'Spotlight' or hope that light will be shed from investigations in other jurisdictions? Surely that would be unacceptable in any democracy worth the name.”
“Mr Adams has said that Sinn Féin has raised the issue of NAMA 34 times in the Dáil. Mr Adams certainly thinks there is a reputational issue here, if not with other 'Spotlight' investigations. <BR /> <BR />The question is this: have the Government taken effective and appropriate actions to improve public confidence in the wake of revelation after revelation on NAMA? I think not, and I believe the Northern Ireland public want reassurance that there will be no repeat of those scandals. They want to see confidence-building measures that improve transparency and accountability, and they want to hear that the full truth will be uncovered, however politically inconvenient it may be.”
“That is why we brought the motion today. It is also why I cannot support the Sinn Féin amendment, which bizarrely excludes the reference to the reputational damage and the failure to effectively examine the issues involved. Does Sinn Féin honestly believe this whole episode has not damaged the reputation of the institutions involved? Does it think the Northern Ireland Government and Assembly have effectively managed the process? Does Sinn Féin believe the process has not had a detrimental impact on public confidence? Maybe it, like some others, would prefer that it would all just go away. Should NAMA, Project Eagle and witness coaching be forgotten until the criminal and other investigations are completed, many months or probably years down the line? Certainly not according to Sinn Féin in the Irish Parliament.”
“Worse, more allegations and layers of scandal have been revealed to damage even further the reputation of the political institutions and the business culture in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />As 'The Irish Times' said in its commentary in reference to the recent Comptroller and Auditor General's report:”
“Since the publication of the Committee's report in March 2016, there have been even more revelations. As mentioned, we have seen the alleged involvement of the former Chair of the Committee and others in the coaching of witnesses, Mr McKay's resignation from the Assembly and the investigations into the affair by Stormont and now the PSNI. We have also had yet another 'Spotlight' investigation with even more revelations, and we are still nowhere near the completion of the investigatory process. Who knows what is yet to be revealed? What can be said with confidence is that many of what were initially painted as wild allegations have been shown to be credible. Six months after the publication of the Committee's report, we are no further on.”
“The Finance and Personnel Committee was unable to come to any real conclusion due to the scope, timing and lack of participation by key witnesses and so could not provide any boost to public confidence. In fact, the subsequent revelations about witness coaching within the Committee have only eroded public confidence even further. What credibility does the Committee's report now have, considering the allegations relating to the then Committee Chair and others? That is another reason why confidence-building measures are needed now from the Government, as the Assembly's only attempt to provide scrutiny on this issue has only added fuel to the fire of public discontent.”
“The review had to work within the parameters of tight terms of reference that were developed so that it would not stray into areas outside its competence, so focus was primarily on the role of the Department of Finance and Personnel. The review was further hindered by NAMA's refusal to provide oral evidence as, in its opinion, it was accountable only to the Oireachtas and not Stormont. The Committee for Finance and Personnel did, of course, not accept this interpretation and found its refusal to provide evidence as "particularly unhelpful". The report identified 18 key witnesses — individuals and organisations — that had either been unable to or refused to provide oral evidence. Many of these would be essential witnesses in establishing the full truth.”
“That recommendation does not seem to have progressed if Brexit is an example, but I am happy to be corrected. <BR /> <BR />Can the Chamber and, more importantly, the Northern Ireland public receive reassurance today that the lessons identified in the Committee report have been implemented? Furthermore, what actions have the Government taken to date to fix the reputational damage? I have yet to see much evidence, hence this debate provides an ideal opportunity for the First Ministers to make crystal clear what actions are being taken to rebuild confidence and trust following these scandals. <BR /> <BR />Of course, there are also many questions about the Committee report. It was a partial investigation at best as many witnesses declined to give evidence or provided only written evidence.”
“In the six months since that report was published, what actions have been taken to ensure that mistakes relating to NAMA are not repeated? For example, the lessons identified to date in the report from the Committee stated that future ministerial nominations should be made only with the advice of senior departmental officials; that robust systems should be put in place to ascertain any financial or other interests of future similar ministerial appointments; that processes should be put in place to ensure that there are no future gaps in information relating to crucial meetings; and that independent expert advice should be available when Ministers are taking policy positions on matters that are of systematic importance to the economy.”
“The Ulster Unionist Party believes that the damage that this whole sorry episode has done to Northern Ireland's political and business reputation requires more than just kicking the problem into touch and citing ongoing investigations as a reason for inaction. That is why we have chosen this issue for our first Opposition day motion. We want to provide the First Ministers with an opportunity to address the public confidence issue that is obviously at large as a result of the ongoing investigations of and revelations about NAMA and has been compounded by the actions of some during the Assembly's one attempt to investigate. <BR /> <BR />I will start with the report produced by the Committee for Finance and Personnel in March 2016. The report concluded by saying:”
“The Committee has received further updates and guidance from the NCA and now awaits legal advice on how best to proceed. <BR /> <BR />Other investigations are under way here and in other jurisdictions. Criminal investigations are ongoing with the NCA, the PSNI and the gardaí in the Republic. Financial investigations are under way in the Republic and the USA, including the recent report on the Project Eagle sale by the Republic's Comptroller and Auditor General, which has led to the Irish Government setting up an inquiry into the losses that NAMA incurred for the Irish taxpayer. However, to date, we have seen little action from the Northern Ireland Executive or the Assembly apart from the review undertaken by the Committee for Finance and Personnel.”
“I am sure that we are all very aware of the live National Crime Agency investigation and the need to not say anything today that would stray into the realms of that investigation. At the same time, I believe that we cannot completely ignore NAMA and say nothing until the various criminal investigations are completed months or even years down the line. The issue has, of course, been debated at length in the Committee for Finance, which recently resolved to:”
“Thank you for your answer, Minister. When do you believe the Department will be in a position to respond to the inspector's report and will funding be allocated for this essential long-overdue project in the upcoming four-year capital budget?”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. Is the Finance Minister's proposal for a one-year Budget now agreed Executive policy? If so, what will be the impact on the Programme for Government?”
“Unless the Chamber wishes to continue as the region most affected and least prepared, I urge you to support the motion.”
“In recognition of our unique status, the Executive must secure guarantees that no group in Northern Ireland will be worse off financially for five years post-Brexit. To deliver our vision for Northern Ireland post-Brexit, we must have continued access to the European single market and a continuation of the common travel area with the Republic, with no hard border to GB ports and airports disadvantaging Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />Those are our requirements to ensure that Northern Ireland is Brexit-ready. The Ulster Unionist Party has risen to the challenge to fill the gap in leadership and direction from the Executive. No doubt some will criticise, but their voices have little credibility in the absence of their own proposals. <BR /> <BR />Northern Ireland needs a plan. We have provided one.”
“<BR /> <BR />Our 10 key asks in the paper recognise the scale of Brexit's impact on Northern Ireland and therefore show that we need ambition if we are to put in place the transformational policies required to deliver our positive vision. The keywords are "ambition", "transformation" and "vision". That is what Northern Ireland both needs and deserves. We want a massive increase in infrastructure investment to create an economic stimulus to break out of our bottom-of-the-league growth and to provide the connectivity required for success in the 21st century. To transform our economy, we must turn all of Northern Ireland into an enterprise zone and create an emphasis on skill development to build the most skilled workforce in western Europe in our chosen industries.”
“<BR /> <BR />I campaigned and voted for Remain, but I accept the result and the democratic will of the UK electorate. I see no value in trying to fight rearguard actions. We need to identify opportunities from the Brexit process, and that is why our document provides a vision for the future, which is to make Northern Ireland the UK's gateway to the EU. We also need to see evidence that the Executive are getting Northern Ireland Brexit-ready. We propose the setting-up of a Brexit war room, with the skills and capacity to identify the best policy options and priorities for Northern Ireland, so that we are well prepared and have an effective voice in the upcoming negotiations.”
“That is also why the Ulster Unionist Party has engaged with civic society and, in the absence of anything from the Executive, developed the policy document in front of us. <BR /> <BR />Gavin Robinson, critiquing this document in the media, asked whether this was all that we had produced in two months. The irony, that his party is meant to be in government and whose silence is deafening, appeared to be lost on him. I am no fan of the SNP, but, to be fair to it, it has appointed a Brexit Minister to argue Scotland's case. It has set up a Statutory Committee to monitor progress and introduced an expert advisory body to guide the Scottish Government through the process. Our First Ministers have sent a letter. The comparison does not flatter us. Our Government need to up their game before we are further disadvantaged.”
“We need to understand fully the implications of Brexit for Northern Ireland and be in a position to articulate our requirements to Westminster and beyond. If we think that London will prioritise our needs of agrifood and manufacturing over those of the city of London, we are in for a rude awakening. <BR /> <BR />Furthermore, the UK Government are, frankly, making this up as they go along. "Brexit means Brexit" means whatever you want it to mean. The capacity does not exist in London to come up with all the answers. They are looking for ideas and proposals, and that is why we must be clear on our requirements and have a thought-out Brexit plan for Northern Ireland. That is why it is so unbelievable that we have seen no action, no proposals and no plan from, as we have seen today, an Executive totally split on the issue.”
“Most affected, least prepared — that is the best summary of our current position as Northern Ireland faces a unique challenge as a result of Brexit. We are the only region with an EU land border that needs to remain fully open. Agrifood is our largest industry, which will be massively impacted by any reduction in subsidy. It faces even greater danger from potential tariffs if we no longer have single market access under existing terms. Our local economy shows no sign of recovery nine years after recession. Our net income from the EU is over £500 million per year, which will be slashed if future allocations are based purely on the Barnett formula. The enormity of the task ahead should concern everyone in the Chamber.”
“I am a bit surprised to see the Minister still in situ but as he has decided to continue in post I thank him for his statement. The Minister, in his statement, has failed to recognise that the Executive look set to lose possibly millions of pounds of European funding. Today's statement basically reads as business as usual. Will the Minister give a commitment that each of the 11 councils here will be in a position to avail of and draw down the €80 million funding allocated to the local authority actions plans?”
“I thank the Minister for the update. It is obviously positive that pork products previously considered waste have become items for export, thus helping to increase the overall value of a carcass for local farmers. Unfortunately, there is now growing frustration amongst them and the processors about what they see as excessive delays since the initial announcement was made. Can the Minister detail the value of the products that the local industry throws away every week, until final agreement can be reached on this important opportunity?”
“I thank the Minister for her answer. The Minister will be well aware of last Saturday's very successful Comber earlies food festival, which I was pleased to initiate when I was on Ards Borough Council. How can her Department further support enterprising producers like the Comber early growers to develop brand awareness and retain more control over their product?”
“I thank the Member for giving way again; what he said has stimulated me to ask a question. Does the Member agree that it is unacceptable, with Northern Ireland having the highest rate of suicide on these islands — tragically, 268 in 2014, which is the last year of statistics — and, uniquely, at a higher level than 30 years ago, that mental health counsellors working in the community sector are, due to cuts in funding, having their hourly rates reduced to a level that makes it difficult for them to continue to offer this valuable service?”
“We urge the Minister and the Executive to show some urgency and start to plan for this new economic and political environment.”
“<BR /> <BR />The same level of uncertainty exists in other areas too, such as agricultural support, EU part-funded infrastructure projects, access to higher education, border controls with the Republic and with GB, Peace funding, and other funding for third-sector projects: all this tallies to a significant portion of the funding within the Budget Bill. I urge the Minister and his Executive colleagues to produce an emergency plan to ensure that Northern Ireland's voice is heard at Westminster and throughout Europe and that they are clear in their demands to protect our funding streams. <BR /> <BR />This is a steady-as-she-goes Budget. It was never good enough to meet Northern Ireland's requirements before the referendum; it certainly does not cut it now. We will oppose the Bill.”
“The Azores ruling would no longer apply if we were fully outside the EU; but, again, no one knows how much in or how much out we will be at the end of this. Will we get a free hit to reduce our corporation tax rate without having to reduce our block grant or will the Treasury refuse this because of the implications for other devolved countries and regions? Will the policies still make Northern Ireland attractive to investors if we are outside the single market or will we still be able to negotiate access during the article 50 process? The Minister, on behalf of the Executive, needs to have an emergency meeting with the Treasury to try to obtain clarity on these key issues.”
“<BR /> <BR />While I appreciate that this Budget Bill is not the vehicle to do it, we need a coordinated response from the Executive that will produce a plan to protect our local economy and public services. For example, the Minister stated last week that he is committed to the rate and timetable for the reduction of corporation tax. This, of course, is the Executive's main policy for attracting foreign direct investment to Northern Ireland as part of a strategy to rebalance our economy away from its over-reliance on the public sector. The Minister stated that he is seeking a meeting with the Treasury to discuss secondary benefits and the final cost to our Budget. Of course, that is now all up in the air.”
“I know that officials are drawing up new processes. I hope that the Minister can confirm that future rounds and other Budget processes will be more transparent to aid scrutiny and the ability of the Assembly to hold Ministers to account. <BR /> <BR />I mentioned a challenging financial environment; this has just become significantly more uncertain with last week's events. The challenges and uncertainty are exacerbated by the failure of the previous Executive to mend the roof while the sun shone. That failure to reform and drive change in the public sector means that this Budget fails to meet the requirements of the people of Northern Ireland. The Executive's prevarication and inaction have got us to this point, and attempts to divert blame will not work.”
“The expectation at Westminster is that a Budget may well be required once the initial turbulence settles, and that will require a response from our Executive as, undoubtedly, it will affect our spending plans. <BR /> <BR />As I said in my contributions during the debates on previous stages of the Bill, the Budget comes at the start of a challenging time for the Executive. This Budget is relatively benign compared with what is to come for the remainder of the mandate. The Minister of Finance has had the benefit, as he has already pointed out, of having over £170 million for reallocation as part of the June monitoring round. I assume that this met the needs of his Executive colleagues; I say "assume", because, like most in the Chamber, I do not know. We no longer have the option to see the bids from Departments, as they are now a secret.”
“Moody's also pointed out that the UK has one of the largest budget deficits among the advanced economies, thanks, as I pointed out in my previous speech on the Bill, to the Labour Government's mismanagement of public funds. As this deficit becomes more expensive to finance, the pressure to further reduce the deficit and raise funds to pay for it will lead to increased taxation or further pressure on budgets. <BR /> <BR />Therefore, despite the potential lead time for our leaving the EU to be well outside the scope of this Budget, it is highly likely that the impact of Brexit on currency, debt growth and government income could mean that the Budget will need to be revisited in the autumn.”
“Of course, any EU contribution is still an unknown outworking of the negotiations yet to come. If the UK made the same deal as Norway, we would still contribute a net £3·5 billion to EU funds as the price for access to the single market. This reduced credit rating will result in higher borrowing costs for government, businesses and households in the longer term. It could have a negative impact on the Budget before us, as increased interest payments mean less money for services and will, of course, mean that the Minister of Finance's desire to increase debt becomes a more expensive option. <BR /> <BR />The Minister's war cry — we have heard it again already this afternoon — is that we must oppose austerity.”
“The net impact is likely to dampen growth in investment in the short term, thereby reducing the revenue generated by Northern Ireland. Of course, this is in the context of Northern Ireland being the lowest growth region in these islands, so we are starting from a relatively low base. <BR /> <BR />Secondly, we must also look at debt and the potential for increased costs to fund that debt. Let us also bear in mind that the Executive are indebted to the tune of over £1,200 per person compared with Scotland — with an oil industry and a top 100 plcs that we sadly lack — where the debt is £530 per person. On Saturday, as I mentioned in the earlier debate, Moody's downgraded the UK's long-term debt rating from stable to negative. Its analysis is that:”
“The expectation is that the Estimates in the Bill will not be affected by Brexit and that it will be two years at least before the full ramifications become clear. Again, no one knows. <BR /> <BR />What we do know is that our Budget will be affected by two issues, both of which are outside our control. First, as we have already seen, a significantly weaker pound will reduce the value of EU payments in the short term to the Executive and to funding recipients such as our farmers. There is, of course, an element of swings and roundabouts, as a weaker currency should help our exporters and our tourism industry and encourage cross-border shopping, but it will also make imports more expensive, including oil, which will increase energy and transport costs.”
“Since the previous stage of the Bill, the economic and budgetary landscape has fundamentally changed with last week's referendum result. Fortunately, the Bank of England and the Treasury had contingency plans, but the question is this: are we as well prepared, and do we have contingency plans? On Friday, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister said that we do not have a plan B, but I was pleased to hear the First Minister mention in her comments earlier that, at last, we are now taking action. <BR /> <BR />I hope that the Minister of Finance has a plan, as every Department detailed in the Bill will be affected by our leaving the EU. Some of the funding may be covered by additional budget from Westminster, and some may not; at this stage, no one knows.”
“I thank the First Minister for her answer. Given that, during the last mandate, the Executive Office, under its former title of OFMDFM, found itself at the top of the list of complaints made to the Information Commissioner about Executive Departments, what plans have been put in place to ensure public confidence in transparency within the Department?”
“We need an emergency plan that can ensure that Northern Ireland's voice is heard at Westminster and throughout Europe and that is clear in its demands to protect our funding streams and to put in place policies to facilitate our businesses to take advantage of any opportunities that arise. <BR /> <BR />As I said, we need reassurance and leadership, both of which have been in short supply since last Thursday's momentous decision. I urge the Executive to show some urgency and some leadership and start to plan for this new economic and political environment.”
“This reduced credit rating will result in higher borrowing costs for government, businesses and households in the longer term. <BR /> <BR />We have a challenging financial environment that is exacerbated by the failure of the previous Executive to mend the roof while the sun shone. That failure to reform and drive change in our public sector means that, unlike the Chancellor this morning, it is difficult for us to state that we come to this from a position of strength economically and with a fundamentally strong economy. We need a coordinated response from the Executive that will produce a plan to protect our local economy and public services. We need reassurance and leadership to calm markets and encourage investment.”
“There is an element of swings and roundabouts of course, but the net impact is likely to dampen growth and investment in the short term, thereby reducing the revenue generated by Northern Ireland. Estimates of the impact of the EU exit on Northern Ireland suggest a 3% reduction in GDP. Secondly, we must also look at our debt and the potential for increased costs to fund that debt. Let us also bear in mind that the Executive is indebted to the tune of over £1,200 per capita compared to, for example, £530 per capita in Scotland. <BR /> <BR />On Saturday, Moody's downgraded the UK's long-term issuer and debt ratings to "negative" from "stable". Its analysis is that:”
“There is £1·2 billion in CAP payments and rural development, a further billion from the current round of regional development funds and millions more from the social fund and Peace moneys. Some of the funding might be covered by additional budget from Westminster, but some might not. At this stage, no one knows. The expectation is that it will be two years, at least, before the full ramifications become clear, but, again, no one knows. <BR /> <BR />What we do know is that we will be impacted by two issues, both of which are outside our control. First, a significantly weaker pound will reduce the value of EU payments in the short term to the Executive and to funding recipients like our farmers.”