Matthew O'Toole
South Belfast · Social Democratic and Labour Party · Northern Ireland
“I appreciate my colleague's giving way. Unfortunately, I was not here for all of the Minister's remarks — like her, I have been in the Chamber for a lot of today, so I had to pop out and attend to some other business. I presume that the Member will agree that these provisions could be more properly included in the Sentencing Bill.”
“Clearly, however, the regulatory and enforcement regime for all those watercourses and marine environments is way out of date ecologically and, indeed, economically.”
“We learned about the antics of Jeffrey Donaldson that were not criminal — so far — only after his conviction. Reporters have been able to go and find that information and people have been able to speak — felt able to speak — because Mr Donaldson has been sent to prison, convicted of appalling crimes, and is therefore less likely to seek r…”
“We are pleased, in broad terms, to support it at Second Stage. We welcome the move towards an approach to fisheries management that is ecosystem-based rather than narrowly species-based.”
“We were robust in opposing those who were not willing to deal with the nutrients action plan, for example, which should have been a core part of dealing with Lough Neagh. Of course, the farming industry needed to be engaged, and the Minister has been doing a lot of that work recently.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In just a few hours' time, the House will go into recess for more than two months. There are two outstanding and grave matters that the public in Northern Ireland want us to deal with, but we are walking away, so I want your advice on Standing Orders.”
The complete record
Every one of 5,909 lines we hold for Matthew O'Toole, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 14 of 119.
“However, there is a problem with our credibility as legislators when we come in here, pass laws, create social media content and go out and tell the world that we have abolished hospital car parking charges, and then keep delaying it. <BR /> <BR />The public were promised that hospital parking charges would be abolished. They were promised it not just via a motion or ministerial statement but by an Act. We are legislators; we created a statutory obligation for the Minister to abolish parking charges. Let me say this: I do not hold the Minister responsible for the delay.”
“As legislators, who must be aware of the extraordinarily low levels of public trust in this institution, we all have to acknowledge that that is not good practice, to put it mildly. In fact, it is shambolic. <BR /> <BR />We now have a 2026 Bill that, I assume, will shortly become a 2026 Act through accelerated passage, by which we are, once again, delaying the implementation of the 2022 Act. People will ask questions about the merit of the initial proposal. There are clear merits in the initial proposal, in the sense that hard-pressed people, particularly low-paid healthcare workers and people who are in vulnerable situations because they are facing care or going to hospital appointments, would rather not have to pay hospital parking fees. Nobody challenges that, which is why nobody challenged the Bill when it went through in 2022.”
“The very last Act that was passed in the 2017-2022 mandate was — I will just get the correct title: I do not want to misquote for the purposes of Hansard — the Hospital Parking Charges Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. That Act abolished hospital car parking charges. That was the last thing that we did in the previous mandate. <BR /> <BR />Leaving aside Budgets, what was the first thing that we did in the 2022-27 mandate? Well, we passed the Hospital Parking Charges Act (Northern Ireland) 2024, which delayed the implementation of the last piece of legislation from the previous mandate. That, in itself, was an absurd and farcical situation: the first piece of legislation that we passed was one that delayed the last piece of legislation that we had passed in the previous mandate.”
“It is sometimes difficult to know whether to laugh or cry in the Chamber, to be honest. I am often accused of being cynical or negative, but it is the job of an official Opposition sometimes to say things that are pretty obvious — not "emperor has no clothes" stuff but stuff that is blindingly obvious. When the Assembly previously passed legislation on hospital car parking — I was a Member then — it is true to say that there was no formal Division. For obvious reasons, no one said, "No". It was the last thing that we did before people got in their cars and raced out to put posters up — in fact, posters were probably already going up at that point — and hand out leaflets.”
“I appreciate the Member's giving way. I agree wholeheartedly with his point about reform. Many of us think that there is too much cynicism about this place in London at a political and an official level. Does he agree that people's cynicism is only reinforced when they see political dysfunction and failure to take responsibility for reforming and improving this place?”
“<BR /> <BR />We have put forward proposals. When we debated some of them yesterday, I was effectively Lundy-ed and smeared in the Chamber by the Minister's party. We are now passing a Budget Bill again, and we are again in a situation in which the UK Government are demanding an open-book exercise and to intervene in devolved decision-making. The Minister has agreed to that. Let us have an update to see what is being agreed. My fear is that Executive dysfunction is indulging the UK Government's worst excesses. Those two things are linked. We need to step up and take responsibility. <BR /> <BR />I have made my points on various fronts. We will not divide the House on the Budget Bill, because we have debated it enough.”
“How do we not just play into the hands of Treasury officials and politicians in London and their worst excesses of cynicism? Answer me that, Minister. I would like to know, because I have heard you talk in here about shroud-waving, over-profiling and financial mismanagement. <BR /> <BR />My suspicion — I will close with this — is that the public are losing trust. As the Opposition, we are here to build trust, believe it or not. We are here to create a culture of accountability. Members do not like it, and they will slag me off. Yesterday, we talked about one aspect of the reform agenda that we are trying to get through. The financial and fiscal dysfunction that exists here is completely connected, as others, I think, will agree, to the failure to reform our politics and the failure to deliver proper reform of Stormont.”
“There was a revenue-raising exercise that counted things such as the delaying of reductions in hospital car parking charges — something that we will debate later — so they were not exactly difficult revenue-raising decisions. A package was put in place, and now, as soon as it has come to an end, we are in the difficult situation again where we are starting a financial year effectively already overspent with vast pressures. A large part of that is, as I said, because the devolved financial settlement simply does not work. It is set up structurally for the North not to properly succeed. I do not disagree with that, but we have choices and responsibility here. How do we set priorities locally? How do we make the most of what we have? How do we improve the situation?”
“I am on the side of the people here, and I am on the side of the Executive when they stand up, make choices and deliver services for people, but they are not doing that yet. That is why there is so little trust out there. That is why the public are so frustrated with the lack of delivery, Minister, two years on. <BR /> <BR />It would be helpful to understand the open-book exercise. I am concerned that we are two years on from the Executive restoration package, when an amount of money was made available to the Executive. A lot of it was smoke and mirrors. There were a lot of strange conditions. Some of the conditions that the UK Government insisted on were vague.”
“Is he saying — he needs to clarify this — that, on the one hand, no criticism can ever be made of financial management in the Executive and that there is no issue at all but also saying that Departments must live within their means and that there is shroud-waving and budgets being over-profiled in order to, hopefully, find some money down the back of the sofa later in the financial year? He needs to explain that. That is not me being oppositionist; he has said that. He said that there was shroud-waving, so, if there is shroud-waving, it cannot all be the fault of London. That is me saying that in the context of acknowledging that the devolved fiscal settlement does not work for this place. Do not accuse me of taking the side of London: I am not.”
“I have offered my professional experience. I know, because I worked in Whitehall, how far down the priority list we are. I know that it is difficult for him when he goes and has conversations. I know that they could not give two hoots about this place in general and that there is a degree of indifference there. I do not disagree with all those things. My question is, "What are you and your colleagues doing to improve things?" <BR /> <BR />The Minister has said repeatedly in Committee and in the Chamber that Departments need to live within their means. He used the term "shroud-waving" in the Chamber the other week.”
“I happen not to agree, but, if the Minister is claiming credit for all those things, at some point, he and his colleagues have to accept accountability for the things that are not being delivered and are not happening through Executive dysfunction. <BR /> <BR />You cannot say, "We deserve credit for all these things", but, for everything that you do not like, it is the Brits' fault or "The DUP won't let us do it". That is undermining trust in the institutions, including from people from all sorts of backgrounds. That is not me. I will be accused of carping: that is fine. It is my job to be the Opposition and to hold people to account. The Minister has accused me of taking the side of others because I dared to hold him and his colleagues to account on spending. I have been clear: the UK Government are not prioritising this place.”
“What I do not agree with is that we have no power here at all or that we cannot set priorities and be honest with the public about choices. The Minister listed achievements, so far as he is concerned, and things that the Executive have done. He is entitled to do that, and I am glad that he is doing that. I am glad that he is speaking up, because, at times, it has felt as though the Executive dared not speak with one voice about what they were trying to do. I have always encouraged the Executive to set out a clear plan, to budget for it and to link it to a Programme for Government. If the Minister is standing up now and has at least the courage to stand over what, he thinks, the Executive are delivering, that is fair enough.”
“I have supported the Executive's efforts in relation to a new fiscal framework and increasing funding on the basis of a calculation of the level of relative need. I agree wholeheartedly that our system of devolved finance is utterly incompatible with doing proper government on a long-term strategic basis. There is no argument from me there. He and I agree that, in the long term, we want constitutional change but, on the way there, I hope — we still have not seen any concrete plans for it — more fiscal devolution and more powers on this island for the Assembly.”
“<BR /> <BR />I will pick up on a couple of quite specific points, having made some overarching points already. The Minister pointed out the additional Barnett consequentials that came from the UK Government in relation to special educational needs and local authorities in England. He said that that proved the point that he and his colleagues, particularly those in his party and other parties, had been making all along about underfunding. First of all, he is right to say that this place has been structurally squeezed by the way that the Barnett formula has worked over many years.”
“Today, we will authorise, I assume, the Budget Bill, which finalises the 2025-26 financial year, and we will begin the process for the next financial year. As I said earlier, we are doing so in the absence of an agreed multi-year Budget. That is a profound failure. I recognise that the Minister has produced a draft multi-year Budget, but, in repeatedly calling out the Opposition, I think that there is a frustration that the Minister cannot get his draft multi-year Budget through. Perhaps he can give us an update on where discussions are and whether he expects that one will be agreed. The Opposition make no apology whatsoever for doing their job robustly and constructively, holding the Minister and his colleagues' feet to the fire on Budget scrutiny.”
“2) Bill later this year, the NI Fiscal Council Bill and the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill will have gone some way to, on the one hand, improving scrutiny and, on the other, removing items from the sole authority of the Budget Bill. The Committee Stage for those Bills will be finalised, I am pleased to say, ahead of target, by the end of this month. Members will eagerly await the next stages of the legislative process. <BR /> <BR />I will now say a few words wearing my Opposition hat. I will not detain the Assembly too long, because we have talked already through the various stages of the Budget Bill and, indeed, the rates orders that we have passed, the Vote on Account and the spring Supplementary Estimates.”
“It is not easy to understand, and that is a barrier to good scrutiny. The Committee is grateful to the Finance Minister and his officials for undertaking to work to simplify the process and how it is presented, and members are keen to support and advise on those efforts, as we always are. Additionally, the Committee will continue to work with the Minister to make the Estimates and monitoring processes that the Bill authorises much more accessible. Today, we are completing the process to grant legal authority to Departments to draw down cash and use resources, with the Budget Bill signalling that we are coming to the end of the 2025-26 financial year, with departmental accounts comparing their audited out-turns against the limits voted by the Assembly. <BR /> <BR />The Committee hopes that, by the time that we are examining a Budget (No.”
“Indeed, the Minister rightly referenced the end of the stabilisation funding, although at least some of that will have been made up for in the spring statement allocation last week. The Minister will tell us how those numbers join up or not. Going forward, the Committee is conscious that every Budget decision made by the Executive will be even more crucial than it has been this year. We must live within our means and move beyond the culture of overcommitting Budgets in the hope that Westminster Estimates, Barnett consequentials or reserve claims will provide cover for a shortfall. <BR /> <BR />The Committee is very keen to build on the work of the past year to equip other Committees with the necessary tools to make these debates much more forensic. The Budget process is complex and littered with technical terms and accounting principles.”
“Questions remain, including the full nature and purpose of the open-book exercise that has been referenced, the impact that that exercise will have and the very short timescale for it to be completed by the end of the financial year. It would be helpful to have an update from the Minister on that open-book exercise, which I presume and certainly hope has now started in earnest. <BR /> <BR />I also repeat the warning given to the Committee by the Minister's officials not to expect extensive Barnett consequentials and on the impact that the reserve claim will have in the years to come. Members have noted a cliff edge in the 2026-27 Budget as aspects of the Executive restoration settlement end.”
“Now that the consultation period on the Minister's draft multi-year Budget has closed, the Committee eagerly anticipates the next step in the Budget process as, at the moment, it remains a draft Budget without Executive approval. I highlighted in my Second Stage speech the fact that the Committee is conscious that the Bill's purpose is to legislate for the reconciliation of accounts for 2025-26. Members are also aware of the impact that the balancing of this Budget will have on the Budgets of subsequent financial years. <BR /> <BR />The Committee notes the provision of a £400 million reserve claim by the Treasury for this financial year. The Committee also noted the additional £380 million for public services over the next three years announced by the Chancellor at last week's spring statement.”
“We are conscious that the time frames that the Minister works to are dictated by the cycles at Westminster; I may come on to more of that later in my personal remarks. <BR /> <BR />A number of Members spoke in the Second Stage debate on the Bill, so this debate may be shorter. Today's debate provides us with a final opportunity to offer Committee views and the views that stakeholders have expressed to Members. They have told us that our Budgets would be much more strategic and better applied were they to be directly linked to a Programme for Government. They have also made it clear that multi-year Budgets provide them with much greater scrutiny in order to plan and invest in reform.”
“As always, I will speak first as the Chair of the Committee for Finance. I am sure that the Minister is exhausted; these seats are not particularly comfortable for long debates. I should raise that with the Assembly Commission, but I do not want to be accused of making demands on the public purse. I certainly have sympathy for the Finance Minister, who is having to sit through very long debates. <BR /> <BR />The Minister has introduced the Bill in a condensed time frame. As we comment regularly, the situation is not ideal. The use of accelerated passage is not a practice or vehicle that people are particularly enthused about. However, we agreed to it on the basis of achieving sufficient consultation with the Committee.”
“Minister, is it possible to look at potentially widening the exemption, as I mentioned in my remarks, to all or other targeted ATMs at what would be, we are told, a modest cost, meaning that it would be affordable and would not create consequential issues for you when it comes to spending power or rates revenue? I encourage the Minister to look at that, given the exemption's connection with access to cash and the importance of that access to small businesses, the financially vulnerable and, indeed, community groups. Other than that, I am content to support it.”
“<BR /> <BR />At the meeting on 4 March, I took the opportunity to ask the director of rating policy about the cost of making all ATMs exempt from rates, and was informed that that would be possible through secondary legislation at a relatively modest cost. I encourage the Minister to explore that further. It would be helpful if he could offer some guidance on that today. At the conclusion of the briefing on 4 March, the Committee agreed to recommend that the rule be affirmed by the Assembly. Therefore, the Finance Committee supports the motion to affirm it. <BR /> <BR />Speaking in my party capacity, we, of course, support this small but welcome measure. I will just say that, although it is welcome, the cohort of ATMs that are in receipt of the relief is now very small.”
“<BR /> <BR />This is an area in which the Finance Committee is particularly interested, given our recent inquiry into the banking and financial services landscape. In our inquiry, the Committee specifically examined the issue of financial exclusion in rural communities, hearing first-hand how vital access to cash is in rural areas. Therefore, all Members should, like me, be keen to support the retention of ATMs in rural areas to facilitate cash flow for small businesses, which is all the more vital given the constrained financial position in which many businesses find themselves. Of course, ATMs are also very important in urban areas: it would be remiss of me not to say that.”
“Members also noted the position on section 24 of the NI Act 1998 and the EU implications. On 3 December 2025, members therefore indicated that they were content with the statutory rule. <BR /> <BR />The Rates (Exemption for Automatic Telling Machines in Rural Areas) Order (Northern Ireland) 2026 was subsequently formally laid in the Business Office on 19 February as SR 2026/22. At the Committee's meeting on 4 March, members noted that the Examiner of Statutory Rules had not drawn any rule to the attention of the Assembly. Once again, the director of rating policy was on hand to brief members further. Members noted that the scheme was not necessarily about incentivising banks and building societies to install new machines in rural areas. Rather, it was about sustaining existing ATMs in rural areas.”
“<BR /> <BR />Members noted that the scheme is essentially about maintaining the ATMs that are already in rural areas and further noted that, following changes to valuation case law in recent years, which removed the majority of ATMs from the valuation list, only a small number of them are now covered by the rule. At the briefing, the Committee was informed that, when it comes to its financial impact, the scheme's cost is modest — less than £50,000 — as a result of the previously mentioned valuation changes. As is common practice, the Committee noted assurances provided by the Department about equality impacts. Members also noted that there are no directly equivalent statutory instruments in GB and that the Department considered previous regulatory impact findings to still be valid.”
“I will speak to the Committee's scrutiny of the statutory rule to extend until next March the rates exemption for separate entries in the valuation list associated with ATMs in designated rural areas. I thank the Minister for his comments. <BR /> <BR />The policy was first considered by the Committee in SL1 format on 3 December 2025, when members noted that the exemption applies to any ATM valued individually. For example, it applies to those located outside petrol stations or on high streets. ATMs located in banks, building societies and shops tend to be valued as part of the building, so they are unlikely to be eligible. During that meeting, members received a very useful briefing from the director of rating policy on current rating policy issues, which included some subordinate legislation, including the SRs that we are debating today.”
“I simply make that point. We lack costings, which your party has a right to get in Dáil Éireann. I do not think that that is unreasonable. <BR /> <BR />I will draw my remarks to a conclusion by saying that we support the measure, but we would like to see the Executive not just go further but do something at all through the rates system to help small businesses rather than simply continue with such policies, welcome though they are.”
“No, I did not say that. Our entire Opposition resource is less than that for one of your party's spads, since we are on the subject. Let us be clear, Minister: we asked you to give us the opportunity to get official costings from civil servants for our alternative proposals, which is a right that your party has in Dáil Éireann. We have asked for that to improve scrutiny here. So far, you have refused it. Since you raised it, I simply make that point.”
“Ah, he raises an interesting point. He raised a point about the Opposition. First, we have produced detailed proposals. I will not go through them all in detail here, because we would be here until midnight, and Mr Speaker would have me up in front of a commissioner or some other forum. I think that I would not be allowed to speak again, were I to detail all the Opposition policy papers. We launched one last week, Minister. We did so with very, in broad terms, limited resource.”
“Thank you for drawing me back to the current debate, because the point that I am making is that the Finance Minister shifted blame to everybody else when it comes to supporting small businesses, all businesses and all workers through the rates system rather than take responsibility. Today, he is simply continuing a small but welcome measure of support through the rating system. As has been consistent with this Minister and this Executive, the main thrust of the argument is to simply shift blame to other people, including, somewhat surreally, the Opposition. <BR /> <BR />With that all said, and having made my point about it, the Minister is the Minister. I look forward to his finally coming forward with meaningful proposals to reform rates. When he does —.”
“Why does the Minister not just force them on to the Executive agenda? He has that power. He can now, I believe, cite the three-meeting rule, so if he really wants to help businesses in a limited way through the rating system, he can do that. So my question is this: "Why doesn't he?" He was very keen in the previous debate, it has to be said, to blame others, including the Opposition and other parties in the Chamber, for the fiasco over the revaluation. Apparently, it was our fault that he made the announcement on revaluation. We asked him to pause it. We called for mitigations and transitional measures, as, indeed, did others in the Chamber. I think that Mr Tennyson said something similar. We did not tell the Minister that he had to —.”
“I acknowledge that the Minister has indicated that he wishes to make reforms in the future. We have not seen those yet. This measure, welcome as it is, is small and discrete, and it sits in the absence of other interventions. Although the Minister and his colleague convened a cost-of-doing-business task force, it simply told businesses what they knew already: they were facing cost increases. They have abolished the high street task force, despite a consistent call from sector bodies and local authorities to reconvene it. We have not seen a plan to help. We have seen what Donald Trump calls the "outlines" or "concepts" of a plan, but nothing concrete. The Minister will say that he would like to take action on small business rate relief. He will say that he has specific ideas in mind. As yet, those have not even gone to the Executive.”
“In a constituency context in Belfast, I have seen its usefulness and effectiveness, so we welcome its continuation. However, it comes in the absence of a broad strategic intervention on our rates system. We were promised one; we have not got one. We were told on multiple occasions by the current Minister and his predecessor that work was happening. We were promised a strategic road map, a strategic cycle and various forms of metaphorical examinations of the rating system. Thus far, we have had nothing but a continuation of the status quo. <BR /> <BR />At the same time, businesses in Northern Ireland have continued to face extreme cost pressures. Some have closed. In many cases, they have had to lay people off, and they have faced extreme pressures. There has not been assistance from the rating system.”
“<BR /> <BR />It would be remiss of me not to mention the bigger picture of rating policy and how the Back in Business scheme fits into the strategic review of all rating policy. The Committee has taken a keen interest in that and in all policy efforts to make better use of the tools at LPS's disposal in order to raise revenue within the rating base. Again, we look forward to hearing a bit more about that in due course. At its meeting on 4 March, members agreed to recommend that the rule be affirmed by the Assembly. Therefore, the Committee for Finance supports the motion. <BR /> <BR />I will briefly say a couple of things in my Opposition capacity. The Opposition strongly support the measure to continue the Back in Business scheme. It has been a success so far.”
“The director of rating policy for LPS attended the meeting and provided more up-to-date information on the effectiveness of the scheme, highlighting the fact that, as of 4 March and since the current iteration of the scheme, 113 new businesses had availed themselves of the scheme, leading to savings in rates liability of £600,000 across all council areas. Members also welcomed the continued cross-council work and other related schemes aimed at increasing publicity for and uptake of the scheme. The Committee looks forward to receiving further updates on how the work evolves over the next year of the scheme's operation, including on any consideration given to increasing the rates reduction from the current 50%.”
“Papers received from the Department at that time highlighted the fact that, under the scheme's current iteration, over 90 new or extended businesses had received support for the occupation of long-term vacant properties. Members were pleased to hear that momentum grows each year that the scheme is extended and that awareness of the scheme has increased, particularly through the work of a new forum established with the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE) across all council areas to drive it further. <BR /> <BR />The Rates (Temporary Rebate) (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2026 was formally laid in the Business Office on 19 February 2026 as SR 2026/20. At its meeting on 4 March, the Committee noted that the Examiner of Statutory Rules had reported and had not drawn anything to the Assembly's attention.”
“At that meeting, Members received a useful briefing from the director of rating policy for LPS on the current issues in rating policy, including some items of subordinate legislation that included the SRs that we are debating today. As per common practice, the Committee noted assurances provided by the Department in relation to the equality impact, financial implications and regulatory impact, as well as information on similar schemes in England, Scotland and Wales. Committee members also noted the Department's position on section 24 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and EU implications. <BR /> <BR />At the meeting on 3 December, Committee members noted and, like me, welcomed the scheme's effectiveness.”
“I will speak first to the Committee for Finance's scrutiny of the statutory rule, and then I will make some remarks in my capacity as leader of the Opposition. <BR /> <BR />I thank the Minister for bringing the rule to the House. The Committee considered the statutory rule to provide for the continuation of the Back in Business rebate scheme until 31 March 2027 — that is, for the scheme to continue until next year, not for the Committee's consideration to continue until next year. The continuation will allow any new business that occupies a long-term vacant property that is valued as a retail unit to pay rates at the vacant rating level for two years. <BR /> <BR />The Committee first considered the policy proposal in SL1 letter format at its meeting of 3 December 2025.”
“I do not believe, however, in agreeing to an above-inflation rates rise without being honest with the public about what it is about and, along with the DUP, bouncing it through without providing a plan. I say this to the DUP: if you are serious about representing people here, agree a multi-year Budget and take responsibility.”
“Most people, when they see a burning bus driven by a mad clown coming down the road, say to themselves, "I better get out of the way of this burning bus". The DUP stops, sticks its hand out, hails that bus, tries to get on and tries to bring the rest of us along. That, I am afraid, is bonkers and unacceptable. It is also unacceptable to do all those things in the context of voting through an above-inflation rates rise today. <BR /> <BR />In closing and in opposing today's rates rise, I say this: I am a social democrat. Along with the Minister, I am on the left. Along with the Minister, I want to build a new Ireland. I believe in being honest with the public about raising taxes to pay for public services. I believe in taking responsibility for the things that we want to do on this island.”
“I want to say to the other main party of government, the DUP, which will also vote through the regional rates rise, that that party and its constituents are driving past forecourts on which petrol prices have rocketed by 10% and 20% in the past few days. Yes, we are out of winter, but people — the DUP's constituents — are still vulnerable and have faced a huge cost-of-living squeeze in the North. Those constituents are also having to face up to the extraordinary pressure created by the rise in the price of home heating oil due to a war that some DUP Members in the Chamber were cheerleading for last week. Voting through a rates rise today while people are facing that pressure is remarkable.”
“I do not think that the Executive have loads of money to fix a spike in the international oil price. I acknowledge that, and I would not expect that the Executive or the Finance Minister could click their fingers and find the money to compensate people for the increase in oil prices. However, there should be a plan, and all efforts should be made to help people where we can and to use some of the additional financial resource that was given to us last week, accepting the constraints elsewhere. The public expect that, and, given that that is what is being asked of the Irish Government by the Finance Minister's party, I do not see why it is unreasonable to ask for it up here, particularly when, today, we are voting through an above-inflation rise in rates. That was the first point. <BR /> <BR />This is the second point.”
“That has left our people unbelievably exposed, because, unlike in other parts of these islands, two thirds of our people, particularly in rural areas but including in Belfast and Derry, are reliant on home heating oil. The price has gone up by 90%. It may have eased in the last 24 hours because of statements made by the madman Trump about how he may want his war to come to an end. Thus far, the Executive have said nothing about how they intend to support people. The Finance Minister's party said in Dáil Éireann that the Irish Government had failed to provide any support or come up with a plan. Well, that may well be true, but I have seen nothing about a plan up here. <BR /> <BR />I understand that the Minister has said today that he needs more financial firepower: that is fair enough.”
“It would be one thing if the Executive were able to say to the public, "This is how we will use the money to get waiting lists down, fix special educational needs, fix our crumbling waste water infrastructure or rescue our environment", but, as of yet, they cannot do that, and they have not agreed a multi-year Budget. That is simple stuff, and government is supposed to be about getting elected and taking responsibility. When you tax people, you should explain to them how their services will improve. That is not me being unreasonable or opportunistic — I am often accused of that in the Chamber — but it is the absolute basics of politics and government. <BR /> <BR />I will make a couple of final points, if I may. Over the past week or 10 days, we have seen an extraordinary spike in oil prices.”
“When the Assembly was collapsed by the DUP in 2022 — well, the Executive was collapsed and then we had an Assembly election, the results of which the DUP did not allow to be implemented afterwards — we were, for nearly two years, under the rule of Tory Ministers, who set the rate and set Budgets for us in the North. Chris Heaton-Harris, the then Tory Secretary of State, raised the regional rate by 6%. We all complained and objected: 6%. The First Minister lambasted the Secretary of State and said that working families should not be hit with an above-inflation rates increase. That is exactly what the Executive have agreed and exactly what will, in all probability, be voted through today.”
“I am robust in calling out the Finance Minister, challenging him and asking him and his party questions, so I have to be robust in saying this to the DUP: are you serious about agreeing a multi-year Budget? Are you serious about taking responsibility for improving services? If the Executive collectively, which includes your party, fails to agree a multi-year Budget, it will cast into even further doubt the ability of parties in the Executive to deliver for the public. <BR /> <BR />I want to go back to some things that were said a couple of years ago.”
“The Minister may be able to elaborate on and explain that to us, but, as of now, there is certainly a collective Executive failure to explain to the public how the money is being spent and how the additional £50 million is being raised. I do not mind it being raised, but it has to be done on the basis of a plan. However, there is no plan, and there is no multi-year Budget.”