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“Clearly, however, the regulatory and enforcement regime for all those watercourses and marine environments is way out of date ecologically and, indeed, economically.”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 18 of 119.
“I agree wholeheartedly that the fleadh is a huge opportunity for the city and the whole region. I am very much looking forward to it. A lot of my constituents feel that they would have been able to benefit from the fleadh or any future fleadh that comes to Belfast, as hopefully it will, were the Glider to have been available to take people from the centre of the city into the south down the Ormeau Road and north up the Antrim Road. Do you agree that it is deeply regrettable for Belfast's economy that the Glider has been delayed for several years? Do you also agree that it is regrettable that your colleague the MP for North Belfast appears to be under the misapprehension that it is on track? It is not; it is six years behind schedule.”
“The public did not have a right to expect miracles, but they did have a right to expect serious devolved Government, with plans and Budgets being set to match that. We have not seen any of that. We do not have a multi-year Budget. We have not had any coherent Budget to match what was in the Programme for Government, vague and waffly as it was. We have had evasion, deflection and blame shifting. We need to do much better. <BR /> <BR />We will not divide on the spring Supplementary Estimates, but it is worth us all reflecting, given some of the coverage of the past couple of days, that this document includes the budget for the Assembly Commission. Not to put too fine a point on it, it is worth us all reflecting on public trust as we come to future discussions on other matters, including our pay. I will leave it at that at this stage.”
“<BR /> <BR />That brings me to what came out the week before last, which was the reserve claim from the UK Government. The fact that people are forced to go to the Treasury in such a haphazard way is an example of the failures of our devolved financing system. We now have a planned open-book exercise that was announced, it would seem, by the leader of the DUP on the Floor of the House of Commons, rather than by the Finance Minister on the Floor of the Assembly. I would like to understand what that open-book exercise will mean and how it will improve outcomes for the public. Or, are we simply giving in to the UK Government as they try to undermine the devolved financial settlement even further? <BR /> <BR />These things are not easy.”
“Talking about the strategic use of monitoring rounds is not 100 million miles away from talking about the strategic use of money that was found down the back of the sofa or was won at the bookies. Monitoring rounds are not for long-term planning; they are supposed to be used to deal with small and unplanned changes in spending that happen in-year. They will always happen, but you should not expect them. We have got to a preposterous situation. Yes, some of that has been created by the totally suboptimal way in which we are funded by the UK Government and the fact that the Treasury operates its devolved spending in such an unsustainable way. There are many examples in this document of where the Executive could and should have done so much better.”
“I know that it is out for consultation, but, based on the utterances of the two main parties in the Executive, which are massively at variance with each other, there does not appear to be any realistic prospect of their agreeing a multi-year Budget. <BR /> <BR />The multi-year Budget was supposed to be the answer to all the haphazard, contradictory budget-making that we see today in the spring Supplementary Estimates, with money being handed back and our having to vote through different totals because you were not able to properly plan and spend, but I do not think that we will get it, based on everything that we have heard. Perhaps the Finance Minister can update us on that. He talked about the strategic use of monitoring rounds being a solution to the problems that afflict NI Water.”
“I accept that a court case is still working itself out, and we all want to see a positive resolution to that, but the public have a right to ask whether that is acceptable. <BR /> <BR />We move on to what was supposed to be the solution to all the haphazard budgeting that we are talking about today: a multi-year Budget. We were told repeatedly by all parties in the Executive that they wanted to deliver a multi-year Budget that would allow us to set proper targets for public-sector wages and allow managers and leaders in the public sector to plan for how many doctors, nurses, midwives, teachers and street cleaners we want to see in our society, but it appears that we are not getting that multi-year Budget. I am not sure where it is.”
“<BR /> <BR />We are told that the cause of all our problems lies elsewhere and that the Executive, or individual Executive parties, are not to blame. We hear, "Sinn Féin is not doing it right", "the DUP won't let us get that through", "London made us do it" or, "London made us not do it". Here is an example of the Executive's failure. They have an extra £2·5 billion from last June to be authorised for spending, but we will vote through one Department's handing back £100 million of capital funding, saying, "We cannot spend that money". That is the Department for Infrastructure, which is responsible for delivering modern road and rail infrastructure and for NI Water, which I will come on to. That really is a remarkable failure.”
“If you go to the page with the heading "Department for Infrastructure", which is a Department that the Minister used to lead, you will find under "Capital Departmental Expenditure Limit" the figure that we voted through last June and the change to the half a billion pounds that we are voting for today, which is a fall of £100 million. We are voting through a reduction in the expenditure limits for the Department for Infrastructure. What a strange thing to be doing. Why are we doing that? It is because the Department is not able to spend the money that it allocated last year. It announced that it was allocating money to the A5, the A4 and a whole range of other projects. Those projects are simply not being delivered now, so the Department has to hand back that money.”
“However, it is true that, since we voted in June, there is an extra £2 billion of day-to-day spending, which we are voting through today. I want the Finance Minister to explain to us how that money has been prioritised and how it has delivered meaningful change in people's lives. We have now been here for two years, and the public have a right to ask how that money is changing their lives. <BR /> <BR />One way in which it has not changed their lives thus far is through improved delivery by the Department for Infrastructure, which the Minister used to head. The introductory section includes the spring Supplementary Estimates changes for the Department for Infrastructure and an example of where the Executive have not delivered. It is spelled out clearly in black and white.”
“The table sets out the Main Estimates and the total resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) funding, which was £16·6 million, that we voted for last June. We are now going to vote through an additional £2·1 billion of resource DEL, which is for day-to-day spending and pay for public servants — we will come on to that topic; it has been in the public eye over the past few days — for the financial year that is about to end. <BR /> <BR />We are told consistently that there is no money and that we are completely constrained. It is absolutely true that the UK Government have not consistently funded this place to our level of need. It is also true that we need a fairer funding model and more fiscal devolution. I want to hear more from the Finance Minister about when he plans to say more on those things and when they will be delivered.”
“Obviously, we will have a longer debate tomorrow, when we will be able to debate budgetary matters. The first point is about what is in front of us: the spring Supplementary Estimates. I have a hard copy of last year's Supplementary Estimates. I do wish that I had a hard copy of this year's document. People might say that that is trivial. We should not print things for the sake of doing so — lots of reports and publications can be distributed in soft copy electronically — but these are quite useful documents to have in front of you in hard copy. I have printed mine out. <BR /> <BR />In section 1 of the introduction, there is a very straightforward table. People think that these documents are unbelievably complicated: they are when you get into their detail, but they are not in headline terms.”
“Often, we are wont to trivialise that role and communicate to the public that we are a trivial legislature, partially because we do not seem to be very fond of legislating. We have an abysmal track record of introducing and passing actual legislation in this mandate. <BR /> <BR />I assume that the Supplementary Estimates will go through today and that the Budget Bill will go through tomorrow. Members will authorise spending of tens of billions of pounds. What could be more serious than authorising that spending? People who say that we do not have any power here to change people's lives and that all the power lies elsewhere should bear in mind the gravity of the responsibility that comes with that today. <BR /> <BR />I want to go through a few points.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak on the spring Supplementary Estimates and the Vote on Account. Tomorrow, I will speak on the Budget Bill. I put on record my thanks to my colleague, the Deputy Chair of the Finance Committee, Diane Forsythe, who is stepping in to speak on behalf of the Committee in this timed debate due to the anomaly of my having an Opposition role and being Chair of the Committee. It is important to give both of those roles their proper due. That can be done in an untimed debate, such as the one that we will have tomorrow, but not in an untimed debate like this one. <BR /> <BR />The spring Supplementary Estimates and Vote on Account represent something that is, at once, highly technical and procedural and also unbelievably important and central to everything that we do here as a devolved legislature.”
“— and Benjamin Franklin, were, by definition, republicans. They believed in a democracy with citizens independent under the law. They did not believe in Donald Trump and the autocracy that he is building. Will you guarantee that public money will be spent celebrating not the corrupt Donald Trump but the historical links between this place and the United States?”
“Minister, I strongly support celebrating the contribution of people from all over this island, including the Scots Irish — the Ulster Scots — to the United States. However, it is important to be clear on a couple of historical points. No one migrated from Northern Ireland, because it did not exist in the 18th century. That is not to diminish the contribution of those who left Ulster at that time. It is also true to say that the Ulster Scots who made their place in the United States and built that republic free from the Crown, including people such as Andrew Jackson, whose home in Tennessee I have been to; Chester A Arthur, whose home you went to recently in Antrim —”
“If we all took responsibility for the things that we have some responsibility for, this society would be in a much better place when it comes to symbols.”
“Minister, this is a surreal and unedifying spectacle, and some of your answers are genuinely a bit bewildering. A lot of the Members opposite are deflecting. There are huge challenges, including in my constituency, with loyalist flags and posters that go up. The problem is that the conversation that Colm Gildernew talked about having about all flags and symbols, including party-sponsored posters, is completely undermined when parties — including yours, because we all have a part to play — put up posters and then effectively deny their existence and play weird semantic games. Will you please accept responsibility for the fact that that is your party's poster in your constituency, and accept that you are the Minister who has at least some statutory responsibility?”
“Minister, will you confirm, first, that any children from Northern Ireland who would have participated in the trial would have done so only on the basis of their consent and that of their parents? Secondly, will you confirm that it would have been a tiny number of children? Thirdly, does he agree that there is an irony, given that the Members opposite who are advocating that children from Northern Ireland be excluded from a trial that is happening in — checks notes — the rest of the United Kingdom are the same people who prevented us from having devolved institutions for many years on the basis of differentiation between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom? Will you address those points, please?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I briefly draw Members' attention to the fact that, during questions to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, the First Minister challenged me for asking a question that she said was outside the jurisdiction of the Executive Office and instead related to a party decision. She then went on to announce to the House what is, in effect, a party decision. I happen to agree with the latter party decision, but it is worth putting on the record that I challenged her on one thing that she said was illegitimate for me to ask, yet she went on to make a party announcement. It is important to state that for the record.”
“Minister, the strategy is called 'Rethinking Our Resources' and relates to the circular economy. I am afraid that your Department has been doing a lot of thinking, and it feels like it is going round in circles. People in Four Winds and Carryduff in my constituency have been told for years by Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council that they cannot get rid of these things called kerbie boxes, which blow all over the high ground in BT8 and, ironically, create more litter. The council tells them that nothing can be done about that until the Minister responds to the consultation that happened two years ago. Now, Minister, you are announcing another consultation. What do you say to my constituents in BT8, who are fed up waiting for consultation after consultation and just want action?”
“First, I get about two questions once a month, so I will ask you about issues that pertain to wider questions, including decisions that your party has made. It has nothing to do with the British Government; it was a vote taken in the European Parliament by your colleagues, including on the subject of civil and humanitarian aid. I understand that your colleagues are talking about defence spending, but you do not have to endorse every part of that spending. Your party could, for example, have abstained: your party chose not to. When those of us who want a united and new Ireland back in the European Union are asking for European solidarity now and in the future, is it defensible for your party to stand against humanitarian aid to people in Ukraine?”
“Thank you, Minister. First, I associate myself and my party with the Minister's words on the sad passing of Mr Beattie, the director. Clearly, that was very sad news for his family and colleagues. <BR /> <BR />Was the connected European social fund, which was used to fund economic inactivity, then became the Shared Prosperity Fund and is now the local growth fund, discussed? We know that there is concern in our local sector about the loss of funding. I cannot put my finger on what the situation is for this financial year. I know your Department is taking responsibility for 2027-28 onwards, Minister, but will you give us an update for the coming financial year, 2026-27?”
“I look forward to hearing more about it in the months ahead.”
“This could be a profound shift left for people who get thrombectomy — people like Paul McLean — and their lives can be saved. In Paul's case, his life was saved. It is all about timing. <BR /> <BR />About 18 years ago, I was with my dad down the road in the Ulster Hospital, and he got his last rites. He was not a stroke patient who was eligible for thrombectomy, but he nearly died — but for having been with some friends who spotted the signs of stroke. He had an extremely serious bleed, but he is alive. His life changed. He could not do lots of the things that he would have liked to do and that he did before, but he met his grandkids. That is extremely important. <BR /> <BR />I commend the Minister for the progress that he wants to make in the area, and I hope that we can make progress.”
“Everybody who is eligible for a thrombectomy, whether they live in the most rural area and regardless of what time of day or night they have their stroke, should have access to thrombectomy, ideally at the Royal Victoria Hospital. Those things are achievable. <BR /> <BR />On the cross-border point, if we can get people from Dunfanaghy or Donegal town or from Ballybay, Clontibret or wherever else in Monaghan to Belfast more quickly to get their thrombectomy at the Royal, let us do that, too. That will improve outcomes for them and reduce the cost to the health service up here. That is something that we can do. It is achievable, and I welcome the fact that the Minister is engaged on it. The Minister has been clear and consistent about his priorities around reformulating services and shifting left.”
“As I said, Danny Donnelly, as I said, talked about his experience, which we have heard about before, as a healthcare professional and about the moral injury resulting from a healthcare professional knowing that a person's outcome could have been better and that a worse outcome was entirely preventable. This is an instance when we can prevent that. <BR /> <BR />We often talk about Northern Ireland missing targets profoundly. This is not an area in which we are dramatically far behind other jurisdictions. We are, I believe, on a percentage basis, ever so slightly ahead of England when it comes to provision of thrombectomy, but that does not mean that we should rest there. Patsy McGlone and Linda Dillon made strong points about ambulance availability, and I will come on to that if I have time.”
“Órlaithí Flynn used the phrase — I think that I quote her correctly — that it is "clinically transformative and economically rational". That is completely true and was well put. There are many instances when we ask for an innovation in healthcare or a new experimental service where, perhaps, the cost saving is not entirely clear, even if there is a strong moral and medical case for it. This is both clinically and economically rational. It will save the public purse money because it will make people's lives better and improve outcomes. <BR /> <BR />Diane Dodds made similar points and talked about what she had seen at Craigavon Area Hospital. Philip McGuigan talked about it as an invest-to-save project, which it is.”
“My last point — not to sound too much like a wonky economist — is about dynamic scoring: do not just necessarily score the upfront cost but the saving. We have 48,000 people in Northern Ireland living with stroke. First, the people at the more acute end will be living with care of one kind or another every day. Secondly, they will often be lost to the workforce or will work less than they otherwise would. They may have a family member in receipt of carer's allowance. All those things mean that we can perhaps think about dynamically scoring 24/7 thrombectomy in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />I want to touch on a few comments made by Members in an extremely constructive and thoughtful debate. I thank all Members who participated.”
“If we are able to save lives in Donegal and Monaghan and the Irish Government can reduce the overall cost for you of delivering the 24-hour thrombectomy service to the Royal, it is a good thing, regardless of whether the phasing is before or after the service is there. That is a win-win.”
“That is a quick reminder of why we should never collapse the institutions here. It also means that we need to be realistic about delivering the services, but I think that it is realistic to do this and to do it relatively quickly. The Minister said that cost is a significant pressure: of course it is, and, of course, he and other Ministers but particularly him are operating in an extremely cost-pressured environment. The cost of £5 million has been quoted: I will not cavil at that, because I am sure that it has been arrived at seriously. We would encourage anything that can happen to make the service more achievable. Has every staffing option been looked at? I welcome the fact that the Minister's officials are already engaging with the Irish Government.”
“Not a huge number of people will avail themselves of thrombectomy, but the effect for the people who require and avail themselves of the procedure, as Paul and Clodagh have told us today, can be transformational and remarkable. <BR /> <BR />How do we get there? How do we get to a 24/7 thrombectomy service in Northern Ireland? I am pleased that the Minister has indicated that he wants to move in that direction. We are often oppositional here, and we hold Ministers to account for one thing and another. We are holding you to account for it, Minister, but we also welcome the fact that you want to move in that direction. <BR /> <BR />It is true that, when the stroke action plan was published in 2022 and gave an indicative date of 2024 for the introduction of 24/7 services, not long after, the institutions collapsed.”
“That is a special and profound thing. <BR />Danny talked about moral injury. People who work in the health service say that the most profound thing is the ability to heal, make better or at least minimise damage and that that, ultimately, is the vocation of people who work in the health service. Thrombectomy is a remarkable procedure that allows people to continue to work; be active, physical parents; drive their car; sometimes, to talk; and to retain certain cognitive facilities that they would not otherwise have. It is remarkable. There is, therefore, a profound moral case for us delivering the service on a 24/7 basis.”
“<BR /> <BR />As Paul and Clodagh will testify and as they have testified to us in the Building today, a stroke is not a binary event, as a sprain or a fracture is. A stroke is a life-changing event. It changes the lives of individuals, their families and all who work with them and care about them. To put it bluntly, it also has a repercussive effect on the public purse, because stroke outcomes can be severe — the most severe of all is death — and thrombectomy is a key part in reducing mortality. The level of disability for those who survive is reduced dramatically — dare I say, almost miraculously — if they can get access to speedy thrombectomy. That is particularly the case for people who are in earlier or middle age. They can have the opportunity to live something like the life that they would have led, had they not had a stroke.”
“We in the Opposition and, I am sure, other parties and the Stoke Association will be working to hear more about that and, hopefully, to make progress on the specifics of the work on the business case, the areas for North/South cooperation and the costing that is going on internally in the Department. <BR /> <BR />I thank everybody who participated in today's debate, but I thank, in particular, Clodagh Dunlop and Paul McLean who came to Parliament Buildings to share their stories with us; their colleagues and friends in the Stroke Association who have helped us put together the motion; and the Stroke Association's counterparts in Chest, Heart and Stoke, who have also worked hard in the area.”
“Thank you, Principal — thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was promoting you to Principal Deputy Speaker: I am sure that it will not be too long. <BR /> <BR />Thank you to everybody who spoke in today's debate, and thank you to the Minister for responding. I think that we got some positive progress from the Minister, which I appreciate. Obviously, our job, as Mr Chambers said, is to hold the Minister positively and constructively to account, but I know that he wants to make progress in the area. I welcome some of the progress that he alluded to and that he wants to make in the weeks and months ahead.”
“It is not acceptable, but I put my point on the record.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will be brief. I will double-check Hansard, but I believe that, during Justice questions, when we discussed the exclusion of nationalists from the d'Hondt process and the fact that it does not apply to the Justice Ministry, the Minister said that, if we — meaning, I presume, designated nationalists — engaged more constructively with unionists, the Justice Ministry would not be excluded from d'Hondt. That it is not an acceptable position for anyone in the Chamber to take, particularly when a party is clear about the consequences of designation —.”
“Minister, our party agrees with you about many of the issues that you have raised, and we want to work with you on them. However, it is clear that, before you took office — an office that, in effect, you and your party campaigned for you to have before the Executive were restored — you were on the record about the track record of your Executive partners. Why, then, did you not seek explicit guarantees in writing before you went into the Executive about what you could deliver as Justice Minister? To be clear, that would not have prevented an Executive being formed, so it is an entirely different position from that of the First Minister and deputy First Minister's parties. Why did you go in without those guarantees, and is it not a bit rich to complain about it now?”
“We cannot go on like this. I commend the motion.”
“More generally, the public will continue to lose trust in our politics and in all of us, whoever we are — unionist, nationalist or other, socialist or green — because they do not believe that we can do politics properly and deliver accountability. We have an opportunity to pass the motion today to continue the process of pushing for reform and improvement in our politics. If Members think that the public think that it is all grand and we can go on like this, I genuinely wonder what planet they are living on.”
“I am afraid that I do not have time, Mr Buckley. I am generally generous in conceding time, as I have shown. <BR /> <BR />There has been a consistent desire to talk up the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement. We passionately believe in the Good Friday Agreement, but we also believe that it can be reformed and improved. It was funny to hear Mr Lyons talk about the Good Friday Agreement. He was previously found to be in breach of the ministerial code because he refused to participate in strand two of the agreement by attending the North/South Ministerial Council. <BR /> <BR />Our motion is not simply about Minister Lyons; he has said his piece. I hope that today's motion will pass.”
“Here is the point, Minister. We were in an extraordinarily serious situation, and you, as a holder of ministerial office, were expected to reflect —.”
“Accountability matters. Yes, we are all politicians, and, of course, everything that we do is political. There is nothing wrong with that; we are democratically elected people. However, we have, without fear or favour, challenged different parties. <BR /> <BR />Sian Mulholland mentioned her experience of being an elected representative in North Antrim last June, and I think that that was sincere. We should not forget the gravity of the situation. That is why the report was made in the first place. I believe that Mr Kingston is a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee: he should be mindful of some of his utterances in the Chamber during the debate. The reason why it was a matter of such concern to the public was the gravity of the situation, with people sheltering in fear for their safety. Minister, your responsibility —.”
“Yes, we were. The Minister of Education, I am afraid, is a man who has ignored and spurned any form of accountability. <BR /> <BR />I have held Sinn Féin robustly to account on the Bobby Storey funeral. I have held the Alliance Party robustly to account. I will do that to the DUP. The fact that your party believes itself to be immune to any criticism is, ultimately, what is damaging trust in our politics. Your party, as the leader of unionism, should, more than anybody else, care about trust in politics here, but you seem completely indifferent to generating contempt for our politics. <BR /> <BR />I will briefly mention some of the comments that were made. Pam Cameron asked, "Why bring the motion forward at all?". It is about accountability, I am afraid. She went on to criticise other parties for actions that they had taken.”
“I cannot. I am afraid. I have only got three minutes left. <BR /> <BR />There has been a festival of whataboutery today. The core of the motion is about standards in public life, building a culture of accountability and reforming the way that our politics works. It is disappointing to see that so many people have ignored that and fallen into the whataboutery trap, simply saying, "What about yousuns this? What about yousuns that?". <BR /> <BR />Multiple Members opposite mentioned the Bobby Storey funeral: at the time and subsequently, my colleagues on these Benches and I were robust in challenging Sinn Féin Members —”
“I will give way briefly to Mr Burrows, and then I will finish my remarks.”
“One second. <BR /> <BR />I will consistently call out and criticise Sinn Féin Ministers. Often, I have to put up with more than glares in the Chamber; I have to put up with responses online. I and my SDLP colleagues will challenge the Justice Minister and the AERA Minister: that is what opposition is about. Mr Burrows, in his office, has not uttered one syllable of criticism of the DUP. He reinforces the opinion that lots of people have that the mission in unionist politics is simply to create three versions of the DUP. <BR /> <BR />I will give way briefly to Ms Ennis briefly and then Mr Burrows.”
“He will not utter one syllable of criticism of the DUP.”
“No, I will not right now; I will in a second. <BR /> <BR />— my colleagues and I give to all Ministers — all Ministers — whether they are DUP, Ulster Unionist, Alliance or Sinn Féin. <BR /> <BR />I need to make some progress in responding to comments made by others. <BR /> <BR />The motion is not just about Gordon Lyons; it is about building a culture of accountability in our politics, improving the way that the institutions work and rebuilding trust in the public that we can deliver services for them. It is deeply disappointing when Mr Jon Burrows dismisses as "wasteful" an entire debate that is fundamentally about accountability. Lots of people who have heard lots of words from Mr Burrows in recent weeks will wonder whether he is serious. A man who came in promising to be the new sheriff in town turns out to be Deputy Dawg to the DUP.”
“Yes, we have. I dismiss utterly the idea that we have not. Go online, and look at the challenges that I get from supporters of all parties, including Sinn Féin and the Alliance Party, for the robust challenge that —”