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“Clearly, however, the regulatory and enforcement regime for all those watercourses and marine environments is way out of date ecologically and, indeed, economically.”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 2 of 119.
“<BR /> <BR />Brexit is personal for me because, had it not happened, I would not be a politician here today. I am sure that there are probably some in the Chamber who regret Brexit for that reason. I was in 10 Downing Street on 23 June, and, overnight, I became somebody who held an Irish passport and believed in the ultimate bringing together of the two parts of this island.”
“It is hard to believe that a decade ago today, on another baking hot day in London, a referendum took place in which the UK voted tragically to leave the European Union. Of course, it bears repeating that Northern Ireland did not vote to leave the European Union; it voted to remain in the European Union but was removed against our will. At that time, the warnings were clear that Northern Ireland would be a victim of Brexit and the complex relations on the island of Ireland and between the islands of Britain and Ireland would be jeopardised. There were warnings that Britain would be a poorer country and less relevant on the world stage. All of those warnings have proved to be true in spades, and I do not think that anybody in the Chamber could dispute that.”
“A word about Jeffrey Donaldson. I will call him "Jeffrey Donaldson", not "Sir Jeffrey Donaldson", and I will not apply to him any of the honours to which he is clearly not entitled, which should be stripped from him forthwith. He stands in abject disgrace. <BR /> <BR />When sentencing an individual, a judge will look not just at the impact of the crime on the victims but at the culpability of the perpetrator. "Culpability" means responsibility. Those of us who hold public office, particularly those who have held high office for many decades, have high levels of responsibility. That means that Mr Donaldson has the highest level of culpability. He has brought himself into abject disgrace. He has used his power and his profile to continue the suffering of innocent victims. He should feel the full force of the law.”
“Those who watch the debate tonight and hear the remarks made in the Chamber will include those who have themselves suffered abuse over many years and decades but have not yet felt able to make a report. I hope that the courage of Donaldson's victims — survivors — will give them the inspiration and heart to feel that they can report their abuse and that the criminal justice system will respond to them, hear them and find accountability for them. <BR /> <BR />It is important to acknowledge the work of the police officers and prosecutors who took the case forward and got justice and accountability for his victims. I echo the words of Members who highlighted the important work of organisations such as Nexus, which offers support and signposting for people who have suffered abuse.”
“Jeffrey Donaldson was convicted yesterday of the most grave and depraved crimes that it is possible to imagine. He stands not just shamed but convicted in the eyes of the law by a jury of his peers. <BR /> <BR />Like others, on behalf of my party, I stand with his victims and acknowledge their extraordinary courage and resilience — the survivors of his abuse, who showed remarkable courage in making their report and then having the resilience to sit through a trial in which their abuser sought to depict them as liars and to deflect from his culpability for the abuse with lies and deflection. The courage and resilience that they demonstrated will, I hope, be an inspiration to all in our society.”
“Just look at the response when the pay recommendation for Members came back from another independent public body. That was part of a broader picture of lack of trust in our politics and in the institutions. We should do absolutely everything that we can to improve trust in the transparency and probity of the institutions, and anybody who thinks otherwise is, I am afraid, kidding themselves and is in denial about public perceptions of our politics and Stormont. At every opportunity, we will seek to challenge those perceptions in order to improve them, and we make no apology for doing that. To that end, I hope that other political parties will support the motion.”
“That is often called "scoring political points": perhaps if we had more political point-scoring on practical policy and on improving governance here, we might make more progress, rather than simply having the two big Executive parties ping-ponging on whatever angry issue of the day there is. <BR /> <BR />We are clear that we need to improve trust in our politics. There is a perception that has gotten abroad that we have a kind of Wild West, with a divvying up of appointments. The failure to appoint a Commissioner for Public Appointments for years and years contributed to that. We need to improve public trust, which is what our motion is about. That is why we think that a review would be healthy. We also are fearless about being honest about the need to improve public perceptions of this institution.”
“However, there is a legitimate question that I have raised. There are other examples. People have talked about Invest NI, but I draw a distinction between former politicians — people who were formerly elected — and current politicians. There is a legitimate distinction there. <BR /> <BR />Robbie Butler spoke for the UUP, which is supporting the motion, as is the Alliance Party. I welcome the remarks that Stewart Dickson made. <BR /> <BR />This is not about scoring points, but it is important to say in response to some of what was said that the Opposition and other parties that are not on the Executive come here to scrutinise the Executive, and we make no apology for that.”
“That will potentially create a public perception of cronyism, particularly when we did not have a Commissioner for Public Appointments for five years. Sinn Féin and DUP Members who look askance at me and ask how dare I say such things ought to wake up and ask the public what they think. Deborah Erskine mentioned people on the doors: she should ask people on the doors whether they think that Sinn Féin and the DUP carve things up among themselves. They will give her a fairly honest impression about what they think. What I have just said is not particularly controversial. <BR /> <BR />To repeat — because this is a highly litigious society in which people constantly threaten things — I am not saying anything offensive or libellous about any individual; those are two decent public representatives.”
“<BR /> <BR />I am saying nothing libellous or controversial; I am simply saying that those are public bodies to which we have appointed serving political party representatives as chairs and deputy chairs. That is not normal in most places. That is not to say that those people cannot have any role in those public bodies; we all scrutinise them in the course of our activities as political representatives. Indeed, in certain specific circumstances — I have mentioned the Policing Board and the Education Authority — political parties are entitled under statute, standing orders or whatever the specific provision is to appoint people to represent them on those boards. However, those are public appointments that have been given to political appointees.”
“I will in a second. <BR /> <BR />— elected oversight and scrutiny. Nuala McAllister, who is in the Chamber, is another member of the Policing Board. Those are legitimate roles; political parties have appointed persons to scrutiny roles. However, in the case of the chair of the Education Authority, that is a serving politician who has been publicly appointed, which is distinct from being specifically a political appointment. By definition, those are not political appointments; they are public appointments. The same goes in a different regard for the deputy chair of InterTradeIreland, Mr Cathal Mallaghan, who is MP for Mid Ulster. I am sure that he is a fine public representative, and I know that he has lots of expertise in business matters, but he is still a serving Sinn Féin politician.”
“We are clearly not doing that. We have raised an important point, but you, Mrs Erskine, have attempted to shut down debate by pretending that I said something that I did not. I did not say that. I said that a perception is created when serving political representatives are appointed to public bodies. It is not best practice. I do not think that you see it in lots of other roles. <BR /> <BR />By the way, that is different from political representatives on those boards. Political parties are able to appoint political representatives to the board of the Education Authority and the Policing Board, for example. Colin McGrath, who proposed the motion, is a political member of the Policing Board. Political parties are able to nominate people for the specific purpose of providing —”
“Does he not? I am happy to give way to the Member for her to tell me that he is not a councillor any more because he has resigned in the past little while.”
“Let me be explicit and give examples. The current chair of the Education Authority is Mervyn Storey, who is a serving DUP politician. He used to be a Member. I cast no aspersions about how Mervyn has conducted himself in that office. He is an able and very personable man, and he knows a fair bit about education. I acknowledge all that. However, he is a serving DUP politician; he is still elected and takes the DUP whip in, I believe, Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council. The public out there see that the chair of a public body with a vital role in regulating the education system is not a former politician, as Deborah Erskine seemed to imply, but a current politician. I presume that he, as a member of the Member's party, takes instruction on many issues of policy from —”
“That also answers some of Mr Delargy's points. I apologise for missing nearly all of what he said, although I heard some of it on a remote screen. Business moved a bit more quickly than expected, and I was unable to get back to the Chamber. However, I am aware of what he said. He appeared to say that the motion was somehow about penalising republicans: that is nonsense. The motion does not mention republicans. It is not about any one particular group of people. As I have just confirmed, it is not about undermining the ability of people who have a past to participate in our present or future. <BR /> <BR />The issue is that we have commonplace appointments of serving political representatives to public bodies. That risks creating a perception of cronyism. Colin McGrath mentioned appointments by Sinn Féin and DUP Ministers.”
“<BR /> <BR />To be clear, our motion does not do what some Members accused it of doing, which was to seek to prevent anybody from holding public office who has a past, such as somebody who was involved in our conflict, even if they have a conviction. Mr Gaston talked about the Political Appointments Bill that his party leader, Mr Allister, introduced back in 2021. I was in the Assembly at that point, and the purpose of that Bill was to prevent anybody who had a criminal conviction above a certain tariff from ever serving in public office. The reason why we did not support the Bill was in recognition of the fact that we are a post-conflict society and that a judgement had been made in 1998 that, in order to move on from that conflict and bind people in, people's past did not mean that they could not have a future.”
“One of the symptoms is a sense among the public that this place — when it sits and functions — operates on the basis of a stitched-up deal between two parties for which being in office is about divvying up the spoils, managing the other side and ensuring that you get what you need for your own people rather than building the common good, prioritising the public's needs and delivering a clear set of priorities. That is a symptom of the dysfunction and failure at the heart of our political culture, so, to answer one of the first points in the debate, which was made by Deborah Erskine, we make absolutely no apology for bringing the debate to the Assembly today and robustly focusing the public's mind on the questions of cronyism in public appointments.”
“Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to make a winding-up speech on the motion, which, it is fair to say, has prompted considerable commentary from different sides of the House. Members have chosen to selectively oppose or, indeed, to selectively support different parts of the motion. <BR /> <BR />First, let me be clear that, in being a robust and constructive Opposition, the SDLP has never shied away from being honest about the crisis of trust in our politics, its origins and, indeed, its symptoms.”
“Minister, in broader terms, we are now two and a half years into your stint as Education Minister. Whether it is on TransformED, the curriculum review, workload — you have done work in that area — or the inspections regime that has just been announced, albeit you have told the Chamber that there is no real reason for the unions to be up in arms about it, why do you think that so many trade unions have become so frustrated with you during your time in office? There must be a reason. Are they all imagining it? Those are serious professionals who want to get the job done. Like you, they care about education and the future of our children. Why have they all fallen out with you?”
“First Minister, you might get a meeting with Keir Starmer now, because I think that his diary is about to become a lot freer in the days to come. However, it comes back to the point about taking responsibility here. I asked you whether the correct response to chaos in London was your party and the DUP visiting chaos in Northern Ireland by resigning your offices, and you did not answer that. I agree that we cannot expect UK Governments, be they Labour, Tory or, indeed, Reform — whoever they might be — to prioritise people here. Does that not argue that we should take responsibility? To that end, when will we pass a multi-year Budget, and when will the Executive bring forward proposals to avoid a crushing 5% cut later this summer?”
“I acknowledge and welcome the First Minister's strong words and her condemnation of the racism that we have seen, but racial minorities in our society want more than words. Frankly, they have seen a lack of urgency from the Executive in finding a practical response. This is now the third year in which we have had racial violence, particularly in this city. In this city, we had an attempted pogrom last week, which included people having to shelter in my office. In welcoming her words, I ask for more specificity on actions to prevent more pogroms — that is what they were — this summer. What action will be taken to resource the police? Will there be a rapid response on housing? What urgent action will be taken on integration? I ask the First please to be specific about what actions will be taken this summer.”
“That is not just because of the funding settlement from London; it is because they are operating within contingency envelopes, as was set out in a letter from your permanent secretary, Minister. It not good enough for the Executive to simply shrug off all responsibility, pretend that there is nothing to see here and cc London. No. The UK Government need to fund this place properly. We, as the Opposition, will be serious and constructive about that, but we will not allow the Executive to wash their hands of taking responsibility and impose further cuts on top of those that have already happened, simply because of their own inaction and chaos. We will hold them to account. The public here deserve better. <BR /> <BR />I commend the motion to the Assembly.”
“I appreciate your giving me that clarity. We have done our job today as the official Opposition by proposing the motion because we now have more clarity from the Finance Minister on the position. We are told not to table such motions and that we are letting the side down by holding the Executive to account. Hang on: there are community and voluntary sector organisations here that do not know what their funding is going to be to deliver public services next year. The deputy First Minister said a few weeks ago that the absence of a Budget was holding up support for domestic violence victims. The Communities Minister said that the absence of a Budget was holding up the issuing of housing support. You can multiply that by God knows how many things across our society. Universities are having their capital budgets and other things squeezed.”
“We cannot simply mosey into it, shrug our shoulders and refuse to accept responsibility here locally where we have it. That undermines our broader case. <BR /> <BR />Minister, you said earlier that we are either right or wrong. It is more complicated than that. I acknowledge that you and the Fiscal Council are right: there is a discrepancy in funding between Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland. However, you are wrong to say that that simply absolves the Executive of responsibility for public services here. There is a range of choices that have not been made by Ministers. You published a draft Budget and insisted to me that it was going to be passed. You encouraged your colleagues to pass it. I do not know what has changed, but I am happy to give way.”
“I think that the average person watching on their television screen and reading their newspaper sees exactly that and sees how those two dysfunctionalities reinforce each other. It makes the case for leadership and responsibility to be taken here. If, like me, you want to build a new Ireland, as the Finance Minister and his colleagues say that they do, you should take more responsibility here first of all, and then build a new Ireland. We have to take responsibility and show leadership, rather than simply bluffing our way through, publishing a draft Budget and saying, "Ah, this is grand, sure. We'll maybe get agreement on this". We are supposed to be engaged in the biggest act of transformation and constitutional change in western Europe — that is what we want — since the end of the Cold War.”
“Mr Gaston gave his perennial interpretation. I do not agree at all with the begging bowl depiction of politics, but I agree that the Executive are dysfunctional, that they refuse responsibility and that they are willing to throw all responsibility to London. I also think that successive UK Governments have been cynical; the two things can be true at the same time. The Minister said earlier that I was contradictory because, on the one hand, I criticised the Executive while, on the other, I criticised the UK Government. Shock horror: the two things can be true at the same time. The Executive can be dysfunctional and chaotic, and the UK Government can be both of those things, too.”
“I agree with Sinn Féin: we want to see ultimate power devolved back to this island and constitutional change. The step on that journey that I want to take is our taking responsibility in the here and now, rather than simply allowing a UK Government, whether Labour, Tory, Reform or any other complexion, to have all the power and responsibility. I want us to take responsibility here. It is worth saying that we have made zero progress on fiscal devolution under successive Sinn Féin Finance Ministers since the publication of the Fiscal Commission report.”
“We have lots of alternative proposals, which we have published over the past year and a half. We are not, as you will have seen, in government. We did not get enough seats to be in the Executive, so our job is to hold the rest of you to account. We make absolutely no apology for that. It is Sinn Féin and the DUP, alongside the Alliance Party and others in the Executive, who have the power. They have the ministerial cars, the ministerial salaries and the thousands of civil servants. You guys do your jobs; we will do ours. <BR /> <BR />I will go on and talk about some of the other points that were made. Stewart Dickson was correct to reflect on the need to take responsibility and make choices. We are supposed to be a devolved Assembly; power is devolved here.”
“That means that there will be those pressures, and there will then be, legally, another £1 billion cut because a Budget has not been agreed. Not setting a Budget is not a way to put pressure on London; it puts pressure on our public services and our people. We need to take responsibility and be honest about that.”
“The fact that the media are reporting on the £1 billion self-imposed cut — I will come back to that £1 billion, because it is a different £1 billion from the £1 billion pressure that has been talked about — and that we are exposing and highlighting it is because we are doing our job. The fact that you all feel uncomfortable about it is, I am afraid, real politics. We make absolutely no apology for that. <BR /> <BR />The Deputy Chair mentioned the £1 billion of pressure. Pressures that exist as a result of the draft Budget that the Minister published in January are not met. Obviously, there is a reserve claim. There is a loan to repay the reserve claim, and there are pressures that Departments, including those led by Diane Forsythe's colleagues, are reporting. Those are in addition to the cut that will happen if a Budget is not agreed.”
“We agree, because it is proven. I do not disagree with the argument that Scotland and Wales are currently funded further above their level of need than Northern Ireland. The question is how we go about making that case. Is the best way to make it simply to introduce a draft Budget, refuse to pass it and then say, "Not our problem"? Genuinely, I do not think that it is. It is not credible or reasonable. <BR /> <BR />I will respond to a few of the comments that Members made, starting with the Deputy Chair of the Finance Committee, who accused us of gaslighting. She talked about the SDLP having an alternative draft Budget. Well, we are doing our job today in holding the Executive to account.”
“— we can have our views on the cynicism or otherwise of the Treasury —”
“We are now debating much of what is in the Fiscal Council paper, which may be a good thing. That is why we have a Fiscal Council, which we have just passed into law. Its paper states:”
“I will give way in a second. <BR /> <BR />As the official Opposition, we will be absolutely robust in holding the Executive to account, because that is the official Opposition's job. I say it again and again, and we make no apology for it. It would be a preposterous situation if, before we broke up for summer recess, the official Opposition were not even willing to mention to the Executive the fact that they had not agreed a Budget, while acknowledging that the UK Government, chaotic as they have been, have had a part to play in that.”
“However, the appropriate way for the Executive to respond to it and use it to best leverage an improved financial settlement from the UK Government is not simply to chaotically say, "Don't blame us, guv; we're not going to take any responsibility", but to choose a set of priorities, agree a plan between the Executive parties, go to the UK Government with purpose and professionalism and say, "You need to fund this place appropriately". As the Opposition, we would genuinely endorse that. You should not simply bluff your way through, publish a draft Budget, say, "This is great", talk about party politicking and then, when the Budget is not agreed, say, "Actually, that thing that I published and that my colleagues now will not agree to was awful".”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to be able to make a winding-up speech on the motion. The factual answer to Ms Hargey as to why the motion did not mention the Fiscal Council's Budget sustainability report was because it was not published when we drafted the motion. As the official Opposition, we have to operate to very long business deadlines. We agreed to our Opposition day's being pushed back in order to enable more time for the Justice Bill. That is why it was not mentioned in the motion. <BR /> <BR />I have acknowledged the Fiscal Council's analysis. We are not trying to gainsay or downplay it. In fact, we acknowledge it.”
“The Executive are failing the people of Northern Ireland by refusing to take responsibility. We are drifting into a summer of chaos. <BR /> <BR />We support calls for more money from the UK Government. We will join the Executive in making those calls — let me be clear about that in order to ward off any inaccurate slurs from Executive party representatives today — but what we will not do is stand aside and passively accept Executive-created chaos. Take responsibility, and we will join the Executive in pressing the UK Government for more support. The status quo is not acceptable. I commend the motion to the House.”
“Neither has turned out to be true, or certainly not yet. There are other Ministers who talk out of both sides of their mouth when it comes to taking responsibility, because they are clearly not taking responsibility for agreeing a Budget. Ultimately, the public send us here to take responsibility. They know that we could use more money and that there are constraints within which a devolved Government operate. They know all those things — they are not stupid — and we, as the Opposition, have never tried to gaslight them, which I was accused earlier of doing. We have never tried to gaslight the public. We have always been honest. The only thing that we have asked the Executive for is honesty with the public in return: set clear priorities and show ambition, but be honest with people and take responsibility. That is not happening.”
“I have never heard a Scottish or Welsh Government — any devolved Administration in Holyrood or Cardiff — challenge their funding settlement from Westminster and say, "We're simply going to refuse to set a Budget". It is not an acceptable response to the cynicism and chaos from the UK Government simply to create more chaos and cynicism in Northern Ireland. That is not acceptable. I need someone to explain to me how imposing a £1 billion cut on our Budget because the Executive want more money from the UK Government works, because I simply do not understand it. <BR /> <BR />We will hold the Executive to account for that failure. When the Finance Minister launched his draft Budget earlier this year, he said that it could be transformational. He said that, ten out of ten, a Budget would be agreed.”
“To be clear, I am saying not that people will be sacked but that we will have much less to spend on recruitment. We will have much less to spend on vital infrastructure, from water to road to rail, and much less to spend on transforming our public services. Those are facts. <BR /> <BR />Do the Executive have a point when they say that the Scottish and Welsh Governments are funded further above their level of need? The Fiscal Council says that they do. We are not disputing that today — we are not arguing against that point — and that is why we will not divide the House on the Sinn Féin amendment, because it is not an unreasonable point to make. What is unreasonable, however, is to respond to that situation by simply refusing to set a Budget.”
“<BR /> <BR />As the official Opposition, we have set out today what the consequences of that will be. These are not made-up numbers. We have not extrapolated them using fancy equipment. We have simply looked at the numbers in the Department of Finance's permanent secretary's letter to Departments in April and at the numbers in the Fiscal Council sustainability report that was published last week. The Fiscal Council states that, legally, the Executive have £1 billion less to spend as a result of their not setting a Budget. That is the result of an Executive decision, and it is clearly an unacceptable situation. If it continues to be the case that the Executive do not set a Budget, what are the consequences? It could mean our having hundreds fewer police officers, nurses and teachers than could otherwise be recruited.”
“It is cutting off our nose to spite our face to cut our Budget by 5% because we do not like the Budget settlement that we have. The best way in which to make a better argument for an improved Budget settlement — a longer-term fiscal framework that works, which is what the Minister and his predecessors said that they wanted — is to take responsibility here, set a Budget and priorities and challenge the UK Government to fund us properly to do transformation. Instead, we invite cynicism. There is cynicism from the UK Government. Yes, the Minister is right when he talks about the Treasury's open-book exercise being, in large measure, an exercise in cynicism, but what is our response to that? It is simply to create more chaos by refusing to set a Budget.”
“I understand, and the Opposition agree with, the Minister of Finance and the Executive's saying that they need the best possible financial settlement. To ward off any accusations that we are simply taking the Brits' side, as it were, let me be clear that we support the Executive in getting the best funding possible from the UK Government. We support that and will make the case for it. Indeed, we did so to the Secretary of State when he was here the other day. <BR /> <BR />No claim for better funding from London justifies what is happening now, however. The Executive cannot say, on the one hand, that the UK Government are not giving us enough money, although they have more than a point when they say that, and, on the other hand, "Our reaction to that is to cut our own Budget even further".”
“They were not even here to set a Budget, so it had to be set for them in London, whether we liked it or not, contributing directly to the decline in public services and the failure to deliver major capital projects, such as the A5 and Casement Park, which would be much further progressed had the Executive not been collapsed a decade ago. <BR /> <BR />All too often, however, our response to chaos in London is to say, "God, look, that proves that London is chaotic". Yes, but we should take more responsibility here. We should show leadership to the public whom we serve, but, yet again today, the response that we see to chaos and, indeed, cynicism from the UK Government is chaos and cynicism from the Executive. As I said, the legal position is clear. In not setting a Budget, the Executive are in breach of the law.”
“Aren't they awful?" but to say, "Yes, they are chaotic. Yes, we would make different choices". <BR /> <BR />That is all the more reason for us to take responsibility here, set a Budget, show leadership to the public of the North and not simply let the chaos in Westminster dictate terms for our people and public services. Yet the latter has been the consistent position of the current Executive and, indeed, previous Executives led by Sinn Féin and the DUP. Of course, for half of the past decade — this decade of Brexit-induced chaos — we did not even have an Executive.”
“<BR /> <BR />I will come to the fiscal position, the conversations — or the lack of them — with the UK Government, and the relative funding position of the Executive. I want to state firmly and clearly, however, that it is absurd and unacceptable for a devolved Government simply to refuse to set a Budget. The context is chaos in London. We have had a decade of chaos from successive British Governments, going right back to 2016 and the Brexit referendum, and for years before that we had austerity. Often referred to in this Chamber, rightly, is the fact that, at Westminster, decisions are made that have huge and often very negative consequences for people and public services in this region. The correct respond to the chaos visited by London is not simply to say, "God, isn't London chaotic?”
“That is a 5% cut not even in the proposed draft Budget that the Minister himself introduced in January but in last year's Budget. That would represent brutal cuts, but that, currently, is the legal default that we are hurtling towards. <BR /> <BR />That is a factual legal position that the Opposition are setting out today. That should not be a surprise to anybody, and it should not be controversial that we state it. I am happy to give way to the Minister or, indeed, to any Member of an Executive party who wishes to tell me why I am factually wrong about that legal position. It is in a letter set out by the permanent secretary of the Department of Finance. That is an unacceptable position. It should not be controversial to say that a devolved Government refusing to set a Budget is unacceptable.”
“<BR /> <BR />What is supposed to happen after that, once a Budget is agreed, is that a Budget Bill is written, and that provides legal authorisation for spending, alongside a Main Estimates document that sets out the overall spending envelopes for individual Departments. None of that has happened; yet we are days from summer recess. This place will break up at the end of next week. At that point, we will be hurtling towards a 1 August deadline. At the 1 August deadline, the provisions set out in the Northern Ireland Act, as spelled out by the Finance Minister's own permanent secretary in the letter that he sent to other permanent secretaries in April, will kick in. That will mean that the Executive will legally be able to spend only 95% of last year's Budget. That is 95%.”
“<BR /> <BR />I move to the business of today, however, because it is important business. This is the final Opposition day of the summer term, and, by now, we should have agreed a Budget. We should be scrutinising a Budget. In fact, we should have already scrutinised a Budget. The Northern Ireland Act 1998 — the legislation that, effectively, puts in place the rules for how this place operates and has done since the Good Friday Agreement — is clear: a Budget must be agreed by the Executive before the end of the financial year; that is, before 1 April. That did not happen. For nearly three months, that law has been — I do not know whether you say "broken the law" but the Executive have been in breach of that law.”
“Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I suppose that I am bound to respond to the Minister's point of order. First, I am flattered that the Minister thinks that the official Opposition should adhere to precisely the same obligations as Ministers with regard to Assembly business. In fact, I am surprised by the idea that no Member can ever discuss a bit of business that is in the Order Paper. That seems to be a slightly surreal interpretation of rules. Nevertheless, I am sure that we will get a ruling on that. I hope that, in future, that means that the official Opposition in Dáil Éireann will not be saying "boo" about its motions before they are tabled before the Dáil. I look forward to seeing that. I also hope that we never hear any other announcements being trailed in the media.”