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“Clearly, however, the regulatory and enforcement regime for all those watercourses and marine environments is way out of date ecologically and, indeed, economically.”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 73 of 119.
“<BR /> <BR />Today's rates increase is not one that we will endorse. We will not push it to a Division, but, should it go to one, we will not endorse it. We cannot go on in a situation where we simply wave through tax increases and Budget Bills that will impose cuts on Departments and public services without being clear with the public about what we are doing or what the plan is for public service recovery. We have now been here for more than a month. We have had loads of motions from Executive parties that express aspiration. That is great. I am glad that we are setting big ambition and big aspiration. I am glad that we want to deal with school uniform costs. I want to deal with that, too. I am glad that we are debating workers' rights today.”
“<BR /> <BR />The next principle about revenue raising is that it needs to be tied to improving public services. If we are to ask people to pay any greater taxation — that includes the rates that we are increasing today, by the way, which means an increase in everyone's bills: let us be clear about that. Everybody will pay more as a result of what we are doing today. Let us be clear with people: what will it be used for, and how will it be used to get waiting lists down or improve public services? Those are the tests by which we will judge any proposed rates increase. We will not accept any rates increase that simply puts an additional burden on working families and ordinary workers who are dealing with the cost-of-living crisis without even the vague promise of, let alone a properly costed plan for, improving public services.”
“A letter from the Executive parties to the UK Government in London said, effectively, that they had started the work on revenue raising. However, that letter was subsequently disclaimed, denied or played down by different Executive parties. As a constructive Opposition, we have always said that, if there is a debate to be had about revenue raising, by all means, come back and tell us what it is, but the conditions that we, as the Opposition, will insist on are pretty reasonable. First, is it progressive? We are a left-of-centre party that believes in progressive taxation. Unlike the current Tory Government and other parties, including some on this island, we believe that the people who should bear the greatest burden of increased taxation are those who have the greater ability to pay. That is a reasonable principle.”
“The Minister might want to clarify that last year's rates increase was, in real terms, smaller than this year's. Although it was higher in percentage terms, it was lower in real terms. We need to front up and tell people that their rates are going up, albeit in line with inflation. That is different from last year. <BR /> <BR />I will make a couple of broader points about how we budget here. It is really important. We are in a position where there is — the Minister referred to it — a consultation ongoing on how the rating system works. Clearly, that rating system places a heavy burden on locally raised rates. It is, basically, the only tax in any substantive terms that we levy here. We do not yet know what the Executive's position is on revenue raising. We have heard different things.”
“I did not think that what I said was that devastating, but, clearly, I am having more of an impact than I expected. The now First Minister said:”
“This is a political point: I acknowledge that the increase is in line with inflation, which, clearly, is better than having an above-inflation increase. However, last year, when Chris Heaton-Harris went through a punishment Budget and the UK Government set a regional rate that was, at that time, below a measure of inflation — it was the only part of what they did in relation to the North that was less punishing — the now First Minister said that —.”
“It is a basic thing that we be told what the percentage increase is and the level of inflation rather than just inflation in general.”
“It is the very least that we, as MLAs, should expect when a written ministerial statement sets out a percentage increase on the major tax that we vote on and levy. Guys, the tax that we are voting on now is, basically, the only substantial tax that we vote on. Therefore, what we are debating now is not just to be waved through. It is to be debated and scrutinised properly. The very least that we can expect in a written ministerial statement is the Minister and her officials to set down the actual percentage of increase rather than stating that it will simply be in line with inflation. Which measure of inflation? There are multiple different measures of inflation, and different pay negotiations are indexed to different levels of inflation, as are a range of taxes that are levied from Westminster.”
“We have acknowledged in a reasonable and constructive way that an incoming Executive have had to deal with that at relatively short notice. <BR /> <BR />It is worth pointing out a couple of things that, purely in a bureaucratic sense, could have been done much better. I will leave this with the Minister, and it came up at the Committee. First, the written ministerial statement that we received did not include a specific percentage increase on the regional rate. It set out a series of worked examples, if you like, for a property that is worth £123,000. It is clever to put it at £123,000, because that is significantly below the average house price in Northern Ireland, which would have been a more reasonable measure. In addition, the statement did not set out the percentage increase, which, to be honest, is a basic bit of information.”
“That is profoundly disappointing, as it would be an opportunity to debate the priorities that the Executive and the Executive parties have set for themselves. We are not being unreasonable. We will never be unreasonable as an Opposition. All we will ask for is a robust, serious plan to rescue public services, because that is what the Executive parties and the Executive, including the Finance Minister and the First Minister and deputy First Minister, have promised. <BR /> <BR />I have a couple of points to make about the Rates (Regional Rates) Order (Northern Ireland) 2024, if I may. I did not support and my party does not endorse this setting of the regional rate. As we have done in councils across the North, we have set out our view that we should seek to ease the burden on householders and small businesses where we can.”
“When the Minister spoke about the regional rates order, she alluded to the various long-term priorities that the Executive are discussing, so it is clearly the position that the Executive and the Executive parties are already discussing financial priorities and relating them to their priorities. The Opposition will continue to press for — we have not had it yet, and I am not sure when we will get it — a costed plan with a timeline for public-service recovery in the short and long term. I do not know when we are going to get it. <BR /> <BR />I do not even know precisely when we will get a one-year Budget statement. The Northern Ireland Act 1998 insists that a Budget statement should be provided to the Assembly and consulted on with the public by, I believe, the end of the financial year. That looks unlikely to happen now.”
“Not only that, but we now know that we are unlikely to have anything approaching a multi-year Budget. Some of that is connected to the fact that there will be a Westminster election this year, and we await an SR from a new Government. However, that should not stop the Executive parties, who have been meeting and discussing a Programme for Government for, as far as I am aware, nearly two years now, providing an indicative set of spending priorities next to a multi-year Programme for Government and a plan to rescue public services. That should not be that difficult.”
“It is important to set out a bit of the context. I want to make a couple of points that, I hope, the Minister can hear and respond to, and I acknowledge that she is not feeling 100%. I welcome the fact that she is able to participate in the debate and to move the motion the order. <BR /> <BR />We have consistently said that, alongside anything to do with revenue raising, we need a clear, costed plan with a timeline for public -service recovery. Indeed, the Assembly endorsed the Opposition's amendment to the very first substantive motion that we debated in the Chamber, which was to insist on a costed plan with a timeline for public-service recovery. We have yet to see that. We have yet even to know when it will be provided to us, despite its being the firm will not just of the Opposition but of the entire Chamber.”
“To that end, we did not specifically oppose; we abstained on the Budget Bill. The Opposition will not endorse the regional rates order. As a member of the Finance Committee, I did not support it.”
“Therefore, the motion — that the Committee agree to recommend that the SR be affirmed by the Assembly — was passed. <BR /> <BR />I now end my comments as Finance Committee Chair. I will now speak as leader of the Opposition. We have been a constructive Opposition in the first month and a bit of our time here, and, in doing so, rather than simply carping, we have sought to acknowledge, despite our concerns over how the financial package was agreed and despite, obviously, our frustration and disagreement with these institutions having been down for two years, the fact that the incoming Executive were placed in a position that they did not entirely create vis-à-vis the public finances.”
“<BR /> <BR />At the Committee's meeting on 6 March, members formally considered the statutory rule, which stipulates in legislation the regional rate for domestic and non-domestic property for the 2024-25 rating year. The Committee noted that the Examiner of Statutory Rules has reported formally on the rule and that there are no matters to be drawn to the Committee's attention. Members also noted that the Minister's written statement had not specifically stated the figure for the poundage multiplier and that the measure of inflation that was used was not detailed. <BR /> <BR />At the meeting on 6 March, the Committee considered SR 2024/28, the Rates (Regional Rates) Order (NI) 2024. As there were opposing voices when the Question was put to agree the SR, a vote followed, with six Ayes, one No and one abstention.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee received a further briefing from LPS on 28 February, which covered a number of related issues, including the regional rates order and poundage scenarios. Members were informed that the Executive were expected to consider the regional rate at their meeting the following day, 29 February. If the Executive agreed on the poundage at that meeting, the Committee would receive the regional rates order immediately following that decision. On 29 February, members were emailed a copy of the written ministerial statement regarding the regional rates uplift for 2024-25, with the SR being formally laid in the Business Office at the same time. The statement was received by the Committee in advance of its wider circulation, and I thank the Minister for that courtesy.”
“Therefore, members were keen to get a sense of whether there would be a poundage struck for the regional rate that sought to raise the £113 million target for local revenue raising and what preparation might have been made for that. <BR /> <BR />While the issue was raised with senior departmental officials at the Committee's first meeting on 14 February, the Committee agreed to seek a briefing from Land and Property Services. To that end, members received a briefing on 21 February from the director of rating policy on the proposed statutory rule to stipulate the regional rate for domestic and non-domestic property that will apply for the 2024-25 rating year. At that meeting, members noted that the Executive still needed to agree on the poundage multipliers in the context of their wider approach to the Budget settlement for 2024-25.”
“I will first speak as Chair of the Finance Committee before speaking as leader of the Opposition. First, I acknowledge that the Minister is not feeling well. Hopefully, she feels better soon. Obviously, it is a challenge to do these things when you have a head cold. <BR /> <BR />I thank the Minister for her comments. My remarks as Finance Committee Chair will reflect the scrutiny that members have performed on the order. Unlike with the Budget Bill, we had the opportunity to have a couple of evidence sessions on the order. The Committee was aware that the regional rate was part of the consultation on potential revenue raising that was ordered by the Secretary of State prior to the restoration of the Executive.”
“It is particularly important for all the people on this island and further afield who have dealt with the appalling affliction that is motor neurone disease and their families to mark Charlie's passing and to pay our respects and condolences to his wife, their broader family and all those who knew and loved him. <BR /> <BR />I hope that his legacy will be greater funding for research into motor neurone disease, progress in tackling and mitigating that terrible affliction and greater awareness for those who have to suffer with it that there can be joy and purpose to those final years. Again, I pay tribute to Charlie Bird.”
“<BR /> <BR />His suffering in public was, at times, difficult to watch. He was so prominent and was involved in covering for RTÉ so many of the major events of the past 40 years, including large parts of the peace process in the North. His use of his profile and platform with such dignity and courage not only to raise awareness of the appalling nature of motor neurone disease but to raise funds to fund research into motor neurone disease is an extraordinary tribute to him as an individual. <BR /> <BR />It is also worth saying that he was one of this island's most respected journalists. As I said, he covered many of the major global events over the past half century, including our peace process here. It is a very sad day for all of us who are interested in the news and in good journalism.”
“I want to pay tribute to Charlie Bird, whose passing was confirmed today. Charlie Bird will be known to many people in politics here and people across this island as one of Ireland's most talented and well-known journalists over the past 40 years. <BR /> <BR />In 2021, Charlie Bird was diagnosed with motor neurone disease. He used his voice and his prominence to deal with what is, as many of us will know, an appalling, degenerative disease that attacks the ability for a body to function and, therefore, is extraordinarily difficult for the sufferer and their friends and loved ones, not simply by bearing that disease in public but by campaigning and raising awareness of motor neurone disease, including through wonderful initiatives such as Climb with Charlie, for which he and others ascended Croagh Patrick a year or two ago.”
“Minister, I welcome the fact that you have a commitment to the issue and that you have said clearly that it should be a collective climate action plan, that all Departments have a responsibility and that you will encourage them to take on that responsibility. To that end, in a written answer to me, the Minister for Infrastructure did not confirm whether his Department would meet its obligation under the Act to deliver on spending 10% of its budget on active travel in the next financial year. Further to your previous answer, will you commit to writing to the Infrastructure Minister to encourage him to ensure that that 10% is spent on active travel?”
“This is an extremely important subject. By my count — the Minister can correct me, if this is wrong — at least three of the 10 recommendations resulting from Operation Kenova would, if enacted, relate to her Department. Will the Minister commit to legislating to provide procedural time limits in relation to judicial case management, to reviewing the PPS and to ensuring that it pays due regard to victims and their families in legacy cases?”
“<BR /> <BR />I do not want to spend all of our time, in the Chamber or anywhere else, talking about the past, but we cannot pretend that we can move on to a better future without being serious about the past — what happened, the specific details, what went wrong and how we can prevent it from happening in the future. I look forward to the final report from the Kenova inquiry.”
“It is not just the state. It is the Provisional IRA and its campaign of, in many cases, profound and disgusting human rights violations. The Kenova report says that the senior members of the republican movement who allowed these events were themselves as likely to have assisted the security forces. It says that the senior IRA persons whom they interviewed remained dismissive, defiant and unrepentant. It is important, when we discuss these things, that we do not simply say that we regret all the deaths of the past and all the horror of what happened, but that we are specific. Whether it is the state or paramilitary actors, no apology can be taken seriously unless it is both sincere and specific, and that is no less than the victims of our Troubles deserve.”
“<BR /> <BR />I will be clear about what the Kenova report says. It has been claimed repeatedly, by those in the state and elsewhere who defended what they did, just as they defended collusion with loyalist paramilitaries, that Stakeknife "saved 'countless' ... lives". To quote the report: "He did not." That is a grotesque indictment of the state's dirty war on this island and of its handling of agents. <BR /> <BR />The UK Government's response of simply glossing over that and not even engaging with the detail of the interim report, let alone offering the apology that Jon Boutcher asked for, is utterly unacceptable; it is offensive to the families involved and to the rest of us in this society and it is a pathetic indictment of the current UK Government and their shabby approach to legacy.”
“The Kenova report is shocking. It is also specific. It is specific in its deconstruction of the grotesque web of deceit, torture and murder that was facilitated by both the British state and the Provisional IRA. My words will fall short of the horrifying details contained in the Kenova report, which was authored by Jon Boutcher. Before I list some of what is said in the report, I pay tribute to the families, many of whom have not yet been able to speak publicly, because they still live with the shame and stigma that they feel from their loved ones having been branded touts — informers — and the deaths of their loved ones being treated as something shameful to be held in secrecy. My thoughts are with those families, and I hope that the report brings them some measure of closure.”
“If the Member looks at the motion, he will see that it says that the Committee will "submit a report" and "consider legislation". I think that it would be perverse for the Committee not to submit legislative proposals. I would not presuppose, however, that there would be a perfect majority or complete consensus on what those proposals would look like. That is why we have set out what the composition of the Committee should be, and that is why people have talked about a deadline, unlike with other Ad Hoc Committees.”
“Having done the wrong thing a few hours ago and voted with the DUP and Jim Allister against reform, let us do the right thing. Let us not gaslight people. Let us reform the institutions, deliver political stability and get the Committee up and running.”
“I do not have time. I do not think that I will get an extra minute. I would normally give way, and I am not seeking to be difficult, but I am very limited in time. <BR /> <BR />We have heard a lot in recent weeks, including from the new Economy Minister, from the First Minister and from the president of Sinn Féin, the leader of the Opposition in Dáil Éireann, about the need to look at and take forward reform of the arrangements. We have heard fairly warm words about that. If people are serious about reform, let us get the Committee set up, get it working and get it reporting by September. Then, if people want to have a longer look at reform, that can happen in the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. Bluntly, this is the chance to do the right thing.”
“We must remove that one toxic, nuclear button that threatens not just political stability but our ability to do anything — pay public-sector workers, reform the health service or take economic advantage. We cannot collapse the institutions again. <BR /> <BR />The Committee is designed to look at the issue and make legislative proposals by September this year. A huge amount of homework has been done. This does not need to take years. The Committee's members will not need to go away and undertake a PhD. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee at the Commons did a report earlier this year. There have been multiple reports, and there are multiple options. Given that we propose a Committee of different parties, it can look at the options and reflect on them.”
“We think that the Committee should look at the options for ending the veto; we think that it should be focused on ending the veto and not get into broader conversations about reform of the institutions, although there are legitimate debates to be had about reform of the institutions. I would like to see emphasis on durability and delivery of strand two, which has been sorely neglected over the past years — in fact, in many ways, it has been neglected since 1998. I also want to understand how strand three will fit in with some of the new things that, apparently, have been bilaterally agreed between the DUP and London. Many of the comments that have been made about looking at designation and how it works in 2024 are completely legitimate and necessary, but, first, we have to focus on veto.”
“That is presuming that what they were actually troubled about was the apparent absence of a reference to that in the motion or to this not touching on public services, because this motion is very specifically about a Committee of the Assembly to debate options for reform. <BR /> <BR />I will run through the motion briefly, because my time is limited. It sets out the composition of the proposed Committee. I have no difficulty acknowledging that the two big parties, who, let us face it, have the biggest mandates of any in the Chamber, collectively have the right to the biggest presence on that Committee.”
“In our remarks as Opposition, we were clear that Tory austerity and, indeed, Brexit have been part of devastating the public realm and public services in this place and other parts of the UK. That is a given. I have repeatedly made the point that, if you believe that there is an economic ideology of making the most vulnerable pay the price of austerity, surely the worst and most objectionable thing that you can possibly do is to give that Government — those ideologues in London — the power to do whatever they like to the people here. If Sinn Féin Members are serious about that being their objection, this follow-up motion should not give them any trouble.”
“This motion is an opportunity for those who voted against the first motion to do the right thing. To use another phrase, it is never too late to do the right thing. <BR /> <BR />We designed this motion as an implementing vehicle to carry through the will that was expressed by the Assembly in the first motion. Only one Member from Sinn Féin spoke in that debate. The First Minister and deputy First Minister declined even to live up to the convention of the House by coming to answer the first Opposition motion of the mandate. What we heard from the one Sinn Féin Member who contributed to that debate was that their objection, such as it was, to the previous motion was that it did not specifically call out Tory austerity.”
“This is the final motion for debate on our Opposition day. I am sure that some Members are relieved that that is the case. I think that we have put down some markers. We may make some progress. Hopefully we will make some progress with this, the final motion of the day. <BR /> <BR />All three Opposition motions are designed to complement and, indeed, to implement one another. The first was designed to set out principles around the need to end the toxic veto and to express to the people whom we serve our regret and shame about what has happened in this place over the past decade. The second motion, which I am pleased to say we have just passed, was designed to reflect the importance of public-sector pay and to get a speedy resolution to the outstanding pay settlements.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Lots of Members, particularly Sinn Féin Members, were right to call out Tory austerity and its impact on public-sector workers here. Does the Member agree with me, however, that there is a contradiction between calling out Tory austerity and its impact on public-sector workers and saying that you want to retain a veto that allows one party to collapse government, thus handing complete power to Tory Ministers to do what they like with this place?”
“I appreciate my colleague on the Finance Committee giving way. He says that he thinks that we are not mature enough to have more fiscal powers; I disagree. Is one reason for him thinking that we are not mature enough because certain parties in the Assembly keep collapsing the institutions and completely denying basic political and institutional stability?”
“I am afraid that I do think that that is a particularly acceptable answer. I will write once again to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister about that. <BR /> <BR />You have been talking about vital issues such as international relations, victims' payments and economic opportunities. Why, deputy First Minister, will you not commit to staying in your job for the rest of the mandate, given the seriousness of all the issues that you have been discussing for the past half hour?”
“Thank you, deputy First Minister. Acknowledging that a multi-year Budget will not come from the UK Government yet, is it the Executive's position that there will not be a multi-year Budget allied to a Programme for Government when it is published?”
“It is ironic that the constructive Opposition have to encourage the Government to stay together and do a job for the people, but that is where we find ourselves. I very much thank everyone who participated. Let us make this place work. I commend the motion once again to the Assembly.”
“I am afraid that I do not have time to give way. I would normally, but I will not get an extra minute, so I will not give way. You will, hopefully, have time to speak in the second debate on reform. <BR /> <BR />We have been opposed to hacking away at the principles of power-sharing, pluralism and partnership. Of course, Mr Allister has been delighted to hack away at that and object to it. That is fine; that is his outlook, as they say. Although he is a talented polemicist, I do not go along with the somewhat vulgar and faintly misogynistic depictions of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. That is not appropriate. <BR /> <BR />We have an opportunity today to do something very important, which is to build a consensus around partnership and working together.”
“From the very beginning, we have talked about improving and changing, where necessary, the Good Friday Agreement. What we have been opposed to has been the hacking at the principles of power-sharing, including the St Andrews Agreement —.”
“We are up for that debate. It is important to say that I do not agree that designation in 1998 was the root of all evil. We need to be honest about where we were in 1998, but that is not to say that we cannot look at it now. We all have rich identities. For what it is worth, I designate as a nationalist and a social democrat. My party is a proud member of the Party of European Socialists. There is a lot more to me than simply my constitutional view — proud and passionate though I am about it. Our identities are all complex, and we need to recognise that. The binary definition does not apply simply to those who designate as other, although I respect the argument that was made. <BR /> <BR />I come back to the point that was made again and again, including by Mr Allister, about the SDLP talking about changing the Good Friday Agreement.”
“— and I think that his point has been made. <BR /> <BR />Nuala McAllister and Kate Nicholl both touched on the question of designation. The motion does not mention designation because we should prioritise up front. That is why the third motion that we will debate today is focused on the establishment of an Ac Hoc Committee to get consensus and agreement on the question of the removal of the veto. It is really important that we try to keep up the momentum to take that one toxic ingredient out of the mix here. Once we do that, we can do a lot afterwards. That is why this first motion talks about the broader reform of the Programme for Government, which could certainly include designation. <BR /> <BR />I understand, particularly now that there is increased Alliance representation in the Chamber, some of the frustration around voting.”
“We need to have a resolution, and we need to have momentum. There are a couple of common threads through the Alliance contributions, and I will address the designation point a little bit later. <BR /> <BR />The Member for North Belfast Mr Brett called the motion a "stunt". Mr Brett, as always, for a rather new MLA, is a very persuasive and passionate speaker, and, indeed, one who is able to pull off quite remarkably brazen lines like that, given some of what the DUP has pulled over the past number of years. He said that there have been electoral issues for the SDLP. I am tempted to say this: no blank, Sherlock, we know. We are doing our job in opposition, we are proud to be doing it and we are going to keep doing it no matter what slurs come from different parts of the Chamber.”
“That does not mean that you do not give consent to the institutions that exist to work through democracy. Nor does it mean that everything in the Chamber has to have perfect cross-community consent. It was not designed in that way, and it was never supposed to work in that way. With respect, again, there was a slightly preposterous reference to John Hume, with which I have already dealt. <BR /> <BR />Kellie Armstrong talked about reform and said that the AERC is kicking the can down the road. That is one reason that we do not accept the idea that the Assembly and Executive Review Committee is the best place in which for the discussion to happen, because it has a record of being — for fans of Charles Dickens — like the famous Court of Chancery case of Jarndyce v Jarndyce, where the court sat for years and never reached a resolution.”
“<BR /> <BR />Doug Beattie is right when he talks about the fact that things were different in 1998. A lot of the institutional issues that we have were created in the context of a society that was emerging from a violent conflict. Before that violent conflict, we had a system of government that was genuinely based on excluding one entire community. <BR /> <BR />Harry Harvey mentioned the principle of consent. With respect to Mr Harvey, the absurd conflation of consent with perfect consensus has been a hallmark of DUP arguments for the past lock of years, as people say in the countryside. I do not consent permanently to Northern Ireland's being in the UK, nor will you — through the Chair — if there is ever a referendum on a new Ireland, and I hope that there will be consent for its happening.”
“I have had to clarify a few times that I am not denying the outcome of the 2022 election. We did not get enough seats to qualify under d'Hondt for a Ministry. Unlike others, and this includes the Member's party, we accept the outcome of elections. We are here in opposition because that is the role that we have after the election. There is no denying that, and there is no cavilling about that from me, and we intend to do it robustly and constructively, no matter what slurs come from different sides of the Chamber. <BR /> <BR />Paula Bradshaw gave a thoughtful assessment. I am a bit of a geek, although I am not quite geeky enough to have read a 20-year old document. I may pinch a copy of if afterwards, however. I will come on to touching on a couple of other comments made by other Alliance MLAs in order to give some balance.”