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“Clearly, however, the regulatory and enforcement regime for all those watercourses and marine environments is way out of date ecologically and, indeed, economically.”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 8 of 119.
“In fact, it identified it as being one of the core tools for economic analysis that is given to independent fiscal institutions. It appears that there has been a specific decision by the two big parties in the Executive to reject that amendment today. There is nothing in the OECD principles to prevent the Fiscal Council from doing what is proposed, and it would not create a huge burden. It would simply put into the Bill a specific power to allow the Fiscal Council to do economic analysis where it is able to do so. The amendment is modest, and I really do not understand — well, I have my suspicions, but perhaps I will be uncharacteristically generous about it — why it is not happening.”
“Amendment No 2 is somewhat more ambitious than amendment No 3, so I was happy to not go with amendment No 2 if we could have a majority supporting amendment No 3. It would appear that the Alliance Party and the Ulster Unionist Party are supportive of both, but particularly of amendment No 3, so I do not understand why we cannot have that. <BR /> <BR />To go back to the Minister's critique about our putting too much expectation on the Fiscal Council, to be honest, the economic power or the economic analysis bit is fundamental. This is not just an additional ancillary responsibility. The Minister mentioned the OECD's principles for independent fiscal responsibility. We asked the OECD, and it in no way suggested that the power that we are proposing is an inappropriate one to give the Fiscal Council.”
“I accept that it was something that we looked at and discussed in the Committee. It would have been a big undertaking, and it would have created lots of genuinely additional resource expectations and burdens on the Fiscal Council. In some ways, I would like to be able to get there, for us to have some independent statutory form of forecast, so that we are not necessarily relying on independent consultancies or academics producing our forecasts. Not that there is anything wrong with their doing them, but I do not think that it would be unhelpful to have an official one. However, I accept that this is not the vehicle to deliver that. Therefore, my amendments Nos 2 and 3 are much more modest. They do not include forecasting powers: they are simply inviting the Fiscal Council to analyse the economic impact of the Budget.”
“All of those things would have been politically contentious and highly controversial. None of my amendments are politically contentious or highly controversial, unless you want to avoid additional scrutiny and power being given to the Fiscal Council. I am worried that that is what is happening today, but for the public record I will respond to some of the points that were made in the debate. <BR /> <BR />Jemma Dolan said something that I am afraid was wrong, and I have to correct it. I asked for an intervention and was not given it, and that is fair enough. Jemma said that we were asking the Fiscal Council to forecast, but that is not true. Not only is the word "forecasting" not in any of my amendments, I specifically said in my opening remarks, "We do not want the Fiscal Council to do an economic forecast or a fiscal forecast".”
“I agree with the Minister, but only to an extent. Of course, there is always a judgement as to how much specificity you include in a piece of primary legislation. That is why, for example, we are debating four or five amendments today, rather than dozens upon dozens. Members could have come forward, including those from the Opposition, saying, "We would like to do x, y and z". We were not successful in getting our amendments on Opposition costing selected. I am not going to get into that debate now, because the relevant amendments are not on the Marshalled List and are therefore not up for debate. There was a reasonable reason for submitting those. However, of course, we could have sought to include costing on a whole range of things, from EU membership to membership of the UK to a united Ireland — any number of things.”
“It has been said that we are constraining the council and putting expectations on it and that there is something political in what we are proposing. However, we are all politicians, and we are passing a Fiscal Council Bill today that includes in clause 3, not just the power but the legal obligation for the Fiscal Council to produce a Budget assessment report. Clause 3 states what that Budget assessment report has to include. It also says that the Fiscal Council has to produce a fiscal sustainability report. I could literally list the entire Bill: the entire Bill is about politicians mandating in law what we think the Fiscal Council should and should not do. That is what we are doing. Therefore, I am afraid that it is absurd to say that we are jeopardising the independence of the Fiscal Council by asking it —.”
“That is nonsense. It is nonsense because we are told that, by giving the Fiscal Council additional powers, obligations or expectations, we are somehow jeopardising its independence. If that is the case, why legislate about it at all? By definition, this draft law creates obligations, expectations and demands of the Fiscal Council. That is the entire point of the Bill. We would not be passing it into law if the situation that others have outlined was the case.”
“It is important to be clear and robust in saying that. <BR /> <BR />An overarching thread runs though this, namely that, by amending the legislation, we are somehow jeopardising the independence of the Fiscal Council.”
“Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. It has been a useful debate, albeit there were misapprehensions about the Fiscal Council, the OECD recommendations on independent fiscal institutions and, to an extent, Mr Tennyson's amendment, so I want to run through some of the responses. <BR /> <BR />Most of the amendments are in my name. We are content to support amendment No 4 in Mr Tennyson's name. It would be strange of us to then move amendment No 5 or to pass amendment No 5 afterwards should we be lucky enough to get to that situation because it would probably create a fairly incoherent piece of amended legislation. My motivation in tabling the amendments was sincerely about improving scrutiny. I have genuinely not heard any good arguments from Members who are opposed to or sceptical about our amendments.”
“I hate to be rude, but we are not debating those amendments today, as they were not selected for debate. They therefore have nothing to do with what is on the Marshalled List. I appreciate that you do not agree with them, but they are not being debated.”
“I appreciate that the Member's party has taken a position on that. Obviously, I will wind up on the amendments later. Does the Member accept that we are entitled to legislate for any public body to do specific things? One would not expect a business case for a specific thing to appear in primary legislation.”
“I very much hope that colleagues in the Executive parties, in the spirit of constructive engagement and improving how we do government here, will be able to support them. I am happy to answer any further questions about them. I genuinely do not understand why colleagues would not support the amendments, but I hope that they will. Thank you all for listening to me.”
“As the Opposition, we are relentlessly focused on improving our accountability and scrutiny. Sometimes, that involves moments of robust challenge and even theatrical display. Today, however, is about creating in law more power for that really important watchdog, the Fiscal Council, to report and give clarity to us as MLAs, to the public more generally and to the media and the people who report on such things, so that we can have robust and better policy outcomes. The amendments are reasonable. They would improve scrutiny when it comes to delivery of the Programme for Government, the economic impact of our policies in the Budget and understanding the cost of division. <BR /> <BR />I commend the amendments to the House.”
“It would not be making decisions for the Minister of Finance or, indeed, any other Minister. This would simply help improve the data on which we make policy decisions. <BR /> <BR />Those are our four amendments, two of which are mutually exclusive. They are, I hope, reasonable and sensible. To repeat, they do not place a significant additional burden on the Fiscal Council. I hope, as the proposer of the amendments, that my words will reassure Members that it is not my expectation or intention that they will create significant additional burdens on the Fiscal Council. It is, however, my contention that the quality of our policy debate is not good enough. I do not think that anybody could argue that the quality of government overall — something for which we are collectively responsible — has been good enough.”
“They are the more thematic, longer-term reports that the Fiscal Council produces, not the annual Budget report. It would not be practical to go through every annual Budget and say, "There is duplication of services here, there and everywhere". Fiscal sustainability reports are thematic. They allow the Fiscal Council to look at an issue. It has produced several of them in the past few years. It is not unreasonable for us to make a specific request of the council that it look at the cost of duplicating services; in fact, it would be a healthy thing for it to do. It may well throw more light on the issue. It may be that some of the numbers that have been quoted — the hundreds of millions of pounds a year — are either not borne out or are borne out in ways that surprise us. The council would not be making policy decisions.”
“There may be economic consequences, but we are not asking that the council look at them. They are fiscal consequences, which are the consequences for public spending from having to duplicate public services and therefore create additional pressure at a time when there is already real pressure. The Minister tells us all the time how much pressure there is. We know the constraints that there are on other Ministers' budgets. It is reasonable for us to get a proper estimate of those costs from the Fiscal Council. To be clear, I cannot speak for Mr Tennyson, so I will not, but we are talking about broadly the same thing and are probably in broad sympathy with each other's amendments. <BR /> <BR />My amendment No 5 relates to clause 4, which deals with fiscal sustainability reports.”
“There have been various reports from Ulster University, Deloitte — in relation to policing — and various other sources that have talked about the fiscal consequences.”
“That would serve not just the business community but workers and families in this society and would add to the quality of debate. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 2 and 3 are mutually exclusive, and I hope that Members are able to support at least one of them. Obviously, if they support one, the other one will be defeated. I am happy to hear from Members, and I am also happy to take interventions and answer questions as the debate goes on. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 5 is also in my name and is similar to an amendment put down by Mr Tennyson. We know, here in Northern Ireland, that there have been lots of reports about the pernicious effect of what is often called the "cost of division". It is not called the cost of division in either of the two amendments that we are debating today; it is called the duplication of public services.”
“I put down both amendments because I am keen to hear debate and hear what objection or support Members have for either of those amendments. Hopefully, there will be some response, and I am more than content not to move one of the amendments if there is a preference for the other. <BR /> <BR />I am really clear that one of the most consistent frustrations that I have had, not just since I have been leader of the Opposition but since I have been an MLA, is that we do not talk often enough about economic impacts. If the Minister has announced an aspiration to devolve more fiscal powers to him here, he and I share that aspiration. Others in the Chamber do not, and I respect that, too. This is without prejudice to whether we do that or not, but, whether we do that or not, we need to have a much richer debate about economic impacts.”
“That gives the Fiscal Council more flexibility, and it is designed to give the Fiscal Council more flexibility. We discussed some of this in the Committee. It cannot be said that we are putting an onerous or unacceptable burden on the council's resources. The amendment gives the council the power and specifies that we think that it may want to use that power to analyse proposed potential impacts. <BR /> <BR />I would rather that we pass amendment No 2, but I am also content with amendment No 3, if there is a majority for it in the House. I am genuinely intrigued to hear what other parties, including Executive and non-Executive parties, think about that, because I genuinely do not understand why we would not do this.”
“There is no particular left/right or unionist/nationalist persuasion to this; it is simply about us doing policy better. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 2 and 3 are mutually exclusive, and I will explain why that is the case. Both amendments amend clause 3, but amendment No 2 places an equality of consideration of economic impacts alongside the various other requirements on the council under clause 3. Therefore, it is giving, in a sense, equality, as in it is saying, "This is one of the things that is closer to the level of consideration that has to be given to clauses 3(2)(a), 3(2)(b) and 3(2)(c)". <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 3 is a little bit more muted in that it says — I will not go through the text and where it falls — that the council:”
“<BR /> <BR />It is worth saying that there is, as it were, a parallel precedent for there being an economic context to the Budget, because every Budget, certainly since I have been in this place, that has been produced by the Department of Finance includes an economic chapter at the very beginning and says, "This is the context for the local economy. This is where growth is. This is where we think the economy is". There is then a whole series of chapters on individual Departments. There is a legitimate question about how connected that economic analysis is to the judgements or decisions made latterly on Budget allocations. All I am saying is this: let us join that up a bit more, and let us have more of a conversation about economic impacts.”
“I do not think that that would be a responsible expectation for the Fiscal Council, but I do think that it is potentially reasonable to ask the council to do that when, as the Bill says, it is considering its Budget assessment reports and considering the impact of the Budget on the economy of Northern Ireland. That does not require a forecast and would not require huge additional resource; it would simply require the council to do some level of macroeconomic analysis of the impact. That would genuinely improve our policy debate.”
“<BR /> <BR />To be clear, my suggested amendments do not mandate, nor should they be understood to mandate, the Fiscal Council to produce a macroeconomic forecast. That would be a big deal, and we heard in evidence at the Committee that it would not be something for which the Fiscal Council would have capacity. I was curious about that as a potential measure. Having taken and heard the evidence and having thought about and considered it, I do not think that it would be practical to ask the Fiscal Council to produce the kind of things that the Office for Budgetary Responsibility in London produces, such as a twice-yearly updated forecast of growth, unemployment, inflation and a range of other things.”
“If we were to think about increasing borrowing — the Minister has done a little bit of that — to pay for investment in Northern Ireland Water, one would imagine that that would have economic consequences and impacts, amongst which would be the building of more houses, more economic growth and, therefore, more jobs for people in Northern Ireland. Therefore that is a legitimate thing to discuss. <BR /> <BR />People from a different political perspective have talked a lot about public-sector wages — I do not agree with those people. Historically, public-sector workers in the North have struggled with the lack of pay parity and have had to strike and take industrial action. It is also true to say that, if they do not receive pay parity, there is less money for them to spend in the shops, small businesses, pubs etc.”
“They offer the Fiscal Council the opportunity to give us, and the public, commentary on the economic consequences of decisions that are made or not made. I will give a few examples, because I do not want people to think that it is about one perspective. The Minister has talked a lot about external commentators in relation to Executive choices. There are external commentators who have a particular view about decisions that are made or not made by the Executive, but every one of those decisions would have economic consequences — potential upsides and downsides — that would need to be understood. Take, for example, decisions on Northern Ireland Water and funding it, albeit I do not think that there is any appetite for introducing water charges.”
“They will not necessarily be direct fiscal pressures, but, in some cases, they will be fiscal because rates revenue and the amount of rates that goes unpaid is, in part, driven by economic activity or lack of economic activity on the high street. The fact that growth is going to be at just 0·7% in the North, this year, also means that more people than would normally be the case will be in receipt of benefits, seeking assistance or under pressure in some form or other. We know that lots of people are under pressure because of the huge increase in the cost of diesel and home heating oil. <BR /> <BR />Every policy that we pursue will have an economic consequence, but we rarely debate them properly; we sometimes touch on them or allude to them. Amendment Nos 2 and 3 offer a choice.”
“That is due to a range of things, including our particular exposure to the crisis in the Middle East, which, we all know, was prompted by Donald Trump, and the pressures that it has created, and, possibly, to some extent, the constrained public spending situation. That will have an economic impact in Northern Ireland. The lower economic growth in Northern Ireland will have a range of impacts. It will mean that there will be fewer jobs created in our constituencies and less money to spend on our high streets. All of that will feed through to the Finance Minister and the Executive through other pressures that will be created.”
“Due to the nature of the devolved spending settlement, we, of course, focus on how much money we have and on the fact that we might want more money from the UK Government. Those are legitimate questions. We have had a lot of debate about the calculation of relative need here in Northern Ireland. That is an essential debate, but it is also important that we debate the economic impact of policies. <BR /> <BR />Economic impact does not straightforwardly mean growth, albeit the Assembly will note that, today, we have had a rather concerning forecast from Ernst and Young (EY), one of the few bodies that does a Northern Ireland-specific economic forecast, which suggests that our economy will grow by 0·7% this year.”
“They would ask what the Assembly or the Executive have to fear from the Fiscal Council simply being asked to reflect on this in relation to the legislation. That is amendment No 1. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 2 and 3 are connected. They are mutually exclusive, but I tabled both for a reason. I did so because it is important that we debate properly in the Chamber. A lot of time is spent on non-binding motions, but this is an opportunity to talk about amendments and, in a sense, offer the Assembly a choice. I am of the view — I said it earlier — that we do not discuss economic impacts enough in this place. It is one reason why the public are frustrated and why some of our political debate touches on only half the point.”
“The Bill has the flexibility to give the Fiscal Council the power to do whatever it likes, within reason, but the Bill also makes a specific choice to mandate the Fiscal Council to do specific things. The amendments create a specific obligation or expectation that the Fiscal Council will do specific things, but they are designed to be flexible, and they do not create onerous additional burdens. I want to be clear about that. However, the alignment between the PFG and the Budget is critical, and specifically asking the Fiscal Council to ensure that there is a commentary on how well those two things are aligned is a natural and essential step forward for scrutiny. If we were not to pass that today, people in the outside world would rightly wonder why not.”
“These are very important amendments. We spend a lot of time debating non-binding motions, and it is important that the House considers actual legislation and amendments to legislation in detail. That is not to say that non-binding motions are not important — we are moving one later today — but it is important that we discuss these matters, and I intend to give them proper consideration, as the House would expect, given both the roles that I hold. <BR /> <BR />I talked about amendment No 1 and the logic in aligning a Programme for Government (PFG) with a Budget and ensuring that the Fiscal Council is mandated to properly test and tell the public whether the Programme for Government aligns with the Budget.”
“Absolutely, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.”
“I do not want to make that promise on behalf of the Fiscal Council. There is a reasonable level of cynicism about the open-book exercise. Frankly, I think that it is a ridiculous document. There was a fairly jaundiced agenda from the Treasury. Certainly, having the Fiscal Council has already improved the debate here in the past five or six years. I hope that my amendments will improve the quality of debate even further. <BR /> <BR />To be clear, amendments Nos 2 and 3 — am I going to be interrupted for lunch, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker?”
“That means that the debates, including the contributions from people like me in my role as leader of the Opposition, sometimes become about saying, "Why are we not spending money on this?" and, "The UK Government are not funding us to the right level". Both of those debates are critical, but we often miss the third leg of the stool, which is the economic output. "Economic output" does not mean growth in a narrow sense; it can mean living standards, jobs and a range of other issues.”
“Critical to our work as representatives in the North, whether you are unionist or nationalist, left or right is the extent to which the things that we do are geared not just towards counting the money that comes in and goes out, though that is critical and a big part of the Finance Minister's job, but towards improving people's prospects and our economy and making sure that economic outcomes are properly part of policy decisions. <BR /> <BR />One of the frustrations that the Minister clearly has and that probably every previous Finance Minister has had, as well as anybody who observes politics, is that the devolved financial settlement is very much geared towards money in and money out.”
“That was about amendment No 1. I am not speaking to clause 1; I am speaking to amendment No 1. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 2 and 3 are mutually exclusive, as you said, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Both of those are on the Marshalled List because I want to have a genuine debate. We had a debate at the Finance Committee, though we did not come to a hard and fast view. There was some scepticism and some interest. I do not want to misrepresent the views of the Finance Committee. I am speaking on my own account; others can speak for themselves. There was a genuinely useful discussion.”
“It is not about putting anybody on the spot; it is about us doing our job in constructive opposition as constructively as we can. <BR /> <BR />That is amendment No 1. I suspect that I will probably not get through them all before lunch, but it is not me being loquacious in that regard. I had to go through them in some detail.”
“It would improve the work that we do, because those of us who are fortunate enough to be able to form an Executive will, when a Programme for Government is being designed after the election — hopefully, this time next year, in a year and a bit, people will be sitting down to thrash out a Programme for Government with clear, measurable outcomes — be able to say, "We will be measured against this, so we need to be sure that we will be able to deliver the things that we are going to put in the Programme for Government". It is not unreasonable for any party that that stuff is deliverable and can be measured. <BR /> <BR />I am willing to hear objections as to why that is wrong. I genuinely hope that other parties and Members across the Chamber can support it.”
“Not to challenge the Speaker's decision on amendments taken, but we had hoped to have party political costing, including for the official Opposition and for all parties, as a requirement of the Fiscal Council. That amendment has not made it to the Floor. I am not making any commentary on whether that is the right or wrong decision, but part of the scrutiny role of political parties or the Fiscal Council is about giving us the power to properly assess how well the Programme for Government is being delivered. <BR /> <BR />It is clear that the public have profound concerns about delivery here. The most recent LucidTalk poll is fairly shocking in respect of the level of trust. Giving the Fiscal Council that power does not mean that it has to devote all its energy to it, but it is a hugely useful addition to its responsibilities.”
“There is deep frustration among the public around delivery. Again, I will be careful, as I do not want to spend my remarks today scoring points — I will have plenty of other opportunities to do that, and I will take those opportunities — but it is simply about giving the Fiscal Council a clear mandate to report on how well the Executive are delivering. I could go through a range of things and say that they are not delivering on this or not delivering on that: that is not what this is about. This is about giving the Fiscal Council the best possible opportunity or the best possible mandate to do its work and to give the public in Northern Ireland a clear sense that someone is properly scoring and costing what is in the Programme for Government. <BR /> <BR />Some of that work falls to the official Opposition.”
“That seems sensible and obvious, but those words did not have to be included. Bill drafters have included those words so that the Fiscal Council knows that we expect it to report on that and to give the public of Northern Ireland and MLAs a clear sense of whether there is enough money to meet planned expenditure. That is an obvious thing. It is no less reasonable to ask that the Fiscal Council report on whether that is aligned to the Programme for Government and how well that is being delivered. <BR /> <BR />My amendment does not say that it needs to be an entirely free-standing report; in fact, it simply has to be included in the Budget assessment report. It does not say that it needs to be 50 pages long, five lines long or five words long. It simply says that there should be:”
“We think that giving the Fiscal Council the power or, in fact, the obligation to assess the extent to which a Programme for Government is being delivered or reflected in a Budget is, frankly, a no-brainer. <BR /> <BR />There was always a legislative question, and the Minister may come on to ask me about it. I am not predicting what he or other Members might say, but one might say that the Fiscal Council can do that anyway. It is true that there is a degree of flexibility in the legislation, but there is not endless flexibility. The Bill drafters make certain choices about what they include and what they do not include. For example, the Budget assessment report has to include:”
“The Northern Ireland Act requires a Budget and a Programme for Government of the Executive. We can have debates — I am sure that I will, at some point, have angry debates about the quality of the Budget, the absence of the Budget or the Programme for Government or whatever — but, theoretically, no one can dispute that we need the Budget to be aligned to the Programme for Government. However, I do not think that even the most optimistic observer of this place, going all the way back to 1998 — this is not about one or two specific political parties; this is about all of us, including my party — could claim that every Budget that has been agreed by this place, when we have been up and running and have agreed Budgets, has been aligned to the Programme for Government.”
“— that is, Budgets published by the Executive. I will not get into debates about the current Budget situation or where that is, because I am not sure that that is particularly useful for this debate. I want to talk about us doing better budgeting more generally. This amendment would allow:”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 1 inserts in clause 3 the requirement or the opportunity for the Fiscal Council, in its budget assessment report, for:”
“Whatever your political perspective — whether you are unionist or nationalist; whether you are on the left or the right; whether you, like me and many of us in the Chamber, are geeks about fiscal and economic policy or whether you do not give two hoots and simply want your public services to work better — this is about improving governance with better policy debate, better scrutiny and better accountability. That will seem a bit techie, but it is really important. <BR /> <BR />I will go through the amendments. I am happy to take questions. I am mindful that we will break at 1.00 pm. I hope that I will have finished by then, but I do want to be generous in taking interventions or clarifying points for people, because I am keen that, hopefully, we can pass at least some of the amendments and build a consensus on improving policy making.”
“They are not attempts to score party political points nor to embarrass or pressurise a future Executive, because, however future Executives are structured — I hope that we continue to have future Executives, difficult as it is to govern this place, and I recognise that — we should all be looking for ways to improve the way that we do government. <BR /> <BR />Our amendments to the Fiscal Council Bill will enable us to improve policy outcomes. If done right, they will improve the quality of the policy debate in the North.”
“I apologise: some of them are in the name of Matthew O'Toole, and some are in the name of the leader of the Opposition. Please do not read anything into that. It does not mean that some are better than others or that I like some of them more than others. It is just a quirk of the timing with which they were submitted. <BR /> <BR />A lot of what I do as leader of the Opposition is in the spirit of robust political challenge and holding the Executive to account. Often, I do that in a robust way, and sometimes it is not comfortable for parties in the Assembly Chamber. Sometimes it is not that comfortable for me, because I have to stand up and do it by myself and get all the heat. However, today's amendments from me are genuinely about trying to build a consensus around how we improve governance in Northern Ireland.”
“The Minister may want to touch on those in his winding-up speech, because we need to ensure that the Committee is kept informed, including direct receipt of council reports, membership notifications, data statements, consultations on regulations under clause 5 and copied accounts. Subject to the EFM amendments being made, we are satisfied that those are satisfactory, but obviously we want to see them made. Having completed our scrutiny, the Committee supports and has consistently supported the Fiscal Council Bill. Placing the Fiscal Council on a statutory footing is an important step in strengthening fiscal transparency and independent scrutiny in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />I will now speak in my personal capacity as mover of all but one of the amendments.”