Debate contribution: Executive Budget

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 22 June 2026.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

22 June 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Executive Budget

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5637981

Read the official Assembly record

Text

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. I have acknowledged the Fiscal Council's analysis. We are not trying to gainsay or downplay it. In fact, we acknowledge it. 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".

I will give way in a second. 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.

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:

"The First Minister and Finance Minister’s estimates of the funding that NI could receive if funded ‘equivalently to’ Wales or Scotland are not unreasonable, mathematically."

We agree. However, it goes on to say:

" But the HM Treasury is unlikely to be receptive to an argument"

— we can have our views on the cynicism or otherwise of the Treasury —

"that Devolved Administrations should in principle be funded at similar relative levels that are significantly above their level of need relative to England."

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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.

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.

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 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. 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. 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 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. 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. I commend the motion to the Assembly.

1,694 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:06 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification