Debate contribution: Budgetary Pressures

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 10 September 2024.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

10 September 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Budgetary Pressures

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4517454

Read the official Assembly record

Text

It is good to be back in the Chamber. It is good to be debating fiscal, financial and budgetary matters, and I look forward to doing more of that with my colleagues on the Finance Committee, several of whom have spoken today, and, indeed, with the Finance Minister. We will support the motion but not the amendment, because it is important that there is a specific and explicit reference in the motion to looking at the costs of division.

I say, with some regret, that the costs of division, as far as I am aware, are not mentioned in the Programme for Government. There is therefore a point for us to reflect on, particularly those in the Executive parties. When we come to the Chamber, having tabled motion after motion in order to be declarative, they will be asked and challenged on why those motions do not match what is in Executive policy statements, the Programme for Government and other statements. When the Executive were restored in February of this year, the SDLP was clear that it would be supportive, cooperative and constructive in its dealings with the Executive and the Executive parties when they sought to maximise the financial settlement for Northern Ireland and make clear arguments for increased funding and a better calculation of need from the British Government. We stuck by that, and we still stick by that. That remains our position. It is clear that the Barnett calculation and the top-up that is used to calculate our funding clearly fell below the level of need. The position was, in a sense, compounded by the overarching question about the austerity policy, on which today's motion reflects. There are different technical and economic definitions of what "austerity" means, but, generally speaking, it means that the priority for public spending is fiscal restraint, constraining spending and sometimes, although, for the previous British Government, it was usually dominated by spending restraint over raising taxes, it also includes tax increases. Today's motion states that we have borne the brunt of austerity, and no one can argue with that. It is true to say, despite some of the asinine comments in earlier business, that my party has noted and been disappointed by the failure to set a proper trajectory for moving beyond austerity in UK politics and in public spending. I note, however, that it is also important that, in a devolved context, we here, particularly those who hold power on the Executive, do all in our power to maximise and improve public services and to deliver for the public who elect us here within the constraints that exist, while acknowledging and pushing against those constraints and fighting for more funding. What I saw yesterday in the Programme for Government was not, I am afraid, a clear set of targets for the public in Northern Ireland. I look forward to a multi-year Budget, and I hope that it is aligned with the rather vague and gauzy targets in yesterday's Programme for Government. I do not agree with the Member who moved the motion that the Programme for Government represents some grand step forward in delivering for the people of Northern Ireland. It is largely a set of hazy, unspecific targets and aspirations rather than specific or promised outcomes with interventions and plans to deliver them. I also note, unfortunately, although it was mentioned in the proposer's speech, that the motion does not talk about political instability, dysfunction and some of the other decisions that have not been made in Northern Ireland. We have agency. We now have a new Government, and I acknowledge that successive Tory Governments — first the Tory/Lib Dem Coalition Government and then reckless Tory Governments — did not give this place enough funding and as much as we would like and we need. We are here, however. We all sought election and have come to the Chamber to be in devolved government, and Members have taken ministerial office for the purpose of making lives better. It is therefore disappointing that the motion does not talk about having agency and about the actions that can be taken here, because people do not elect us simply to deflect responsibility. Yes, by all means, we need to be clear that the British Government have not funded this place properly, and we need be clear and united in calling for a better funding settlement. The Opposition will be with the Executive parties in doing that, but we also need to see clear plans. I would like to hear from the Minister about when we will see a Budget sustainability plan and when we will have a multi-year Budget. I assume that it will be when there is one from the UK Government, but I would like to hear about those plans being in place.

I would also like to hear about the ambition for this place and the ambition for rescuing public services and growing our economy, with specific targets provided and not the hazy, gauzy aspirations that we got yesterday.

839 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:02 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