Debate contribution: Budget (No. 2) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on .
- MLA
- Mr Matthew O'Toole
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 9 June 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Budget (No. 2) Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4997145
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I am happy to have given way for the intervention and that the Minister has clarified that. I was paraphrasing. I do not have his precise words in front of me. He said that we should acknowledge the fact that there were 1,000 homes that families would be in. That is true, of course, but our job is not to simply say, "Isn't it good that some people will benefit?". It is wonderful that those families will benefit, but that is not the target, and that would not be a good enough answer south of the border, so it is not a good enough answer here. I recognise and accept that the powers in the North are different from powers in the South, but my job, as the official Opposition — in the same way that it is the job of the Opposition in the South — is to hold Ministers to account for delivery for people. If it makes people uncomfortable, that is fine too. Social houses are already way, way, way under where they need to be.
There is literally no chance of us coming close to delivering much-needed houses, particularly in areas such as my constituency and others where working-class communities need extra houses. We are a long way short of the ambition for 100,000 and more homes over the next 15 years, which we were given just a few short years ago in the Chamber. Barely 1,000 will be delivered this year. However, we are told that we should be — not to put words in the Minister's mouth — grateful for what is being built. No, we should demand better from our Budget and from our Governments.
It also comes back to issues that are connected to the delivery of social housing, one of which is water infrastructure. The waste water funding for NI Water in this Budget, which we are authorising in the Budget (No. 2) Bill today, does not even touch inflation. Everyone — from the Construction Employers Federation to housing associations to any academic who has looked at this — will say that one of the core drivers of unlocking housing in this country is our crumbling waste water infrastructure. By the way, that goes for businesses as well. I am sure that every MLA deals with these issues. There is no plan to fund and invest in our water infrastructure. A big report is coming out about that tomorrow. The Finance Minister, who was previously Infrastructure Minister, appears, at times, to be in denial about this problem. When the Executive are challenged on it, the answer is simply, "We do not want to do water charges". I agree: I do not want to do water charges either, but, in that case, there needs to be an explanation as to whether we are going to borrow more, or there is going to be progress on some kind of developer charge, which has been talked about but never explained, or are things simply going to be left alone? That would mean that the housing backlog, the businesses that cannot invest and all the other challenges, including environmental damage, that come from having crumbling waste water infrastructure are simply left to fester. I have picked two connected things. I have not gone through a laundry list of all the ways in which the Programme for Government and this connected Budget and Budget (No. 2) Bill are failing the public of Northern Ireland, I have given two: social housing and our crumbling waste water infrastructure. Those are two areas in which we have had no clarity, no ambition and no delivery. When it is pointed out and Ministers are challenged on it, we are told, "People should be grateful". We are not; it is not good enough. Thank you.
634 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.96).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.95 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.03 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:45 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.