Member's statement: Budget 2026-29/2030
Member's statement by Mr Matthew O'Toole on .
- MLA
- Mr Matthew O'Toole
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 19 May 2026
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Budget 2026-29/2030
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5549121
Read the official Assembly record
Text
In the past few minutes, we have heard important contributions on a range of topics that are relevant to individual constituencies and important for our constituents. There is nothing wrong with that, but what we should be talking about today and every day until a Budget is agreed is the absence of that Budget. Sometimes, this strange place operates like a parallel universe. Whenever people talk about things such as funding emergency surgery at the South West Acute Hospital, which my party strongly agrees with, or all the other things that we will talk about today, we have to be clear that, when we do not set a Budget and we shirk responsibility for governing this place despite taking our seats and accepting our salaries, which, in the case of Ministers, means accepting a generous salary, having hundreds of civil servants working for them and a ministerial car, we profoundly fail the public of Northern Ireland. We should not wonder why they have such contempt for us.
We are nearly two months into the financial year, which means that the Northern Ireland Executive has been breaking the law for nearly two months. That is right: breaking the law. The Northern Ireland Act 1998 is clear that a Budget must be set by the beginning of the financial year, which is 1 April. None has been set. The excuse given by the Finance Minister and his colleagues in the DUP and other Executive parties is that they are negotiating with the UK Government for more money. To be clear, despite the slurs from the Finance Minister, the Opposition want this place to get more money. We accept that the devolved finance settlement is broken, but it is utterly unacceptable to hold the people of the North and their public services to ransom for their failure to take leadership. We are told that a negotiation is going on, but where is it? I see no evidence of it. There has been no ministerial statement to tell us when the Budget will be debated, and not one Member from an Executive party has stood up to raise the issue. I do not know where the negotiation is. We can see the political chaos in London. We are told repeatedly about how the British Government do not fund this place properly — I accept that— and that they do not pay attention to us or care about us. All those things are true. Why, then, should we not take responsibility for passing a Budget ourselves, rather than forcing challenges onto the people by not setting a Budget? Things will get worse if we do not set a Budget, even if we accept that the financial settlement is not enough. I see Members laughing, giggling and turning away at me saying this. It is utterly unacceptable. It is shameful that we are in this situation. If London has not given us enough money — I would like to see more — we are failing community and voluntary services by not taking responsibility, because things will get worse. The Finance Minister has written to permanent secretaries to say that they can spend only 90%-odd of their budget. Yesterday, the Communities Minister said that domestic violence funding was at risk. Last week, the deputy First Minister said that community relations funding —
— was at risk. Let us do our jobs.
There is nonsense in this place. Set a Budget.
573 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: 0.07 (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 (0.81).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.05 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.09 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.81 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | 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 | 0.69 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.18 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.11 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:41 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.