I beg to move

That this Assembly agrees that funding arrangements for public services in Northern Ireland are not fit for purpose; and calls on the Executive to produce concrete options for fiscal devolution by September 2025.

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes.

I am pleased to open another Opposition day of business here in the Northern Ireland Assembly. We made a deliberate choice when we drafted today's motions to be pointed, concise and specific. You will have noticed that, Mr Speaker, when the motions came to you and your Clerks advised you on the contents of those motions and the suggested amendments. All too often, since we have come back here, we have had long, saggy, waffly motions, particularly from Executive parties, with unclear actions, get-out clauses, convoluted promises and vague commitments being offered by those parties. They have been amended. Sometimes, Ministers have said that they will deliver. Sometimes, they have tried to wriggle out of being clear. On other occasions, Executive parties have even voted for those motions where their own Minister is responsible and nothing has happened.

Today, we decided to do something a little bit different. We thought that we would be concise. That is not always a quality that is associated with me, I have to say, but we thought that we would be concise, be focused, ask for clear actions and see how parties in the Assembly voted. The first motion is on fiscal devolution: the principle that more fiscal powers — the power to levy taxes and greater autonomy over how money is both raised and spent — happen here in Northern Ireland, authorised by the Northern Ireland Assembly and overseen by the Minister of Finance. We did not name the Minister of Finance in the motion because we thought that it would be obvious that the Minister of Finance would respond to the debate. However, as I turn to my left, I see no Minister of Finance. Why is that interesting? It is interesting because, if you go back and read the Sinn Féin manifesto from the Assembly election in 2022, you see that it is quite clear that Sinn Féin supports greater fiscal devolution to the North. In fact, it was Conor Murphy, the former Sinn Féin Finance Minister — perhaps we should not set huge store by the former Finance Minister's fiscal authority, given his stays in five-star hotels, paid for from the public purse — who ordered the creation of the Fiscal Commission, something that I supported in the Chamber several years ago, which reported on greater fiscal powers for Northern Ireland. That organisation reported four years ago. Here is the document.

In 2022, the Sinn Féin manifesto promised greater fiscal devolution. Sinn Féin Finance Minister Conor Murphy commissioned the Fiscal Commission to report on greater fiscal powers for Northern Ireland. Led by Paul Johnson, the current head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies in London, it produced a very detailed report. Sinn Féin Ministers have repeatedly promised greater fiscal devolution. The current Sinn Féin Finance Minister has, in this very Chamber, committed himself to pursuing a policy of greater fiscal devolution.

We thought, therefore, that we would put down a concise, clear motion asking the Executive to commit to bringing forward plans for greater fiscal devolution. We thought and assumed, naively perhaps, that the Sinn Féin Finance Minister, who believes in taking more power away from London, from the UK Government, who, as we all agree, do not always have the best interests of this place at heart, would come here to make his case, to respond to our motion and to explain his view on fiscal devolution. He is not here. He is not in the Chamber, so we can draw our own conclusions from that.

I come now to the substance of today's motion. Since we returned to the Assembly and the Executive were created in February last year, there have been consistent statements from various Executive parties, particularly from the party of the Finance Minister, relating to the constraints on public finance in Northern Ireland. That is true: we are in a constrained fiscal position in Northern Ireland. There is absolutely no doubt about that. It is worth saying, however, that the 2024-25 financial year, which we have just come out of, saw the greatest ever spending package that a Northern Ireland Executive have ever received. I do not think that that will be the case going forward, and I add my voice to those who say that the new Government have not set a path that is enough of a decisive break from the Tory party in terms of austerity politics and constrained public spending. Nevertheless, it is clear that there is — or there should be, given all the statements made by Executive parties — a broad consensus on the need to devolve more fiscal power, to take more responsibility here for how we raise money and how we spend it. That is obvious.

The Fiscal Commission report that was published in 2022 — its interim report came out in 2021 — set out a range of options. It went through every form of taxation that is levied in the UK and gave its explanation for how it could, and whether it should, in its view, be devolved to Northern Ireland. It set out details for the partial devolution of income tax, as happens in Scotland, and the devolution of the apprenticeship levy, which, as we all know and have said repeatedly in the Chamber, is not best optimised for use in Northern Ireland and has not been properly deployed to increase apprenticeships. I am sure that the Chair of the Economy Committee and members of the Finance Committee may have something to say about that at some stage. The report also set out the devolution of corporation tax, which, by the way, has happened in law, but that law has never been commenced; stamp duty land tax, which is a tax on property transactions; air passenger duty, which is already devolved, although I have talked at some length about how I do not think that the management of that tax has been particularly effective; and landfill tax, which is the tax on waste.

What has happened? Nothing has happened, as far as I can see, from the Fiscal Commission's findings. Last year, when we had an Executive restoration package, various new processes and structures were set in place. There was a transformation strand, which we have heard something about: £129 million was awarded for what we were told was transformation work. However, there was also something called the Budget sustainability plan. We were told that the Budget sustainability plan would mark a step change, that we were going to have to raise all the revenue locally and that it would be tough and penal.

Well, if you go through the Budget sustainability plan, you will not necessarily find ambitious areas of new revenue-raising to pay for public services, which we all agree are in a shocking state in this place. What you will find are some remarkably modest and small areas of revenue-raising, including hospital car parking charges. The Executive and the Finance Minister scored against their target for revenue-raising the proposal not to commence an Act, which was brought in by the Finance Minister's party, that would make it free to park in hospital car parks. Now, whatever the merits or otherwise of that particular Act, let us pause for a second and reflect on the absurdity of that position. Sinn Féin Ministers have repeatedly talked — I agree with them passionately — about the need to devolve more fiscal power to the North, so that Ministers here can decide how money is raised and spent. What substance have we seen from Sinn Féin Finance Ministers? Well, one of the main areas is in simply not proceeding with an Act that was introduced by a Sinn Féin MLA. That is, I am afraid, an absurd proposition.

We have been consistent as a constructive Opposition in —.

I thank the Member for giving way. Will he give his view on increasing public transport fares, which is one of the other areas for revenue raising that has been identified?

Increasing of public transport fares was scored as a tough decision that had to be made to increase revenue. That is a decision that is made by Translink every year. It is not the best decision to be making when you are trying to encourage people onto public transport and to make a step change through active travel and decarbonisation.

Since we have been back, we have heard consistently about the constraints that have been placed on our spending power and the limitations that there are in how we fund ourselves in Northern Ireland. At the Finance Committee and in here, I have talked consistently about that. I have not gone through loads of the technical detail that is in Fiscal Council and Fiscal Commission reports, because that has all been published. As with so many of the reports that are published here, nothing has happened. If we want to know why we breed cynicism about politics in this place, we should look at what happens when people constantly make promises. Not only are those promises not delivered on but there is no sign of them being delivered upon. People are treated like mugs. We need to devolve more fiscal powers here and we need to raise more money. We do not need to put more pressure on ordinary people in Northern Ireland. I want to be clear that we should not be levying extra taxes simply to punish people, but more of the powers to raise those taxes should lie here, as they do in Scotland. That would give us more autonomy and power over how we do public services. Despite the fact that we have no representative from the Executive here to respond to the debate, I look forward to the Executive parties explaining to us why they do not want to take that added responsibility for improving people's lives here.

The DUP does not support the devolution of additional fiscal powers to Northern Ireland at this time. We do not believe that the capacity exists in Departments or in the Northern Ireland Civil Service to manage further complex and fundamental elements of the tax system, such as income tax or VAT. We fully support the first sentence of today's motion:

"funding arrangements for public services in Northern Ireland are not fit for purpose."

That is absolutely the case, and the fact that the new needs-based factor has not been baselined or backdated, as if it had applied from the start of the previous spending review period in 2022, has left the Executive without the guts of half a billion pounds annually. Without agreement from the Treasury to rectify that situation as part of a new, fair, responsible and long-term fiscal framework, it will continue in perpetuity. That action could be taken relatively quickly and would have real benefits for our public services. In contrast, protracted negotiations would be required for the aims of fiscal devolution to simply get a fair hearing from the Treasury. I wonder why the Opposition are overlooking that. We look forward to seeing the report of the assessment that Professor Holtham has been commissioned to undertake on that.

The financial reality is that we have just received a challenging Budget for 2025-26. We are waiting on the announcements from the June monitoring round and the comprehensive spending review. The Executive have made it clear that there is a strong desire to move to delivering multi-year Budgets here in the coming years. We are governed by a Labour Government who have proven to be completely unpredictable and have targeted pensioners, family farms and small businesses in their first months in office, and we have no idea about what else could hit us. The Opposition need to get real about recognising the financial and economic environment in which we are living. In the next few months, they should focus on that rather than pushing for fiscal devolution options by September 2025.

Of course, we should be ambitious in how we approach the funding of public services. However, those efforts have to be credible and responsible. We have to be realistic about what is achievable in a context in which the fiscal deficit between Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom has been widening. The Budget process is already incredibly fraught with contention between political parties. The devolution of tax-varying powers would inevitably add a new dimension of volatility to the Executive's Budget. As unionists, we are clear that any change or upheaval of that nature could be exploited by those whose overriding intentions are focused not on transforming public services but on unsettling the political and economic foundations of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland's place within it. Ironically, in a separate motion that will be debated today, the Opposition call for an infrastructure commission to be established, given the weaknesses in and concerns over how major capital projects have progressed in Northern Ireland. Do they really expect that the situation with fiscal devolution would be any different? Are the right skills and structures really in place to countenance taking concrete steps on that front? Given that the latest figure for Northern Ireland Civil Service major capital projects overspend sits at £3 billion, we need to get our house in order; this is not the time to add to our problems.

The DUP is committed to delivering a fair funding model for Northern Ireland. Our party leader, Gavin Robinson MP, has long led on that issue in Westminster, and we are pleased to see progress. Whilst others celebrated, however, we were clear that last year's financial package fell well short of what is required to put our finances on a stable footing. We agree that the funding arrangements for public services in Northern Ireland are not fit for purpose, but we do not support additional fiscal powers being devolved to Northern Ireland at this time.

As other Members have said, this motion comes at a time when our finances are in a precarious position, following 14 years of Tory austerity that has now turned into Labour austerity, which carries grave consequences for the Executive and for households and businesses in Northern Ireland.

I am a supporter of increased fiscal devolution for a number of reasons. First, it is more democratic to bring decisions about tax and spend closer to the people whom we represent and those we elect so that they can have more say over those policies through the democratic process. It also offers more incentive for the Executive and the Assembly to prioritise things such as productivity and growing our economy, because there will be rewards through the taxation system. Importantly — this is, perhaps, the most important argument for fiscal devolution — it gives the Executive and the Assembly an opportunity to levy taxation in a way that is more progressive and fair, that supports economic growth and that aligns with our social and economic priorities. Particularly at a time such as this, when all the parties in the Chamber are so critical of the UK Government's response, we should all want more control over those levers.

I am not glib about the complexity or the dangers associated with fiscal devolution, some of which Diane Forsythe set out. It is important that we approach this in a balanced and measured way. The first challenge is that the most important factor affecting our public finances is our needs-based formula, which affects the block grant. If we conflate fiscal devolution with a fair funding formula for Northern Ireland, there is a risk that we could find ourselves landed with trade-offs that do not serve our public finances well. That risk is evident if you look to the experience of Wales. It is important, therefore, that we decouple those two arguments. Secondly, a fact that has been skirted around is that, frankly, the Executive do not have a good track record when it comes to dealing with the revenue-raising powers that they have currently. As we do not have sustainability of the institutions, I fear that they could be absent in the face of an economic downturn or crash and, therefore, that we could not respond adeptly and quickly enough to those challenges on behalf of those whom we represent, or, indeed, that we simply would not find agreement amongst the Executive and vetoes would be deployed on key issues. Fundamental reform of our public finances cannot, meaningfully, be decoupled from reform of our governance structures or political institutions to ensure that they are sustainable and stable.

I am disappointed that the Minister, irrespective of his views on the debate, is not here to respond. The very least that the Minister could do is to come to the Chamber and set out his priorities for fiscal devolution, given his party's apparent commitment to it. Whilst we are involved in ongoing engagement with the UK Government on our fiscal framework, I agree that our immediate priority needs to be our needs-based formula. There may, however, come a time when we can move beyond that debate and start looking at wider fiscal devolution powers. The very least that the Minister could do is to set out his priorities in that space. On that basis, we are content to support the principle of the motion, notwithstanding some practical considerations and our concerns about the risks that come with fiscal devolution, which need to be seriously thought through.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of increasing fiscal devolution, which would give us more opportunities to make spending decisions that prioritise the interests of workers, families and communities in the North. Around 90% of the funding that is currently available for our public services comes from the block grant. Negative decisions taken by successive British Chancellors, be they Labour or Tory, have reduced the amount of money that is available for our health service, education sector and infrastructure projects and severely impacted on the Executive's ability to deliver.

In recent months, the British Government have once again taken decisions that heap more pressure on those who already struggle to make ends meet, such as the sick and the disabled, who will be impacted on by further welfare cuts. In her spring statement, the British Chancellor reinforced her Government's priorities, choosing to spend money on militarisation — weapons of war — rather than investing in public services, protecting those in need and improving the daily lives of workers, families and communities. Given the limited fiscal powers available to the Executive and our public services' dependence on the block grant, which is based on the spending decisions of representatives who are not elected by people here, I recognise that it is extremely challenging for the Executive to mitigate the detrimental impact of such decisions.

The mitigation measures introduced to support the sick and disabled following the welfare cuts that were imposed on us a decade ago are expected to cost £47·3 million this year alone. The Fiscal Commission's 2022 report on more fiscal devolution stated that other actions taken to protect people here from austerity policies imposed by Westminster cost the Executive £600 million to £700 million a year. Greater control of revenue raising would therefore provide the Executive with more flexibility to shape policies that suit our local needs. Taxation systems should be based on fairness, reducing inequality and improving the efficiency, quality and capacity of public services. I also recognise the efforts of the Finance Minister and his predecessor to ensure that we are funded at the correct level of need. Indeed, the interim fiscal framework secured by the previous Finance Minister, Caoimhe Archibald, ensured an additional £248 million for our public services for this year.

Ultimately, ending partition and achieving independence for all of our island, with control of our political and economic affairs, is the best way in which to build the first-class public services that workers, families and communities here deserve. An Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) report this month on the economies of both jurisdictions highlighted the growing deficit in the North compared with the South in all commonly used measures of living standards. One of the most concerning examples of the detrimental impact that austerity policies from London have had on us is that, if you live in the North, you are seven times more likely to be on a healthcare waiting list for more than 18 months than you are if you live in the South.

Partition has prevented the development of all-island public services and detrimentally impacted on their delivery. The success of the all-island Children's Heart Centre in Dublin and the North West Cancer Centre at Altnagelvin Hospital provides two compelling examples in healthcare alone of the potential for delivering better public services on an all-island basis.

We want to see greater fiscal devolution to this island. Ultimately, the full devolution of fiscal powers through Irish unity provides the greatest opportunity to build and deliver better public services that meet the needs of everyone.

The Opposition are definitely right to say that the motion is concise, but there is no detail in it. It states:

"funding arrangements for public services in Northern Ireland are not fit for purpose".

I do not think that anyone here would disagree with that; in fact, our party, the DUP, has campaigned for a long time for the relative need formula. We were the first party to voice concerns about relative need, and we have been the consistent party all along in pushing for that formula. Even when it came to the restoration of the Assembly, we pushed for it, and we warned that we had not got the right financial package. Setting the baseline at the level of the spending review of 2022 would have injected £0·5 billion a year extra into our coffers to spend on our people.

If we get more fiscal powers, is that £0·5 billion a year in the range of what the Opposition want to raise? There is a danger with that. If we get more fiscal powers, can the British Government — our Government — not say, "You have fiscal powers now, so stop complaining about the package that we give you and raise your own revenue"? There absolutely is a danger in that. The focus of the Executive and the Assembly should be on making sure that we are funded properly and appropriately, according to relative need. We are not there yet, so our focus should be on making sure that the funding package for this devolved region is sufficient to cater for the needs of our people.

We talk about fiscal powers as though they are something that we will use progressively, which was one of the words used, while "fairly" was another. Really? Corporation tax has been devolved: why have we not used it? We have not used it because there is pressure to put it down.

The Opposition have tabled the motion. I am also interested to hear from Sinn Féin, because it holds the Ministry. What fiscal powers do you want? Do you want to raise income tax? Do you want to raise VAT? Rises to both of those fiscal levers would cause massive damage to our economy, our people and our growth. So what is it? What do the Opposition want? Why have they not put that down? Do the Opposition want to raise £0·5 billion from income tax or from VAT? We do not even have the Finance Minister here to tell us what his plan would be. I agree with the Opposition that that is shameful: the fact that the Finance Minister is not here to address the debate is contemptible. It is not only contemptible to the Opposition; it is contemptible to the House. It is absolutely contemptible. We need detail.

Our party is clear: we do not support any more fiscal powers for the reasons that my colleague Diane Forsythe outlined. We do not have the capacity or the capability, and that is not only in the political class but in the Civil Service class. Why do I say that? Some people might say that that is unfair. Look at our track record. Sinn Féin laments the fact that the Republic of Ireland can do this and that so much better than Northern Ireland, yet Sinn Féin has been in government for the duration of the Assembly. How much blame does Sinn Féin put on itself?

Will the Member give way?

Yes, I will give way.

Does the Member also agree that Sinn Féin is happy to be partitionist when it suits its agenda? It is happy to see corporation tax lowered in the Republic of Ireland but drags its feet in Northern Ireland.

The Member has an extra minute.

The Member has made a valid point. Why has Sinn Féin not moved on corporation tax when it holds the role of Finance Minister, even though it could synchronise our corporation tax with that down South? Why not? It will take a cut in our block grant: is that the issue, or is it that they are champagne socialists? Is Sinn Féin enjoying the money that it gets from the United Kingdom? We have been given more money by our Government this year than ever before; yet, I agree that it is a challenging Budget. Sinn Féin enjoys that amount of money. It is a cry — a mantra — to say that it wants more fiscal powers. Of course, it is — that is all that you hear from the party. It is all that you hear from the Opposition, too. What would they do with those fiscal powers? Nobody has told us. Nobody can tell us, because they do not have a clue. They do not have the foggiest.

We will not support the devolution of fiscal powers until we get a proper settlement and are assured that we have the capability and capacity to deal with those powers and that the parties opposite will not hurt our people and drain them of all their resources and hard-earned cash.

I am standing in for our finance spokesperson, Steve Aiken, who is happily going through a bit of post-surgery recovery at the moment. I am sure that he would be slightly more colourful on the subject than I am likely to be.

The Fiscal Commission and the Fiscal Council have made suggestions about closing the funding black hole between Northern Ireland and the rest of our nation. We welcome the changes in the required level-of-need funding and the fiscal settlement to close the gap in funding here created by the suspension of Stormont. It is clear that we are still looking at a significant shortfall in the years to come. We analysed the shortfalls over the past decades, and, historically, we have consistently missed out on pressures by about £0·5 billion per annum. It is easy to blame that wholly on the austerity measures from Whitehall, which have been significant, but it also has to be recognised that, on average, Northern Ireland citizens pay approximately £400 less in all forms of revenue raising than those in the rest of the United Kingdom. For comparison, the figure for the Republic of Ireland is substantially more, with a comparative shortfall of nearly €1,000. The details of that are laid out in the excellent work by the Fiscal Commission.

We cannot keep going back to London to demand more money when we have not put our house in order. We certainly have not done that, which, in many cases, is due to the fact that we have not had continuity of government.

I thank the Member for giving way. He quotes figures that relate to people in Northern Ireland paying proportionately less in terms of the revenue raised. Does the Member concede that there is an issue around taxable capacity? Disposable incomes and property prices are comparatively lower in Northern Ireland. In some sense, the comparison with other jurisdictions is unfair.

The Member has an extra minute.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is certainly a swayed comparison — the Member is absolutely right — but we still have to look at the issue and at the measures that we can implement but are not implementing. I will touch on those in a moment.

We have to ask whether our public services are efficient. How is it that we are incapable of public procurement? How is it that we have spent multiple millions on the A5 with not one square metre of tarmac laid? How is it that building construction has basically come to a halt because of inadequate water infrastructure. How is it that our Economy Department has had its accounts disclaimed? Equally, because it is an Opposition motion, I ask this: what costs of rigorous implementation are being accrued? Think of how much of the close to £1 billion spent on IT systems, consultancy fees and the creation of border posts could have been better allocated to health transformation or even to paying for much-needed police recruitment.

To be honest, I do not think that anyone here really believes that we have a public service that is fit for purpose. Chasing an overspend of £1·3 million with forensic accountants while ignoring and deflecting the £3·5 billion overspend on capital projects is more than indicative of a lack of any critical thinking. A fundamental, independent review of how we spend our existing money, coupled with the transformation of those who deliver it — the Civil Service — is now a prerequisite. Anyone who believes that we have a fit-for-purpose delivery mechanism is kidding themselves and the people of Northern Ireland.

What is the Finance Minister proposing? We know that he proposes not the mutualisation of Northern Ireland Water but the creation of a developer tax on new homes and properties that will ultimately see the extra costs passed on to buyers. There is no review of student funding, even though universities are haemorrhaging staff and students. There is no innovative funding model for the York Street interchange and no creation of an infrastructure bond, selling the long-term prosperity of Northern Ireland to overseas wealth funds. There is no substantial revision of the rating system. If he is proposing any of that, he is not keeping us informed.

Were the Minister here, he would, of course, bite back, but he is not here. I join the chorus of others saying that it is absolutely disgraceful that he is not here.

A Member:

Will the Member give way?

If you do not mind, I will not.

The Minister would, of course, bite back by referring to the Opposition's non-existent Budget proposals. However, he is the Finance Minister, and, as the Finance Minister, it is up to him to tell us how he will close the annual gap of £0·5 billion, because, in the absence of any proposal from him, that is glaring.

Eóin laid out our position on finance, but I will speak on the economy. The DUP has told us about capability and capacity. That was repeated, and I appreciate that, but it is a bit rich for the people who lobbied for and brought us Brexit, which caused the UK economy to drop, to talk about the risk of punishing people. It is a little rich for the people who brought us the renewable heat incentive (RHI) scheme and that waste to talk in the Chamber about draining people of their hard-earned cash. I wanted to start with that.

The current funding arrangements stifle our growth. The Assembly is less accountable to our people because of that.

It causes a complete lack of ambition in this place and this region. What we are currently working with is not fit for purpose as we look to the long term and to the funding of our public services, which, as has been said, are being squeezed.

Our economic growth remains really low. It is better than that in the rest of the UK, but it is still close to zero. Years of UK Government austerity have brought all public spending into focus. That does not give a Minister an excuse not to bring in changes or reforms. We desperately need reforms to Departments in order to bring in the changes that we have been talking about for years. It also does not give us an excuse not to deal with the urgent need to address the cost of division and the money that we waste every year in our budgets by having two of everything, rather than just getting on with uniting our community and working as one.

As for the security of the Assembly, the two largest parties' disregard for the Chamber over the years has meant that this place has been down as often as it has been up and has not worked. The threat remains that, at any point, either the DUP or Sinn Féin can pull this place down, and that is also a barrier to growth. It does not build confidence. If anything, we need the rules on that changed. The response that we hear from both parties is that they have no plans to collapse the institutions, but we need actions, not words. A start would be to relinquish that veto. Maybe then we would be able to plan for the longer term, to assist and change the region in order for it to prosper and deliver for everybody.

We agree with the principle of the devolution of more fiscal powers. I will pick up on what Paul Frew said about corporation tax. I use this as an example only because Paul used it. He asked why we had not got on with it. If we were to drop the rate of corporation tax, we would take money out of the budget for our public services, which, he said, are being squeezed. In that, he defined the issue: if we dropped corporation tax, public services would be squeezed, so which public service do we take that money from? That is the problem. None of the benefit that would potentially come from growing our economy through that would stay here. We do not see the benefit of lowering that tax, because it would cost our public services. That is why this is just not fit for purpose. We need to be able to retain finances here so that we can be accountable to our people for how we spend that money. Eóin has already gone through progressive taxation. I make no apology for saying that we want to see progressive taxation so that the poorest and those on the lowest incomes are looked after and those with higher incomes and the super-rich pay more in our country.

Will the Member give way?

Yes.

When the Member talks about the poor and the super-rich, where are his defining lines? How does he class and define "super-rich"? What does he define as "poor"?

The Member has an extra minute.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I am talking about multimillionaires. I think that that has already been defined. We are talking about the mega-rich — billionaires — and the people on the very lowest incomes and the most vulnerable. Fifteen or 10 years ago, was there a food bank in your area?

Yes.

Was there one 20 years ago?

No.

No, there was not. We are seeing that across the board. It brings shame on our society that people are leaving —.

Will the Member give way again?

No, I will not give way again. I have limited time.

Although the South, our closest neighbour, has major issues of its own, which is grand, the massive advantage that it has over us is its ability to raise tax and have a budget in order to pay to fix those issues. We do not have that. As a result, our economy suffers, and we cannot help. We cannot provide or have not provided incentives for small businesses.

Look at the situation in hospitality with the rises in National Insurance and rates. The costs are so high here, but nobody is making a fortune in that industry. Demand will drop, we will become uncompetitive, and our economy will slow. Local hospitality is not able to compete with the lower VAT and lower rates in other areas. Herein lies the problem: we get our pot of money to spend, but we do not have the ambition and the mechanisms to generate and create more and better for everyone.

I welcome the leader of the Opposition back to his place after the birth of his daughter and congratulate him on that.

I have a confession to make. The night before Opposition days, I usually struggle to sleep with worry and anticipation

[Laughter]

of what is coming before me, particularly when, with the Chair of the Finance Committee, the subject is fiscal devolution. I expected a 10-page Order Paper on my desk this morning, setting out a concrete plan where those who want to destroy the United Kingdom outline their great plans for an economic revolution in Northern Ireland. However, when I picked up the Order Paper, I realised that I need not have worried. The leader of the Opposition and his party have managed the grand total of one sentence on the Order Paper on what we were going to discuss. In fact, it has caused so much attention and interest in the nationalist parties that we have a grand total of six Members on the Benches opposite. That shows the level of their interest in the issue before us.

We have listened to the debate but have received absolutely no detail. In the speeches so far by the leader of the Opposition, we got no detail on the proposals that he wants to enact and which taxes he wants to see devolved or, more important, what he would do with those taxes. Does he want to increase income tax? Does he want to raise National Insurance contributions on our businesses, just as his sister party is doing in our sovereign Parliament? No details, yet we go to platitudes. "We will make a more progressive tax system": what on earth does that mean? Mr Honeyford tried to articulate that. He moved from taxing millionaires to taxing billionaires. How many billionaires are there in Northern Ireland? Those parties have no idea of what they want to introduce.

I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that it is interesting that Mr Honeyford has perhaps clarified what "tax the rich" means? He went to ultra-rich. His party did not define that when it initially talked about it. Does that mean further taxation on a higher tax bracket of 40%?

The Member has an extra minute.

In the 10-minute contributions made by the Alliance Party, its members were unable to set out what their proposals are or what they mean, because they are more for 30-second TikTok and Twitter clips than economic realities. Often in the Finance Committee, I hear the leader of the Opposition set out how terrible it was for long-haul air passenger duty (APD) to be devolved to the Assembly and the decision that was taken by the Executive, which included his party, to abolish it. Then, with the same breath, he says today, "Let us devolve even more powers." The consistency of the Opposition is clear and true. They want the Executive not only to carry out their job of delivering good public services for Northern Ireland but to set out plans for the Opposition as well, because, clearly, they cannot articulate them in the Assembly.

We will not support the motion and hand more fiscal powers to Departments and Ministers who are frankly inept. Yesterday the leader of the Opposition rightly raised the issue of the pedestrianisation of Hill Street. Sinn Féin has held the Infrastructure ministry for four years and cannot even pedestrianise a street in Belfast, yet the leader of the Opposition thinks that we should vote to hand powers to vary income tax to those very people. That is the Department that has spent £30 million on the York Street interchange in my constituency without a spade being put on the ground. When we talk about progressive taxation, we need to hear what the Members opposite who support the motion actually mean. Meaningless platitudes do not cut the mustard. We will oppose the motion.

It did not take long for the first Member in the debate to turn the blame to Westminster. We heard about Tory austerity and Labour austerity. However, Members always stop there. They do not go on to say that, when the Stormont Executive set the Budget, it is made-in-Stormont austerity owned by Sinn Féin, the DUP, Alliance and the Ulster Unionists. Yes, it may sit outside the camp, but the SDLP yearns for the day when it returns to the Executive table.

I appreciate that the SDLP, which tabled the motion, is a nationalist party. I also appreciate that Sinn Fein and Alliance, which are cheerleaders for the motion, are also nationalist parties. In that regard, I understand that the motion fits their long-standing desire to dilute the bonds that bind the United Kingdom together. There is, however, a fundamental contradiction here. If the SDLP were serious about being the Opposition — we hear about it being a constructive Opposition that always keeps the gloves on — it would recognise that Stormont is fundamentally dysfunctional. Devolving more sensitive fiscal powers to an Assembly that is up and down more times than a yo-yo is not in Northern Ireland's interests.

Let us be clear about what is at stake. The idea of devolving corporation tax was frequently discussed years ago, and it has been mentioned here today. In 2014, the Treasury made it plain that cutting corporation tax would slash our block grant by £400 million to £750 million. That would devastate our public services, which are already under significant pressure. More recently in the House, we debated an Ulster Unionist motion that called for an Irish Sea VAT border. I was amazed to be the only unionist to voice opposition in that debate. Beyond that, however, under the protocol, control over VAT and goods has already shifted to Brussels. Goods moving between Northern Ireland and Great Britain are now treated as exports and imports, complete with extra documentation because we are subject to EU VAT rules, not British ones. Far from wanting control of those powers, the SDLP was happy to give them away to Brussels.

The supporters of the motion need to answer this: if Stormont takes control of more fiscal powers, who will pay for the inevitable shortfall in the funding of our health system, our roads and our schools? It would not be a Gaston speech without a quote from Professor Holtham. The Holtham commission, in considering the devolution of corporation tax for Wales, rejected it because it would

"introduce substantial unwelcome volatility into the Welsh budget."

My goodness, Stormont would do well to reflect on that advice before dragging Northern Ireland further into greater instability. I fully support Northern Ireland being funded to the level of need, but, when it comes to fiscal powers, my goodness, it is a no from me now and a no for ever.

The Member talked about food banks and said that they did not exist 20 years ago. Since Stormont has been here — this wonderful place that would sort out all the issues — what has it done about that? What has Stormont delivered so that people do not need to go to food banks? You are going to say that, if we had greater fiscal powers, we could do this, that and the other. That is fantasy stuff. Stormont has been here, but it has not delivered.

I thank the Member for giving way. I share in the lamentations of many Members about the need for food banks in our communities. Does the Member accept, however, that the mitigation package that was worked on by all parties in the Assembly at the time has sheltered many households from the worst excesses of welfare reform?

The Member has an extra minute.

I thank the Member for his contribution. However, in creating that package, you are taking money from one Department to put it into another. Yes, there are some good mitigations there, but you also have to look at where the money has come from to fund that. When we talk about how great Stormont is, how we need to protect it and how we need more powers in this place because that will solve everything, we must recognise that this place has been up and running but has not delivered. The mess needs to be owned by the Executive parties that sit round that table.

Earlier this month, the Assembly passed a motion supporting tax increases for the super-wealthy, which I spoke on and supported. It is to be welcomed that some parties are finally in step with ordinary people, who have long demanded that the rich pay their way for our public services. The Executive, however, always seem to direct their focus solely at Westminster and never towards the wealthy and powerful at our front door, who do exist.

Since 2015, the North has had the power to set corporation tax rates, but the conversation is dominated by calls, mainly from the business lobby and its enablers, to lower corporation tax rather than being about the social good, proper taxation and the rich paying their way. People Before Profit has always been clear that corporation tax should be raised in the North. It should not be controversial to say that corporations should pay at least the same amount of tax as people pay on their wages. I will give way to anybody who wants to disagree on that point.

[Pause.]

OK.

Six companies in the North have a turnover of £1 billion. The top 100 companies in the North have a turnover of £35 billion. We are not talking about taxing corner shops. There is an abundance of corporate wealth here, including wealth that has been accumulated by private companies that deliver what are supposed to be public services.

I thank the Member for giving way. Does he recognise the difference between turnover and profit and that businesses pay tax on profit and not on turnover?

The Member has an extra minute.

I do recognise that, yes. I also recognise assets and that companies and corporations have combined wealth through their assets and profit from them. Those are all bound together, and it depends what column you are looking at. Money is money, and there is billions there.

A Member:

[Inaudible.]

Great economics from the sidelines from the party that does not want to tax corporations.

Over the past decade, the Executive have handed £125 million to just one private hospital to tackle our health waiting lists. The DUP supported that handout as well. It seems like there is an endless pit of money to line the pockets of the rich but never enough money for a decent social security system, fair pay, social housing, mental health services and our collapsing education system. It is the same old story, whether it is the Tories, Labour or this Executive. This island is a hostile environment for working-class communities, but it is a safe haven for multimillion-pound corporations such as Apple, Google and many others.

The North, disgracefully, is the only part of these islands that gives multinational corporations rate relief. Parties in this Building lament —.

Will the Member give way?

I will give way in a second.

Those parties lament rates rises for ordinary people and households, but they are happy for corporations to be given millions of pounds of handouts every single year while their profit margins, assets, numbers — call them what you want — rise. I will give way.

Thank you. Will the Member point to at least one successful economy in the world that adopts his socialist/communist outlook on economics?

Yes. I am happy to engage with that argument despite —.

Come on.

Let me speak. The Member has a disgraceful track record of sticking the boot into asylum seekers whilst talking about the housing crisis, so I am loath to give way to his pretty disgraceful agenda. The Member should not kick down. The Member is happy to kick migrants and asylum seekers but he does not have a word to say about billionaires and corporations that are ripping people off. Less of that. Less of that.

[Inaudible.]

Order. Let the Member be heard.

Mr Speaker, I will continue. Each year, £73 million of public money is being spent on the likes of Moy Park, Caterpillar and Coca-Cola. There is no opposition to that from Mr Buckley, who claims to stand up for the common people.

The question is this: what sort of society do we want? Do we want one that welcomes big businesses with open arms, bends over backwards for them and gives them endless rates and tax breaks while they exploit workers and the local environment and one that, frankly, plays into the hands of the Trump economic agenda? Or do we want one that forces huge corporations and the millionaires and billionaires — they do exist on this island — to pay their fair share? A radical redistribution of wealth is the only way to materially improve the lives of the majority of people here. It is time that we use our fiscal powers to break with the regressive economic orthodoxy of Westminster and the Dáil. Our public services and the ordinary people who use them depend upon our doing that.

I call Matthew O'Toole to make a winding-up speech on the motion.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Do I have 10 minutes?

Yes.

Thank you very much.

I welcome the fact that Members have participated in a colourful debate, and I will reflect on some of what was said. It is important to say, first of all, that many Members commented on the motion's brevity, which is a quality not often associated with me or, it has to be said, Mr Frew, who participated in the debate. Mr Frew noted that there was not much detail in what is a short motion. As I said, he and I are not often noted for concision, but that was a deliberate choice on the part of the Opposition. There have been lots of motions with lots of words and lots of subclauses, and that have been amended until the cows come home, and nothing has happened. As the Opposition, we wanted to put down a clear, declarative motion on an important principle: fiscal devolution. It comes back to a lot of what we have talked about as an Opposition: the connection between holding power and taking responsibility.

Mr Honeyford said an important thing. He is in a different party, but I often acknowledge when people from different parties say things that I agree with. Mr Honeyford, his colleague Mr Tennyson and others acknowledged that, in this place, there is a breakdown between people holding power and their taking responsibility and the connected issue of accountability. That has been demonstrated vividly today by the failure of the Finance Minister to even do us the courtesy of showing up to the Chamber to address the issue, despite, as I and others mentioned, his party's repeated commitment to fiscal devolution and its repeated statements reflecting on the shortcomings in our current funding model, which is acknowledged in our motion. He did not turn up today. Part of the deeper problem in our politics is about the connection between holding power and taking responsibility and then being accountable to the public for how you use that power. That is right at the heart of devolution and right at the heart of power, whether you are a unionist or a nationalist. We believe in fiscal devolution not just because we believe in more power here and, ultimately, Irish unity. The argument for fiscal devolution does not have to be one that is unionist or nationalist. I agree with Jemma Dolan that we need to move towards taking more decisions on this island and, ultimately, constitutional change, but you do not need to be a nationalist at all to believe that. You can be opposed to Irish unity and still believe that, inside the UK, we would be better governed if more decisions were taken locally.

I hear the TUV in the corner signalling its discontent, but I want to come back to some of what was said by unionist Members. Lots of unionist Members, particularly Mr Gaston from the TUV, talked about how bad — how terrible — Stormont is at delivery, and a considerable part of my day job is to point out when Stormont Ministers are not delivering for people. Mr Gaston and virtually every unionist Member who stood up said a version of, "Look at how poorly Ministers perform here. How can we trust them and, indeed, the Civil Service with more responsibility?". Many of those same people also said today and have certainly said on other occasions, "Isn't the Labour Government awful? Isn't what they are doing awful?", whether that relates to inheritance tax, rises in National Insurance contributions or a range of other fiscal decisions over which we have limited power. Those parties also want to talk about the limitations in our funding model. They do not see a contradiction there, it seems. They are willing to point out the contradiction between those of us who aspire to constitutional change but not to acknowledge the contradiction in their own position, which is that there is a UK Government who do awful things to us, and it is really frustrating that they are imposing increased National Insurance contributions, increasing inheritance tax for farmers and doing all those things, but we should never talk about taking more power for ourselves. There is a contradiction there, and I am sure that some unionist Members, in their heart of hearts, will acknowledge that contradiction. It does not mean —.

Will the Member give way?

I am happy to give way.

The Member makes a valid point. A lot of what the Member is saying goes to the heart of governance, and I have sympathy for that argument, but does he realise that our Government's governance is temporary, whereas, in this place, parties tend to be in government permanently? That is a massive difference.

The idea of being permanently in government is a novel one for the SDLP at the minute

[Laughter]

, but I acknowledge that there are flaws in our political system, particularly with the incentivisation for his party and the other big party to collapse this place repeatedly. That comes back to the core point that we are making: power means responsibility and accountability; when you seek power, you take responsibility for staying in power, making decisions, making people's lives better and being accountable. As others, including Eóin Tennyson, have said, there is an inextricable link — to use a phrase from the 90s — between taking fiscal powers and taking more responsibility. Regardless of whether you are a unionist or a nationalist or do not subscribe to any constitutional position, if we end up in a constant doom loop in which we say, "Well, we can't take more powers, because, effectively, we're useless here, our politics is dysfunctional and we don't trust one another. We don't even trust the Civil Service to deliver. By the way, we don't trust the UK Government either, whether they're Labour or Tory. They're either delivering austerity or we can't trust them on various other things", we will not be able to offer our people anything. I therefore say this, particularly to unionist Members: think through the logic of a lot of what you have said here today.

I thank the Member for giving way. Does he accept that the main issue with the current Labour Government for many Members on these Benches and others is the deceitful way in which they came to power? They did not tell us that they were going to tax business, tax the farmer and rob the pensioner in the way in which they have. They lied. They were deceitful. That is the issue.

The Member makes a political point about the UK Government. I disagree with the policies that he has outlined, but I am talking about structural issues in our system. His point is on the record.

I will come on to some of the detail of fiscal power and what it means here. One of the points that was made to me was that we did not provide a list, presumably in exhaustive detail, with costings. I would have been interested to see whether the Speaker would have accepted a 10-page motion — he is indicating from the Chair that he would not have — listing every single fiscal change that we would like to see made.

Let me give some examples. I will start with some of the fiscal matters that we have already said that we would like to look at but on which we have not seen progress from the Executive. We have dereliction in the Cathedral Quarter in Mr Brett's constituency. There is the shameful falling into dereliction of what is called the Tribeca Quarter. Vacant property there is being allowed to fall into dereliction, some of which is given a permanent rates break through the vacant property relief that exists in our rates system at the minute. We have been open about saying that we would curtail that relief. At the minute, in Northern Ireland, unlike across the water or down South, if your property is vacant, you essentially get a permanent tax break. We have said that we would like to reform that.

There are new fiscal powers that I would like to look at. One is a vacant land tax to incentivise development. The purpose of our motion is not to say that every form of fiscal devolution is always good in every context but to say, "Let's produce concrete options. Let's look at what those concrete options are". The Fiscal Commission's multiple reports are extraordinarily detailed. It does not think that VAT is an appropriate tax to be devolved, but it does think that partially devolving income tax might be appropriate. It also talked about other taxes.

I have talked about APD in the past. All the unionist parties in the Assembly are clearly not inherently opposed to devolution, because they supported the devolution of APD. One of the reasons that I talked about it was because of the blunt use that was made of it. I wish that the Finance Minister were here. I would like to hear him elaborate on his plans and his party's support for fiscal devolution, because I support fiscal devolution too.

Will the Member give way?

I will give way to Mr Carroll in a second. I am depressed to see two Members from his party here but no Minister. If the Minister supports fiscal devolution and says that our current arrangements are not fit for purpose, he should have the basic courtesy to come to the Chamber and explain what his position is and what he is doing about it in the context of the fiscal framework negotiations that are apparently going on at the minute. The fact that he has not done so is ridiculous and shameful.

I thank the Member for giving way. I agree with his point about the Minister. Will the Member clarify his party's position on the devolution of corporation tax? I presume that it is in favour of devolving it and increasing the rate.

Corporation tax has already been devolved, but the power has not been commenced. At the minute, it would be difficult to advocate lowering the rate of corporation tax, because of the impact that doing so would have on the block grant, which would need to be adjusted, but I have limited time left, so I am going to have to close my remarks on corporation tax there. I have answered the Member's question.

We fundamentally need to revisit the idea of power, responsibility and accountability in the Chamber. Having fiscal powers can be a critical part of that. Our motion is completely reasonable and concise. We have asked the Finance Minister to bring forward proposals. He and his party have said for years that they want more fiscal devolution. I agree. Frankly, I am shocked that he is not in the Chamber to give us an account. We need to tell the people, whether they are unionist or nationalist or do not give two hoots about the constitution, that the people whom they elect to here can take meaningful powers to improve their lives and take responsibility for improving their lives, rather than simply come to the Chamber huffing and puffing about things that are done elsewhere and say, "Well, we can't do anything to change it", or promise something without following through on it.

The Member's time is up.

That is what the motion is about. We commend it to the House.

Thank you, Mr O'Toole. At least your motion was concise.

[Laughter.]

Question put.

The Assembly divided:

<SPAN STYLE="font-style:italic;"> Ayes 45; Noes 32

AYES

Dr Archibald, Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms Bradshaw, Miss Brogan, Mr Carroll, Mr Dickson, Ms Dolan, Mr Donnelly, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Miss Hargey, Mr Honeyford, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Mr McMurray, Mr McNulty, Mr McReynolds, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Ms Ní Chuilín, Ms Nicholl, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Ms Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Tennyson

Tellers for the Ayes: Ms Hunter, Mr McGrath

NOES

Mr Allen, Mr Beattie, Mr Bradley, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mr Crawford, Mr Dunne, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart, Ms Sugden

Tellers for the Noes: Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew

Ms Bradshaw acted as a proxy for Ms Nicholl.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly agrees that funding arrangements for public services in Northern Ireland are not fit for purpose; and calls on the Executive to produce concrete options for fiscal devolution by September 2025.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. When a motion is carried and puts a specific burden on the Minister with responsibility, even if they are not named in the motion, and that Minister voted for the motion, would it be in order for Members to expect that Minister to follow up on the outcome of that vote?

Statutory motions are not binding, so it is for the Minister to deal with the motion as the Minister sees fit.

Members, take your ease while we change the Table and move to the next motion.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Blair] in the Chair)