Matthew O'Toole
South Belfast · Social Democratic and Labour Party · Northern Ireland
“I appreciate my colleague's giving way. Unfortunately, I was not here for all of the Minister's remarks — like her, I have been in the Chamber for a lot of today, so I had to pop out and attend to some other business. I presume that the Member will agree that these provisions could be more properly included in the Sentencing Bill.”
“Clearly, however, the regulatory and enforcement regime for all those watercourses and marine environments is way out of date ecologically and, indeed, economically.”
“We learned about the antics of Jeffrey Donaldson that were not criminal — so far — only after his conviction. Reporters have been able to go and find that information and people have been able to speak — felt able to speak — because Mr Donaldson has been sent to prison, convicted of appalling crimes, and is therefore less likely to seek r…”
“We are pleased, in broad terms, to support it at Second Stage. We welcome the move towards an approach to fisheries management that is ecosystem-based rather than narrowly species-based.”
“We were robust in opposing those who were not willing to deal with the nutrients action plan, for example, which should have been a core part of dealing with Lough Neagh. Of course, the farming industry needed to be engaged, and the Minister has been doing a lot of that work recently.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In just a few hours' time, the House will go into recess for more than two months. There are two outstanding and grave matters that the public in Northern Ireland want us to deal with, but we are walking away, so I want your advice on Standing Orders.”
The complete record
Every one of 5,909 lines we hold for Matthew O'Toole, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 13 of 119.
“We have just heard from the deputy First Minister, who lauded the engagement that she had there, and from Mr Buckley — not the only dramatically gifted Buckley seeking attention in North America last week — who was over in Washington getting photo ops. We heard from them how pleased and delighted they were with their engagement with the Trump Government. Our constituents are paying the price for Trump's insanity. We are seeing that today. <BR /> <BR />By the way, while people are struggling to heat their home, our Communities Minister flew thousands of miles across the world for, by my count, at least his third visit to America to talk about the 250th anniversary of the founding of America, the declaration of a republic and the role that the Scots Irish had in that.”
“In the past couple of hours, the price of Brent crude — the oil price that determines how nearly two thirds of the public in Northern Ireland heat their home — fell after the lunatic Donald Trump indicated that he had had "productive" conversations with Iran, which he began bombarding three weeks ago. Then, not long after that, the Iranian regime said that that was not the case. It said that Trump had backed down, which, as we know, he has done in the past, and that there had been no such negotiations. Now, as we speak, we are seeing the price of oil rocket, which will hit two thirds of our constituents, not only those in rural areas but those in my constituency and your constituency, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, in Belfast. <BR /> <BR />Members of the House were in the US over the past week.”
“If, however, it does not, we will need a joined-up and coherent response to the downstream consequences locally, even if we profoundly disagree with those in the Chamber who inexplicably and, frankly, insanely continue to support his reckless actions.”
“That is distinct. It is a downstream consequence, in the same way in which there needs to be an agreed position on the consequences of the travel disruption for British and Irish citizens. That is perfectly clear. I do not think that it is that difficult to understand that the Executive can agree a position on a local impact and agree on a policy response that is distinct from their agreeing with the initial illegal action. That has not happened yet from the Executive. That is all that our amendment calls out. I know that the fact that we are willing to make such points makes some people uncomfortable, but that is our job as the official Opposition. <BR /> <BR />I will return to the main thrust of the motion. The destabilisation visited on the region by Trump and his lawless and, frankly, lunatic regime will, I hope, end quickly.”
“I am happy to have taken that intervention, because I did not say that you should have a united position in any way on Trump's actions in Iran. I would not expect that at all, neither would I expect you to have a united perspective on anything that Trump does, Israel and its genocide, Brexit or any other number of controversial international positions. What I expect and what the public should expect is that the two parties do their best to arrive at a joint position on the kind of intervention that they would like to see; for example, that the UK Government give financial support in relation to home heating oil.”
“I will take an intervention in one second. <BR /> <BR />Local Ministers should have said, "We will need financial support from the UK Government, but we need to understand what our response is going to be and what support we would like to be able to offer our people". That response did not happen. In fact, we saw continual infighting between those parties. That is what our amendment says, and I do not think that it is unreasonable.”
“That does not mean that our voice is meaningless, but it means that the primary focus of the Executive should have been to respect that there will be complete disagreements on the merit of the action, though I genuinely do not understand how any unionist politician can sensibly and seriously say after the past fortnight that they think that any of this is a good idea, given the impact on their constituents. The response of local Ministers should have been to say, "We are downstream of the crisis. We probably have the largest proportion of home heating oil usage in Europe, let alone these islands, so we need a plan and a response".”
“It appears that it will go on a lot longer, even if Trump were to attempt to de-escalate, and he does not appear to be doing that now. Even if there is a de-escalation, there is increased geopolitical instability. As Kate Nicholl said, we do not know how long that will go on for. Many of us are fearful about the world writ large. The Executive have no control over that. Let us be clear that what we say in the Chamber or what the First Minister, the deputy First Minister or any Minister does will not influence that.”
“Through our amendment, we perform our role as the official Opposition and make no bones about doing that. It says that our view is that the Executive's response has been incoherent and fractious. The local Executive are responsible for offering clear and coherent leadership to the public, but their response has not been what it should have been in that. <BR /> <BR />When Donald Trump first launched his attack on Iran just over a fortnight ago, it was clear that there would be a spike in the oil price. Iran is one of the major oil producers, and it controls the Strait of Hormuz through which 20% of global oil exports move. It was inevitable that the price of Brent crude was going to spike. We did not know how long that would last. It has now gone on for a fortnight.”
“The horror of bombing schools and claiming that killing innocent people is part of a logical and coherent strategy is grotesque, notwithstanding the grotesque actions of the Iranian regime in shooting tens of thousands of its own people who resisted its oppression. To stand here and debate the actions of the Trump regime as if it were part of a logical or comprehensible strategy feels absurd at times, but, of course, we have to do it because our constituents are living with the consequences. <BR /> <BR />That brings me on to the purpose of our amendment, which is not to negate the condemnation of Trump and Israel's actions, which is welcome in the original motion and Alliance's amendment, but to bring it back home, since the original motion talks about the impact on households in the North.”
“Let me be clear that the US's contribution to world affairs has been, shall we say, mixed in the sense that it has disrupted democracies for its own ends but also has been a leader in democracy at times and offered hope to the world. It is certainly now doing the former, rather than the latter. There is no sense that the lunatic Donald Trump — that is what he is, and I do not think that anyone should be coy any more about saying that — is in any way pursuing anything approaching not just a strategy of peace or support for the people of Iran but a coherent or comprehensible foreign policy or defence policy.”
“The counterpoint to that is that what has happened is that the Iranian regime has dug in. It is widely accepted that the Iranian regime, of which I am no supporter — let me be clear: I would rather that the ayatollahs were not in power — has fairly resolutely dug in and is squeezing America and other powers through the Strait of Hormuz, using that economic power to place the US under extreme pressure. Let us be clear: we and our constituents are feeling that at the petrol pumps and in our oil tanks through the cost-of-living crisis that is being imposed on us by Trump's attacks. I have not seen any kind of logical explanation of how that will lead to a better outcome, and I am afraid that I did not hear it from Mr Brooks. Of course, it is not just that logic and Donald Trump are not close neighbours; they are complete strangers.”
“While many Iranians are unbelievably opposed to the ayatollahs and have had to live under the Iranian regime, I am completely unclear as to how the actions of Trump and his regime, and the lawless regime of Netanyahu and Israel, and their reckless, lawless and apparently meaningless — perhaps "senseless" is a better way to put it — intervention in Iran is going to lead to a better outcome for the people of Iran. I am happy to give way to any Member who wants to explain that to me because, at the minute, I am utterly at a loss. OK, fine.”
“Other Members who are, perhaps, a little more — I do not want to put words in Mr Beattie's mouth — ambivalent towards, or even supportive of, the idea of armed action against the Iranian regime — I presume that DUP Members will get up to articulate similar positions — will have to justify how bombing a Middle Eastern country from the sky, which has been tried repeatedly over recent decades — I am now old enough to remember what happened in 2003 and the decade that followed in Iraq and, before that, Afghanistan — is going to lead to a stable, peaceful outcome for the people of Iran, whom they claim to support.”
“Without talking about our own conflict or, indeed, other conflicts that have happened more recently, it is fair to say that this particular conflict is 100 million miles from being a conflict that could be argued to have been unavoidable, let alone justifiable.”
“That is not to overstate or simplify what is at stake in this conflict or any other armed conflict around the world, but it is to say that, as elected representatives, we should, at all times, do everything that we can, here and everywhere, to promote the alternatives to armed conflict of dialogue, democracy and diplomacy. <BR /> <BR />Most people and parties in the Chamber, in different ways and from entirely different political traditions — my party has always been a party of peace. There are circumstances in which armed conflict has, in human history, been inevitable or unavoidable.”
“Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased that my party's amendment has been selected and that we are debating this subject tonight. We agree with the vast majority of what is in the motion. I am glad that it was moved. <BR /> <BR />Although this is a devolved region in a part of the world that is distant from where these lives are being lost and this conflict is happening, we do, perhaps, have some claim to being heard in debates like this — a little more than that of other small devolved regions — which is that, as other Members have said, we are the product of a conflict resolution process. We are, in a sense, as an Assembly — as divided, dysfunctional and occasionally disreputable as we are — an embodiment of politics as an alternative to violence.”
“I appreciate the Member's giving way. If I understand the Member correctly, he does not object to the idea of the US's taking some action, but he thinks that the aims have been vague or shifting. I do not want to misquote him. Does he not think — I will reflect in my remarks what I think of the war — that the US should have planned for the Iranians closing down the Strait of Hormuz, since they said many times that they would do that?”
“— a fortnight ago. Given that your party is accusing the Irish Government of sitting on their hands in relation to oil and energy cost supports, when — admitting that we want more money from the British Government, before you accuse me and gaslight people again — can we expect a plan from the Executive?”
“People can look at Hansard and decide for themselves what you said. It is fairly clear that you have shifted responsibility elsewhere, as you repeatedly do with me in the Chamber. You are writing to the Communities Minister today: you, along with the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and the Economy Minister, could and should have sat down with the Communities Minister —”
“Minister, I am afraid that, earlier, you said something that was quite remarkable: you said that neither economic inactivity nor energy costs were your responsibility or that of the Executive and that they were solely the responsibility of the British Government. I could not say more often that I agree with you that we want to see as much money as possible coming from the UK Government. I agree that the UK Government need to support the Executive, given the scale of the global oil shock. However, what I and others hear from you repeatedly is that everything is always somebody else's responsibility.”
“Minister, you acknowledge that there will be a £100 million "credit" — that was the term that you used — in the 2026-27 financial year: the amount of repayment will be significantly lower than the amount that is additional from the spring statement. Given that difference and given that that is additional money to the Executive, can you be specific about what you will use it for? If you are not to use it for energy support, which the First Minister did not think was a good idea a little while ago, and if you are not to use it to supplement local growth money, that is additional money for the Executive. Can you be specific on how it will be spent?”
“Why have your Government, again, been addicted to shifting blame to the UK Government, and then to each other, rather than on focusing on the people who matter most — the people who send us here?”
“First Minister, you have not answered my question. I did not ask simply about making the case. I respect that, and I agree with you that the UK Government need to provide the financial firepower. It is a global oil crisis: I am not being unreasonable about that. However, the bare minimum that the public should be able to expect is for you and the deputy First Minister, the Economy Minister, the Finance Minister and, yes, the Communities Minister to get together, design a scheme and then go to the UK Government and say, "This is what we want to deliver for the people of the North. Fund it". You have not done that. There has been indecision, squabbling and falling out.”
“First Minister, the Opposition agrees. We want to see the maximum possible funding being made available to the Executive, and we will always speak up for that. The spring statement allocated an extra £220 million for the Executive to spend in 2026-27. In that financial year, the repayment of the previous reserve claim will be £80 million, leaving more than £100 million of that allocation for the Executive to allocate. Will you advocate for some of that money to go to topping up support for households, given the spike in oil prices?”
“Not to be too much of a know-it-all, "quango" is an acronym that stands for quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation. The EPA would not be quasi-autonomous; it would be independent. That is the point.”
“People will be looking at their watch in relation to the constitutional status quo if you and your party continue to block progress on important things, such as environmental protection. I have made my point and will leave it at that.”
“They know that we have allowed our biodiversity to slip into disrepair. They know that we are one of the most nature-depleted places in Europe. They know that industrial agricultural intensification has led to environmental degradation. To be absolutely clear, that is not any type of criticism of the farming community; it is simply to say that agricultural intensification has happened. All the people out there see those things and see the DUP's blocking progress. They wonder whether we can ever make progress at Stormont. The DUP is the party that wants to maintain the status quo, but it also wants to make the status quo dysfunctional and unable to deliver. I see that, very charmingly, Mr Buckley is looking at his watch.”
“It simply would have been a party with a vastly increased mandate and a specific set of manifesto proposals, including an independent environmental protection agency and Stormont reform, seeking to use its increased mandate to achieve that in government. That would have been an entirely legitimate thing to do, but it was not done. That is the point that I am making. <BR /> <BR />I now move back to the issue in the motion. The DUP is blocking the proposal at the Executive. I look forward to hearing its argument for continuing to block it, other than simply a thran, "No, nothing" desire to get its own way and block any progress. The public out there, including people from all backgrounds — unionist, nationalist and those who simply do not care one way or the other — want our environment to be protected.”
“I do not think that it would have been unreasonable or intemperate for the Alliance Party to have said, "We will participate in the Executive on the basis of achieving an independent environmental protection agency" and perhaps one or two other things, including progress on Stormont reform. Bear in mind that the participation of neither the Alliance Party nor the Ulster Unionist Party, because they were not in a position to nominate a First Minister or deputy First Minister, would have prevented an Executive from being formed, so the accusation of what is sometimes termed ransom politics would not have been applicable in that case.”
“Since Mr Tennyson raised the point, the Alliance Party was given an extraordinary mandate in the 2022 election. It was an extraordinary election. We know that because it came in part at our expense. I congratulate you on that, but, since you pressed me on it, I think that the public have a right to ask what the Alliance Party used that mandate for. One of the things that it has not achieved is an independent environmental protection agency. That is not me being cruel; that is me holding parties to account. That is our job in opposition, and we make no apology for it.”
“We are in opposition now; you are in the Executive.”
“The Member has made a sharp political intervention; that is fine, because there is a degree of politics in all of us. That is not what is in the amendment. We are not debating things that happened in the Executives of the past.”
“It would not have been unreasonable to say that your participation in the Executive would be contingent on a number of delivery items. I will give way to whomever.”
“If you did, I am happy to defer to you on that, Minister. It certainly is not in the Programme for Government, but, if you are telling me that you made a specific request for that to be in it, I will take you at your word. I certainly acknowledge that you want an independent environmental protection agency. My question is how deep that ask was and what conditionality you offered. For example, did you say that you and your party would participate in the Executive only on the basis of achieving an independent environmental protection agency?”
“Yes, but I do not know whom to give way to, because there have been two requests.”
“It would not have been unreasonable, given that that is how voluntary coalitions work in other parts of the world, to make that ask.”
“My question, which is a respectful one, is why that was not secured in the Programme for Government. It should have been. That would have been a reasonable ask for the Minister, his party leader and their party. They could have asked for that to be included in the Programme for Government. Indeed, it would not have been unreasonable for them to say that their participation in the Executive would be time-limited, because they may well have wanted to enter opposition had that promise not been kept.”
“It has absolutely no seriousness when it comes to the issue, and its blocking of an independent environmental protection agency is indefensible and needs to end. <BR /> <BR />The purpose of our amendment is to add to the motion and clarify a point of accountability. We have just had a strange debate on the Hospital Parking Charge Bill in which Members from one party appeared to indicate that they supported a Bill and then voted against it. We had a slightly surreal refusal of Members to accept accountability. It matters that, when we take office, we accept accountability. Let me say this clearly: I accept that the Environment Minister wants to make progress and that he has reform in mind, and I know that he wants to create an independent environmental protection agency.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is because of all of that that there should no longer be an argument about whether we have an independent environmental protection agency; the question should be how and when we deliver one. The SDLP has tabled an amendment to the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill. That is a relatively arcane Bill, but it has a broad and miscellaneous scope. We hope that we will be able to debate that, but I do not know. We may or may not. If we are able to do so, we will be using our time in constructive opposition by trying to move this forward. I agree with what was said about the DUP's know-nothing attitude towards the environment. It is utterly short-sighted when it comes to the environment.”
“It means that, in law, there is a proper environmental watchdog to ensure that environmental standards are met and to defend our environment. We have simply not defended and protected our environment in Northern Ireland — the evidence is in front of us — and the public know that and are appalled by it. The Lough Neagh eel is not just one of the greatest natural resources but one of the great culinary resources of this part of the world. Lough Neagh eel fishermen have barely been able to fish for the past few years because of the state that we have allowed the lough to get into. That is an appalling indictment of us as politicians and the system that we have allowed to develop.”
“Number two has come about through long-term underinvestment in our waste water infrastructure and, as the Minister correctly said, issues around NI Water being given a bye ball on pollution. Mobuoy showed unseriousness when it came to environmental crime, allowing that kind of crime to pass if not unremarked then certainly with a much more liberal wave of the hand than there would be in other places. <BR /> <BR />It was because of that, frankly, appalling and unsustainable context that there was a commitment in 'New Decade, New Approach' to deliver an independent environmental protection agency. As has been said, that is something that exists in statute in other parts of these islands. It does not prevent farming; it does not prevent decisions being made on planning; and it does not prevent economic development.”
“I am happy to accept that. It was not an implied criticism of the Minister. I was simply making a point about Mobuoy and that context because the motion refers to it. <BR /> <BR />It is true that Mobuoy is one of the biggest waste crimes in recent European history. It is also true that Lough Neagh, one of the biggest bodies of fresh water in Europe, is degrading in front of our eyes every summer, and it could well happen again this year. We are faced with an almost sci-fi vision of environmental degradation. Those are two examples. One has been caused by long-term pollution from agricultural intensification and the loading of nutrients into our soil. That is undeniable, by the way. Before anybody says that it is an attack on farmers, it is not; it is a fact.”
“There is still no plan for remediation, the cost is unbearably high, and there is no sense, although there have been criminal proceedings—.”
“Hopefully — I am sure others hope so, too — I will not use all my 10 minutes, but I will not make that promise, because I might break it. <BR /> <BR />I hope that our amendment adds to tonight's motion, because we entirely agree with most of the motion. It is one of the most urgent and unavoidable — some people in the Chamber want to avoid it — crises that this society faces that we have pushed our environment to what, I hope, is not the point of no return, although it feels very close to that. In his opening remarks, Eóin Tennyson pointed out two of the most clear-cut and striking examples of environmental violation that western Europe has seen. The first is the Mobuoy scandal, an extraordinarily disgusting and vast waste crime and one of the largest illegal dumps in Europe.”
“It is about taking responsibility for the public who sent us here, not shifting blame. I think that I have said enough.”
“We promise the public that we will abolish hospital car parking charges. We then introduce a law delaying the banning of hospital car parking charges. Members are shaking their heads and looking disapprovingly at me. How dare I stand up and say that that is nonsense? It is nonsense. If you are a healthcare worker or someone with a chronic condition who was expecting free parking and was promised it by people here, and those people keep passing laws to delay it, it is nonsense. We should accept that it is nonsense. We should grow up. When we pass laws here, we should be honest with the public about what we are doing. That is what being a legislator is about. It is not about passing laws and then delaying them, making promises that we then do not keep or passing Mickey Mouse and meaningless motions.”
“There is certainly a point about referring to financial constraints without being specific. I appreciate that the Health Minister and the Finance Minister are under pressure. We were told, when we came back here in 2024, that there would be a plan for transformation and that there would be healthcare transformation. I think that the Health Minister wants to do that, and he has made some progress. However, the Executive writ large have made very little progress on delivering transformation. It is not just me who says that: representatives of Executive parties have said it on multiple occasions. <BR /> <BR />I will get back to the Hospital Parking Charges Bill of 2026. This is becoming almost biennial — if that is every two years. It is like the Ryder Cup: it comes round every two years.”
“Once again, the SDLP is in the position of standing up and saying what the public already think. That is our job as the official Opposition. We have no problem doing that. <BR /> <BR />I will give way briefly to Mr Carroll. There is not much more to say.”
“I will give way in one second. <BR /> <BR />The Minister is in an extraordinarily difficult situation. However, the Assembly made a promise to workers and patients. We have then repeatedly delayed it. It is no use coming in here and saying, "We have to think about healthcare workers and patients". We should have thought of them when Members were going out, making social media content and giving out leaflets in 2022 saying, "We have abolished hospital car parking charges", which we then repeatedly delayed. We wonder why people think that this place is a Mickey Mouse Assembly or that it is toytown. That is not the Opposition's being cynical, nor is it the media that is doing that: we are doing it ourselves with things like this — genuinely. Members will probably find that uncomfortable.”