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“Clearly, however, the regulatory and enforcement regime for all those watercourses and marine environments is way out of date ecologically and, indeed, economically.”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 15 of 119.
“The previous Finance Minister and the current Finance Minister have said that there is a strategic road map for rating policy. We have moved on from the mixed metaphors of the strategic cycle and the road map, but we were promised a meaningful reform of our rates system. We were promised changes, albeit modest ones, to the cap on domestic rates and to how small business rate relief works. We have not seen any of that. I do not know whether we are to understand that, thus far, the DUP is not allowing it on the Executive agenda.”
“However, we have said that it has to be on the basis of a plan, that we have to be frank with the public about what we are spending money on and that we have to be honest with them about the choices that we are making and about how we intend to improve their services. The Executive have not done any of that. Furthermore, they have failed to produce a plan to improve public services. The Minister, and others, may say that that is contained in the Programme for Government or other documents that have been published, but I do not buy that, and, based on all the evidence, I am afraid that the public do not buy it. <BR /> <BR />We have heard repeatedly, in the Finance Committee and every other possible forum, about plans to reform the rates system. My party and I have said that we are up for that and that we want a conversation about it.”
“The problem is that the Executive have not done any of that. The Executive have effectively hoodwinked the public of Northern Ireland by having a conversation in private, without a multi-year Budget or a meaningful plan for public services, and coming out with an above-inflation rise in the regional rate, which we are bouncing through this afternoon. I, and my party in opposition, have always been clear that we are willing to talk about revenue raising and greater fiscal devolution. We have never turned our face against that: we have always been mature, upfront and constructive about it.”
“Taxation of any sort is one of the gravest and most important powers given to legislators. Therefore, when we come to the Chamber to debate this, we should think about the gravity of what we are doing. <BR /> <BR />Let me say this, as a member of a centre-left party and as a social democrat — someone who believes in public services, and who believes that the primary purpose of politics should be to improve people's lives through better public services; to promote equality of opportunity and, where possible, equality of outcomes in education and other areas; to alleviate poverty; and to redress the power of big business — I believe in the power of taxation to fund public services. I am happy to have a conversation with the public about how taxation can be used to improve their lives and their public services.”
“<BR /> <BR />I will now say slightly different things in my capacity as leader of the Opposition. The rates order is one of the most important pieces of legislation that we debate in the House. That is because we have only one meaningful piece of devolved fiscal power, which is on rating. It is split between the district rate, which is set by councils, and the regional rate, which is set by us. Often, in the Chamber, we hear complaints — including from me — about our debating non-binding motions. This is a binding motion. This is about taxing our people and setting a tax that people are legally obligated to pay. As we know, if households or businesses do not pay it, they face prosecution and legal sanctions. Today, we are dealing with a serious and profound matter.”
“<BR /> <BR />The director of rating policy was present at our meeting on 4 March to address questions from members. The director was able to confirm how much revenue the Executive could expect as a result of the regional rate, highlighting that £47 million of the uplift, as the Minister said, was from the uplift for 2025-26 to this year alone. That is the amount of additional revenue that has been raised from what is being discussed today in the order. Whilst not unanimous — it is important to say that there was not unanimous support for the rates order — there was a majority and a broad consensus to support the statutory rule. The Committee agreed to recommend, on a majority basis, that the SR be affirmed by the Assembly. Therefore, the Committee for Finance supports the motion.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Rates (Regional Rates) Order Northern Ireland 2026 was formally laid in the Business Office on 19 February as SR 2026/19. At the Committee's meeting on 4 March, members noted that the Examiner of Statutory Rules had reported on the rule and had not drawn anything to the Assembly's attention. At that meeting, members also considered detail provided by the Department for the purposes of funding public expenditure for 2026-27. The regional domestic rate for 2026-27 is set at 0·5559p in the pound and the non-domestic regional rate for 2026-27 is set at 30·79p in the pound, which is a rise of 5% for households and 3% for businesses. As the Minister correctly said, that obviously does not cover poundages set by district councils. Those are set independently of the Executive.”
“At that time, members acknowledged the fact that the regional rates order did not reflect any budgetary decisions but that, due to the legislative timetable and the procedures to be followed for affirmative resolution SRs, it was necessary to consider the policy proposal in parallel with the Budget process that was progressing at Executive level. Although that is not a novel approach, it is far from ideal, reflecting a situation that we often find ourselves in where timescales are compressed because of a range of factors, including those external to the Executive. As is usual practice, the Committee noted the assurances provided by the Department on the position in GB, the regulatory impact and the financial impact.”
“The bills will reflect decisions that have been taken by the Executive for the 2026-27 Budget, which is anticipated to be year 1 of the long-awaited multi-year Budget. <BR /> <BR />The policy proposal in the form of the SL1 letter was first considered by the Committee at its meeting on 3 December 2025. At that time, members received a useful briefing from the director of rating policy at Land and Property Services (LPS) not only on the statutory rule that we are debating today but on other items of subordinate legislation. Members were also keen to discuss areas of rating policy, and the director was as informative as always. We appreciate the evidence that he gave us that day.”
“I will speak first as Chair of the Finance Committee and then in an Opposition party context. <BR /> <BR />I thank the Minister for moving the rates order and for his comments. We will have the opportunity to debate the other rates-related legislation after this debate. <BR /> <BR />We have considered three variations of this annual statutory rule on the amounts of regional domestic rates and regional non-domestic rates that are to be used in the assessment of rates and the billing of ratepayers in Northern Ireland. On this occasion, it will be for the rates year ending 31 March 2027. Affirmation of the rule today will facilitate rates bills being issued from 1 April 2026 onwards.”
“Minister, you will be aware that it is awards season. People enjoy following that, and there are some great nominees and award winners from the North and the South of the island. I wish the nominees all the best for the upcoming Oscars. <BR /> <BR />Minister, are you looking at properly increasing core arts funding and asking the Finance Minister for a settlement? I recognise that things are tight, but the multi-year Budget offers an opportunity to address the long-standing failure to fund the arts. It is all well and good celebrating glitzy Oscar success and high-end productions, but, if we do not fund basic community arts, we will not get to that end point.”
“There is a fairly transitory population in lots of those areas, so permanent residents will want to ensure that they are not caught out simply by the high number of people in short-term lets who may or may not respond to a ballot.”
“Thank you, Minister. I genuinely welcome the statement today. It is welcome to see progress in this area. The Rugby Road scheme is around the corner from my constituency office. Many parts of the statement apply to inner south Belfast probably more than to areas in any other constituency across the North. Communities in the Markets, lower Ormeau, Donegall Pass and Stranmillis will all be interested in the scheme. However, there will be a concern and a question about the 50% plus one barrier, particularly in some areas where there are high levels of short-term rentals, for example, by students in the Holylands, Stranmillis and the lower Lisburn Road. Is that not a high bar for those areas, and will you devote resource to those areas to ensure that there is proper turnout?”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As a point of clarification as well as of order, earlier, in our debate about the equalisation of titles, I mentioned the Assembly and Executive Review Committee and a proposal that I had made for the inquiry. While that is true, I want to put on the record that I collaborated with and had the full support of my Committee colleague Michelle Guy, who did a lot of work on it. There was joint cross-party working with the Alliance Party and, indeed, now with Sinn Féin and other parties on that Committee. I look forward to more progress. Thank you, Deputy Speaker.”
“Thank you Minister. You will have seen the outworkings of the Investigatory Powers tribunal in London and the revelation that thousands of messages from the journalist Vincent Kearney were intercepted by the PSNI. <BR /> <BR />I know that the Minister believes strongly in the freedom of the press. Acknowledging the operational independence of the PSNI, does she agree that the repeated revelations about the PSNI's encroaching on the freedom of the press by monitoring journalists, including Trevor Birney and Barry McCaffrey, have contributed to a lack of confidence in the PSNI; that addressing that will be part of rebuilding confidence in the PSNI among certain communities; and therefore that —.”
“There, in the last 30 seconds of the debate, I will agree with Pat Sheehan. The DUP has never bought into the spirit of compromise. You and I want to live in a new Ireland — a republic that is based on equality of citizenship. Why are we playing the DUP's game? Let us equalise these titles and move towards a new Ireland that is based on equality and respect, not top-dog nonsense and Old Firm-style politics. I commend the motion to the House.”
“I think you will find that I did not do that in my opening remarks, but then Members opened up on me during the debate. I am happy to take it and give it back.”
“However, I have not heard one Member question the merits. <BR /> <BR />You have 10 seconds, Mr Buckley, and then I will give way briefly to Mr Sheehan, who also wants in.”
“Lots of Members are frustrated with me and angry with us for raising the issue, and they questioned our motives. That is fine. That is what political parities do.”
“They will think that we do not care at all about their public services, which are crumbling; the environment, which is stagnating; and the economy, which is not creating enough opportunities for young people. They will think that all that matters is point-scoring and bickering, particularly between the two big parties, which they see repeatedly and have seen today in the Chamber. <BR /> <BR />I want to have a genuine spirit of partnership. That is what we as a political party genuinely believe in. That is why we think that this, yes, small, yes, cosmetic change is necessary. I genuinely, sincerely urge all parties in the Chamber to get behind and support it. I have not heard one Member explain to me why retaining the status quo is a good idea.”
“I said that then, and I will say it now. That having happened, I do not understand why equalising the titles, as was the position of Martin McGuinness and John O'Dowd, and as is, I think, the position of Sinn Féin, based on what its Members have said today, would be such an unacceptable thing to do. <BR /> <BR />It is about having a broader culture of accountability in our politics, because the public out there are genuinely frustrated with the lack of delivery in our politics. They are frustrated with tribal point-scoring. If we fight another election on the basis of a race to a job title, they will become unbelievably frustrated with our politics.”
“This is one area where an arbitrary difference reinforces something that is not healthy in our politics: a horse race towards a job title. It is important to say that that was created by the largest unionist party in 1998. I do not think that we — certainly, those in parties that believe in a new Ireland and in a republic where there is equality of citizenship — should endorse that type of arbitrary differential. I do not want to be top dog in the wee North; I want a new Ireland, based on equality of citizenship and mutual respect, including for unionists. I want to equalise the titles, because I want to move our politics away from the kind of point-scoring and tribalism that we have seen. Yes, unionism created that shibboleth in the first place, and, yes, that is why the First Minister's election in 2024 was genuinely historic.”
“I do not have much time, so I will not give way. I have given way multiple times to Members. If I have time later on, I will; I promise. <BR /> <BR />Members repeatedly said that it is a cosmetic change. If it is a cosmetic change, let us go ahead and do it. I have not heard anybody substantively disagree with it. I have simply heard Members cast aspersions on me, the Opposition and our motives. That is all fine. However, if you do not substantively disagree with it, let us get on and do it. <BR /> <BR />Gerry does not disagree with the merits of the reform but seems to think that it, in itself, is cosmetic. He also strongly disagrees with the communalism and tribalism that, he thinks, characterise these institutions.”
“However, what I will say is that some of the debate has moved towards a situation where, when we challenge and call for genuine partnership in this place, we are accused of, as it were, letting the side down: "You are only doing it because you are whatever". The implication is clear. That is not what we are doing. We have been clear in relation to —.”
“I do not believe that I accused you of being sectarian, Linda.”
“I will take an intervention in one second. Every party in the Chamber has, at one point or another, said that they agree substantively with reform, so let us make progress.”
“Others spoke about their party's position. Paula talked about Alliance, which has a long track record of talking about reform of the institutions. That is fair enough. She made those points very well. I am glad that Alliance will support our motion. <BR /> <BR />This is not the end of reform, and it is not, to be clear — let me repeat this — the most important reform. It is one of a suite of reforms that we need. I am glad that we now have progress on this.”
“We want to move away from one-upmanship and towards "jointery". Mr Buckley is entitled to have a dig at me. That is fine: I do not mind.”
“I will return to some of what we have heard today. Jonathan Buckley talked about one-upmanship. That is exactly what we want to move away from.”
“Here is the thing: we would support the motion, because we are not a tribal party that is consumed by Old Firm-style politics and sectarian point-scoring, as both your parties are. OK? We are a party that believes in a new North and a new Ireland, based on partnership. That, not the green-Lundying that we have heard from Sinn Féin and the carping that we have heard from the DUP, is in our DNA. I say that just to be clear about who we are, Mr Deputy Speaker.”
“I will give way briefly to the Chair of the AERC.”
“What Sinn Féin Members repeatedly said about no one having given evidence to that effect and any change being completely superficial is therefore completely untrue. <BR /> <BR />I will tackle some of the points that were made. There were reasonable points made that require a response, and I am happy to respond to them. Pat said that I am very rarely on time. I have, I think, attended the vast majority of AERC evidence sessions, and we have pushed the agenda. I look forward to working collectively with all Committee members and am happy to do so.”
“<BR /> <BR />Sinn Féin Members, starting with Pat, followed by Sinéad and Carál, stated that everyone who has given evidence to the Committee said that any change would be totally cosmetic and therefore should not happen. That is just not true. I will pick one example. At the beginning of her presentation, Professor Joanne McEvoy, an academic from the University of Aberdeen, said:”
“From the way in which people are talking about AERC, I did not realise that I had joined some form of papal conclave, or perhaps a fight club, that must not be talked about outside the room. AERC is a Committee like any other. We all sit on Statutory Committees on which we debate things and come to a collective view, or not. There is nothing illegitimate about Committee members taking a position and tabling a motion. <BR /> <BR />Pat Sheehan mentioned non-binding motions. We are the Opposition, and what we do is table Opposition business. You guys are the Executive parties. Introduce some legislation, and we will debate it. You have more power than we do to bring forward legislation.”
“I will give way in a second. I want to make some progress first. <BR /> <BR />I thought that this would happen and was almost amused to see it happen, yet I deeply resent the nationalist green-Lundying of the SDLP: the suggestion that we are doing this now because there is a Sinn Féin First Minister. We have taken the same position for years. Here is the thing: Martin McGuinness and John O'Dowd also took that position. If they took that position then, why is it wrong now? Let us grow up. Slurring us for tabling a motion on reform is not the way in which to defend your party's record in the Executive. <BR /> <BR />I will respond to a comment that was made repeatedly about the AERC.”
“<BR /> <BR />In opening the debate, the first thing that I said is that this is not the most important issue facing the Assembly but, rather, the least important. That is why we need to change the titles. They reinforce arbitrary division and an Old Firm style of politics from which we need to move away.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The debate has been spiky, as I thought it would be. Notable by its absence was a defence, from a single person, of the status quo. Not one person could offer a substantive defence of the status quo. Lots of people question my and the SDLP's motives, as the Opposition, for tabling the motion. Lots of people said that the change would not be substantive. Those are fair enough comments. People even made personal digs at me. That is grand: I am a big boy and can take it. Not one person, however, including anyone from the Sinn Féin and DUP Benches, could offer a substantive defence of the differential. The reason that they did not is because they cannot.”
“I will be very brief. I know that you will keep me right in that regard. Do you agree with Martin McGuinness, who said that the titles should be equalised?”
“I appreciate the Member's giving way. He talks about sectarianism and communalism being hardwired. Given that the differential in titles was a communal demand of the largest unionist party 20-odd years ago, why, if he is opposed to those things, is he sceptical about our trying to change it?”
“First of all, will he acknowledge that I actually proposed the AERC inquiry and that his party did not support it first time round? That is a point of fact. Secondly, just to clarify, does he agree with the former deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness that the titles should be equalised?”
“We think that lots of those issues can be dealt with quickly; in fact, some could be dealt with before the election. We will hear the detail of the amendment. The AERC inquiry should not stop us taking a clear view here and now on things that we can improve. I want an end to Old Firm politics, and I want us to be based on partnership, not primacy. <BR /> <BR />I commend the motion to the Assembly.”
“The North that I want to live in is one based on partnership and respect, not on a race to see who gets to be top dog; not on years of failing public services and trust and then a race for a title at the end; not on Old Firm politics. I want a culture of accountability, and I want politics based on partnership, not primacy. I genuinely do not know how, after all of this time, anybody could disagree with making the title "Joint". Let me be clear: this is just one small part of a programme of reform that needs to be driven through. We want to reverse the St Andrews veto referred to by Mr Butler; we want to make it easier to elect a Speaker when there is none — that is no comment on the current incumbent, Mr Speaker; and we want to look a range of other things.”
“No wonder the public have lost trust in our politics; no wonder we have a crisis in accountability. Part of what we are trying to do as the official Opposition is to create a culture of accountability in our politics and a culture of partnership — something that, as Robbie Butler said, we endeavoured to create in 1998 — not to continue the stand-off politics that we have at the minute.”
“John O'Dowd also said — I think that I am right in quoting him on this — that the differential in titles was a "slip-up" in the negotiations by my party, the SDLP. Whether John is right about that, we are happy to work now to redress the situation, starting with today's motion. I hope that the Finance Minister's party still feels the same way, because it is time to move our political debate away from symbolism and towards substance. <BR /> <BR />In the time that we have often fixated on that title, our health service has stagnated; our crumbling water infrastructure has got worse; and our environmental crisis, including that at Lough Neagh, has become an emergency. All of those things have stagnated and got worse while the focus at election time, often with the willing complicity of the media, has been a single word in a job title.”
“It was not just Martin McGuinness, the longest-serving joint First Minister, who held that view but the shortest-serving one. The current Minister of Finance, John O'Dowd, was deputy First Minister for just over a month in 2011. Back in 2009, John O'Dowd said:”
“Of course, that is why Michelle O'Neill's election as First Minister two years ago carried with it real symbolism that I have always acknowledged, even though she had substantively held the role before. The spell of "residual primacy" should now have been broken. That sacred cow of hard-line unionism should have been slaughtered. It is time to move our political debate away from symbolism and towards accountability. <BR /> <BR />I agree with the former deputy First Minister — the former joint First Minister — the late Martin McGuinness, who was correct when he said that the titles should be equalised to reflect the equality of the roles. As the person to occupy the First Ministers' office for the longest time, which he did for a decade, he knew what he was talking about.”
“In 2011, Peter Robinson explicitly and repeatedly warned of the risk of having a republican First Minister. After the Assembly election of that year, he gloried in the fact that Northern Ireland continued to have a unionist First Minister. Just a few years before that, his predecessor, Ian Paisley, even while enjoying a famously warm public relationship with Martin McGuinness, pointedly and quite patronisingly referred to his joint officeholder, whose agreement he required for even routine matters, as his "deputy". No wonder there emerged a belief, heard regularly in the media, on doorsteps and in conversations around kitchen tables and in pubs, that the DUP would refuse even to tolerate the idea of a nationalist or republican First Minister.”
“I will give a quick answer: yes. I dealt with that intervention fairly comprehensively. I will come on to some of the reforms that the SDLP proposes in addition to that measure, which is just one of a suite of reforms that we want to drive forward. <BR /> <BR />As a result of the effect of residual primacy, the difference of a single word has become, in many ways, an emblem of the strangeness and dysfunction that have plagued the institutions. On too many occasions, that strange, antiquated relic of supremacy — that shibboleth — has been magnified in our political debate, especially at election times. It must be said that that has been the preserve of unionist parties, in particular the DUP, which has returned to the well of tribalism with predictable regularity, sometimes subtly and sometimes not so subtly.”
“<BR /> <BR />There was never any question that, when it came to formalising the agreement, the roles would not be equal, but the then leader of the Ulster Unionist Party stipulated — this is in all the written accounts of the negotiations — that there had to be a difference in the two titles. In recent evidence to the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, of which, I should declare, I am a member, former deputy First Minister, agreement negotiator and, of course, former leader of my party Mark Durkan indicated that the stipulation to have different titles may have represented a desire by the main unionist party to retain some form of what was termed "residual primacy" as a means of better selling other difficult compromises to the unionist electorate, and that residual —.”
“In March 1998, only weeks before the Good Friday Agreement was signed, two best friends from different traditions, Philip Allen and Damien Trainor, were shot dead in the Railway Bar in Poyntzpass by sectarian killers from the Loyalist Volunteer Force. As a statement of unity of purpose and of collective revulsion, David Trimble and Séamus Mallon went to the village together to express the outrage felt by our entire community. Before it had been formalised in an agreement, Trimble and Mallon visually embodied and performed the powerful, transformative idea of partnership: two people in a joint office embodying a shared purpose in a place that had been defined by division.”