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“Clearly, however, the regulatory and enforcement regime for all those watercourses and marine environments is way out of date ecologically and, indeed, economically.”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 23 of 119.
“The only way to directly collapse these institutions is for one of the two major designated parties to resign that office and then refuse to appoint a replacement. Neither of those individuals, nor their parties, has ever given me that commitment. That speaks to a fundamental problem with the way our system works. It is why the motion is necessary, and it speaks to dysfunction. However, that is not the only thing that is dysfunctional about the way that our politics works. <BR /> <BR />Our amendment is an important one. It is about accountability. Yes, it is about holding Executive parties to account. We make no apology for that, because, as I said, one of the most important bits of institutional and political reform that has happened here is the creation of an official Opposition.”
“Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. It is one of the final motions before we break up for Christmas, and, in many ways, it is fitting because, since we came back in February last year after our two-year forced absence — forced by one party, as it had been forced by a different party previously — in one sense, as an official Opposition, we represent one of the bits of institutional reform that has happened. I hope that — perhaps I am not the one to judge — we have been relatively successful, or the idea of opposition has been successful. As leader of the Opposition, the first thing that I did was challenge the newly appointed First Minister and deputy First Minister not to resign their offices.”
“On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will make two brief points of order. First, I mentioned earlier that the House had debated a very similar motion and indicated that the House had supported it: it did not, as some Members abstained. I wanted to correct the record in that regard. I am happy to do that, unlike others who are happy not to correct records. <BR /> <BR />Secondly, I wanted to record that a majority in the House have now given their clear view that there is a need for a European Commission office in Belfast. The public will draw their conclusions about what the House supports.”
“If the Minister is not going to reform the surrender principle — I accept that it is a challenge to reform that — will he at least look at establishing a licensing authority? The system is totally opaque and cannot continue the way it is.”
“If you will indulge me, Mr Speaker: this place is some craic. Sinn Féin asks this question today, but it opposed the review that I secured in law four years ago. It did not vote for it. The Minister and his party, who are now not doing anything about it, did vote for it. This place is bonkers. I am proud to have been the most consistent champion of reforming the way in which our licensing system works. <BR /> <BR />People in lots of small towns and villages across Northern Ireland will not be able to go to the pub over Christmas because the pub has shut. The pub has shut because an off-sales has had to open, which means that people will go in and buy big slabs of beer and drink it in far-too-large quantities in their house.”
“Deputy First Minister, there is nothing laboured about holding you to account for what your party does. Today, you have failed to give me a commitment on a multi-year Budget and on institutional reform, both of which are essential. Your party claims to want to make Northern Ireland work, but your actions suggest anything but that. In sincerely wishing you and your colleagues a merry Christmas, may I say that, if a ghost appears before you or your colleagues on Christmas Eve — the ghost of Christmas yet to come — and shows you a vision of a new Ireland, you should reflect on whether your party's actions have helped to hasten the arrival of that day?”
“Speaking of collaboration rather than division, deputy First Minister, the Hallett inquiry/COVID inquiry was scathing about the two big parties, particularly your party's use of cross-community vetoes to block public health measures. You were a special adviser in TEO at that point: were you involved? Did you support and advocate the use of those cross-community vetoes? Do you stand by them now? If not, do you agree that the inquiry has illustrated the need for fundamental reform of how this place works?”
“I appreciate the Member's giving way, and, in the spirit of debate, I will be brief. He points out that the UK is outperforming some eurozone countries, and that is true. Will he also acknowledge that Northern Ireland is outperforming the UK, despite what his party would deem to be the imposition of the appalling sea border?”
“We are looking for practical solutions to improve things for people in the here and now, and that could include EU observer status in the European Parliament and, yes, a European Commission office in Belfast. In the future, I want us to be back in the European Union, and there is no reason why we cannot have better representation and accountability in the here and now. I support the motion and commend our amendment to the Assembly.”
“No, I will not give way. If the Education Minister had not pushed his luck in taking so much time, I would be able to give way to more people. <BR /> <BR />The best future for Northern Ireland is in a new Ireland, back inside the EU. The SDLP is the most consistently pro-European party in the Chamber and will keep making that case. I welcome today's motion, and we have added our amendment to it, which seeks to support an European Commission office in Belfast. I only wish that the DUP would finally face up to the consequences of its actions, the consequences of the Brexit that it supported and the consequences of everything that it has done over the past decade.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Members opposite are not fans of this UK Government; they do not seem to be fans of any UK Government, which is ironic, because they do not want us to leave the UK. The position of the DUP appears to be that —”
“I will not give way because your colleague's intervention took up so much time that I do not have enough time. <BR /> <BR />Specifically, in the here and now — I am very flattered to debate a very similar motion to the one that stood in my name a few months ago — our amendment adds something very practical: a European Commission office. What could be wrong with that? I want business groups, farmers and others who are affected by the consequences of Brexit to be able to say to the European Commission, "Actually, lads, can we engage on how that is being implemented? Can we have a bit of a conversation about that?" A European Commission office in Belfast would not jeopardise anybody's constitutional position; it would be rational and it would be a protection.”
“The only place where it is automatic is right here. Therefore, for all those reasons, we have specific rights.”
“They can answer for it. Mr Frew laughs. He laughs because his position is indefensible. <BR /> <BR />Let us go back to the main thrust of the motion and the amendment: better representation for Northern Ireland's farmers and businesses on how EU law affects us. Why not? Even if you are a unionist, that makes sense. <BR /> <BR />The final point is that I aspire to full membership of the European Union, and I acknowledge that unionists do not. We are guaranteed automatic re-entry into the EU after a referendum on a new Ireland; that is guaranteed to the people of Northern Ireland. We can take that power into our hands, and that is unique. The people of Scotland cannot do that, and Ukraine, which has been bombarded by Vladimir Putin, does not have that power, and many of those people want to join the EU. That right is not automatic.”
“Members across the Chamber say, "It is servile", as if we want to be in the service of the EU. Those are the same people who, last week, moaned and groaned about everything that the UK Government were doing to them — "the awful British Government that forced an awful Budget on us. Isn't it terrible, but we have to stay inside the UK as it is currently constituted.". It is the worst thing in the world to even talk about leaving the UK. They are silent now, because it is awful for me to aspire to rejoining the EU, and a united Ireland would have exactly the same vote at the European Council as every other EU member state, but we have to stay in the UK as it is currently constituted, where we, in the Chamber, can huff and puff about how much we hate the UK's Budget but can do very little about it. That is their preference, not mine.”
“The best thing that we could have is full-blown EU membership via a new Ireland. They do not want to go there. That is fair enough — it is their position — but EU observer status in the new Parliament would at least give us that opportunity —.”
“First, as noted in the ‘Our European Future’ paper, we are distinct within the EU. First, by dint of birthright, even before Brexit, the protocol, the awful Windsor framework and all the stuff that the Members opposite hate so much, people here had an automatic right of citizenship in this part of Ireland. In fact, I should say in this part of the UK, because it is the only part of the UK where people, by birthright, have EU citizenship. <BR /> <BR />My second point is consistently made by the DUP members opposite: we are bound by EU law. They keep telling us about how we are bound by EU law, and how awful that is, specifically in relation to goods. While I do not think that it is awful, by all means, we need the opportunity to scrutinise, lobby and test, and what better opportunity could we have than through observer status?”
“That is not how the Good Friday Agreement or, indeed, the St Andrews Agreement works, so that is a factual fallacy that pro-Brexit politicians have constantly pushed. <BR /> <BR />To come back to the point, a majority of people in Northern Ireland supported us, that is, the UK, remaining part of the EU. We were dragged out against our will. I will not go through all that history, but it is why I am a politician here, and I am sure that the DUP is delighted by that. Our best future is not in the UK as it is currently constituted but in a new Ireland inside the EU, and I will relentlessly make that case. <BR /> <BR />However, in the here and now, — as Ciara Ferguson said — there are a number of specific reasons why Northern Ireland deserves and should have EU observer status.”
“Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. That was not a short intervention. Clearly nothing is happening in the Northern Ireland education system if the Education Minister can afford to come in here to debate our European motion. That is fine. <BR /> <BR />I will respond, because I believe in responding in debates. There were two points from the Education Minister. He said that this place proceeds on "consensus". It proceeds on the basis of our having inclusive, pluralist government respect for one another. It does not proceed on the basis that our constitutional future is decided by cross-community consensus. That would not work, because, right now, we are still part of the UK. I do not consent to that, because I want a new Ireland.”
“I will give way to the Education Minister in one minute. Further to what I was saying, the majority of the people of Northern Ireland voted for us to remain. <BR /> <BR />I will come back to that point, because it is germane to our amendment. I give way.”
“This is about two things: first, Sinn Féin imitating our policy, which I am happy about — it has been happening for years, we are flattered by it and that is grand; we are all on the same page on that — and, secondly, the absurdity of the DUP tabling a petition of concern on a motion that is not only non-binding but that has already been given the will of the Assembly. Regardless of whether you like it or not, a majority of Members has already supported the thrust of the motion.”
“<BR /> <BR />I am, however, slightly surprised at the DUP pulling the stunt today of tabling a petition of concern on a non-binding motion when it did not do so six months ago on our motion. Even if the petition of concern is successful after a cooling-off period, not only will it have no effect, because it is giving an indication of the Assembly's will, but it will not matter, because the Assembly voted in favour of the topic only six months ago. The DUP did not table a petition of concern then.”
“We are also clear that the only way for Northern Ireland to rejoin the European Union is via a new Ireland. That is because we have the unique right of automatic re-entry. It is also because British politics looks strikingly and infinitesimally unlikely to move in the direction of a full-blown rejoining of the European Union, even if, although I hope it that does, there is progress towards greater alignment and membership of the single market and the customs union. Even that currently looks unlikely. Therefore, having moved an almost identical motion six months ago, I am more than happy to support this one. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so, obviously, we are keen and delighted to debate this motion today.”
“<BR /> <BR />To be clear, those who are not in favour of our rejoining the European Union via a new Ireland should be, because they have said repeatedly, "You should be in favour of us addressing some of the issues to do with the democratic deficit that have arisen as a result of our being bound by a corpus of EU law on the single market for goods and a couple of other discrete areas". One does not guarantee the other, but we are clear that our vision is for a new Ireland that is back inside the European Union.”
“I will not hold it up, because I know that we are not supposed to brandish props, but, in front of me, I have a paper that we produced a year ago called 'Our European Future'. In it, we in the SDLP set out in detail our vision for our European future in the short term, meaning how we will achieve the like of European Parliament observer status in order to improve our responses to some of the questions and dilemmas that people have raised about our post-Brexit arrangements and to build for a European future back inside the European Union.”
“We, obviously, have engaged with our Irish MEPs on that.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to speak to the motion, with which we enthusiastically agree. We are so much in agreement with it that we pre-empted it by six months by putting down basically the same motion, albeit today's motion is updated with the reference to a letter calling for observer status — Sinn Féin MEPs had a part in that — which I strongly welcome.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting my point of order, which is pursuant to the ruling that you just gave us on the petition of concern. What import does a petition of concern have on what is a non-binding private Member's motion? Further, will you confirm that, even if the petition of concern were successful after the cooling-off period, it would not negative an almost verbatim motion that was moved by the official Opposition some months ago and that was not the subject of a petition of concern by any party? Will you provide clarity on those two points?”
“Minister, it is clear that, in the UK Government, there just is not a basic understanding of how patterns of land ownership, multigenerational family farms and higher land values affect here differentially. You say that you have written to the NIO and DEFRA, and I appreciate that. Has a clear, worked example been given to the Treasury of how this place is fundamentally different? If they still do not listen, what consideration is being given to some kind of intervention in the multi-year Budget that allows you and other Ministers to respond to the clear frustration among farming families?”
“I am very pleased that the Minister and his officials acted on that, and that we have that provision in the Bill. <BR /> <BR />We will, I hope, have regulations in the new year after Royal Assent that give effect to those certificates. The certificates will offer people a small but deeply meaningful acknowledgement of their loss; enable them to have conversations with other family members; and enable them to remember their loss but also remember something and someone very poignant for them. <BR /> <BR />On behalf of my party, having already spoken on behalf of the Committee, I am pleased to mark the Bill's Final Stage. I thank the Minister and my Committee colleagues, and I thank the Assembly, which will pass the Bill.”
“They were very clear on that. <BR /> <BR />However, the more novel and, in a sense, historic bit of today's legislation is the creation of the power to issue baby loss certificates, which will allow people who experience baby loss as a result of the ending of a pregnancy before 24 weeks to acknowledge that via a certificate. That is often one of the most traumatic things that happens in people's lives. They respond to it in a range of ways but, in many cases, they experience life-changing grief and sometimes on more than one occasion. They, via the Forget-me-not Group, gave the Committee extraordinarily poignant, thoughtful and brave evidence. We were pleased to be able to come together as a Committee and advocate strongly for the inclusion in the Bill of a provision on baby loss certificates.”
“In the Assembly, we often engage in contentious debate. Indeed, I often engage in contentious debate with the Minister because that is my job and his job, but it is also our job to, where we can, work together to pass legislation on a cross-party basis that will bring meaningful change for the people whom we serve. The Bill will bring meaningful change. <BR /> <BR />In broad terms, the Bill will do two things. It will make permanent the provisions of the coronavirus laws that we debated here nearly six years ago and that created emergency changes, including the electronic registration of deaths and stillbirths. All the people who work in that area — funeral directors, in particular — were clear that it is much better for bereaved families, and indeed for them regarding speed of process, to make those powers permanent.”
“I pay tribute to all families that have suffered baby loss. The passing of the legislation will show that their loss will never be forgotten. Their voices have helped to shape a piece of legislation that has compassion and recognition at its heart. As I indicated at the previous stages, the Committee very much welcomed the Bill and the opportunity to work with the Department to scrutinise it and make our contribution. We gave a clear indication that we wanted to see a provision for baby loss certificates in the Bill, so we are delighted. I think that I can say that on behalf of the whole Committee as the Bill is moves through its Final Stage. <BR /> <BR />I will say a few words in a party capacity, but I will largely echo what I said as Committee Chair, namely that this is very positive.”
“I also congratulate the Minister for introducing the Bill, and thank him for working and engaging with the Committee on it to, hopefully, get a piece of legislation that is robust and brings real change to interested parties and people, particularly those who have been affected by the traumatic event of baby loss. The passing of this legislation will be an example of parties working together to achieve change.”
“The Department confirmed to the Committee that a charge could not and would not be introduced without the approval of the House. Any potential charge would have to be introduced via subordinate legislation through the draft affirmative procedure, allowing the statutory rule to be debated and amended in the Assembly. The Committee, therefore, agreed to proceed without its own amendment. <BR /> <BR />There were, of course, other amendments proposed by Members who engaged with the Department. We noted the Minister's amendment, which was passed at Further Consideration Stage, albeit the Committee did not take a formal position on that amendment. I note the contributions of former and current members of the Committee in working with the Department to achieve a resolution. I thank them and acknowledge that.”
“As Members will be aware, the House previously supported the introduction of baby loss certificates, and the Committee worked on a cross-party basis to ensure that the power to produce regulations to formally enact certificates was included in the Bill. There was not just consensus but unanimity in the Committee that such a scheme be introduced. The Committee's decisions were, therefore, mostly centred on some of the potential provisions, most of which will obviously come via regulations that will be brought at a later date to the Assembly. <BR /> <BR />There were particular discussions around the potential for a monetary charge for supplementary baby loss certificates or, I suppose, any baby loss certificate. That is what we discussed and interrogated.”
“The changes allowed the registration of deaths and stillbirths by telephone without an informant's signature and the electronic transfer of registration documents between the parties in the process. The Chamber subsequently approved those regulations on a number of occasions. Members of the Committee were, therefore, well versed on the use of the clauses. The Committee's deliberations were, therefore, mostly of a technical nature to ensure the robustness of the primary legislation. During its evidence, the National Association of Funeral Directors outlined how the arrangements were working. It gave its support for the arrangements and was eager for them to continue in perpetuity. The Committee had no objections to that part of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Clause 11 gives the Department the power to introduce a baby loss certificate scheme.”
“<BR /> <BR />I note that the Committee managed to complete the Bill's Committee Stage well in advance of the date outlined in the extension motion, which demonstrated that Committees can use extension motions not as targets, as they are sometimes accused of being, but rather as a limit to expedite thorough consideration. <BR /> <BR />I will go through some of the broad issues that were considered during the Committee Stage. Clauses 2 to 10 relate to the recording of deaths and stillbirths and the repeal of the temporary provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020. The Committee previously agreed a number of statutory rules (SRs) under the provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020 that related to the recording of deaths and stillbirths.”
“The Committee carefully considered the views of all those who provided written evidence, and, on behalf of the Committee, I thank all those who took the time to provide detailed evidence to inform and support the Committee in its consideration of the Bill. That was especially important for this Bill, as its provisions had not previously been consulted on, and it was important that the Committee gave the time to ensure that the process was right. <BR /> <BR />I also offer thanks on behalf of the Committee to the Department, which was constructive in its engagement and robust at times. That included the Registrar General and his team. The Forget-me-not Group and the National Association of Funeral Directors provided oral evidence to the Committee: their input was extremely useful and appreciated.”
“I will speak on the Finance Committee's scrutiny of the Bill, but, first, I thank the Minister for his comments today. It is a really important and welcome day. <BR /> <BR />One of the most important issues that the Committee considered in respect of the Bill was the immensely sensitive topics that it touches on: the registration of deaths and stillbirths and the introduction of baby loss certificates. The Committee requested evidence from a range of interested organisations and carried out a detailed online survey, to which it received 40 responses from individuals, organisations and representative bodies. The responses included highly emotive personal testimonies from individuals.”
“I appreciate the Minister's giving way. I have a specific question. Earlier, he referred to the options paper and business case that he got from officials. Is he willing to either publish that business case or, at least, share it with the Committee, so that it can be examined and unpacked by its members?”
“Public trust has already been referenced in relation to the teaching profession. We can only aspire to have the levels of trust that the teaching profession has. It is our job to scrutinise the Bill properly. We cannot endorse it at this point, although we will not divide the House on it. I look forward to hearing about the Committee's scrutiny.”
“I am happy to come back to the point. I was responding to an intervention. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, I say that we need to do our job as legislators really carefully and be mindful not just of the fact that this place is down nearly as much as it is functioning but of the fact that we have passed legislation here and then been scundered about it afterwards. We have been made to look like fools and not up to doing proper legislative scrutiny, so it is important that we are robust and put concerns on the record. I trust that, when the Bill goes to the Committee, it will be robust. I am not saying that it will not be; I am not prejudging the Committee process. I have no qualms about saying that there is a particular onus on the Assembly, given the abysmal levels of public trust in it.”
“Yes, indeed. I was responding to an intervention.”
“I will come back to the point about the Bill, Mr Speaker.”
“I am not throwing any muck at those individuals; I am simply saying that those were controversial things that were done by the Minister, OK? I have dealt with that. I do not want to get into a whole slanging match about it, but I will not back away from being honest about that.”
“No, I am not throwing muck at all. The Member decided to intervene after I had moved on to another point, but since he raised it — I was not going to make a whole big deal out of it — an extraordinary process was used to appoint the chief executive of the Education Authority. There was a clear, very sharp division on the board of the Education Authority about whether that was appropriate. That was a controversial matter and was said to be so at the time. Subsequently, the chair of the Education Authority was appointed, and he was a serving DUP politician. He is a very personable man who is a committed public servant, but he is a serving DUP politician with very strong views, and he was inserted on to the board of the Education Authority as chair. Those were not uncontroversial things, to be clear, Mr Brooks.”
“If that is an improvement and if there can be safeguards, and if Committee members can be assured that that is the right way to go, that will be useful. <BR /> <BR />We have concerns about the Bill, but we acknowledge that it will proceed today to Committee Stage. We will not divide the House on it. We want to see a robust Committee Stage in which those questions are asked. I will also make the point again, and that is why —.”
“Sometimes a public appointments process, with all its safeguards, is more appropriate than an elected process, but that is a fundamental change that needs to be understood. It is also true to say — I say this in the most constructive way possible — that there have been a couple of examples where the Minister has used — I will not say "abused" — the public appointments process in ways that have, to put it mildly, raised eyebrows. In the Education Authority, the chair and chief executive did not arrive in their current posts entirely without controversy and through a completely straightforward and unremarkable public appointments process. That will be a question that Committee members will want to interrogate, along with the potential consequences of having a public appointments process rather than an elected process for the GTCNI.”
“I do not think that I am being too churlish when I say that it is fair to say that not all those initiatives have been overwhelmingly welcomed by the teaching profession. I encourage them — the teaching unions, and teachers more broadly — to engage with the Bill in a constructive way and not simply in an oppositional way, though we are the Opposition. If they have robust concerns, they need to communicate them to all elected representatives. <BR /> <BR />In relation to the public appointments process, some people will query the replacement of an elected system — perhaps people can see in a superficial way how having people appointed will create a slightly different dynamic from having people who are elected.”