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“Clearly, however, the regulatory and enforcement regime for all those watercourses and marine environments is way out of date ecologically and, indeed, economically.”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 26 of 119.
“I will not give way, because I will not get another minute, but I am happy to debate it in another place. <BR /> <BR />I have not heard anything about article 14 being triggered by the Executive. The First Minister was here earlier. Are the Executive doing anything via the NSMC to raise those issues? There are practical solutions to these problems. The ultimate one is, of course, to rejoin the EU via a new Ireland, but, in the meantime, let us get real about solutions.”
“That allows the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) to raise specific concerns to the Joint Committee on the operation of the protocol. The deputy First Minister was not even here.”
“Many economists think that that is to do with us being shielded from a significant number of the consequences of Brexit. That is a reality with which the DUP will not engage. Why has Northern Ireland grown faster than every other part of the UK over the past number of years? That is a remarkable thing. <BR /> <BR />We should also deal with the disruption to people moving across the island of Ireland, whether they are French students who are backpacking in Galway but cannot now easily come to Derry or tourists on coach trips to the Giant's Causeway. Those are all consequences of Brexit. One way to deal with that, rather than taking Dr Aiken's nuclear option of using article 16, is very simple, and it is to use article 14 of the original protocol, now the Windsor framework.”
“I would love to do that in Northern Ireland, Brussels or Dublin. Any of those would be great to me. I wish, however, that the Member would face up to the consequences of the Brexit that she challenges. She is a former MEP, so she knows these things all too well. <BR /> <BR />That is all set out in our policy paper. More representation for the North in the here and now and for its businesses and workers who face those EU rules can, and should, happen. <BR /> <BR />There is a range of other practical consequences of Brexit. The consequences for traders and people who use veterinary medicine need to be examined, but so, too, do the consequences for the all-island economy. As Mr Kearney rightly said, the all-island economy is growing. Northern Ireland has massively outperformed Britain in economic growth.”
“I can see Mrs Dodds complaining vociferously about all the evil EU things. Why not bring the EU Commission to Belfast? It could set up an office. I will give way to the Member. Will you make it relatively concise, so that I can have a bit of time left in which to respond?”
“We want to be back in the European Union, although I think that that will happen only via a new Ireland, if we are honest with ourselves. In the meantime, I want to have representation for Northern Ireland in the European Parliament so that unionists, nationalists, the left and others can make representations there on behalf of our constituents and businesses. We should also have an EU Commission office in Belfast. Why not? That would not change the constitutional position, given that we had an EU Commissioner —”
“It is not because the SDLP, Sinn Féin, the Irish Government, the Alliance Party or some inchoate mass of liberals are trying to do down unionism; it is because there are cattle that graze in both Cavan and Fermanagh. That is how our agriculture works, so we have to have an integrated SPS zone on the island. Our food production is integrated. Cattle that produce milk in Donegal are processed in County Tyrone. That is literally the way in which our agriculture system works. That covers the comprehensive veterinary agreement. <BR /> <BR />Number two is about how we interact with the EU. That is mentioned in the motion. I totally agree that we need better mechanisms. Lots of this was talked about in Lord Murphy's report. I am unabashed about saying that we are the most pro-EU party in this place.”
“They are just saying, "Turn the table over, because we are angry about all this". <BR /> <BR />I am angry about Brexit. I do not like the constitutional disruption of Brexit, and neither do lots of the people who vote for my party. However, it is about practical solutions. I will list a few, none of which are mentioned in the motion. Number one relates to most of the checks on food and veterinary medicine. Mr Tennyson mentioned the comprehensive veterinary agreement, which we had called for for ages. That is a critical part of softening the burdens. Let us be absolutely clear: it is not possible, in practical terms, for England or GB to be outside the EU's SPS rules and for Northern Ireland to follow. Why is that?”
“There are small retailers who need to move partials and who now face new barriers because of that. That is a fact. Clearly, there are questions around veterinary medicine. That is a fact, too, and we do not diminish it. We have never diminished any of the consequences of Brexit, and those are both consequences of Brexit. The electronic travel authorisation (ETA), which is now required for the 70% of tourists who come to Northern Ireland via Dublin, is another consequence of Brexit. That would not have happened had the UK not left the EU. Those are all practical consequences that we need to resolve. How we do that is the next question, and that will happen via a number of means. None of those has been outlined in the DUP motion or in the remarks that we just heard from Dr Aiken.”
“I have talked many times in the Chamber about my personal and professional experience. I could rehearse that and give you guys all the gory details of how the interests of this island, including those of the North and of unionists, were ignored systematically throughout the Brexit process, but I will not do that, because I have only five minutes. We have talked about it before and will talk about it again. <BR /> <BR />We will not support the motion. To be substantive, however, I will go through the various bits of the motion in good faith in order to explain why we will not support it. First are the practical disruptions that are felt by sectors of our economy, specifically east-west, that exist. We have never trivialised them and have always sought practical solutions to them.”
“Somebody asked who Bob Dylan is: he is a famous musician from the United States. The debate is almost like a greatest hits, except that it is not as great that as those that Dylan will be playing, we hope, on Wednesday night. It is the same old stuff that we have heard before. <BR /> <BR />In many ways, I am happy to play those tunes. I came into the Assembly because of Brexit. I literally would not have been here without it.”
“Bob Dylan is playing in Belfast on Wednesday night.”
“Minister, I agree with my colleague Sinéad McLaughlin that, sadly, 40 years on from the Anglo-Irish Agreement and 60 years on from Paisley throwing snowballs at Lemass outside this Building, the NSMC has become a bit of a dusty irrelevance. The statement is full of "noting" this and "technical updates" on that. I will ask you specifically about the North/South interconnector, as it has come up today. Sinn Féin's position on that appears to be a bit like that of 'The Wombles' — underground, overground — and who knows whether it will ever be built? You are the First Minister in this jurisdiction, but yours is an all-Ireland party and you guys make great play of that. Do you support the North/South interconnector being built overground if needs be? When will it be constructed?”
“— but that cannot be at the cost of our future.”
“As someone who wants to build a new Ireland, I am not willing to trade off a conversation about a new Ireland at the price of IRA memorials, because that is the past. Though that past exists, and it needs to be understood and talked about sensitively, the conversation that I am most interested in is about the future and moving on from that difficult past. The past should be understood, and people who suffered need to be able to remember that suffering —”
“It is said in a slightly trivial way: I do not think that people should be prevented from remembering or reminiscing about things that they or their community experienced. Indeed, real, bitter pain and loss needs to be remembered. However, it is also the case that we cannot have a situation where we legitimise past deeds at the risk of the future. <BR /> <BR />For example, in talking about the future, it is important for unionist politicians that those who speak on Armistice Day are able to remember people whom they lost in that context. However, I do not think that it is legitimate to put up the insignia of the Parachute Regiment, which was done by some DUP politicians, when the Bloody Sunday families, who were innocent victims, were hearing the judgements at the High Court in Belfast.”
“We then come on to the question of public memorials. We have a contested history: that was said by Deirdre Hargey, and she is correct. We do have a contested history. There is however an onus on all of us, as public representatives, to create structures that enable us to move on from that history. There is a famous Brian Friel play about memory, identity, language and history. It is called 'Translations', and many Members will be familiar with it. In it, there is a famous line where a character says:”
“When we talk about these things and use words like "communities", we should not assume that all the people in those working-class communities were supporters of the IRA, the UVF or the UDA, because, in many cases, those were people who suffered at the hands of those organisations. When we make these broad statements about remembering our dead, we should be careful that we do not simply conflate communities with individuals. All individuals, whatever organisations they were involved in, whatever path they took in life, whatever reason they died or however they died, their family and those immediately around them and who cared about them deserve to remember them in a solemn and respectful way.”
“When it comes to commemorating and remembering our dead — people that we have personally lost or we have lost in a close communal sense — it is not the same thing, in my view, as broader society being willing to tolerate any form of commemoration of organisations that those individuals were part of or, indeed, acts that were committed by those organisations. I recognise that, by definition, the people who suffered the most in the conflict in Northern Ireland were in working-class communities. Almost inevitably, those communities were also the people from whom paramilitary organisations drew their membership, whether it was the Provisional IRA, the INLA or loyalist groups. That is true, but it is also true that those communities suffered most at the hands of those organisations.”
“Nearly everybody has talked about the need, and indeed, the solemn onus on all of us to respect communities' and families' right to remember their dead. Remembering our own loved ones is profoundly personal. It is very distinctively Irish and of this island, and when I say "Irish and of this island", I mean that it stretches through all our communities, including British unionist communities. We take it very seriously on this island in all our traditions. <BR /> <BR />It is important to say a couple of things, though. In this debate, we often conflate the public and the private.”
“I will not speak for very long, but I am pleased to speak on today's motion, I thank Ms Bradshaw of the Alliance Party for moving it. We broadly support the motion. I have certain concerns about both amendments, particularly the DUP one, which removes and softens the requirement to audit memorials on public land and talks about considering an audit. I do not know why that needs to be softened, but there may be broad consensus on that. If our party had drafted the motion or the amendments, we would not have used that precise language, but that is the nature of these things. <BR /> <BR />Lots of what I will say has been said very eloquently already by my colleague Sinéad McLaughlin. I also agree with things that have been said by many Members who have spoken.”
“on her election, and we hope to hear more about her plans for the whole island. This is an important day for all of us. Thank you, President Higgins, and thank you, Sabina.”
“He also welcomed not just the artistic contribution but the intellectual contribution of people from the whole island, including those from a Protestant, unionist, British tradition in this part of the island. We owe him a great deal. We also owe his wife, Sabina, an immense debt. She has been an extraordinary servant alongside him. Spouses of people who are elected to office are not always given that credit. <BR /> <BR />Michael D Higgins continued the work of Presidents McAleese and Robinson in building bridges across the island. I hope and expect that President Connolly will continue that, and we wish her warm congratulations today. Comhghairdeas”
“He used Áras an Uachtaráin to do that, including through the many events that he staged around the decade of centenaries, the Machnamh 100 events and seminars that got academics, thinkers and writers from all over the island to reflect on our history. He was an extraordinary convener of ideas. <BR /> <BR />Michael D Higgins's love of the arts is particularly to his credit. I am grateful that Brian also mentioned the fact that he came to Belfast for the awarding of the freedom of the city of Belfast to Michael Longley, a close friend of Michael D Higgins who recently passed. Michael D Higgins represented the love of the arts that is such a distinctive part of the soul of our nation on this island — all of this island. Michael D Higgins proudly represented that.”
“and to championing the rights of new and marginalised communities on the island. All those things are true. <BR /> <BR />Michael D Higgins has also been an extraordinary voice for intellectual challenge and debate, and I want to reflect on that today, in addition to all his other qualities, including his ownership of the wonderful Bernese mountain dogs. Before and even after becoming a politician, he was a public intellectual and someone who was not afraid to engage in public debate and challenge. He often said that one of the gifts of being a democracy and being a republic is the challenge and gift of democratic debate, which is something that is to be constantly renewed and invested in.”
“for an extraordinary near decade and a half of service to the people of Ireland. I mean "Ireland" in the truest and broadest sense of the word — this whole island and all who feel an affinity with it, both here and abroad. <BR /> <BR />Michael D Higgins has been an extraordinary representative of the Republic. It has already been said and said persuasively that he was committed to social justice, the arts, an Ghaeilge”
“, Michael D Higgins, and to say, "Go raibh míle maith agat"”
“I thank Sinéad, who submitted the Matter of the Day, and thank you, Mr Speaker, for accepting it. I am really pleased that, today in the Assembly, we are able to give thanks to the outgoing uachtarán”
“You said that someone from the SDLP dismissed the centrality of the lough: was that a misspeak? Were you talking about another party?”
“If the position is that the First Minister and deputy First Minister cannot or will not agree, although they have never said that that is the case and that has never been articulated officially, does the Member agree that the First Minister should articulate clearly her party's position, ideally in the AERC, in order to explain where she wants reform to go? After all, she is the First Minister: the head of the Government.”
“I thank Mr Stewart for giving way. I am on that Committee with him: it is working broadly collegially, and I want to see it continue with that work. To be absolutely clear, I proposed the work stream in the first place. Some in the debate would suggest that the AERC is the Second Vatican Council. I am genuinely surprised at Members. I look forward to all the progress that will be made in that Committee. It is a Committee of the Assembly. It does not stop us giving a view about anything, in the same way as we are not prevented from giving a view on education, health or any other subject.”
“I appreciate the Chair of the Executive Office Committee giving way. I know that she and her party have been engaged in this for a long time. Is she as disappointed as I am that neither the First Minister nor the deputy First Minister or even the junior Ministers could be bothered to come along today to engage in the debate?”
“I appreciate Mr Gaston's giving way. I spent a lot of time in Committee scrutinising the Functioning of Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which his predecessor introduced, and I tabled amendments to it and worked with his predecessor on them. If Mr Givan is found to have broken that law — I cannot see how he could not be — will the Member support his leaving office?”
“As I have said in the Chamber repeatedly, there is nothing that prevents us from being clear about our intention to change the rules and to improve how this place works while retaining the core spirit of 1998. Let us improve that; let us improve ministerial accountability; and let us prevent these institutions from collapsing at the drop of a hat, because that looks closer to happening today than it did a month or a year ago. Let us get serious about reform.”
“The Good Friday Agreement was designed to be reformed and updated as we went along. Of course, it was changed fairly negatively in 2006. It was never supposed to be preserved in aspic. The key values need to stay there. The key value is that it exists and that we have inclusive institutions that deliver good government. They are not doing that now. That is the key point, and today's theatre has proven that again. We have had panto villain exploits from Minister Givan, who, I am sure, was delighted with some of what happened today, and his party colleagues defended him. That is fine. They have, I think, undermined trust yet again in these institutions, but they are not the only ones to have undermined trust in these institutions. Other parties, including the First Minister's party, have done that.”
“I will give way, but I do not have very much time left.”
“No, I do not agree with what the Member has just said. There is nothing to prevent us from having a discussion or taking evidence on the basis of positions that we already have. Those positions can be challenged — we can learn more; we can evolve our proposals — but we are not an academic study group. We are politicians. We are allowed to have positions.”
“The only reason that that is happening is that my party and I put down a proposal, supported by colleagues from the Alliance Party, which has also put down and moved its own proposals in that Committee. The proposals were not supported at first by either Sinn Féin or the DUP. Indeed, it was only when Sinn Féin changed its position that we were able to begin an inquiry into that in earnest. When we did a call for evidence on reform, Sinn Féin did not even respond. Nor, of course, did the DUP. So there is no evidence whatsoever that Sinn Féin is serious about institutional reform, none whatsoever thus far. Other than its slightly moving its position rhetorically, we have yet to see any meaningful, practical commitment to it. In the past, the DUP was —.”
“I say that because, frankly, the public really has had its patience tested beyond its natural limit by the antics of parties in this institution. The public is deeply distrustful of our politics and of the parties in it. <BR /> <BR />It is incumbent on all of us to get serious about reform. Since February last year, we have not yet got serious about reform. On the very first Opposition day that we had, way back in March last year, an amendment was successfully made to one of our motions, prioritising reform and calling for it to be pushed to the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, which is examining these issues and related issues, specifically in relation to institutional stability, right now.”
“They are people who clearly see that he misused his office, and today we proved, again, that we do not have enough power to hold Ministers such as Mr Givan, and others who break the rules, to account. <BR /> <BR />So what should we do? Our motion calls for a fundamental step change in reform. We want the support from the Assembly today to do that, and I state upfront that we will not support any amendments to the motion today. We do not believe that any of the amendments are proposed in good faith, and I will go on to explain why. If we do not get on and reform these institutions before the end of this mandate and prove to the public that we can meaningfully change the way that we do business, we will completely and permanently jeopardise trust in our ability to govern here.”
“When it comes to improving ministerial accountability, we have also set down particular things that we think should happen. There should be a legal duty on Ministers and their Departments to work collaboratively and across departmental silos. We should also look to removing some of the permanent barriers that exist to Ministers being held to account, because let me say again that a lot of people watching today's proceedings — those who have been outraged by the conduct of Minister Givan — are not simply people from what are called "nationalist backgrounds", or indeed people who are necessarily critical of the state of Israel in every particular circumstance.”
“Earlier, DUP Members, in responding, I think, very performatively, although perhaps they were being sincere in some of their responses, listed all the occasions on which Ministers from other parties — particularly from Sinn Féin, although they also mentioned members of my party and Ministers from the Alliance Party — had not been held to account. I assume from those remarks and contributions that those Members will support the Opposition motion, because the upshot of it is that it would make it easier to hold Ministers to account when they are found to have breached the ministerial code or, indeed, the law. <BR /> <BR />We are open-minded about precisely what reform looks like. There are a whole range of measures that we and other parties have proposed for reform to reduce the likelihood of institutional collapse.”
“I accept that there has been no finding against Mr Givan as yet of a breach of the ministerial code, but, even when there have been findings of breaches of the ministerial code, such as there were with other DUP Ministers last year, the cross-community voting provisions have prevented any meaningful censure. <BR /> <BR />To be clear, I am not talking about removing any or all forms of cross-community voting provision. I do not think that we are ready for that yet, although that does need to be reformed. What we are proposing today is that we need to remove the permanent barrier to any Minister's being held to account.”
“Our first Opposition day was devoted to the theme of reform and the need to progress meaningful change to the way in which these institutions work to, first, make them less likely to collapse; secondly, improve trust among the public in their being accountable and having good governance; and, thirdly, improve policy delivery overall, so that we can be more proud of these political institutions and the public can not just have more trust but have trust in the first place, because, as we know, trust is painfully low. One of the issues that causes people not to trust our political institutions is the feeling that, even when there is a clear and, frankly, overwhelming argument for censuring or holding to account an individual Minister, they are, effectively, immune from that because of the provisions that exist to protect them.”
“There is a crisis in trust in our politics that is systemic and threatens the long-term and even medium-term future of these institutions. Nobody should be in any doubt about that. <BR /> <BR />Since we entered Opposition nearly two years ago, we have been clear about the need to reform these institutions. We have made that one of the core themes of our opposition. The very first thing that I did as leader of the Opposition was to ask the First Minister and deputy First Minister to pledge not to resign their office for the duration of this term.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, we saw histrionic and fairly depressing scenes as the DUP Minister of Education, Mr Givan, sought to respond to legitimate and serious attempts to hold him to account for clear breaches of not just the ministerial code but the Civil Service code of ethics, the Functioning of Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021 and accepted 60-year-old UK foreign policy. He responded with deflection, arrogance and contempt to detailed points that were put to him by us and others in the Chamber. Perhaps we should have expected that; it was fairly well telegraphed that that would be his response and that of his party. However, it is clear — it was highlighted very starkly to the people who were watching — that there is a crisis of accountability in this society and in these political institutions.”
“Let me say first, Minister, that I welcome the fact that healthcare workers will get the pay settlement that they were promised, but, of course, they were promised that for years. Every year, they have had to threaten strike action, and every year, the money has to be found down the side of the Stormont sofa. They have to, effectively, beg and threaten industrial action, and, every year, your Department tells other Departments to live within their means. Minister, that is Polyfilla politics. We are now nearly two years into this mandate with no sign of a plan for funding pay settlements in the long term. Later this year, when we have a multi-year Budget, will there be a proper plan to fund pay parity over the long term, rather than treating healthcare workers in this way year after year? It is chaotic.”
“Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. During questions to the Executive Office, the deputy First Minister and her colleague Mr Brooks accused me of politicising the head of the Civil Service and the Civil Service in general by writing to the head of the Civil Service with questions about the Civil Service code that were raised by Mr Givan's trip, when the Chair of the Economy Committee, Phillip Brett, has also written to the head of the Civil Service, exactly as I have, and the Education Minister has, on occasions including today, publicised his permanent secretary's opinion. Is that appropriate commentary from DUP Members?”
“On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.”
“Minister, I am sure that most Members in the House will agree with your broad position, which is shared by other Ministers and, indeed, by the Chief Constable, that the Treasury should meet the reserve claim for the data breach. However, if we are to assume the worst from the Treasury, which is probably a good position to take, what planning is happening between you and the Finance Minister on a plan B?”