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“Clearly, however, the regulatory and enforcement regime for all those watercourses and marine environments is way out of date ecologically and, indeed, economically.”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 27 of 119.
“On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.”
“Deputy First Minister, you will never find me or my party trivialising the importance of remembrance and of Remembrance Day for so many people in this society and, indeed, on this island, but it is the case that many people feel that your party, which is the leading unionist party, has embarked, perhaps not by design, on a journey of fear, grievance and anger, particularly for unionist people in Northern Ireland. After the debate earlier today, can you genuinely reflect on that and move back to making some vague progress towards reconciliation?”
“That was a year ago. In the meantime, as you have said, road development, including that of the A5, has languished; there has been no investment in NI Water and no plan to invest in it; Casement Park lies unbuilt; and social housing lies unprogressed. Deputy First Minister, are you seriously telling us that, after a year, there has been no progress in delivering the investment strategy? Private meetings do not count. When will it be published?”
“Thank you, deputy First Minister. Almost exactly one year ago, you said:”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker, may I ask for your guidance? During the debate, Mr Kingston talked about business in the Finance Committee. To be clear — I am sure that you will agree — the business of Statutory Committees includes what is covered by that Department. In this case, the Civil Service code —”
“Sadly, you have neither. We support the motion.”
“Today, your party will protect you from your deserved fate, even though the majority in the Chamber have lost confidence in you. You will no doubt feel vindicated. You are already crowing with the smile of a panto villain, but you know, deep down, that, as is so often the case in your party, the victory will be pyrrhic, because more and more people will turn off politics in this place and look to an entirely different future. Mr Givan, if you had shame or sense, you would be gone by now.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Minister is not a stupid man, but he cannot resist provoking and outraging people. Even before the trip, he had pushed the envelope when it comes to politicising his Department. In the EA, he forced in a chief executive against the wishes of the EA board and forced in a serving DUP politician as chair of the Education Authority. He also had a permanent secretary leave in murky and unexplained circumstances. Minister, you and your colleagues have already begun deflecting and distracting from your appalling actions. Worse, Minister, you have tossed around the profound libel of antisemitism. <BR /> <BR />People from all backgrounds have got in touch with me to say that they are angry at your actions.”
“The content may not have mentioned the DUP by name, but it should have been obvious to the Minister, the special adviser, and, indeed, senior civil servants, including the permanent secretary, that a visit to occupied East Jerusalem was highly and profoundly controversial. <BR /> <BR />Add to all of that the extraordinary situation in which a unionist Minister conducted an official visit to a place that has been deemed by the UK Government to have been illegally occupied for the past six decades. That is the precise diplomatic equivalent of visiting a school in Russian-occupied Ukraine, in Luhansk or Crimea, with one of Vladimir Putin's officials. Minister, you are not a stupid man — you certainly believe yourself to be very smart — but, even if you do not care about Palestinian suffering, that was a moronic, stupid thing to do.”
“Under section 7 of the Functioning of Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021, he and all Ministers are obliged to ensure that official meetings are attended by at least one civil servant. The meeting has all the appearance of an official meeting: it was an official meeting. In my view, and that of the Opposition, he has clearly breached the Functioning of Government Act. Ironically, in the DUP's haste to outdo the TUV in offending people, it has broken a law that was introduced by the TUV. <BR /> <BR />We then come to the matter of Civil Service impartiality in the NICS code. He said that the permanent secretary has given him a clean bill of health. We have not seen that, but I am afraid it has all the credibility of one of Donald Trump's medical exams.”
“That communication is at the core of why we are here today. The Minister also posted a picture on his own account, which included a nameplate that described him as the "Minister of Education". <BR /> <BR />I want to be precise and clear about why we are here today because Mr Givan has been imprecise and inconsistent and spoken with a forked tongued. He confirmed last week that, in addition to the extraordinary social media posts, officials had been involved in setting up that meeting, so it was an official ministerial meeting. He shakes his head, but his nameplate was in front of him, and he said last week that his officials helped him to set up the meeting.”
“However, on 27 October, with the Minister having already been in Israel for several days, the Department of Education, at the Minister's instruction, posted a news story online and on social media about his visit to the Ofek School in occupied East Jerusalem, commending:”
“<BR /> <BR />Israel's bombardment of Gaza, following the appalling and evil atrocities of 7 October, unleashed, as I said, a wave of revulsion across the world, and it has tested the ability of language to capture horror and misery. Today's debate is not simply about that. I do not think that there is any debate left to have on the justification of that, but had Mr Givan simply embarked upon a tour as a private MLA and a DUP representative, as he first claimed that he had done, we would probably not be here today. He would have angered and appalled people — perhaps, much to his delight, because that was the entire point — but that would not necessarily have been anything new.”
“We are not here solely because of Paul Givan MLA's views on Israel, which I and others in the Chamber find reprehensible and abhorrent. Nor are we are here solely to debate Israel's genocide in Gaza, which has scarred the moral conscience of the entire planet. We are here because of Paul Givan's misuse of office, his shameless compromise of Civil Service impartiality and his flagrant breach of a law that was passed in the Assembly four years ago. Yes, and all of it in territory that has been deemed by the international community, including successive British Governments of all stripes, to be illegally occupied.”
“My time is brief, so I will be clear about why we are here today. I will be clear about why the SDLP supports the motion of no confidence and why I am a signatory to it.”
“We will not be able to support the motion, but that is not to say that I do not acknowledge that service personnel and their families face real issues. In the context of Northern Ireland, we cannot support the text of the motion or the armed forces covenant being given an excess of status. That is not to say that I do not acknowledge that there are issues that service personnel face. <BR /> <BR />We will not support the motion, but I hope that the debate continues in as respectful a tone as possible.”
“I gently say to some colleagues across the Chamber that, in recent weeks, there have been a couple of moments when they could have been so much more generous and thoughtful in how they talked about a particular issue in relation to service personnel in Derry. I do not want to go there in this debate, but it is important that we talk respectfully about such things.”
“The perception is not always quite the same as reality, but I acknowledge that there are service personnel who face real challenges. <BR /> <BR />I have tried to be respectful in this debate.”
“It was Paul Frew. I put my sincere and genuine apologies to Mr Frew on the record. I really did not mean that. Mr Frew talked about perceived disadvantage.”
“I did not use the word "disadvantage". I believe that Paul Givan used that specific word earlier in the debate.”
“I will in one second. I want all serving and former personnel to get absolutely fair access to services. Inevitably, however, the question will be asked as to why we would create a distinct category of support for that one group in the context that I talked about.”
“It is also true to say that the military covenant does actually apply to Northern Ireland. What the motion is calling for is, in a sense, to go further than that and create — I know that people dislike this comparison — a special category of individuals to have access to additional rights or additional support. I want all serving and former personnel to absolutely get fair provisions —”
“As I said, I am not diminishing the service of all individuals, nor am I saying that those people do not deserve fair treatment and equal service. They do, absolutely. However, I am saying, and I stand by this point, that we are in a different context here. This is a more contested space, and it is true to say that the legacy of the conflict runs deep in many communities. I also said — I took time to say it and I meant it sincerely — that I acknowledge the very real service of individuals, their families and, indeed, the broad affinity with the history of service, particularly for the British military, and I will be laying a laurel wreath myself next week, out the front of this Building. <BR /> <BR />It is true to say that we have equality provisions in law here.”
“<BR /> <BR />However, Northern Ireland is different from other parts of the UK. Northern Ireland is, of course, the site of the longest deployment by the British military anywhere. That was Operation Banner. That has created a post-conflict context, and having acknowledged, as I did sincerely, the service of many personnel, it would be wrong of me and others not to acknowledge the fact that many people's experience of the British military here in the North of Ireland is not quite the same as that of people in England. That is to put it mildly.”
“John Stewart is right that we are talking about veterans who are not exclusively from a unionist background, but it is true to say that it is deeply resonant for people from the unionist community, and we are coming up to Remembrance Day. <BR /> <BR />Having acknowledged all that context, and the challenges that people from veteran backgrounds, including people in the Chamber, have faced, I just do not think that we can support the motion because we have to acknowledge the many and real ways that Northern Ireland is different. That is not to say that veterans who are from here and live here do not deserve equal right to services. They absolutely do, and let us be clear and on the record in saying that of course they do, and that includes to do with issues that have arisen from their service.”
“We will not be supporting the motion. I want to put some context to that, offer some clarity and engage in an honest way with the text of the motion but also reflect on some of the challenges of the motion and why we cannot support it. However, I acknowledge some of the issues and concerns, and why people are so understandably passionate. <BR /> <BR />First of all, I acknowledge the importance of service, and the bravery and courage of many service personnel and their families, what they go through and the sacrifices that they make. Those are real things. I would not diminish them in general, and I certainly would not diminish them, particularly when talking to veterans.”
“I have also written to the head of the Civil Service. As the lead Minister responsible for Civil Service propriety, may I ask that you commission an urgent review of the broader issues of Ministers giving inappropriate instructions to civil servants and of the provisions of the Functioning of Government Act? The actions of the Minister of Education clearly breached that law, which is on the statute books. Will you ask your officials to commission an urgent review, because there are some serious broader issues at stake?”
“Minister, I recently wrote to you about something that you have often talked to me about, which is the Opposition's alternative plans. I asked you whether you would officially support costing our alternative Budget and other plans, as happened with the Opposition south of the border. I have not had a response yet. Will you support that measure to open up the books and cost Opposition policies?”
“It is hugely positive, first, that we are formally enacting these COVID-era powers and getting them on to the statute book, not in a timely way, but belatedly and eventually, and, secondly, that we are creating the provision for a baby loss certificate scheme, which is hugely important and poignant for a group of people. I hope that, as those people watch today and follow and engage in the detail of the legislation, they are not too despondent about some of the debate and they stick with it. Once we get through this stage, I hope that we will have the legislation on the statute book fairly soon.”
“I would like to hear from others, including the Minister, as to their position on charges, and hear assurances that they can give, before taking a final position on some of the amendments that relate to charging. Our broad view is that there should not be charging at all. If there is a very good, plausible explanation for why you need to include that provision to deal with some hypothetical situation, I will not be completely close-minded or ideological about it, but I would like to hear that during the debate — including from the Minister — before taking a final view. <BR /> <BR />I have covered most of the amendments, but not all. Notwithstanding the remarks that I have made about particular amendments, I look forward to this proceeding through to its next stage, both as Chair of the Committee and as an SDLP politician.”
“That is the place to do it. That is probably also true of amendment No 4, but that is somewhat less sensitive than amendment No 5. <BR /> <BR />I will move on to some of the other amendments. I am not sure of the status of all the other amendments or whether they are going to be moved. There was some discussion around the potential for charging for certificates. It is important to say that there was a broad view in the Committee that you would not want to see a situation in which somebody is charged for receiving one of these certificate. A practically reasonable point made by officials in evidence was that you may need some mechanism for limiting or regulating the number of certificates that can be issued to individuals. That may be the genesis of where the question of charging arose.”
“In some ways, I hate to be so specific, because these are very sensitive issues. Does that have to go into the Bill? Does every single form of very traumatic, sad and very difficult baby loss have to be included? By the way, I am aware that the people who are watching this are traumatised, and have been traumatised, by baby loss, so I feel a bit flippant having to talk about it. However, since I have to explain why I am opposed to Mr Gaston's amendments, I am explaining the illogicality of them and not simply the insensitivity of them. We will be strongly opposing that. To be clear, that is not to say that I do not think that the scheme should exclude families who have experienced termination. It should, and I hope and trust that it will and that we can look at that when the scheme comes back in draft affirmative regulations.”
“You seem to have a particular bee in your bonnet, if I may say so through the Chair, about something that Mr Blair said when he was in the Deputy Speaker's Chair. It is not really for me to litigate that between the two of you, and I do not know whether it has any ultimate legal effect. The point is that the Bill is drafted to be inclusive in the sense that it creates the broad mandate that a scheme is designed, and the Department will then go away and come back. The upshot of what you have just said to me is that, because of something that was said in the Speaker's Chair and a particular understanding, you have to insert that particular form of baby loss into the Bill. One might argue that, in doing so, you are excluding all other forms of loss; for example, a miscarriage that followed a car accident.”
“I have my strong personal views, but, clearly, there will be circumstances in which people who have experienced termination will want to avail themselves of a baby loss certificate for different reasons. There is not necessarily a need for me to go through what all those personal and medical reasons might be, but suffice it to say that, yes, there are circumstances in which someone who has had an abortion or a termination, either where it is forced on them medically or where they have had it for other reasons, may want to apply to participate in the scheme and apply for a certificate. Here is the thing: the Bill does nothing to prevent that happening. Those people are already included in the Bill, along with everybody else who suffers any form of baby loss.”
“Therefore, the Committee will be able to scrutinise the draft when it comes back and will then be able to advise the Assembly. The Assembly will be able to amend that, if it so wishes, so that it includes any other detail, and it will then go to a vote. Before I get on to the substance of what is in those amendments, the idea that we need to design every small, fine detail of how the scheme will work is simply not accurate from the perspective of making legislation. In fact, I am not sure that it is good practice, because, once you put things in a Bill, you then, ultimately, ask why other things are not in the Bill. <BR /> <BR />I will now come on to the detail of what Mr Gaston said about termination. Clearly, there are many circumstances in which pregnancies are terminated. People have views on that, and those are discussed here.”
“Amendment Nos 4 and 5 are putting the cart before the horse, and that is before we get to the morality, as it were, of some of the language that has been used. Amendment Nos 4 and 5 are very specific designs of how the scheme would work. The entire purpose of the Bill and clause 11 is not to design down to the minutiae how a baby loss certificate scheme will work. We had very detailed discussions in Committee about whether that was advisable. We discussed it with the Department, the Minister and the Registrar General, who is in the Chamber today, and we came to the view that the appropriate thing to do is to mandate the Department to go away and design a scheme. That scheme will then come back to the Chamber via draft affirmative regulation.”
“I will move on to Mr Gaston's other two amendments. Amendment No 4 specifies that parents would have the right to request that the name, sex and other biographical details be on the certificates. There is much in that that is fine. I do not necessarily object to it, in principle, but it brings me on to a big part of the reason to oppose his amendment No 5. Both amendments are to clause 11. Amendment No 5 inserts the provision that the Department:”
“I will take those points in turn. Obviously, my party, which believes in equality, will strongly support the Question that clause 8 stand part of the Bill. It is deeply disappointing and a regressive step to try to remove that one, small, modest, bureaucratic updating of the rules to reflect the fact that there are loving, supportive same-sex couples and families in this society. Mr Gaston is attempting to make his points today. He is entitled to his views on that. I do not prevent people having their personal views, but this is the law of the land. Once the Bill gets Royal Assent, the law of the land will be that same-sex female couples will be able to register births in exactly the same way as other families. That is a welcome step forward. It is regrettable that Mr Gaston has sought to oppose it, but I understand why he has done that.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee unanimously supports the Bill. The ability to register deaths and stillbirths without having to attend a registration office in person is to be welcomed, and the opportunity for bereaved parents to obtain a baby loss certificate is an important step. As I indicated at Second Stage, the Committee welcomes the Bill. The Committee undertook its duty to perform scrutiny and fully supports the Bill's moving through the next stage of the legislative process towards, hopefully, Royal Assent. <BR /> <BR />I will make some brief remarks on the amendments in a party capacity. Mr Gaston has discussed his two amendments and his opposition to clause 8 and the schedule, which creates new registration rights for same-sex female couples. He will oppose the Question that they stand part of the Bill.”
“Committee discussions therefore mostly centred on the potential for a monetary charge for a baby loss certificate. 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 provisions of the statutory rule to be both debated and amended. The Committee therefore agreed to proceed without an amendment on that issue. The Committee is, however, aware of the amendments, including those on that issue, tabled to the Bill. Members, having seen the Marshalled List, will debate those today. However, the Committee did not discuss the specific amendments and therefore has not taken a Committee position on them.”
“The Committee's deliberations on those clauses were mostly of a technical nature to ensure the legislation's robustness. In its evidence, the National Association of Funeral Directors outlined how the arrangements were working, gave its support for the arrangements and conveyed its eagerness that they should 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. As Members will be aware, the House has previously supported, via a private Member's motion, the introduction of baby loss certificates. It was the Committee that ensured that they were included in the Bill. There was unanimity on the Committee that such a scheme be introduced.”
“<BR /> <BR />I now refer to some general issues that were raised by members 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 made under the provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020 that related to the recording of deaths and stillbirths. Those 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. This Chamber subsequently approved regulations on a number of occasions. Members of the Committee were therefore well versed in the use of such provisions.”
“That was especially important in the case of this Bill, given that its provisions had not previously been consulted on, and it was important that the Committee gave that time to ensure that the process was right. On behalf of the Committee, I also thank the Department, the Forget-me-not Group and the National Association of Funeral Directors, who provided oral evidence. I single out the Forget-me-not parents who made time for us and gave very sensitive and, at times, emotional evidence. Their input was greatly appreciated. <BR /> <BR />I note that the Committee managed to complete Committee Stage well in advance of the date in the extension motion, which shows — perhaps it is a lesson to others — that Committees are capable of not exceeding updated target dates and, indeed, can view such dates as limits rather than targets.”
“All of them? OK. In that case, I will give the Committee's view and move on to give a party view. <BR /> <BR />One of the most important issues that the Committee considered with respect to the Bill is the immensely sensitive topics that it encompasses: death, stillbirth and baby loss. 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 testimony from individuals. The Committee carefully considered the views of all those who provided written evidence. On behalf of the Committee, I thank all who took the time to provide detailed evidence to inform and support the Committee in its consideration of the Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, I should take your guidance before I proceed: are we debating just Mr Gaston's amendments at this point? Is that right?”
“I will speak first in my capacity as Chair of the Finance Committee, and I will then make some brief remarks in a political capacity. One of the most important issues that the Committee has considered with respect to the Bill is the immensely sensitive topics that it encompasses: death, stillbirth and baby loss.”
“One might speculate about your reasons for referring to abortion specifically. By putting that in the Bill, rather than waiting for regulations, where every other detail of the certificates will be covered, you are separating out that one form of baby loss from all the other forms of pregnancy ending. I could go through all the many traumatic and difficult circumstances in which pregnancies are lost or ended. You have chosen to single out that one form and to leave all the others for regulations. My question is this: why? Why does that one form of a pregnancy ending have to be dragged out and put in the Bill, other than to pick that fight?”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Minister, to be absolutely clear, we are the official Opposition. We respect the fact that you want to get it done, and we acknowledge that, but our job is to hold you to account. We make no apology for that. To be very clear, we hope that your proposals pass, and we will support them. We hope that they are passed through the Assembly before the end of the mandate. However, that looks very challenging in getting Executive support and getting it through the Assembly in the requisite time. That looks highly unlikely now, so why did you and your party not make it a specific red line and a condition when you entered the Executive? That is a reasonable question. Why not?”
“As of yet, they have not had the backing from statutory authorities. Let us finally get behind them. Our party certainly will not be found wanting. We have been tough in campaigning about this, and we will continue to be tough, because people in Carryduff, Knockbreda, Newtownbreda and Four Winds all deserve better.”
“I do not think that it is a justifiable use of ratepayers' money, given the amount of resource that comes out of Castlereagh South and into the coffers of Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council. <BR /> <BR />People who have invested in their homes in Mealough and Baronscourt Green — the new developments that Deirdre mentioned — want to build an amazing community. Let us support them and back them with proper public transport and proper public realm. I welcome the fact that a further consultation happened recently on the public realm in Carryduff, but let us see proper delivery of that and proper ambition. Kate is right about road safety and allowing people to be pedestrians there, not just motorists. Let us properly invest in that community, because they have invested in it themselves.”