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“Clearly, however, the regulatory and enforcement regime for all those watercourses and marine environments is way out of date ecologically and, indeed, economically.”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 3 of 119.
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. For the record, as the Minister asked about it, I received the correspondence last evening, so it would not have been possible to have brought it to him. For the record, again, the word "harm" was used by the individual about what her family member had experienced, not "abuse". I welcome the fact that the Minister has engaged and wants to hear more about those experiences. I wanted to clarify that point on the record.”
“We welcome the fact that you are here today and have issued such strong language about accountability, but rebuilding trust and digging even further into what went wrong will be an ongoing process.”
“Minister, thank you for the statement. Although some of them have left the Chamber, I, too, welcome the families and those affected here today. We can but imagine the trauma that they and their loved ones went through at Muckamore. You, Minister, rightly called it "evil". You also said that you hoped that the abuse had stopped, but there is significant concern, as Sian Mulholland and others have mentioned, that the subsequent resettlement of patients or care users has been inappropriate and, indeed, has led to abuse. Someone from my constituency whose son was at Muckamore and had two subsequent failed placements, which led to reviews, raised with me their serious concerns about replacement. Will you meet that family and those families to discuss those ongoing concerns and their wider questions about accountability in the Belfast Trust?”
“Happy birthday, Mr Deputy Speaker. The warmest of happy birthdays. I am sure that we are all very pleased to be here with you on that date. <BR /> <BR />Minister, I acknowledge that my party and I encouraged you to make use of FTC. It is important to use FTC to build homes, but we want to ask about the detail regarding the 20% reduction on market rents. How will market rent be calculated, what specific metrics and data will be used, and what are the safeguards against, for example, inflation of rents in a given geography? How can we be sure that there will be a genuine reduction of at least 20% on local market rates? What data will be used?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope that everything is OK with you. I believe that you said "subliminal valves". I am not sure what those are, but I am sure that everybody in the Chamber would be keen that you get those addressed before too long.”
“First Minister, you said that the NSMC discussed wider geopolitical developments. One geopolitical development particularly pertaining on a cross-border basis is the rise of the online right and racism. A week ago, we had race-based pogroms, or attempted pogroms, in this city. People are still homeless, and they are fearful of what the rest of the summer will bring. However, as yet, there has been no coherent response from the Executive Office, despite you and the deputy First Minister leading the Government jointly and having responsibility for community cohesion and race relations. Why has there been no coherent response? Why have you left it up to the community and voluntary sector to protect people? When will there be a coherent response on policing, community integration and keeping people safe for the rest of the summer?”
“Many people who want this place to work will be watching our proceedings with hope and a degree of exasperation, and they will see this nonsense tonight and think, "This is being blocked again".”
“To be honest, it almost feels utterly pointless to continue to debate any of the amendments, because we will not be allowed to have a legitimate vote on them, Mr Burrows. By the way, I disagree with your opinions, but you are entitled to hold them. I am not trying to silence your voice. The problem is that, by signing the petitions of concern and perhaps doing a deal with what is left of your parliamentary group, you have created a situation in which the entire debate will be rendered pointless. It is all well and good to fulminate, but do you understand that you, of your own volition, have fundamentally called into question the operability of these institutions? Do you understand that?”
“People will increasingly look at this dysfunctional and, at times, frankly preposterous institution and wonder what we are doing here when a majority of MLAs who want to make a legislative change and are wiling to debate it robustly are blocked from doing so by a minority. That is deeply worrying. It is a shame, and it speaks very poorly of the Members who have pulled that stunt tonight. <BR /> <BR />I do not think that there is anything more to say.”
“Thank you very much. I am delighted to have given way to the Education Minister, because I am afraid that he has proved how empty the arguments are. That was a historic event, I have no idea of the background to it — I was somewhere else. Whataboutery is not going to rescue people's faith in these institutions. Ultimately, you must know that people need to trust that devolved Government can work here. If they do not, the alternative is not something that any of you want. It is tragic that the DUP has succeeded in pulling this stunt tonight, and it is particularly tragic that the Ulster Unionists, under Mr Burrows, have gone along with it for reasons of their own.”
“Once again, it makes the argument for the fundamental reform of the institutions and proves the need to reform them. <BR /> <BR />I will give way to the Education Minister for the sake of positive debate.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I have been generous in taking interventions. Raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility is something that was going to divide the House. Members had different views on it. It is a sensible and progressive thing, and many people in the children's rights sector believe that this would have been an opportunity for Northern Ireland — yes, Northern Ireland, the jurisdiction that the Members opposite claim to care so much about — to prove itself to be able to make positive and progressive change. However, I am afraid to say that the two major unionist parties have decided that they do not want that to happen. That is deeply regrettable. People in this jurisdiction will draw their own conclusions about whether your two parties are serious about wanting to make this place work. That is the harsh truth, guys.”
“We have never abused it for anything. That is ridiculous.”
“It is not majoritarianism, as the Minister of Education suggests from a sedentary position.”
“Do not expect people to say, "God, Northern Ireland works great. Stormont works great", when you do stuff like this, Mr Burrows. I am afraid that it is true that people will draw conclusions about the functioning of these institutions and the willingness of unionist politicians to make this place work. I am afraid that that is just true. That is just true.”
“I agree with that. To be clear, it is legitimate for the Members opposite to disagree with raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility. What it is not legitimate for them to do is to use a mechanism that was designed to protect core issues for designated communities in order simply to block legislation. Mr Burrows in particular has come into the Assembly, and I respect his ability to get media attention and all of that, because that is what politicians do, but he was previously laying down the law, calling the odds on absolutely everything and saying how Stormont had to work better. He said that Stormont had to work better in order for Northern Ireland to function, but he then pulls nonsense such as this.”
“That is something that you have talked about consistently.”
“I will say this, however: think about the functioning of this institution.”
“In one second, Mr Carroll. Utterly ridiculous. I will give way now.”
“The amendments have nothing to do with the constitution or with identity, yet you are using the petition of concern — abusing it — in order —.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will give way to Mr Carroll and the Minister of Justice in a second, because I am sure that they will have fairly legitimate and robust opinions to make about the announcement as well. What has happened today is an absolute disgrace, and I make this point to unionist Members across the Chamber. This is not a constitutional issue at all, but it is, I am afraid, the Ulster Unionist Party and the DUP that have now blocked the amendments. <BR /> <BR />Earlier on, successive Members opposite got up and ranted and raved about Fine Gael, a party south of the border, for daring to speak about the constitutional future of this island. Have some self-awareness, lads. You continue to plunge this place into dysfunction. You continue to block the ability of people here to make change.”
“I will give way in one second to the Justice Minister. <BR /> <BR />It is because Mr Burrows and his party have joined the DUP in abusing the petition of concern. Let me say this: earlier on today —.”
“I will give way in a second to Mr Carroll. <BR /> <BR />It does not cut across anyone's identity or constitutional perspective whatsoever, which is the core reason that the petition of concern was created for these institutions in the first place. The amendment increases the minimum age of criminal responsibility, which is something that most criminologists think is sensible. The amendment includes some exceptions, and people are taking issue with some of the practicalities of it. All of that is almost irrelevant now, however, because we are not even going to be able to debate it. Why?”
“To be clear, amendment No 82 does not contain anything that relates to the vital interests of one community or another. I am not aware that it mentions unionists, nationalists or core constitutional issues at all. It does not threaten core issues of identity.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let me be clear about what has just happened. It is an utter farce and a travesty of democracy. Once again, these institutions are being dragged into disrepute by parties that cannot accept democracy and the fact that we are allowed to debate issues here. I have just been engaging in good faith with Mr Burrows about the pros and cons of amendment No 82. I listened to his arguments, and I put my arguments back to him. I was then interrupted by you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to be told that Mr Burrows and his colleagues have done some deal with the DUP. Perhaps he has done a deal with his colleagues — those who are or are not supporting him in his Assembly group — to block the will of the Assembly to vote on that amendment.”
“There we have it: Mr Burrows is impugning the motives and the intelligence of people who happen to disagree with his expertise. It is completely reasonable for him to take a different position, but the proposition that he just posited to me is a false one. I do not know whether he talked about a person who was guilty of or was being investigated for those offences. That might be more true, or exactly true, were that to be a 25-year-old, a 35-year old or a 45-year-old. We are talking about children. The point is that, when we are talking about children at age 11, 12 or 13 —.”
“I will give way if he answers my question.”
“Mr Burrows, who is the scion of everything about the criminal justice system, is refusing to engage in this one question: does entering the criminal justice system mean that people are more likely to reoffend? Am I right or wrong?”
“<BR /> <BR />This is the really important point: I presume, through the Chair, that you will acknowledge that, once young people enter the criminal justice system, all the evidence, including the statistics, shows that they are much more likely to reoffend. Is that not true?”
“First, I did not say "people in this Chamber"; I said "the public" writ large. You are picking a series of, from your perspective, contradictions and saying, "Why this but not that?". The straw man is that all those people aged 11, 12 and 13 would simply be left to crack on and that there would be no intervention or management of them. That is just not true. There is no point in shuffling your papers theatrically and smirking, Mr Burrows. As has been laid out, if a young person were being investigated for those things, the idea that they would simply be left alone and that statutory services would not be closely engaged with them is fanciful. It is irresponsible to suggest that that would be so.”
“I will give way in one second. <BR /> <BR />It is a serious attempt to make clear to the public that the direction of travel is to raise the age of criminal responsibility while addressing any perceptions that doing so will simply lead to an added risk of people's guilt — they would be found guilty, because they would be capable of being charged and found guilty of those offences — being mitigated. It is reasonable for legislators to want to do that when they are bringing forward change that is relatively novel. <BR /> <BR />I give way to Mr Burrows.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is also true, as Emma Sheerin pointed out, that the exceptions exist in part to address broader public concern or a public perception that people would not want to have a blanket change to the minimum age of criminal responsibility without any exception for the most serious crimes. Of course, many people in academia would simply say, "No, actually, if you are to be clear and consistent, you should raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility without exceptions", but I would say this: we are politicians, and the point about being politicians is that we work to achieve progressive change and improve the lives of our citizens by bringing as many people along as we can. Including the exceptions is an attempt to do that. It is a serious attempt to make clear to the public —.”
“<BR /> <BR />The question about listing the exceptions is really a question of implementation and of how those exceptions interact with other potential pathways in the criminal justice system — Mr Frew talked about potential lesser pleas in the judicial system — or with other statutory services that engage with young people who are being investigated or held to account for the crimes that are listed in amendment No 82 as exceptions. Fundamentally, however, those are questions of implementation. That is not to diminish or dismiss them, but they are about how the exceptions are implemented.”
“Mr Frew has explained, drawing on comments by Professor Kevin Brown of Queen's University, why he sees flaws in the list of exceptions, but it is important to say that Professor Brown, along with a swathe of other academic criminologists and people who study the criminal justice system and youth services — most of them, in fact — is clear that the minimum age of criminal responsibility in Northern Ireland should go up and should have gone up years ago. Indeed, he described the status quo as "hard to defend" — no pun intended.”
“The overwhelming majority of international best practice, the academic literature and studies on the subject are clear that the best way to secure the best possible outcomes for the largest number of people in the groups that I mentioned — victims, perpetrators or alleged perpetrators and society writ large — is for the minimum age of criminal responsibility to be higher than 10. Amendment No 79 sets it down that the minimum age should be 14, with specific exceptions.”
“It needs to meet the needs of a number of groups: victims of crime, obviously; those who commit or are accused of committing crimes; and society as a whole, meaning the wider needs of people who want to live in a safe society where justice is done and seen to be done. <BR /> <BR />There is an international debate about the appropriate minimum age of criminal responsibility. It is important to say, first, that Northern Ireland is an outlier, as are other jurisdictions in the UK whose minimum age of criminal responsibility is 10. As Sian Mulholland said, the average age is, in fact, 14 in states where a minimum age of criminal responsibility is defined.”
“I will be somewhat briefer on amendment No 82 than offers have been thus far. There is no explicit or implicit criticism of others for what they have said, because it has been a really useful debate. Clearly, it is a subject that is hugely important. There is much academic literature and international experience to draw on, and the Justice Committee has taken significant amounts of evidence on it. <BR /> <BR />It goes without saying that my colleague Patsy McGlone has been stalwart in dealing with the Bill. One or two of us are speaking in order to share the burden, as other parties are doing, in relation to amendments. We support amendment No 82, which is why we have co-signed it. It is important to start from the position of acknowledging what the criminal justice system is designed to do.”
“I must confess, having been so used to the sound of Mr Frew's voice for the last while, it is a bit of a surprise that his speech has ended so suddenly.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He referred to Professor Brown's article. It is worth debating that. Professor Brown refers to the potential for binary cases and the exceptions in amendment No 82, but is it not the case that Professor Brown is fundamentally pointing out that the age of criminal responsibility should be increased? His point is not that it should not be increased. His point is about being careful about potential consequences, and that is why an amendment has been tabled with a review mechanism.”
“The Bill will reduce that even further, which is sensible and helpful, in that it regularises whole areas of spending and gives that spending a legal footing. <BR /> <BR />On a personal note from the Opposition — I am not challenging the decisions of the Speaker — we had hoped to debate several important amendments. I still do not entirely understand why we were not able to do so, but we had hoped to debate the amendment that would create an independent environmental protection agency. Nevertheless, we are where we are. <BR /> <BR />The Bill is important, albeit it is sensible and tidying up legislation. The SDLP supports the Bill passing Final Stage, albeit I wish that we had been able to make it even larger and more ambitious.”
“I hope to see some of the provisions having a real and meaningful impact on the responsiveness of Ministers and their ability to drive forward important agendas now that their vires have been clarified. <BR /> <BR />I would say this only very rarely: I am almost — almost but not quite — sad not to have Jim Allister in the Chamber today. I will not say whether he is in a better place; that depends on your view of the other place. Like me, he sat on the Finance Committee for a long time, as did you, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I can drag the Chair into the debate — and we used to talk a lot about the presence of the "black box", which is the use of the sole authority of the Budget Act for spending where there is no specific statutory provision.”
“The Bill is relatively technical, but it is extremely important in how it tidies up the vires of Ministers to make decisions and spend money. The Bill creates significant new legal powers in a range of areas, which will, hopefully, enable Ministers to better carry out their functions. The Bill includes a provision to make it easier for the First Minister and deputy First Minister to take decisions and spend money to end violence against women and girls. We hope that the legislation will make it easier for the Executive to tackle that scourge on our society. It should also improve their vires to spend on refugee integration services, a subject that is extremely pertinent to our discussion of the appalling events of the past week.”
“The Committee concluded that the Bill achieved its principal objectives of improving transparency, placing expenditure and administrative arrangements on a clear statutory basis and ensuring appropriate accountability for the exercise of departmental powers. The Committee, having completed its scrutiny, was content with the provisions, subject to the amendments brought forward by the Minister and the approach taken to clause 20. The Committee views the Bill as important legislation that regularises existing practice, improves transparency and supports proper accountability. Finally, I again thank the departmental officials and others who assisted the Committee in its scrutiny. The Committee supports the Bill completing its passage today. <BR /> <BR />I will say a few brief words in a party capacity.”
“That was important to debunk the idea that it was simply a back door to abolishing concessionary fares or increasing fares. However, the fact that it will now be an affirmative resolution procedure will bring transparency to the process. <BR /> <BR />The Committee also welcomed the Minister's willingness to respond to concerns raised during scrutiny, including his intention not to proceed with clause 20 following engagement with the Finance and Audit Committees. That demonstrated the usefulness of a Committee process when done correctly, even in relation to technical legislation such as this.”
“<BR /> <BR />Members considered carefully the broad range of provisions in the Bill, including powers related to economic and financial support, fee setting and charging powers, Executive Office function, Education and Communities provisions, and financial governance arrangements. Throughout the process, the Committee sought assurances that powers were appropriately framed, that existing practice was placed on a clearer statutory footing where necessary, and that appropriate safeguards and Assembly oversight remained in place. Members gave particular attention to the proposed power to charge fees for concessionary travel passes, where the Committee engaged closely with the Committee for Infrastructure and welcomed the Minister's decision to bring in amendments strengthening Assembly oversight through the affirmative resolution procedure.”
“Public engagement was, understandably, limited, given the technical nature of the provisions, but the Committee is satisfied that the legislation received appropriate scrutiny, and it is certainly as appropriate as we were able to make it. We worked closely with other Statutory Committees whose remits were engaged by the provisions of the Bill. I thank those Committees, albeit at times we had to, in the nicest possible way, slightly shove and chivvy them to recognise that the provisions would affect their Departments and that our Committee was perhaps not best placed to apprise them of all the details. Most of them complied with our requests after some gentle encouragement.”
“<BR /> <BR />As I said, it brings together administrative and financial provisions from seven different Departments, where ordinarily such provisions would have come forward in separate Bills over time. Throughout the Committee Stage, Members recognised the breadth and technical nature of the Bill and the importance of ensuring that detailed and proportionate scrutiny was undertaken. To support that work, the Committee sought written evidence from stakeholders, undertook public engagement through an online survey, commissioned research and received oral evidence from officials in the Department of Finance, the Department for Infrastructure and the Executive Office. On behalf of the Committee, I thank all those who contributed to and informed the consideration of the Bill.”
“I am pleased to be able to speak to the detailed scrutiny of the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill as it receives its Final Reading. As Members will be aware, it is an unusual but very significant Bill. It is the first Bill of its kind in 12 years and brings together administrative and financial provisions across seven different Departments. Indeed, I believe that, at one stage, it was purely to be a financial provisions Bill, and then it became an administrative and financial provisions Bill, so it is worth paying tribute to officials in the Department of Finance and acknowledging that they probably had to steward through several legal provisions that were not wholly or in any way connected to their Department but involved technical vires being created.”
“I appreciate that those amendments were unsuccessful, but I do not think that you can say that you are jeopardising independence simply by shaping the primary legislation.”
“Thank you, Minister, for giving way. I definitely have even less scriptural knowledge than you have. It is, of course, important — I believe that this is scripture — that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. That was an important part of what we were trying to achieve in the Bill. It is the case that this is legislation. Given the fact that the legislation provides for fiscal sustainability reports and Budget assessment reports, we are, by definition, impinging on the independence of the Fiscal Council, by your logic, because we are instructing it on things that it must do. All the amendments did was ask, "Could you do x, y and z too?". That does not impinge on its independence; it simply sets out in statute what we would like it to do.”