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“Clearly, however, the regulatory and enforcement regime for all those watercourses and marine environments is way out of date ecologically and, indeed, economically.”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 35 of 119.
“<BR /> <BR />The 'Report on an independent Fiscal Council' from that Committee was published in July 2021 and will be a reference point for our Committee throughout the process. The previous Finance Committee made 26 recommendations across seven areas: function, discretion, powers, independence, competence, credibility and Assembly engagement.”
“While the Committee is disappointed at the length of time that it has taken for the Bill to be brought before the House — it was in last year's legislative programme — it is, I suppose, better late than never. It is here now, and the job of scrutinising it is in front of us. <BR /> <BR />I also note and acknowledge the work of the previous Finance Committee, which carried out significant scrutiny in the area. I should declare an interest, because I was on that previous iteration of the Finance Committee, as were a couple of other members of the current Finance Committee. I hope that that will give us a bit of a head start in the scrutiny of the Bill, as a few of the Committee members will have already scrutinised some of the principles of the Bill in the previous mandate.”
“I will speak first as Chair of the Finance Committee, and then I will make some remarks in an Opposition context. I am pleased to say that, in the Opposition context, I will be more constructive today, because it is, broadly speaking, a good thing that we are progressing the Bill. It is important, when we do constructive, sensible things, that we acknowledge it, and I am pleased that we are debating the Second Stage of the Fiscal Council Bill. The Committee, I think, genuinely looks forward to getting on with its work of scrutiny. <BR /> <BR />First, I thank the Minister for his comments and the relevant departmental officials for their work in keeping the Committee updated on the progress of the Bill and making themselves available for pre-legislative scrutiny.”
“Minister, there appears to be some doubt or a question about the Executive's ability to extend the Fáilte Ireland brands, which, particularly for waterways, would include Ireland's Hidden Heartlands and Ireland's Ancient East. Have you had conversations with the Minister for the Economy about that, because that touches on critical waterways, in particular the Erne and the Shannon?”
“I worry that our public are going to become totally disillusioned. We deserve so much better than what we are getting from the Executive.”
“There has been some funding for the childcare strategy, but that has been wiped out by the additional rises that families have faced. There is no comprehensive childcare strategy as yet. <BR /> <BR />My SDLP colleagues and I promised to be a constructive Opposition, and we have been. Being a constructive Opposition means standing up for the people of Northern Ireland, who deserve so much better than the sound bites, photo ops and nonsense that they have received from the Executive. The First Minister claimed yesterday that she would not deliver the A5 by sound bites. In that case, I do not know how she is going to deliver it, because all that she has at the minute is sound bites.”
“This year, if we are lucky, barely 1,000 will be built, so that target can be written off. On the A5, the then Infrastructure Minister — the now Finance Minister — failed to get the paperwork done. That project has been thrown into severe jeopardy. Who knows whether it will ever be built? It certainly will not be built in this mandate. On Lough Neagh — our biggest natural resource is an open-air cesspool — Sinn Féin joined the DUP in voting against the critical, fundamental action proposed in the Lough Neagh action plan. We heard a couple of weeks ago about an additional allocation from the UK Government for Casement Park, but, as yet, there is no plan. There is no sense of where the rest of the money is going to be found or of when the project is going to be delivered.”
“Critically, they promised that the life-saving A5 infrastructure project would be delivered. Gaels and people who want to see the development of west Belfast were promised that Casement Park would be delivered. Parents who are struggling with the cost of childcare were promised not just some support but a comprehensive childcare strategy. I am afraid that I, as leader of the Opposition, have to report today that none of those things has been delivered by the Executive. In fact, they are nowhere near to being delivered. The public deserve so much better than what they have received from the Executive. <BR /> <BR />In the spirit of being detailed, I will go through where we are with some of those things. The Programme for Government promised 6,000 social homes by the end of the mandate.”
“Today is the last day that we will sit in a plenary meeting before the summer break. In the past couple of weeks, families will have been looking at their children's report cards; they will have been looking at how their kids have been doing in school and college and thinking about how best to support them in the next stage of their education. Therefore, it is the right time to look at how the Executive have done. <BR /> <BR />We are now more than 500 days in to the new Executive, who were formed in February 2024 after a two-year delay. When the Executive were formed, they promised the people of Northern Ireland that they would take action on health waiting lists, social housing and the disgraceful ecological catastrophe in our biggest natural resource: Lough Neagh.”
“On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I am sure that this was not the Minister's intent, but any of the clerking team who were listening may have thought that the Minister was somehow impugning their communication with the Department. I wonder whether it is in order for me to make clear, on behalf of the Finance Committee, that our Clerk works hard to communicate with the Department. It is important for me as Chair to put that on the record.”
“<BR /> <BR />As we break up for the summer, today and tomorrow's Order Papers are full of Second Readings and Final Stages of legislation that we are being asked to rush through, having had plenary session after plenary session at which we debated everything from nappies to God knows what in meaningless, empty motions. We are rushing legislation through in two days — legislation that, in some cases, is a year or 18 months late — and debating a legislative consent motion that is not a legislative consent motion but a motion about a legislative consent motion that did not happen. That is preposterous. We should do our jobs properly and take seriously the mandates that we have been given. The Executive and their Ministers should return after the summer to do their jobs properly. We will not support the motion.”
“Then, we had six or seven months of radio silence before a legislative consent memorandum landed with the Committee, far too late, as per convention, for the Committee to do any scrutiny or for the Assembly to give meaningful legislative consent. That is a preposterous situation that, frankly, reinforces some of what we keep finding out about this institution: the Executive and this legislature are too often not up to their work and do not take it seriously enough. We have seen the consequences of that over the past week. The most important road safety project on the island in most of our lifetimes is being held up because of bureaucratic incompetence, it would appear. Now, we have this: more bureaucratic incompetence, although, thankfully, it will have, I hope, a much less significant set of negative consequences.”
“We do not often talk about this, but, as soon as that regime goes wrong, I promise the House that businesses that operate on a cross-border basis will have a problem. Every organisation that moves sensitive data across the border, be it InterTradeIreland, tourism businesses, the GAA, the Church of Ireland or the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) will have a problem. It is not Mickey Mouse stuff. <BR /> <BR />As Chair of the Finance Committee, I would like to have understood the Bill in its totality and then to have been able to drill down into the specific bits that involved devolved competence. We were not able to do that, because we were not told about it. Last autumn, our Committee Clerk had to chase the Department to confirm that there would be an LCM process. That was the only way to find out.”
“I will raise something that I would like to have had the opportunity to unpack and understand. Although there are only two or three bits of the Bill that engage legislative competence, data use is a big deal for us in the post-Brexit context, because one of the areas of controversy and challenge has been data adequacy between the UK and the EU. A lot of UK-EU cross-border activity, which means North/South activity on this island, relies on the fact that the EU has given adequacy to the UK Government. If, at any point, the EU decides that it is not comfortable with the UK's data protection regime and withdraws, suspends or reviews the data adequacy agreement, that would have big consequences for a lot of businesses and civic society organisations on the island, because they rely on the ability to move data.”
“<BR /> <BR />It could be argued that legislative consent motions are relatively toothless, because they do not stop the UK Government doing anything; indeed, legislative consent has been withheld from the UK Government, and they have ploughed on regardless. That has been the position on many occasions, particularly during the Brexit process, but it is at least a process in which we can give our views. This is not a legislative consent motion but a motion about a legislative consent process that did not happen. Bluntly, it makes a mockery of this legislature when we do Mickey Mouse, toytown stuff and cannot get even the basics right. <BR /> <BR />It is not simply about a technical abstraction. Notwithstanding the article 2 issues, there are real questions and concerns.”
“The UK Government have created the Sewel convention, which states that the UK Parliament will not normally legislate on devolved matters without at least asking for the permission of the devolved legislatures. <BR /> <BR />You would think that, if the UK Government were to ask for consent for something to be legislated on, we would hear about it early on from a Department led by a Sinn Féin Minister and that there would be an opportunity for debate. It is therefore pretty ridiculous that we have been placed in a situation in which the UK Parliament is effectively legislating in a devolved area. Even if there is merit in what it is doing and potential consumer benefits and data use benefits down the line, it is preposterous that we have been placed in the position of debating an utterly meaningless motion.”
“<BR /> <BR />The entire fiasco has underlined something striking, which is the abysmal understanding of the legislative consent process not only in the official machine but, I say bluntly, in the Executive and in parts of the Assembly. The legislative consent process is a process by which we give consent. An LCM is not binding on the UK Government, who can do what they like. One of the reasons that I am not a big fan of our current constitutional dispensation is that it means that the UK Parliament, via the Crown prerogative, which some of us do not like, can do what it likes. Effectively, it can legislate on anything that it wants at any time.”
“It was known from the beginning that a legislative consent motion would be required; in fact, a process was happening in parallel in Scotland and Wales. I am sure that substantive issues were debated, but it is a relatively routine process. <BR /> <BR />We were told that the legislative consent process was delayed because the UK Government did not give sufficient information on article 2 of the protocol or Windsor framework to the Department. I am afraid that that is not a sufficient plea in mitigation, because the Department could have told the Committee the position. Secondly, it is not entirely clear whether all the specific concerns that the Department had about article 2 were engaged in the LCM process.”
“I have therefore given the chronology of the Committee's encounter with the LCM, rather than a Committee view. <BR /> <BR />I will now make a few remarks as leader of the Opposition. It is a fairly preposterous situation that we find ourselves in today. I think that I am right in saying that, when we came back after 2020, we debated some legislative consent motions where we gave consent to Bills that were already on the statute book. I think I am right in saying that I thought it was absurd at that point. This is equally if not more absurd because the Executive were here last autumn, when the Bill was introduced at Westminster. Officials were fully aware the whole way through not just of the purpose of the Bill but of the bits that engaged devolved competence.”
“He indicated that the main implication of the Assembly's not giving its consent was for the UK Government's relationship with the Assembly and Executive through legislating without their consent. The Department stated that it was taking lessons learned from the situation and that officials were working on an LCM tracker to ensure that the issues were not repeated. The Minister agreed to bring this motion to the House so that it could be debated. <BR /> <BR />The Bill received Royal Assent on 19 June. I just said that it had not received Royal Assent: it has received Royal Assent, so it is now an Act. The Committee reiterates its disappointment about being unable to fulfill its scrutiny role. As I stated previously, it agreed not to take a position on the LCM.”
“Further issues were raised by the Human Rights Commission that do not impact on aspects of the Bill where the LCM process is engaged. That is an important point to note. It would be helpful to understand whether a delay occurred in relation to parts of the Bill that have no thing to do with the LCM, if you see what I mean. The LCM is on specific devolved aspects of the Bill, rather than the principles of the Bill, albeit that people will have views on its principles. <BR /> <BR />The Minister eventually advised the Committee that the aspects of the Bill that engage the devolved remit would proceed and become law in due course; indeed, effectively, they have now become law. They are about to become law, because Royal Assent will be granted at some point very soon.”
“and underpinned by EU law, prior to the UK's exit from the EU. It appears that the UK Government did not give a full assessment of those issues because, as the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) officials indicated, there was ongoing action in the courts regarding the outworkings of article 2 that precluded the production of a full analysis at that time. As a result, the assessment was delayed until February 2025. However, that information was not conveyed to the Committee. That was a pattern, I am afraid, throughout the entire process. <BR /> <BR />Further delay was caused by concerns about the Bill that were raised by the NI Human Rights Commission. Those primarily focused on potential article 2 impacts of divergence between the UK and the EU with regard to data protection standards.”
“<BR /> <BR />At the Committee's additional meeting regarding the issue on 10 June, the permanent secretary and the relevant deputy secretary brought further detail to the Committee's attention. I should acknowledge that the permanent secretary was forthright in that briefing. He apologised immediately, and that apology was accepted by the Committee. The permanent secretary outlined that the significant procedural delay related to the engagement of article 2(1) of the Windsor framework, which commits the UK Government to ensuring:”
“During the briefing on 28 May, departmental officials repeatedly referred to Royal Assent as the deadline for the Assembly to give consent. Minister Bryant also made the same point. However, the Business Office and the relevant colleagues at Westminster have confirmed that the effective deadline for Committee and Assembly — well, ultimately, Assembly agreement for the LCM is prior to amending stages at Westminster. Additionally, the Minister included a draft motion in his memorandum on 28 May. No motion was laid, and therefore it could not be debated again, which, as I said, contradicts what Chris Bryant said. As that was an incorrect assertion, the Committee agreed to write to the UK Minister to advise him that no LCM had been laid.”
“Further to that, during the Bill's Third Reading in Parliament, after an intervention from Robin Swann MP, the Minister of State for Data Protection and Telecoms, Sir Chris Bryant, said:”
“As there is no time for any meaningful scrutiny, the Committee has agreed to reserve its position on the Bill. However, on 10 June, members sought a further briefing from the permanent secretary and deputy secretary with responsibility for the area.”
“I repeat that, at that stage, the Committee had received no further correspondence from the Department regarding the data Bill. This, by the way, is after the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Senedd had given their consent, via votes in their full Chambers. At that point, we had not received the memorandum or correspondence from the Department. <BR /> <BR />The Executive then gave their approval for an LCM to be laid before the Assembly through the urgent decision mechanism on 16 May, with the memorandum and draft motion being laid 12 days later, on 28 May. The Committee was notified on that date and held its first briefing on the subject on the same day. While officials were apologetic, members were given no clear understanding as to why the delay had happened.”
“Two of their Committees laid reports on the LCM, and consent was given by the Scottish Parliament on 1 April 2025. The Welsh Government laid their memorandum on 2 January 2025 and, subsequently, laid supplementary memoranda, with four of their Committees laying various reports on the Bill, and Senedd Cymru giving consent on 6 May 2025. I note those details to demonstrate how important and detailed the scrutiny was in other devolved jurisdictions and what has been lost to the Assembly by the complete lack of scrutiny that has been afforded here. <BR /> <BR />On 7 May 2025, the UK Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms said, at the Bill's Third Reading:”
“It is important to point out that it was the Committee Clerks who got in touch with the Department to ask that question. That is how we got that information. <BR /> <BR />There was no further communication from the Department regarding the Bill until it laid a legislative consent memorandum and draft motion on 28 May 2025 — just over a month ago. On 20 November 2024, the Speaker wrote to the First Minister and deputy First Minister, with all other Ministers copied in, noting that six Bills, including this Bill, had been introduced at Westminster, which, the Government had accepted, engaged the legislative consent process in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />The Scottish Government laid their legislative consent memorandum for the Data (Use and Access) Bill on 22 November 2024.”
“<BR /> <BR />I will explain, from the Committee's perspective, what has occurred to make the motion necessary and outline the failure of the legislative consent process on this occasion. On 23 October 2024, the Data (Use and Access) Bill was introduced in the UK Parliament. Standing Orders state that the Assembly must be informed of the Bill's introduction within 10 working days of that date through a legislative consent memorandum, as per Standing Order 42A. That is specifically in the context of when the Sewel convention, as mentioned by the Minister, is engaged because the UK Government are seeking to legislate in a devolved area. On 13 November 2024, following prompting from the Committee's team, the Department advised the Committee:”
“It is an untimed debate, so I will speak both as leader of the Opposition and as Chair of the Finance Committee. There are important things to say in both capacities. <BR /> <BR />I will speak first as Chair of the Finance Committee. I want to highlight at the outset that, due to the mismanagement of the process by the Department, the Committee has had to reserve its opinion on the issue. It was not given the appropriate or prescribed — that is prescribed, with an "e" — time to consider the elements of the data Bill, which seek to legislate within the devolved remit. Of course, it is worth saying that the data Bill will very shortly be an Act. That is part of the context that brings us here, today.”
“In truth, the underspend on the A5 this year will surely be much greater than that. The 2025-26 Budget, which was published just a few weeks ago, allocates £181 million to the A5. It looks as though none of that will be spent this year. Will you, as Finance Minister, be handing back nearly £200 million from the unbuilt A5, which could cost lives, because of a failed planning process that you, as Infrastructure Minister, oversaw?”
“Minister, on conventional capital DEL, you mention that there is:”
“Earlier today, I received an email from a constituent whom I will not name. He said that, on Friday evening, a group of people knocked on his front door to enquire as to whether he would support an upcoming protest about housing for local people in the area. He said politely that he would not. His wife had immigrated to here, and he said that he felt uncomfortable about the tone used by the people at his door and about some of the protests. Will you, as Minister for housing, take the opportunity to distance yourself from the scenes that we have seen, even when they have not been violent, and from the protests outside people's homes calling for local homes for local people? The situation is deeply troubling. Are you troubled by it, Minister? What are you doing about it?”
“Minister, there is a little bit of diplomacy in your answers. Is it not somewhat ironic that a Sinn Féin Member asks about the Lough Neagh action plan when their party voted against one of the critical parts of the plan? Further to that, it appears that the two big parties in the Executive are going to block progress on the nutrients action plan and that there is no plan to fund Northern Ireland Water. Will you confirm whether all Executive commitments on Lough Neagh will lie in utter ruins if those two things cannot be progressed?”
“I am profoundly concerned that we have had the statement today, not because I do not want the best possible east-west links between the UK Government and the Executive — I do — but because the East-West Council has been presented as having spurious equivalence with the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) and the British-Irish Council (BIC), which are enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement and therefore international law. Given that the statement mentioned that the Council's missions are set out in the 'Safeguarding the Union' paper — a unilateral paper that was produced by the Tory Government after clandestine consultation with the DUP — is that paper now Executive policy? Did your colleague the First Minister and her party agree to the terms of reference as per the 'Safeguarding the Union' paper?”
“First Minister, on the A5, you stated that "things have moved on" since the meeting. Given that the judge said that lives would be lost as a result of the judgement last week, I am afraid that that is one hell of a euphemism, but it is the only thing that you have said so far about that judgement and the delay in delivering the A5. Given that the project appears to have been jeopardised because of extreme incompetence at a Department led by your Ministers and given that you took personal responsibility and credit for it when planning approval was granted in October, do you take personal responsibility at all for the judgement last week? What specific actions are you taking to move the project forward and to ensure that the A5 is delivered? Please be specific, First Minister.”
“Deputy First Minister, I wish that I could ask you a detailed question about what happened at the British-Irish Council summit, but I am afraid that there was no detail in your statement. It was full of platitudes and waffle. Having looked at today's Order Paper, I ask this: is it the Executive Office's position that the East-West Council, a body that was not agreed to by all parties, let alone by the two Governments, and is not embodied in statute or underpinned by an international treaty, has some kind of spurious equality with the British-Irish Council and the North/South Ministerial Council, which are both products of the Good Friday Agreement and therefore enshrined in statute?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Just for absolute clarity, let me say that our party takes its commitment to non-violence so seriously that it hardly needs saying. We put down the first motion in the Chamber that condemned the actions on 7 October along with the grotesque and disproportionate acts of the Israeli Government. <BR /> <BR />Furthermore, the Member said something that is not true. He said that the UUP amendment condemns the Israeli Government. It does no such thing. It condemns the attacks carried out by Hamas — fair enough — but it then goes on to simply express concern about the actions of the Israeli Government. If he is going to condemn us, he should read the text of what he is supporting.”
“Those of us who care about all the people of Palestine and Israel — Jewish, Muslim and Christian — living in peace, dignity and justice should stand firmly against the obscenity of what is happening there at the minute. My party supports the motion.”
“The answer is no because, while Hamas is an appalling organisation, the Member is conflating two sides that are not balanced, frankly. The state of Israel secretly armed itself to be a nuclear power 60-plus years ago. It did so with the connivance of the United States and other Western Governments. It has launched a brutal, one-sided campaign of killing on the people of Gaza, whom it seeks to wipe out. There is, I am afraid, no balance in that situation. To pretend that there is a balance would be not just disingenuous, from my perspective, but immoral and wrong. <BR /> <BR />This is an important motion. Those of us who care about human rights and the rule of law should support it.”
“I do not have much time but I will give way very briefly.”
“A couple of weeks ago, in the Chamber, he accused the Irish state of, I think, borderline Nazism because it criticised Israel. If he wants to use robust language about those who criticise Israel, I am afraid that he will have to listen to robust language from those of us who think that the state of Israel has gone far beyond what is acceptable in defending itself. <BR /> <BR />Let me come to the point.”
“Those of us who actually believe that Western democracies should stand for human rights and international law are precisely the ones who should tell the United States, the UK, the European Union and other Western states that to give the state of Israel cover for the obscene crimes that it has committed in Gaza and, over many years, in Palestine undermines fatally the idea of human rights, the rule of law and international rules. How can the West turn round to Vladimir Putin, who has launched an illegal war in Ukraine, and say, "You are breaking the rules", when Benjamin Netanyahu and his racist, fascist killing machine is allowed to go into Gaza and kill with impunity? <BR /> <BR />Dr Aiken does not like me using strong words about Netanyahu.”
“Let me say this: I deplore profoundly what Hamas did on 7 October. Let us get that out of the way, OK? I do not defend Hamas or have any truck with that organisation. However, are Israeli children being slaughtered by the tens of thousands? A legitimate answer to that question cannot simply be to shout, "But Hamas". <BR /> <BR />Just before I got up to speak, I was on the website of the International Criminal Court reading the warrant for the arrest of Mr Benjamin Netanyahu. If there is any justice in the world, Benjamin Netanyahu will, at some point, face justice and, hopefully, live out his days in a courtroom and then a prison. Sadly, I fear that that will not happen, because he has been given cover by Western powers.”
“The Member asked for an intervention. I will give him an intervention.”
“However, there will be people alive in Palestine — I hope in a Palestinian state, living in justice and peace — who will remember the trauma of the past two years. They will be living with the trauma that has been visited upon their people over the past two years: 50,000-plus lives lost, many of them children. I genuinely do not know how Members in the Chamber can hoot, barrack and jeer when it comes to the profound moral obscenity of tens of thousands of children being slaughtered by the state of Israel. I genuinely do not know how people can do that.”
“I worry that Dr Aiken set a very clear tone at the beginning of the debate when he cited the IHRA definition and, as per his interpretation of that definition, effectively accused of antisemitism those of us, including those Members who tabled the motion, who care about humanity and want to call out the appalling genocide that Israel is visiting upon the Palestinian people. That speaks to a very chilling tendency to shut down debate from among those who will not hear criticisms and factual statements about the deeply immoral, evil actions of the state of Israel over the past 18 months and more. <BR /> <BR />At the end of this century, most of us in the Chamber — I imagine nearly all of us — will be gone.”
“The Member chunters about Iran. Yes, Iran has a nuclear programme, but it is not a fully armed nuclear state, which Israel has been for more than 60 years. Let us also be clear that Israel is a nuclear-armed state, and it has killed tens of thousands of people. That is not a balanced situation.”
“I appreciate the Member's giving way for the purposes of debate. He talks about balance, and balance is important. Does he accept that, in this equation, one side is a nuclear-armed state that lost in an appalling —”