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“Clearly, however, the regulatory and enforcement regime for all those watercourses and marine environments is way out of date ecologically and, indeed, economically.”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 36 of 119.
“I will draw my remarks to a conclusion, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I hope that the Minister will consider offering clarity in his winding- up remarks about whether he offered a direction on the A5. That is of the utmost importance.”
“I will take my seat, but that is unbelievably important information.”
“My utmost important point is this: the question was not answered as to whether the Minister gave a direction to his officials in October in relation to progressing the A5. Will he clarify that point now — I will give way to him — or in his remarks later? That is critical for the people who care about the construction of the A5 and how we move forward with that. I do not know whether the Minister wants to clarify that now or in his remarks later.”
“— about whether the Minister issued a ministerial direction. I would —.”
“Principal Deputy Speaker, there is an outstanding question —”
“The law was passed nine years ago. There is no reason why it should not have been commenced. Bluntly, it would have been commenced had big parties not collapsed the institutions. Let us please never do that again; let us reform our institutions so that it cannot happen again. <BR /> <BR />Before I conclude my remarks, I want, with the indulgence of the Chair, to briefly touch on something that is not directly related to the legislation but is critical. The Minister of Finance is here. Until a few months ago, he was the Minister for Infrastructure. Just yesterday, we heard there was a judgement in a court case — this relates to a legal matter — on the A5.”
“If the Minister is able to say something about the fact that the costs for individual solicitors will be relatively small, that would be an important reassurance. It should ultimately be for the Minister of Justice to explain how she will defend access for ordinary working people in the North. That is a really important part of this, and it would more properly sit with the Minister of Justice. <BR /> <BR />I will say something about the absurdity of the situation in which we have found ourselves due to the delay in these matters. We are, effectively, commencing part of a piece of legislation that we passed nine years ago. That illustrates the absurdity of collapsing the institutions and what that leads to: delay in things such as legal services oversight and improving the oversight of the legal profession — the Bar and solicitors.”
“My dad was one of those small-town solicitors who did everything — probate, conveyancing, going down to a custody suite for somebody who needed a lawyer at short notice on a Saturday night — as part of the one-stop-shop public service that small-town solicitors provide. We face a crisis, particularly in rural areas but also in some working-class areas of our cities where people need that kind of legal service. It is very important — the Minister might want to say something about it — that we give clarity to legal professionals in the age of big corporate law firms getting all the attention and, we are told, of AI apparently taking over certain types of legal work, if ordinary people are to be able to access justice and legal services on the high street. It is about reassuring them that the costs will be minimal.”
“<BR /> <BR />There are, of course, other issues to do with the devolution of justice powers, including who gets to be Minister of Justice, that my party and others would like to see progress on, but it is worth making this important point: my Committee has lots to do, as does the Minister's Department, yet we are being detained by legal services oversight, which is important work but would sit more properly with the Department of Justice. One reason why it would do so is that the Department of Justice has primary responsibility for the legal profession and the administration of justice in the North. <BR /> <BR />We face a potential crisis in the number of legal practitioners in the years to come. I suppose that I should declare a retrospective interest.”
“Speaking for myself and my party, it is very strange that the Department of Finance is responsible for these strange odds and sods that relate to legal services and civil legal matters. It would make a lot more sense if those matters sat with the Minister of Justice and the Department of Justice, as they do in neighbouring jurisdictions. It is a strange relic, left over from when policing and justice powers were devolved 15 year ago, that they do not, and I see no good reason why they should not be moved.”
“<BR /> <BR />There was Committee consensus in support of the draft statutory rules, and, at its meeting on 18 June, the Committee agreed to recommend that they be affirmed by the Assembly. Therefore, the Committee for Finance supports the motions to affirm each of the rules. <BR /> <BR />I will say a few brief words in my Opposition role. First, the role of the Department of Justice needs to be looked at. The Minister of Finance and his Department are very busy. They have just completed a spending review; two pieces of legislation were introduced yesterday; and three- and five-year Budgets are being worked on for later in the year, as are lots of other bits of our fiscal framework.”
“She is not in the Chamber, but the Chair of the Committee for Justice may have something to say about that at some point. <BR /> <BR />The Committee held an additional session with departmental officials on 18 June 2025 to discuss the issues that Committee members raised about the subordinate legislation. Committee members confirmed that they were content with the Department's policy proposals, and the Committee agreed to seek a further update on the costs, running and governance of the office at the end of the year. The Committee noted assurances that the Department provided on the position in GB and on the regulatory and financial impacts. The Examiner of Statutory Rules (ESR) reported on the draft rules and had no objection to them.”
“Separately, the Committee agreed to write to the Law Society and the Bar Council to seek comments from them and confirmation that they were content with the proposals. Both organisations confirmed, in their responses, that, although they were content with the legislation, they were in discussion with the Department on some issues, including the time limits for appealing, what will be covered by the levy and whether a transitional provision would be suitable, considering the timeline that is involved. We would welcome the Minister elaborating on any of that in his winding-up speech, should he wish to do so. <BR /> <BR />The Committee also wrote to the Committee for Justice to seek its views and to ask whether that area might sit more appropriately with it.”
“Members were briefed by the current Legal Services Oversight Commissioner and departmental officials, who discussed the work that had been progressed since the Act received Royal Assent. They discussed the differences that would be made to the role of the commissioner on commencement of the subordinate legislation and the potential financial impact and time frame for their full implementation. <BR /> <BR />I highlight the fact that the Committee agreed that it was content with the policy proposals but that it also agreed to seek further clarification on a number of issues, including the mechanism used to set the levy for the Law Society and the Bar Council, the estimates of the levy and the estimated costs that the commissioner's office will incur once it is fully established.”
“The draft Legal Complaints and Regulation Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 (Appeals) Regulations 2025 provide for rights of appeal from respective complaints committees. The draft Legal Complaints and Regulation (Penalty) Order (NI) 2025 provides for the amount of financial penalty that the commissioner can impose on the professional bodies. The draft SRs follow on from the Legal Complaints and Regulation Act 2016. <BR /> <BR />In its deliberations, the Committee noted its disappointment at the fact that it has taken nine years for the regulations, which give the requisite powers to the commissioner, to be laid, although the Committee accepts the Department's rationale for the delay. The policy proposal, in the form of the SL1 letter, was first considered by the Committee at its meeting on 21 May 2025.”
“I will speak first about the Committee for Finance's scrutiny of the draft statutory rules and then speak briefly with my Opposition hat on. <BR /> <BR />I thank the Minister for his comments, his officials for making themselves available and the commissioner for appearing before the Committee to aid us in our scrutiny. The Committee considered the statutory rules, which will enact the role of the Legal Services Oversight Commissioner. The draft Legal Complaints and Regulation Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 (Levy) Regulations 2025 provide for a financial levy on professional bodies, which is the amount that they will each pay in order to cover the cost of the commissioner's office.”
“Minister, it is clear that we all care about the families and those who have been devastated by the effect of the A5, but that does not stop us doing our job in the Chamber of delivering accountability. Yesterday's decision was to uphold an appeal of a decision that was made by your predecessor, John O'Dowd. Are you confident, and has your Department advised you, that the decision that he made in October 2024, which was presumably made at risk — it was clearly made at risk — was made in light of all the proper information, including the presence of a viable climate action plan and a proper consultation, as per the PAC report? Did your predecessor, John O'Dowd, fail in his responsibilities? It certainly appears that way.”
“I want to apologise because I was not in the Chamber to ask my question to the Assembly Commission. Colleagues clearly moved more quickly than I had anticipated, so apologies for that.”
“On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.”
“I have a quick question. I hope that we will hear that the requirements of the business plan will be met this year, given that some of the words from the First Minister indicated that they would. When that workforce plan is published, will it address what now appears to be a crisis in Catholic recruitment to the PSNI? Numbers are at an all-time low. I do not necessarily want to get into all of the old categories, but we need to rescue Catholic levels of recruitment. Does the Minister agree?”
“Minister, I wish that I could thank you for your statement, but I cannot, because it is a waste of the Assembly's time. It is an utter waste. I do not know which detective you got to do the forensic exercise — whether it was Columbo or perhaps Inspector Clouseau. Having read the statement, I think that it demonstrates, Minister, that you want an alibi for your and your Executive's failure to deliver on NI Water. Minister, I accept that you do not want water charges — I do not want it, and the Opposition do not want it — but, please, what is your plan to fund Northern Ireland Water? Take responsibility: tell us how you will fund Northern Ireland Water.”
“— of Northern Ireland, who have been failed —”
“All the while, our public services sink further into disrepair and chaos, and major projects that are essential for the preservation of life are delayed. There is Civil Service incompetence, and there is political leadership. It is a crisis in accountability in our politics in Northern Ireland — a genuine crisis. <BR /> <BR />Mr Speaker, you have talked about the abysmal quality of debate and scrutiny in the Chamber, but it goes beyond that. The official Opposition's job is to stand up and speak for the people —”
“People having babies in the years to come will wonder whether they will be able to have those babies in a proper state-of-the-art maternity unit. We have failed consistently to show leadership. The two big parties have walked away from government repeatedly — repeatedly — thus delaying the delivery of the A5, delaying the delivery of the maternity hospital and delaying the delivery of Casement Park. <BR /> <BR />This a problem that touches on Civil Service competence, but it also touches on political leadership, because the people who are in charge in this place do not think that politics is about delivery; they think that it is about photo opportunities. They think that it is about getting your mug on social media and in the papers and then, every few years at an election, trading off tribalism and getting back into office.”
“We need only look at the other delays in critical infrastructure: reviving NI Water; delivering on the maternity hospital at the Royal; and the failure, after a few weeks, to get going on Northern Ireland's housing targets as set out in the Programme for Government. Although 6,000 houses were promised in two years, barely a thousand will be started this year, if we are lucky. <BR /> <BR />It gets to the heart of a problem — a crisis — that we have in this society and these politics, which is that the public do not trust us to deliver on the things that matter to them. People in the west of Ulster — the whole Province of Ulster — are worried about the safety of their families because the A5 will not now be built for a long time. People looking at Lough Neagh will be wondering whether that precious natural resource will ever recover.”
“Like my colleague Sinéad McLaughlin, I want to touch on yesterday's judgement on the A5, but I will not spend all my time talking about the A5, because that judgement is a symptom of a much deeper problem that is at the heart of our system of government and our politics: incompetence and a crisis of accountability. Yesterday's judgement was shocking. People are alive now who will lose their life as a result of the A5's being delayed. Justice McAlinden was quite clear about that in his judgement yesterday. The A5 has been the subject of repeated delays and challenges. Later today, we will have the opportunity to debate the ineptitude of the Department in how it managed yesterday's appeal, but it is clear that it is part of a systemic problem with governance in Northern Ireland.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, will you advise on how we might proceed if a Minister makes what appear to be almost directly contradictory statements, one after the other? The Infrastructure Minister just said in answer to Gerry Kelly that there was no alternative funding model for NI Water other than water charging. In answer to the next question, from Mr Kearney, she said that her Department was looking for innovative ways to fund Northern Ireland Water. Those statements appear to me to be, on the face of it, directly contradictory. Will the Speaker advise on how we might address that?”
“On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Accepting that there will always be good, legitimate reasons why Ministers cannot come to the Chamber, I again ask that the Speaker's Office looks at the issue of Ministers' coming to the Chamber on Opposition days, given the seriousness of our role, to respond to our points and debates.”
“In light of the fact that the Justice Minister is not here, for which I understand that there are good health reasons, and the fact that this would be our second debate in a row for which the relevant Minister were not here to account to the Opposition —.”
“I will. I return to the motion by saying this: if one natural resource — Lough Neagh — is being left because most of the Executive think, "It's fine. We don't need to do anything about it. We can let it drift into becoming, basically, an open-air cesspool", are we to trust that the Executive will take the Sperrins and other beautiful parts of our natural environment with the appropriate seriousness? I do not think that we have that level of trust, which is why we tabled motion. the We are serious about protecting our environment. Of course we want to see economic development and investment, but not at the cost of protecting our greatest natural resource, straight in the face of the expressed wishes of the local communities. <BR /> <BR />I commend our motion to the Assembly.”
“<BR /> <BR />Do I have an extra minute, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker?”
“It is important not to conflate the agreed and licensed extraction of building materials by quarry companies with prospecting for rare earth materials, about which there are real public health and environmental concerns in local communities. That matters because this place has an abysmal environmental record, which became worse last week when a consultation on the nutrients action plan was not supported. I repeat that this is not an assault on farmers. Farmers deserve to be consulted and are vital to who we are. However, the nutrients action plan is a key step, whether it is implemented exactly as it stands or reviewed after the consultation. Sinn Féin, the DUP, the TUV and the Ulster Unionists voted to bin even the consultation last week, while Lough Neagh, which is our greatest natural resource, becomes an open-air cesspool.”
“They are prospecting licences, but it is true that the granting of prospecting licences creates momentum. That is part of the point: once a prospecting licence is created, a situation is then created in which someone will say, "Look, we found this mineral". I take the point that was made that that excludes the extraction of gold and silver, because that is done through a separate process, but there is very real public opposition in this part of our island to continued extraction. People are very serious about that. <BR /> <BR />To be fair, Diana Armstrong made an honest argument that was effectively in favour of mining and quarrying, which she sees as economic activity. The motion does not say that we should shut down every slate or limestone quarry in the North.”
“I appreciate that, and I am glad that I gave way, but I am still none the wiser as to how that works precisely. I am afraid that the position appears to be as clear as mud, but I will move on to a couple of the other points.”
“I will give way in a second. It is all well and good to accuse the Opposition of taking a potshot, but we are saying the same thing, or at least asking the same questions, as Save Our Sperrins.”
“I am afraid that I am slightly none the wiser. We are being corrected, and we — the Opposition — are accused of taking cheap potshots and misunderstanding how the rules work. If that is true of us, it is also true of Save Our Sperrins, the campaign group that is vociferously opposed to the granting of those new licences and has said so publicly. It is all well and good to accuse the Opposition of taking a potshot —.”
“<BR /> <BR />I will respond to a few of the points. I know that Emma Sheerin is passionate about the Sperrins. She grew up there and no doubt cares a huge amount for them — I do not dispute that — but she appeared to indicate that a moratorium was not legally possible. It is important to say that, when the current Minister for the Economy was the Chair of the Economy Committee, that is exactly what she called for: a moratorium. She wrote to the then Economy Minister to ask for one. Now that she has that power, apparently she does not have it, or she is not able to put in place a moratorium. <BR /> <BR />Separately, we are told that granting the licences is a way in which to get to a moratorium, if I am understanding it correctly, or that one cannot get to a moratorium without granting the licences.”
“Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I am slightly at a loss as to how to cover a few of the points that have been raised in the debate. It would obviously be helpful if the Minister for the Economy were here to respond, because we have just heard that she did not formally approve those mineral licences. Rather, that was done by her Department. It would be helpful if the Minister were here to explain and expand on precisely her role, what say she has in the granting of licences and what questions she has asked her officials. I am afraid that we are not able to do that because she is not here. That is a shame. Our job as the official Opposition is to hold Ministers to account. I do not think that it is unreasonable to expect Ministers to come to the Chamber in Opposition time and answer those questions, but I will move on.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. An exercise is going on at the minute on five-year business planning. Is his Department specifically looking at the potential for a five-year arts strategy as part of that five-year business plan? If not, might that be something the Minister will take away with him?”
“Frankly, we need that to maintain the pipeline of talent for our creative industries.”
“People do not expect us to match the South overnight — that would not be realistic — but can the Minister give us at least a trajectory for a multi-year plan later this year? If he wants to make that representation to the Finance Minister, he will have the Opposition's support. We are not talking about earth-shattering amounts of money in the broad scheme of the Executive Budget over a multi-year settlement. Let us work towards increasing that so that we can celebrate our artists.”
“It was said that austerity was a reason for the squeeze on the arts budget. Austerity was pernicious and awful, and I hope that we will eventually emerge from that era of economic thinking. However, Scotland, Wales and England all experienced austerity, as did the Republic of Ireland for many years, and our arts spending is way behind all of those places. If austerity was to blame, why are they so far ahead of us? That is the blunt point. Despite our particular love of the arts and need to support it, Northern Ireland has been frankly pathetic at funding it. We have failed our artists. We need to do better. <BR /> <BR />We need to produce a multi-year plan with a specific uplift.”
“The Member, in his distinctive way, has made a very important point. He comes from Newry, home of Sean Hollywood, a former SDLP politician and a brilliant champion of the local arts; indeed, Doire Finn, our arts spokesperson who convened the round table today, is related to Sean Hollywood. What we heard clearly at the round table is that artists want more than warm words; they have that in their day job. They want a funding settlement that enables them to do their jobs and not have to take second and third jobs or emigrate. Yes, support the arts in our communities. Today, I want to hear a commitment from the Minister that he will at least do his best to work with the Finance Minister to produce a multi-year settlement that uplifts. <BR /> <BR />I want to challenge some of the points that have been made today.”
“I am glad you said that, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.”
“The Member makes a fair point about regional balance. Of course, I think—.”
“The artists, whose day job is making the best and most impactful use of words, want more than warm words; they want a funding settlement. First, I acknowledge that, a few weeks ago, the Minister uplifted the arts budget a bit, but that came after a long-term structural squeeze on the arts budget in Northern Ireland. We on this island have a particular love — grá — for the arts, but we also have a hard bottom-line need to celebrate and support the arts because it is critical to our tourism and hospitality offer. It is also why a lot of large companies want to invest and create jobs in Belfast, Derry and other places.”
“Take it as read that we all care about the arts. Take it as read that the arts mean a lot to us. Take it as read that we all care about communities of all backgrounds being able to access culture in our constituencies. In my constituency, obviously, I have particular landmark cultural institutions, such as the Lyric Theatre. I will not spend much time listing them, because they are amazing and they know they are amazing. Of course, the Lyric Theatre won UK Theatre of the Year a few years ago, and, in a sense, it does not need all that to be celebrated. What the arts sector needs, bluntly, is more support. <BR /> <BR />We had a round table with the sector upstairs earlier on, and the all-party group on arts, which I sat on for a long time, engages consistently with the sector.”
“— that all is fine, I am afraid that they have another thing coming. I commend the motion to the House.”
“If Members think that the job of the official Opposition is to come in here and glad-hand, shake hands and pretend —”
“There is nowhere near the budget to deliver social homes, and there is a complete denial about the crisis facing NI Water.”