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“Clearly, however, the regulatory and enforcement regime for all those watercourses and marine environments is way out of date ecologically and, indeed, economically.”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 39 of 119.
“Use of the sole authority of the Budget Act allows the Assembly to approve expenditure and for that to be legislated for in the Budget Bill. Such expenditure has fallen to £13·4 million from over £28 million last year. We look forward to hearing from the Minister about when a Fiscal Council Bill and the financial provisions Bill, which will specifically cover that issue, will be introduced. <BR /> <BR />The Department of Finance budget represents one of the smaller Executive allocations. That reflects its position as an administrative spending Department that provides shared services across the Executive. As such, a significant majority of its budget is used for administrative rather than for programme purposes. Non-ring-fenced resource DEL for 2025-26 amounts to £240·1 million, with capital DEL of £32·5 million.”
“Across capital and resource DEL, £440 million has been earmarked for Programme for Government (PFG) priorities, including £357 million for Budget 2025-26 outcomes and £83·4 million for indicative June monitoring allocations. Resource DEL allocations include £215 million to cut waiting times. Capital DEL allocations include the allocation of £21·3 million of the £47 million that is available for transformation from the Executive's restoration package. Treasury and Executive earmarked resource DEL allocations amount to £1·245 billion, with capital DEL of £839 million. <BR /> <BR />Table 2 of the Estimates document sets out the composition of the departmental expenditure limit for each of the Departments and bodies, with table 3 highlighting resource DEL and table 4 showing capital DEL. <BR /> <BR />I will turn to table 5.”
“A total of 18 Northern Ireland Main Estimates are presented for 2025-26, with one for each Department and separate Estimates for other relevant public bodies and specific public service pension schemes. Each Estimate is produced in a standard format. The consolidated boundary is defined in order to include all bodies that are classified as central government bodies. <BR /> <BR />With Treasury allocations and funds available for June monitoring, the Executive Budget for 2025-26 stands just shy of £17 billion in resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) and just under £2·5 billion in capital DEL, with £58·7 million of financial transactions capital (FTC). For the first time, FTC bids exceed what is available.”
“Members will also be aware that the 2024-25 financial year saw considerable Barnett consequentials arising from the restoration package and other allocations and that those will not be replicated for 2025-26. <BR /> <BR />The draft Budget for 2025-26 was agreed by the Executive on 19 December 2024, subject to a 12-week consultation period that ended on 13 March. The 2025-26 Budget was agreed by the Executive on 3 April. Today's Supply resolution allows Members to consider the allocations that are involved in individual budgets. The Budget (No. 2) Bill, which will be introduced today, will give legal authority to the Budget that we are discussing under the resolution. The Estimates should be aligned to the latest Budget as agreed by the Executive on 3 April.”
“Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will say something at the end of my remarks about the continued anomaly of the allotted time. First, I will speak as Chair of the Finance Committee, and I will then turn to my remarks as leader of the Opposition. <BR /> <BR />The Committee received a briefing from officials on the Main Estimates and the Budget (No. 2) Bill at its meeting on 20 May. I thank officials for making themselves available for that. The Main Estimates were published on 22 May — the period for which they have been available is important for transparency — and I am sure that all Members have read the Main Estimates document from cover to cover. Members will be aware that the Financial Reporting (Departments and Public Bodies) Act (NI) 2022 delivered a number of changes to how financial information is presented.”
“— to exert coercive control in our society. It has to end.”
“Those are real questions. Yesterday, I was disappointed to hear the Justice Minister avoid those questions — nothing to do even with the specifics of one sentence but with the broader justice system. It gets right to the heart of the situation that we have created: the weird Shangri-La —”
“However, they feel that we have created some kind of strange, post-conflict Shangri-La where, if you have some kind of affiliation or influence or you are deemed to be the right kind of person, you can draw money from the public purse, gain access to senior people — politicians, diplomats or senior members of the police — get invited to cushy panels paid for by the public purse or at someone else's expense, and, frankly, get treated in a more lenient way by the justice system, including, when you get sent to Maghaberry, getting immediately put on to a segregated wing.”
“There is a broader question for the justice system when an individual — any individual, by the way — is not charged with terror offences or even membership of a terrorist organisation when lots of UVF paraphernalia are found at a property belonging to them and when, as soon as they arrive in Maghaberry jail, they are put in the segregated loyalist wing. Those are real questions for our society, and broader policy questions arise from them. <BR /> <BR />Lots of people in the constituency that I represent feel frustrated that they can do nothing when a UVF/UDA flag appears in their street, and the same would be true of IRA or dissident paraphernalia. People want to live in a society that has moved on from all that. They want something different and something better.”
“I respect the fact that the Justice Minister did not want to comment on a specific sentence — it is right that any Justice Minister is clear about judicial independence and not straying into that area — but I also asked her about broader confidence in the justice system and, indeed, broader concerns about this society and some of the moral hazard that we have created by allowing people to continue to exert coercive control over communities while drawing money from the public purse and, it appears, being able to enjoy some level of public esteem or some level of private power and influence to the extent that the great and the good write letters to try to get them a lighter sentence.”
“Before I come to my remarks, I will respond to Dr Aiken, who earlier, I think, compared a Bill that is being discussed in Dáil Éireann to the Nazis. Dr Aiken is entitled to robust views on Israel, but I genuinely ask him to consider his earlier remarks, because they are remarkably intemperate. <BR /> <BR />Yesterday, in the Chamber, I asked the Justice Minister about a subject that has received much commentary and is of high public interest in Northern Ireland: the sentence given to Mr Winston "Winkie" Irvine.”
“She said that she was disappointed in the motion because it effectively sets out a constitutional aspiration. She then went on to explain eloquently why she is a unionist. There is nothing wrong with her explaining why she is a unionist, just as there is nothing wrong with me explaining why a new Ireland back in Europe is the best possible future for Northern Ireland. We will continue to make that case positively and constructively in the Chamber and elsewhere. I commend the motion to the Assembly.”
“To go back to the point that Northern Ireland rejoining the EU is really only viable via a new Ireland, it is true to say that Sinn Féin MEPs have worked on it, but the very first commitment from a UK Government Minister was secured by our former party leader Mark Durkan. He secured a commitment from the UK Government in 2017 that Northern Ireland would automatically rejoin the EU upon a vote for a new Ireland. No such equivalent commitment exists. There is not even a formal accession process under way or theoretically under way for the UK at any point in the future. <BR /> <BR />Timothy Gaston made his points robustly, as always. It is probably unlikely that Timothy will vote for the motion or the amendment, but he set out his views. <BR /> <BR />I understand why Claire Sugden will not vote for the motion.”
“<BR /> <BR />Phillip Brett, who, I think, is not here now, said, among other things, that the protocol was always part of pursuing a constitutional endpoint. It genuinely was not and is not. Ultimately, people in Northern Ireland and the Republic will get the say over the constitutional future. It will not be the EU or the UK.”
“Robbie Butler said that there was a predetermined outcome from our motion. No: we have a predetermined view, but it is our job to persuade people. In the same way, he has a predetermined view about the status quo, and it is an entirely legitimate one that he is more than able to deploy. Peter Martin talked about being proud to be British. It is really important that I, as someone who advocates a European future for Northern Ireland, not just acknowledge his Britishness but celebrate it and that of all the people who vote for him. I have no vision of the future that does not involve Britishness in this part of the island being treasured, celebrated and special. That is why I think that the European context is so important for our future.”
“I want a future that leads to proper investment in our public services and ends the division that has held our people back for far too long. I genuinely believe, and my party has always believed, that the European context is a really hopeful and positive way for us not just to manage but to celebrate that diversity. By the way, that would also mean an enhanced and close relationship with the UK state after we re-entered the European Union. <BR /> <BR />Lots of the comments were interesting. Declan Kearney correctly said that there is a democratic deficit. I acknowledge that. Those of us who support the protocol acknowledge that. That is why we want to see improvements. David Brooks made interesting and robust remarks, and I was glad to have him participating in the debate.”
“There is nothing illegitimate about debating the constitutional future, and the debates do not have to fall into binary categories. As I said, lots of the people whom I represent are from unionist backgrounds and are interested in the debate. I hear from them all the time. I know them. I do not just represent those people; they are my friends. <BR /> <BR />There is nothing in our motion about the politics of exclusion, as Mr Honeyford said that there was. Those words are put in my mouth by the Alliance Party. Mr Honeyford also called the SDLP irrelevant. That is not really an appropriate way in which to engage in debate here. We have the same number of MLAs as his party had before the last elections, so let us just park all that stuff, please. <BR /> <BR />I very much want the best possible future for all the people of Northern Ireland.”
“I genuinely do not think that that is a controversial point. It is also the case that it is the only option over which we and our voters, the people who elect us, have a clear ability to affect the outcome. That is true. Even if UK politics were moving towards Remain — it definitely is not — we cannot move it. If there were a referendum, we could be easily outvoted by voters in England. For all those reasons, there is one clear, decisive option to get back into the European Union. <BR /> <BR />I will come on to some of the points that Members made. The debate has been really interesting. Some of the comments have been relatively testy, but others have been good-natured. It is important to have such debates in the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
“I will return to the subject of the debate, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. If Alliance Members want more interventions, they can see me at UTV in an hour's time. Apparently, they were not so keen on doing that, but we are here in the Chamber. <BR /> <BR />The point about the options for European Union membership is that there is no serious route back in. I would genuinely love the UK to rejoin the European Union. If there were a referendum in the next five years, I would canvass for the UK to rejoin. As a civil servant, I worked hard to keep the UK in, so I have direct knowledge of this, and I do not think that it is likely. The campaign — the argument for a new Ireland that is back inside the European Union — is the only viable, realistic route for Northern Ireland to rejoin the EU.”
“No, I will not give way. I have already given way. By the way, the Member will not debate me. His party has refused to debate me tonight on UTV. If he wishes to make an intervention, he can join me on television in a couple of hours' time. I am told that the Alliance party has pulled out.”
“I will give way in one second. <BR /> <BR />We cannot shift that. We are about a million and a half voters out of 60 million.”
“<BR /> <BR />I think that it is really important — others disagree — that we send MPs to Westminster to articulate the interests of our constituents, even though I aspire to a different constitutional position, but the votes of people here will not fundamentally shift the tenor of UK politics.”
“I offered the Member an intervention for the purpose of the debate, and I am glad that he said that, because — let me be clear — at the minute, those do not seem like equal propositions. He said that, in British politics, a Government involving Nigel Farage and a Government involving a pro-European coalition that would push for a second referendum seem equally likely. Those are not equal propositions at the minute, and no serious observer of British politics thinks that they are. Here is the important point, however, and this is what our motion is all about: even if they were, we have no say over that. No one in the Chamber and none of our voters have much say over that at all.”
“— as they are — I will give way in a moment — there is probably no more than a 5% chance that, in the decade or two to come, there will be a move towards a vote to rejoin, which is the stated position of no major party that is represented in Parliament. I will give way to Mr Tennyson.”
“There used to be, going way back, a marginal theory in parts of loyalism that Northern Ireland should unilaterally declare independence. Northern Ireland could, theoretically, declare independence and then seek to accede to the EU. We could try to join France, Belgium or Poland. I say that not to be facetious but to talk reality. The UK is, I am afraid, extremely unlikely to rejoin the EU. With the politics of Britain —”
“I am already hearing hectoring from a sedentary position. I do not want to have a debate on that basis; I want to have a debate about Northern Ireland being back in the EU. OK? I respect everyone's political perspective, whether they take a position on the constitution or whether they, like Claire Sugden, have a position on the constitution that is decided and clear but entirely different from other people who have the same designation, which Claire Sugden articulated very well. <BR /> <BR />The point was made that there are two routes back into the EU for Northern Ireland. In a theoretical, literal sense, that is true. In fact, one could have added to the motion other potential routes for Northern Ireland to rejoin the EU.”
“<BR /> <BR />I sometimes feel that the party that, more than any other in the Chamber, is constantly obsessed with binary categories is the party that does not designate, and that can be frustrating. I do not want to have a debate purely based on the categories of unionist or nationalist.”
“OK. Let me just say this: we all had to sign in. After we became MLAs, because of the terms of the Good Friday Agreement and the Northern Ireland Act, we all had to designate as "Unionist", "Nationalist" or "Other". I designate as "Nationalist" and "Social Democrat". I am also proudly pro-European. I am proud to be Irish, and I believe that there should not be a border on this island, but everything about my life, my family and the way in which I live and approach politics has been cross-border and cross-community. I have lived most of my adult life on the island of Britain rather than the island of Ireland. I do not belong in a narrow, binary box.”
“Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, my patience may be tried. I am trying to be emollient and calm in this debate and not rise to provocation.”
“Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank everybody who participated in a lively and important debate. It is an important debate. I turn to what Mr Tennyson just said, which was, I think, that we could have had this debate over 100 years ago and that it revealed only that one group of people is unionist, another group is nationalist and another group is unaligned. That was not the purpose of the debate.”
“I appreciate the Member's taking the intervention. It is a good-spirited debate. My argument is that — I think that lots of people agree with this — in the context of a new Ireland back inside the European Union, a whole range of other benefits, including economic benefits, will be unlocked. That sounds like a grand promise. I will not detain him in the middle of his speech to talk about those. Yes, there are certainly dual market access benefits that I am championing here now, and I would love to see those continue in a new Ireland. I assume that he is now on board with dual market access, given his interest in it.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. There is a lot of thoughtful stuff in his remarks, but he said that the motion reduced the Good Friday Agreement to constitutional outcomes, but is the agreement not all about respecting constitutional aspirations, including his own?”
“— is via a vote for a new Ireland under the —”
“They have spent an age making out that this is a question of narrow or even sectarian division. It is not. This is about a European future. There is only one way in which the people of Northern Ireland can make that choice, and it is a choice that my party and I are proud to represent. The only way that they can make that choice —”
“It is not the case that this is an equal and opposite choice between two equally plausible outcomes. <BR /> <BR />UK politics has changed. Not one major party in Britain is calling for the UK to rejoin. Not one. I think that there is, at best, a 5% chance of the UK rejoining, but, even if the politics of the UK were moving in that direction, we have no ability to shape it. Theoretically, there could be a vote on the UK rejoining, but we could vote 90% in favour of rejoining and still be beaten by English voters. It is also the case that we have no ability to shape whether the UK rejoins. None. It is marginal. It is tiny. <BR /> <BR />I hear Members from the Alliance Party chuntering because they are clearly uncomfortable with the point that I am making.”
“I do not have time. I am happy to take interventions later on. <BR /> <BR />The only way in which they can positively make that choice — this is why our motion says so — is via a new Ireland back in Europe. <BR /> <BR />My professional background is well known. I was in Downing Street on 23 June 2016 and spent the night there on the day of the vote, so no one can tell me that the UK's politics has not structurally changed. The amendment before us today is a card trick. It pretends to the public that this is a choice between tea and coffee — on the one hand; on the other. It is a bit like saying, "Well, there are two ways you could get to Derry from here. You could, as most people do, go up the A6, but you could also go via Limavady or whatever".”
“I think that lots of people in Northern Ireland want a European future, not necessarily because they are nationalist. Many of them are from unionist backgrounds, or, indeed, they are not unionist or nationalist. They might not even be interested in the constitutional question or identity all that much, but they sense something wrong about the way in which our politics is currently constituted and want to hear about the possibility of a European future.”
“As the Member is a former MEP, I am happy to take on board her views about the European legislative programme. I am pro-European, and I am not just making an argument about Northern Ireland in the here and now; I am making an argument about rejoining the EU in a new Ireland. I recognise and respect the fact that the Member will never agree to that, and I would insult her if I pretended that she was going to be persuaded, but I am, and lots of people out there are. That is what I am just about to come on to. <BR /> <BR />A lot of the time, when we debate in the Chamber about unionists and nationalists and identity and history, we act as if it is all binary and people are not entitled to make decisions about the future on other grounds.”
“I do not have a huge amount of time, but I am happy to give way since I promised that I would.”
“It is imperfect but hugely important. <BR /> <BR />As I said, our motion welcomes the EU-UK reset. We want it to go further. We think that a full-blown veterinary agreement would be a good thing. We have been a champion, the whole way through, for our specific arrangements under what is now called the Windsor framework and our ability to have dual market access. We championed it proudly and unabashedly when others would not and did not. We want to go further in the here and now. We want a voice in the European Parliament. We want a European Commission office in Belfast —”
“It is about a profound belief that the European context is one that can help to solve and make progress on the historic divisions on the island of Ireland and to celebrate that diversity. The EU is also the place where we can deal with the challenges of the 21st century. Those challenges go far beyond identity or even some of the challenges of our history. I am talking about things like human beings' relationship with technology, which it feels like, at times, can overwhelm us. The European Union is one of the few entities that is large enough to properly regulate and confront the, at times, uncontrollable power of big tech, climate change and a range of other issues. The biggest challenges of the 21st century will require cooperation across national boundaries, which is exactly the kind of cooperation that the EU represents.”
“The UK state has structurally lost economic output as a result of Brexit. The UK has changed structurally as a result of Brexit. It is poorer and less influential in the world. You need only see the sucking up to Trump — the desperation to win that man's approval. You need only see the progress made by Reform, Nigel Farage's party, which could well be in government after the next election. You need only see statements by Farage and his fellow travellers, including his objectionable statements about Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader, in the past 24 hours. <BR /> <BR />Our party's commitment to the European project has never been about just diplomatic influence or trade; it is about peace and respect for diversity.”
“I acknowledge his point. He is entitled to make it, and I gave way for the purposes of him doing so. I repeat this point: people in Northern Ireland did not vote for that democratic outcome. The purpose of the motion, respectfully, is to deal with the fact that people in Northern Ireland made a different democratic choice. I respect that he chose to leave the EU, but that has had consequences for other people in this society, and, with respect, he and his party have to understand that it has had consequences. <BR /> <BR />The UK state has changed deeply and structurally. Economists talk about the difference between a cyclical change and a structural change. Cyclical change cycles through the system. Structural change is deeper: it is change that does not get washed through or unwound.”
“Not one of those things would exist were it not for Brexit. They literally could not possibly have come into existence had the UK not left the EU and left it in the hardest possible way. I will, again, pause and take interventions from any Member who wants to correct or challenge the point that I have just made.”
“No serious economist doubts that the hard Brexit has cost the UK hundreds of billions of pounds of lost economic output. It is not just a statistic or an academic point; that is lost tax revenue, which has led to less spending on public services and the constrained spending and fiscal position that every party in the House, be they unionist, nationalist or neither, laments weekly. <BR /> <BR />Of course, Brexit has contributed to the political instability that has not only plagued the UK but has compounded the persistent instability in these institutions. I think of the backstop, the protocol and the Windsor framework. I argued for many of those in the context of them being a protection from the worst consequences of a hard Brexit on this island. However, they are all things that every unionist deeply objects to.”
“Members opposite are already making interventions. I am happy to take interventions from Members across the House, and I will be generous with interventions all the way through my contribution. However, that decision was made in England, and if the DUP Members opposite wish to challenge or correct that, I would be more than happy to hear them do so. I will come back to that point, because it is also relevant to our response to the amendment that is published on the Marshalled List. <BR /> <BR />The UK has lost literally hundreds of billions of pounds of economic output as a result of a decision to pursue the hardest Brexit possible. That is no longer a subject for academic debate. It is not a legitimately or seriously contested point among economists.”
“We chose to remain in the EU, but that choice was negated and overruled by a choice made by voters in England”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Time flies. This month, it will be nine years since the UK voted to leave the European Union. Of course, Northern Ireland voted to remain in the European Union. That act — specifically the fact that it was enacted in the hardest, most destructive way possible — remains, as our motion says, an historic act of economic and political self-harm. I want the debate to be about the future, not the past, but the events of the past decade are a fundamental part of our understanding how we got here and where we go next, including our detailed options. Those events are also critical to understanding why we need to choose a different future. <BR /> <BR />In June 2016, as I said, voters in Northern Ireland chose a different future.”
“Minister, what actions will you specifically be taking? First, do you agree that that has damaged confidence in the justice system? What specific actions will you take to review the sentencing rules to improve public confidence after those events?”
“Someone who changed their plea from not guilty to guilty was, of course, Mr Winston, aka Winkie, Irvine. Public confidence in the justice system has been damaged by the reduced tariff given to Mr Irvine after letters from, apparently, the great and the good on:”