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“Clearly, however, the regulatory and enforcement regime for all those watercourses and marine environments is way out of date ecologically and, indeed, economically.”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 41 of 119.
“Thank you very much. <BR /> <BR />There is not, and should not be, any prohibition on talking about issues that affect our constituents. Immigration is, of course, one of those issues. The operation of a humane and competent immigration regime that supports sustainable economic development and the delivery of public services, and which upholds human rights, is one of the major policy challenges of this century. That is the case whether migration is regular — through conventional processes — or irregular and involving a claim of asylum.”
“May I double-check that I have 10 minutes to move the amendment?”
“In relation to baby loss, there are clear sensitivities that we want to tease out and understand. I think that there will be widespread support for that. Making sure that we have the scheme designed carefully is going to be very important. I look forward to doing that work speedily but effectively, and then, hopefully, referring the Bill back, via the Committee, to the Assembly. <BR /> <BR />I commend the motion and thank Members.”
“<BR /> <BR />It has been said and is worth clarifying again that the vast bulk of what is in the Bill is transferring to primary legislation what was already in the emergency provisions of the Coronavirus Act. That is sensible and should not detain us for too long. As Jemma Dolan mentioned, people in, for example, the funeral director sector are very supportive of the Bill and are concerned about any suggestion that it will be delayed. They very much want the provisions passed into law permanently.”
“I will not detain the Assembly too long. People have probably heard enough of me today speaking about various things, but, on this important subject, I hope that Members will have seen that the Committee very much wants to process, scrutinise and, I anticipate, do our work as a Committee and refer the Bill back to the full Assembly for it, hopefully, to be passed into law and then for the Department promptly to design a baby loss scheme. The key thing is that we do a credible piece of consultation and scrutiny that we can stand over, with 1 October as a limit for that rather than a target. We will then come back and do our jobs promptly.”
“I am sure that Mr Frew, if he is speaking on this, might have one or two comments to make, but the initial purpose of the Bill was to put the emergency registration provisions of the Coronavirus Act into permanent law. Subsequently, through our conversations with the Minister and representations from others, the provision around baby loss certificates has been added as an enabling power to allow the Minister to create a scheme. Every member of the Committee thinks that it is a good idea, but the key point is that it needs to do some level of scrutiny to be robust in its role as a Committee. The Committee commends the motion to the House and seeks Members' approval. Thank you.”
“That week will be an important part of raising the profile of the Bill and what it intends to do. The Committee is keen to work with the Minister during Baby Loss Awareness Week to raise public awareness of the issue of baby loss and the Bill's provisions. <BR /> <BR />It is a relatively short extension; it is shorter than Committee Stage extensions normally are. The Committee considers 1 October, to repeat, to be a limit, rather than a target. The Committee also recognises that, should the Assembly agree to the extension today, it will mean another extension to the provisions that we have been using for deaths and stillbirths registration under the Coronavirus Act 2020.”
“<BR /> <BR />One of the most important issues that the Committee has considered concerning the Bill is the immensely sensitive topics that are dealt with — death, and particularly stillbirth and miscarriage. While the Bill provides an enabling power to introduce a scheme for baby loss certificates, without including detailed information on the operation of the scheme, the Committee's call for evidence is likely to bring forward responses that will produce highly emotive, personal testimony. Therefore, the Committee wants to make time to consider that evidence respectfully and appropriately. It will also be ready to act on any additional issues that those stakeholders raise, should members feel it appropriate. The extension date has the Committee completing its work before Baby Loss Awareness Week in October.”
“We hope that they will have the opportunity to do that through our consultation process. Obviously, that is part of the point of having a consultation process. Key stakeholders will be approached to give evidence on the Bill, which will have to be developed in real-time. The timetable only allows for a few weeks between contacting the stakeholders to give evidence and them appearing in front of the Committee. That represents a degree of risk, as the Committee must have the scope to consider the responses to its call for evidence. Additionally, if the evidence highlights the need to seek further witnesses, the Committee will have limited time to contact those additional witnesses to ask them to prepare their evidence.”
“Most Bills are developed and discussed with stakeholders over a period of months, if not years. Having said that, there is widespread support for the provisions of the Bill, and, indeed, the bulk of the Bill is extending the provisions of the Coronavirus Act that relate to the registration of deaths. <BR /> <BR />The nature of the Bill is such that it has not been through that conventional consultation process, so, potentially, there are issues that could arise that we need to be alive to, which have not already been thrashed out through a consultation process. Most Bills are inspected by stakeholders, who have already thought through their views on the Bill, and, certainly on the stillbirths matter, they may not have had the opportunity to think in detail about the legislative provision.”
“<BR /> <BR />At the conclusion of the Second Stage of the Bill, the Committee was charged by the Assembly with a duty to scrutinise the Bill on its behalf. The Committee will do this by drawing out and considering all its provisions and their implications, some of which may not be initially apparent. The timetable for completion is by 1 October, which is fairly tight for undertaking the processes that are expected in a Committee Stage. As I said and to repeat: 1 October is not a target; it is a limit. Little time has been allocated for additional activity beyond that which is expected, and the call for evidence period is relatively short. It is also important to say that the Bill is unusual in that its provisions have not yet been consulted upon.”
“<BR /> <BR />In drawing up a timetable for the Committee's scrutiny of the Bill, we were also cognisant of the advice that was provided by the Bill Clerk and the Committee Clerk, as well as the fact that, although it is not controversial, the Bill deals with very emotive issues that touch on the extraordinarily sensitive subject of baby loss. The timetable reflects the job of scrutiny at hand and the well-established best practice steps for applying it. Members also reflected on the desire that they share with the Minister to deliver the benefits that the Bill provides in as timely a fashion as possible. To be fair, the Minister has been consistent on that point. Although we were pressing his Department to bring forward the Bill quickly, he has clearly said that he wants to implement a scheme as soon as his Department can.”
“Members also anticipate that additional Committee meetings may be necessary. <BR /> <BR />In requesting that the Assembly support the extension, the Committee asks that Members give us the flexibility that we need to discharge our statutory scrutiny role with respect to this Bill. At its meeting on 7 May, the Committee agreed to the motion to extend Committee Stage along with a revised Committee timetable, and I thank members for the way that they approached that discussion. There were legitimately held differing views, and I welcome the fact that we had that constructive discussion.”
“In order to speed things up, the Committee has agreed a list of key stakeholders, who have been contacted directly for their views on the Bill. I use the platform of this debate to encourage any Members who know anybody who might be interested, either private citizens or organisations, in the provisions of the Bill to make their views known to the Committee. <BR /> <BR />The shortened timescale also reflects the hope that the Bill, as it is well supported and non-controversial, will not throw up unanticipated issues that require additional time to be considered. The Committee is balancing its scrutiny of the Bill against the expectation — perhaps hope rather than expectation; it is certainly hope on my part — of receiving two further Bills before the summer recess.”
“<BR /> <BR />The calculation of a Bill's scrutiny timetable generally includes a call for evidence of six to 12 weeks, with written submissions and survey responses being received and considered; a number of in-person evidence sessions being held during Committee meetings, with sufficient time for those being built into the Committee's work programme; and other Committee business being progressed in a timely and thorough manner in tandem with consideration of the Bill. In agreeing a compromise date of 1 October, the Committee will, in order to provide flexibility, shorten its call for evidence to four weeks and eliminate other periods that are normally included. That call has already been published on Citizen Space with a closing date of 9 June.”
“Others suggested that the extension should go beyond the original extension date that the Committee considered, which was 7 November. To make the House aware, the original plan was that the Committee Stage would finish on 7 November. Others wanted it to finish on its original date in June, so, after a fairly constructive and well-mannered discussion, we settled on what is effectively a compromise date of 1 October.”
“Without an extension to the Committee Stage for the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill, the last day of Committee Stage would be Wednesday 4 June, when the Committee would be required to lay its report on the Bill. The Committee discussed whether that would be achievable, understanding that, in order to meet that deadline, the Committee would have to forego any call for evidence as well as make time for any evidence to be taken on the Bill. That could have resulted in the Committee receiving some criticism for not sufficiently scrutinising the Bill, recognising the sensitive issues that it deals with. <BR /> <BR />It is important to state that there were Committee members who advocated that there should be no extension to the Committee Stage.”
“The Bill was introduced into the Assembly on Tuesday 25 March 2025. It subsequently completed Second Stage on Monday 7 April, with Committee Stage starting on Tuesday 8 April immediately prior to the Easter recess, because, as Members are aware, Standing Order 33(2) states:”
“That date represents a compromise that was arrived at in deliberations by members, who tried to balance the need to provide credible scrutiny of a piece of primary legislation — to retain public confidence in the scrutiny functions of the Committee and the House at large — with getting that vital legislation, hopefully, into law. It remains the case that the Committee aims to complete its report on the Bill without any undue delay prior to that date. <BR /> <BR />I do not propose to set out the provisions of the Bill, but I will quote the description of the Bill's aim in the accompanying explanatory and financial memorandum. It states:”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Committee very much welcomes the Bill. That is a unanimous view of the Committee. Often, when we are debating, including today, there is dissent, but the publication of the Bill has been unanimously welcomed. It is the culmination of significant engagement between the Committee and the Department. I also highlight that, in bringing the motion for extension to the House, the Committee sees the 1 October date as a limit rather than a target. That is a very important point, internally for the Committee's deliberations but also for Members who will participate in today's debate.”
“To clarify, I am not challenging the ruling of the Chair in relation to the —.”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I ask the Speaker's Office, for a number of reasons, to reflect on the treatment of the official Opposition in today's debate? I appreciate that you gave guidance on the use of what you called a "prop", which is your right, but the leader of the Opposition was limited to five minutes to speak as leader of the Opposition, when the Minister had an hour. On a day on which it appears that multiple Ministers have not even been bothered to turn up to vote on the Budget, the official Opposition have not only been shouted down — perhaps that is fine and what comes from being in opposition — but had their speaking time, specifically mine, curtailed. We were effectively narrowed in our ability to hold the Executive to account. I ask the Speaker's Office to consider those points.”
“I appreciate the Minister's giving way. To be fair, he is willing to engage in debate, and that is to his credit. <BR /> <BR />The Minister wants us to produce an exact alternative to his document. I have lots of issues with his document, but I am not going to wave any document about. I just want to ask this robust question: will he give me and my colleagues access to the thousands of officials whom he has working for him to test our costings, as they do south of the border? Let us not be partitionist about it.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way, because I want to respond to the point that he is making. Mr Carroll can speak for himself and what he is calling for. We published a paper today, but I have talked about this stuff in the Assembly today. What you describe is a Budget from which you just divvy out the money that you get from London: I am saying to you that we need more than that. A true republican Finance Minister would be looking for new powers to raise money and would not simply rely on that model of funding. Can we hear that kind of ambition from you the next time we have a Budget ?”
“I thank my colleague, who is on the Infrastructure Committee, for giving way. Has he noted, as I have, that, despite all the talk, the allocation for waste water goes up by less than 2% from 2024-25 to 2025-26, which is below inflation and far below what needs to be invested?”
“As I have just walked into the Chamber, it is very courteous of the Member to give way. He mentioned the review being published. The Minister could confirm this for us, but I do not think that there is a plan to publish it. It is my understanding that it has been provided to the UK Government. Does the Member agree that it would be helpful if it were published now for us to see?”
“Minister, like me, you have been intrigued to hear the DUP rail against a deal that appears to start addressing many of the issues that it has railed against, which were caused by the Brexit that it championed in the first place. Minister, we can still benefit, hopefully while mitigating some of the east-west challenges, from the unique export potential that our food producers have to the EU market. I hope that the competitive advantage still exists, but what are you doing to enable our food producers to benefit from that huge export potential relative to GB?”
“'The Big Bang Theory' is also a sitcom. A lot of comedy happens in the Chamber, but I want to see some serious business too. You keep saying, "Mañana, mañana" or "After the spending review". The most recent Budget, which we are debating today, offers a capital settlement of £335 million for waste water. That is barely a 2% increase. Will we see a long-term plan to increase investment in waste water this year?”
“I will get there, Mr Deputy Speaker. However, you are not so good at saying to the House which fiscal powers you will take —.”
“Minister, you labelled me "partitionist" earlier. In the spirit of robust debate in the Chamber, you are fully entitled to do so, but I am not the one who pursues one policy on one side of the border and another policy north of the border. You mentioned the Irish Government's €13 billion surplus. That is correct. Would it not be great if we were one state and able to spend that money? Until that date, what are you, specifically as Finance Minister, doing to take more power so that the UK Government and Treasury cannot have this baleful power over how we spend money. You are very good at explaining the limitations to the Treasury —.”
“When will the Minister set out a plan along those lines for north of the border?”
“The capital departmental expenditure limit (CDEL) settlement for the Budget that we are debating today increases capital investment in water infrastructure by just between 1% and 2%, I think. Last week, in Dáil Éireann, the Minister's colleague Eoin Ó Broin moved a motion that Dáil Éireann:”
“No one should trivialise individuals trivialising violence, whether they are artists or not. For the sake of consistency, when the Minister met the Loyalist Communities Council did he explicitly say to it that the trivialisation of violence, including that by loyalist paramilitaries, was wrong?”
“The document does not have the ambition that we need for our public services, and it does not come near the kind of aspiration that we should have for our people. It has no plan for long-term investment in our infrastructure and no plan to take more powers to this place, rather than simply shifting blame to others. It is, I am afraid, a further example of the Executive's drift, inaction and distraction, so the Opposition cannot and will not support it.”
“By the way, there is a legitimate and robust argument that the UK Government are not funding this place to need. As an Opposition we have consistently agreed with the Executive on that, but we have also said, "Show us your alternative view. Maximise the powers that you have in terms of fiscal devolution, local revenue raising and a greater use of alternative sources of funding". <BR /> <BR />From 1919 to 1921, Michael Collins was a republican Minister of Finance who raised money internationally to help pay for the new Irish Republic. I would expect a republican Finance Minister to show a little more initiative than to simply wait for the UK Government to increase allocations; I expect a little more ambition from the Minister.”
“There are things that the Minister and his colleagues could do to increase investment in Northern Ireland, but they are not doing them. He is not doing it. He is not taking the power to increase infrastructure investment, for example, by a more innovative use of infrastructure financing. He is not taking increased fiscal powers; in fact, I had to press him in the Committee to find out whether there is any plan to increase fiscal devolution. You would not know from what is in the document, because there is no intention to increase our fiscal powers whatever. There is a consistent argument that we are not getting enough money from the British Government — that is, of course, true; I would not disagree with that — but the test of people in power is not what they do to blame others for the limitations on their power.”
“It is Sinn Féin — it is a Sinn Féin Finance Minister and other Sinn Féin Ministers. I accept that we are in a different situation on this side of the border, that we are not yet in a sovereign Irish Government representing the whole island and that the Minister will probably say to me, "Ah, but the choices I have are not the same as a Minister in Dublin has". That is true, but I would expect to see from a republican Finance Minister a little more ambition than simply to say, "London isn't giving us enough money. Therefore we can't take action". <BR /> <BR />In his statement, the Minister said that he wants to see alternatives. I am glad to say that the Opposition have, today, published a detailed alternative plan — a five-point approach — that is different from that published by the Executive.”
“I will pick a few specific areas. There is no plan for investment in water. The Finance Minister and his colleague the Economy Minister made great play of the cost-of-doing-business review in response to the increase in employers' National Insurance contributions. Their response, in policy terms, to the research that they commissioned an academic to do was, "Forward it on to London". There is no clear plan from the Finance Minister or his colleagues for electricity investment and infrastructure. Compare that with what his counterpart Eoin Ó Broin and other Sinn Féin TDs were saying, possibly with some merit, in Dáil Éireann, just a few weeks ago, when they called out the absence of strategic investment in water, infrastructure and a range of other priorities south of the border. Who is in charge of those things north of the border?”
“The answer, I am afraid, is this: not at all. There has been consistent drift and inaction from the Minister.”
“The question that we are asking today is this: what have they done with it? How clear and specific are the targets set out in this document for the second full-year Budget of our restored Executive? How ambitious and realistic are those plans?”
“I look forward to hearing Members' comments and those of the Chairs of other Statutory Committees. We welcome the fact that the debate was brought forward by the Minister. <BR /> <BR />In the remaining five minutes of my 10 minutes — the Minister having taken 10 minutes of his 60 — I will endeavour to give the view of the official Opposition. This Budget represents drift, inaction and distraction by the Executive. Interestingly, the Minister said contradictory things in his opening remarks. He talked about the tightness of the spending settlement, but, from that lectern a few minutes ago, he also said that Departments have had "record levels of funding". It is true to say that, in the previous financial year, which was the first year back after restoration, the Executive experienced record levels of funding.”
“On a number of occasions, the Committee has considered the Executive restoration package cliff edge when the short-term Budget support that is being provided runs out but the 24% Barnett consequential top-up has not had time to build up to a similar level. The Committee particularly looks forward to being briefed by Department of Finance officials this week regarding the fiscal framework and the work of Professor Holtham. It is vital that the Executive's Budget is set at the appropriate level. <BR /> <BR />Through its membership of the Interparliamentary Finance Committee Forum, the Committee has engaged significantly with its counterparts in Wales and Scotland and will continue to do so. It will also engage with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.”
“Resource DEL allocations include a welcome £250 million to cut health waiting times. Capital DEL allocations include the allocation of £21·3 million of the £47 million that is available from the Executive restoration package. There is still some work to do on the public-sector transformation board (PSTB). The Committee has applied considerable scrutiny to the work of the PSTB and will engage further with the Minister and Secretary of State on that. <BR /> <BR />Turning to the Department of Finance's own budget, non-ring-fenced DEL for 2025-26 amounts to £240 million and there is capital DEL of £32·1 million.”
“That additional £20 million in 2024-25 rises with inflation in subsequent years, so its addition gives the Executive the ability to access £225·7 million of borrowing for 2025-26. With Treasury allocations and funds available from June monitoring, the Executive Budget for 2025-26 stands at just shy of £17 billion in resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) and just under £2·5 billion in capital DEL. We are pleased that FTC bids have, for the first time, exceeded the available allocation, which is £58·7 million. That is a welcome development and something that many of us, from all parties, have called for. <BR /> <BR />Across resource and capital DEL, £440·6 million has been earmarked for PFG priorities, including £357 million in the Budget 2025-26 outcome and £83 million of indicative June monitoring allocations.”
“However, the Committee is aware that that is approximately £60 million short of what is needed for core Departments and does not extend to the wider public sector, such as GPs' and dentists' practices, nor indeed councils and community and voluntary sector organisations that are involved in the provision of public services. <BR /> <BR />The Budget's uplift of 5% of the regional rate for domestic and 3% for non-domestic properties provides, in total, £732·3 million of funding in 2025-26. The Committee has engaged with officials regarding the levels of unpaid rates. The Committee also welcomes the uplift that was delivered in the restoration package to the Executive's borrowing power through the reinvestment and reform initiative.”
“The Committee also acknowledges the funding provided by financial packages, including New Decade, New Approach and Fresh Start, for shared education and housing and the Executive restoration package. As Members are aware, those financial packages are confirmed separately by the Secretary of State, who sets out the funding and any relevant conditions. <BR /> <BR />I mentioned the impact of the rise in employers' National Insurance contributions. The Treasury has confirmed that the Executive will receive £146 million from Westminster Main Estimates to offset that cost.”
“We are all aware of the extremely challenging Budget envelope that we have for 2025-26, and the Fiscal Council has noted the considerable general pressures that Departments face, not least through the impact of the autumn statement and the rise in employers' National Insurance contributions. <BR /> <BR />The Committee looks forward to receiving briefings from the Department this week on the fiscal framework and, we hope, on the report on our relative need from Professor Gerry Holtham. I may say more on that soon. At this point, we are, as I said, still largely dependent on regional rates and reinvestment and reform initiative (RRI) borrowing when it comes to money that is independent from the Treasury.”
“<BR /> <BR />In the past, the Committee has been critical of the Executive for not explicitly linking Budgets to the PFG. Committee members, however, welcome the development of five-year business plans and, indeed, the indications of moving towards having multi-annual Budgets following the comprehensive spending review. I acknowledge that the Minister made that point today.”
“Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will be pursuing the point, particularly because others in the Chamber make great play of the importance of opposition in other Chambers on this island. I intend to do my job in opposition on this part of the island and to have it properly respected. Anyway, I will move on. <BR /> <BR />I am giving the views on the Budget on behalf of the Finance Committee. We have carried out important scrutiny in that context. I thank the Minister for tabling the motion, which follows on from the Committee's Budget debate prior to the Easter recess. In the past number of months, the Committee has met the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to discuss the Budget process alongside our Scottish and Welsh counterparts. Soon, we will engage informally with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.”
“I will speak in my capacity as leader of the Opposition and as Chair of the Committee for Finance. Yet again, I draw attention to the anomaly whereby I am obliged to divide my time between speaking in those two roles.”