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“Clearly, however, the regulatory and enforcement regime for all those watercourses and marine environments is way out of date ecologically and, indeed, economically.”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 43 of 119.
“The Committee considered the statutory rule at its meeting on 9 April 2025. The Examiner of Statutory Rules did not draw this rule to the attention of the Assembly, and the Committee therefore recommended that it be approved by the Assembly. <BR /> <BR />The Department has expressed the hope to the Committee that the Bill will have completed its legislative process by 24 September 2025, meaning that no further extensions to the Coronavirus Act will be required. While that hope is noted and we share the desire to move away from the secondary legislation provisions, the Committee will obviously have to have appropriate time to scrutinise the Bill. That is especially important as the Committee has noted that there has been no consultation on the Bill.”
“<BR /> <BR />In April 2024, departmental officials indicated to the Committee their hope that delegated legislation could be used to ensure that the continued use of the Coronavirus Act 2020 would no longer be necessary, meaning that the secondary legislation that we are extending today would no longer be necessary once the primary legislation that is in front of the Committee and that received its Second Stage a few weeks ago is complete. Unfortunately, it turned out that primary legislation was required, with further extensions to the provisions of the Coronavirus Act being necessary. At its meeting on 26 February 2025, the Committee agreed that it was content with the proposed statutory rule/SL1 and content to extend the temporary provisions under the Act until 24 September 2025.”
“I will reflect briefly on the Committee for Finance's deliberations on this secondary legislation, which we have discussed in various forms in the Chamber. The Committee has had extensive written and oral briefings on the legislative provisions and the Department's work on the matter. The Committee has also previously agreed a number of statutory rules that were made under the provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020 relating to the recording of deaths and stillbirths. I should note that the extensions provided by these statutory rules will be rendered unnecessary when the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill receives Royal Assent. The Bill is currently at Committee Stage, and there has been widespread welcome for it.”
“I acknowledge that reintroducing the scheme is an important and welcome step as a stopgap measure for people who are suffering, but does the Minister have an aspiration to move us back to the principle of a publicly funded healthcare system that is free at the point of access?”
“Minister, like other Members, I welcome the reintroduction of the cross-border healthcare scheme and its extension. Many people have called for that, and, bluntly, many people want to have procedures while they are still around and can live a constructive life. Ultimately, however, it is true to say that that scheme, with people having to pay up front and then reclaim, and, indeed, the widespread use of private healthcare are representations and manifestations of the failure in our public healthcare system. <BR /> <BR />Will the Minister set out his aspiration for when, in the long term, we can minimise the assumption that has been created in our healthcare system that you have to go private to get elective care?”
“My party is probably the strongest supporter of strand two in the Chamber; we championed the creation of the North/South Ministerial Council. However, I am afraid that you have given us an update on trade and business matters on the island of Ireland without mentioning dual market access and our unique proposition, which is apparently a priority for your Department, or, indeed, the tariff crisis that is creating a global trade war. People will not take the NSMC seriously if you have meetings and such things are not even talked about let alone brought back to the Assembly. Were our dual market access or the escalating global trade war even discussed at the meeting? If not, why not?”
“Minister, you rightly said that you need an evidence base on which to engage with the UK Government on VAT. You will also need an evidence base to stand, hopefully with the Irish Government, against the pernicious ETA, which is an existential risk to cross-border tourism. It was not mentioned in the statement, as has previously been said, which is concerning. Are any specific actions being committed to monitor the impact of the ETA through talking to tour operators? Is Tourism Ireland focused on that? What is the specific output, because we need evidence to understand what impact it is having?”
“— and the Executive finally to deliver on them.”
“Lough Neagh is an ecological catastrophe. Nowhere near the number of new homes that we expected to see are being built. A couple of years ago, a Sinn Féin Communities Minister said that hundreds of thousands of new homes would be built in the next decade and a half. They will not — not with our current waste water infrastructure. All those problems are mounting up. All that we ask for is clarity, a review to produce options —”
“<BR /> <BR />Another option would be to look for a new borrowing power that would not involve any kind of mutualisation and certainly not privatisation. The Executive would, perhaps, simply do some kind of new borrowing, such as a new bond, to fund water infrastructure. That would still have to be paid for, probably, again, out of Executive repayments. I am not necessarily advocating any of those options — I see the officials shaking their heads — but we need something. We have a crisis. <BR /> <BR />Five years ago, 'New Decade, New Approach' (NDNA) promised that there would be urgent investment in waste water infrastructure. We are five years on, and we have not seen the urgent investment in NI Water. It is therefore legitimate for us, as an Opposition, to ask what is happening. What is happening with our waste water infrastructure?”
“The mutualisation model is one option. One mutualisation model might mean water charges, but I am not advocating that. There are other ways of doing mutualisation. Another model might be that the Executive say, "Over the long run, we will give NI Water the first call on the conventional capital budget. We do not want to go anywhere near mutualisation. We do not want to change classification. We do not want to worry about the Office for National Statistics. We just want" — perhaps officials have looked at this —"to give NI Water the first call on the capital departmental expenditure limit allocations". They have not said that they will do that. The former Infrastructure Minister is now the Finance Minister, and I have not heard that suggestion from him, but that is the upshot: if Sinn Féin Ministers want to do that, they should tell us.”
“There is a consultation happening, we are told; perhaps the Minister will say more about that now. There is no sign, however, that we will get this implemented or delivered within anything like a meaningful timescale. It seems very much like the phrase "developer contributions" has been picked from the air in order to have something to say. <BR /> <BR />The other thing that is often said — there is a real problem with the repetition of this argument — is that we do not want water charges. My party does not want water charges. That is not an answer to the question. You cannot simply say — I am happy to take an intervention from the Minister, or perhaps she will reflect on that in her remarks. I am happy to give way. <BR /> <BR />I do not want water charges, but there are multiple other options for funding NI Water.”
“Thank you. I wholeheartedly agree with my colleague. What we have had so far is a way of, frankly, parking the question for now. I am afraid that that is what we have had lots of from successive Infrastructure Ministers, who have deflected attention away from the question about the failure to invest in our waste water infrastructure. We have had partial answers, and we have been told, "We'll do something on developer contributions", despite the fact that there are challenges around developer contributions and that they could cause an issue by slowing down the pipeline of homes. Even if you did developer contributions, as my colleague Patsy McGlone has just said, there is no real evidence that they would deliver anywhere near the quantum of funding change that is needed.”
“We cannot allow a situation to endure where we cannot meaningfully build social homes and where small businesses, let alone factories and warehouses, cannot expand.”
“<BR /> <BR />There has been a long-run failure to invest and a failure by us to properly make progress on economic development. Members have all talked about the barriers to investment. I can talk about that in my constituency. I am sure that every MLA can talk not just about water issues in the building of new social homes but about small, additional issues for businesses. I will give an example, but I will not go into specific details. A cafe operating in my constituency employs people and is a well-liked community business and, if you like, asset, but it is having issues with NI Water permissions. It is a small cafe that serves sandwiches and drinks. That example will be replicated across the North.”
“There is widespread consensus, if not unanimity — I will come on to that; there may not be perfect unanimity — that Northern Ireland Water is not funded adequately and has had historical underinvestment and that our water infrastructure is failing us. That failure has been well rehearsed today. Lough Neagh is, sadly and tragically, becoming an almost sci-fi-like vision of failure. What has happened at Lough Neagh is probably one of the most horrific ecological breakdowns in Europe. Although the issues at Northern Ireland Water are certainly not the only or the majority reason for that, they have contributed seriously to what has happened there, and they are contributing to what is happening at Belfast lough and other watercourses.”
“I was not planning on speaking on the motion, but I thought that Members of the Assembly had not heard enough from me today and were perhaps hoping fondly to hear more from the leader of the Opposition. Part of the purpose of my speaking today is to reinforce some of what my colleague Patsy McGlone said. Patsy outlined some serious allegations and information and put those on the record in the Assembly today. I will add to that and to what he said about the seriousness of our overall motion. <BR /> <BR />Today's motions are about accountability and about forcing the Executive not just to be clear about what they say that they want to do or their vague aspirations but to provide detailed plans for improving people's lives and public services.”
“Minister, I commend you for talking in detail about PSNI operational matters. It is the 30th anniversary of 'Father Ted', and I am glad that you are not saying, as you often do, "That would be an operational matter". <BR /> <BR />There is a real sense among some people that confidence and optimism around the PSNI have declined since the time of the Patten report. Do you agree that we need to renew that broad, cross-community optimism about policing and that a more fundamental review — Patten II — is required?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. When a motion is carried and puts a specific burden on the Minister with responsibility, even if they are not named in the motion, and that Minister voted for the motion, would it be in order for Members to expect that Minister to follow up on the outcome of that vote?”
“That is what the motion is about. We commend it to the House.”
“We need to tell the people, whether they are unionist or nationalist or do not give two hoots about the constitution, that the people whom they elect to here can take meaningful powers to improve their lives and take responsibility for improving their lives, rather than simply come to the Chamber huffing and puffing about things that are done elsewhere and say, "Well, we can't do anything to change it", or promise something without following through on it.”
“Corporation tax has already been devolved, but the power has not been commenced. At the minute, it would be difficult to advocate lowering the rate of corporation tax, because of the impact that doing so would have on the block grant, which would need to be adjusted, but I have limited time left, so I am going to have to close my remarks on corporation tax there. I have answered the Member's question. <BR /> <BR />We fundamentally need to revisit the idea of power, responsibility and accountability in the Chamber. Having fiscal powers can be a critical part of that. Our motion is completely reasonable and concise. We have asked the Finance Minister to bring forward proposals. He and his party have said for years that they want more fiscal devolution. I agree. Frankly, I am shocked that he is not in the Chamber to give us an account.”
“I will give way to Mr Carroll in a second. I am depressed to see two Members from his party here but no Minister. If the Minister supports fiscal devolution and says that our current arrangements are not fit for purpose, he should have the basic courtesy to come to the Chamber and explain what his position is and what he is doing about it in the context of the fiscal framework negotiations that are apparently going on at the minute. The fact that he has not done so is ridiculous and shameful.”
“I would like to hear him elaborate on his plans and his party's support for fiscal devolution, because I support fiscal devolution too.”
“The purpose of our motion is not to say that every form of fiscal devolution is always good in every context but to say, "Let's produce concrete options. Let's look at what those concrete options are". The Fiscal Commission's multiple reports are extraordinarily detailed. It does not think that VAT is an appropriate tax to be devolved, but it does think that partially devolving income tax might be appropriate. It also talked about other taxes. <BR /> <BR />I have talked about APD in the past. All the unionist parties in the Assembly are clearly not inherently opposed to devolution, because they supported the devolution of APD. One of the reasons that I talked about it was because of the blunt use that was made of it. I wish that the Finance Minister were here.”
“We have dereliction in the Cathedral Quarter in Mr Brett's constituency. There is the shameful falling into dereliction of what is called the Tribeca Quarter. Vacant property there is being allowed to fall into dereliction, some of which is given a permanent rates break through the vacant property relief that exists in our rates system at the minute. We have been open about saying that we would curtail that relief. At the minute, in Northern Ireland, unlike across the water or down South, if your property is vacant, you essentially get a permanent tax break. We have said that we would like to reform that. <BR /> <BR />There are new fiscal powers that I would like to look at. One is a vacant land tax to incentivise development.”
“The Member makes a political point about the UK Government. I disagree with the policies that he has outlined, but I am talking about structural issues in our system. His point is on the record. <BR /> <BR />I will come on to some of the detail of fiscal power and what it means here. One of the points that was made to me was that we did not provide a list, presumably in exhaustive detail, with costings. I would have been interested to see whether the Speaker would have accepted a 10-page motion — he is indicating from the Chair that he would not have — listing every single fiscal change that we would like to see made. <BR /> <BR />Let me give some examples. I will start with some of the fiscal matters that we have already said that we would like to look at but on which we have not seen progress from the Executive.”
“Regardless of whether you are a unionist or a nationalist or do not subscribe to any constitutional position, if we end up in a constant doom loop in which we say, "Well, we can't take more powers, because, effectively, we're useless here, our politics is dysfunctional and we don't trust one another. We don't even trust the Civil Service to deliver. By the way, we don't trust the UK Government either, whether they're Labour or Tory. They're either delivering austerity or we can't trust them on various other things", we will not be able to offer our people anything. I therefore say this, particularly to unionist Members: think through the logic of a lot of what you have said here today.”
“, but I acknowledge that there are flaws in our political system, particularly with the incentivisation for his party and the other big party to collapse this place repeatedly. That comes back to the core point that we are making: power means responsibility and accountability; when you seek power, you take responsibility for staying in power, making decisions, making people's lives better and being accountable. As others, including Eóin Tennyson, have said, there is an inextricable link — to use a phrase from the 90s — between taking fiscal powers and taking more responsibility.”
“The idea of being permanently in government is a novel one for the SDLP at the minute”
“They are willing to point out the contradiction between those of us who aspire to constitutional change but not to acknowledge the contradiction in their own position, which is that there is a UK Government who do awful things to us, and it is really frustrating that they are imposing increased National Insurance contributions, increasing inheritance tax for farmers and doing all those things, but we should never talk about taking more power for ourselves. There is a contradiction there, and I am sure that some unionist Members, in their heart of hearts, will acknowledge that contradiction. It does not mean —.”
“Mr Gaston and virtually every unionist Member who stood up said a version of, "Look at how poorly Ministers perform here. How can we trust them and, indeed, the Civil Service with more responsibility?". Many of those same people also said today and have certainly said on other occasions, "Isn't the Labour Government awful? Isn't what they are doing awful?", whether that relates to inheritance tax, rises in National Insurance contributions or a range of other fiscal decisions over which we have limited power. Those parties also want to talk about the limitations in our funding model. They do not see a contradiction there, it seems.”
“The argument for fiscal devolution does not have to be one that is unionist or nationalist. I agree with Jemma Dolan that we need to move towards taking more decisions on this island and, ultimately, constitutional change, but you do not need to be a nationalist at all to believe that. You can be opposed to Irish unity and still believe that, inside the UK, we would be better governed if more decisions were taken locally. <BR /> <BR />I hear the TUV in the corner signalling its discontent, but I want to come back to some of what was said by unionist Members. Lots of unionist Members, particularly Mr Gaston from the TUV, talked about how bad — how terrible — Stormont is at delivery, and a considerable part of my day job is to point out when Stormont Ministers are not delivering for people.”
“That has been demonstrated vividly today by the failure of the Finance Minister to even do us the courtesy of showing up to the Chamber to address the issue, despite, as I and others mentioned, his party's repeated commitment to fiscal devolution and its repeated statements reflecting on the shortcomings in our current funding model, which is acknowledged in our motion. He did not turn up today. Part of the deeper problem in our politics is about the connection between holding power and taking responsibility and then being accountable to the public for how you use that power. That is right at the heart of devolution and right at the heart of power, whether you are a unionist or a nationalist. We believe in fiscal devolution not just because we believe in more power here and, ultimately, Irish unity.”
“It comes back to a lot of what we have talked about as an Opposition: the connection between holding power and taking responsibility. <BR /> <BR />Mr Honeyford said an important thing. He is in a different party, but I often acknowledge when people from different parties say things that I agree with. Mr Honeyford, his colleague Mr Tennyson and others acknowledged that, in this place, there is a breakdown between people holding power and their taking responsibility and the connected issue of accountability.”
“Thank you very much. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the fact that Members have participated in a colourful debate, and I will reflect on some of what was said. It is important to say, first of all, that many Members commented on the motion's brevity, which is a quality not often associated with me or, it has to be said, Mr Frew, who participated in the debate. Mr Frew noted that there was not much detail in what is a short motion. As I said, he and I are not often noted for concision, but that was a deliberate choice on the part of the Opposition. There have been lots of motions with lots of words and lots of subclauses, and that have been amended until the cows come home, and nothing has happened. As the Opposition, we wanted to put down a clear, declarative motion on an important principle: fiscal devolution.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Do I have 10 minutes?”
“Despite the fact that we have no representative from the Executive here to respond to the debate, I look forward to the Executive parties explaining to us why they do not want to take that added responsibility for improving people's lives here.”
“As with so many of the reports that are published here, nothing has happened. If we want to know why we breed cynicism about politics in this place, we should look at what happens when people constantly make promises. Not only are those promises not delivered on but there is no sign of them being delivered upon. People are treated like mugs. We need to devolve more fiscal powers here and we need to raise more money. We do not need to put more pressure on ordinary people in Northern Ireland. I want to be clear that we should not be levying extra taxes simply to punish people, but more of the powers to raise those taxes should lie here, as they do in Scotland. That would give us more autonomy and power over how we do public services.”
“Increasing of public transport fares was scored as a tough decision that had to be made to increase revenue. That is a decision that is made by Translink every year. It is not the best decision to be making when you are trying to encourage people onto public transport and to make a step change through active travel and decarbonisation. <BR /> <BR />Since we have been back, we have heard consistently about the constraints that have been placed on our spending power and the limitations that there are in how we fund ourselves in Northern Ireland. At the Finance Committee and in here, I have talked consistently about that. I have not gone through loads of the technical detail that is in Fiscal Council and Fiscal Commission reports, because that has all been published.”
“Now, whatever the merits or otherwise of that particular Act, let us pause for a second and reflect on the absurdity of that position. Sinn Féin Ministers have repeatedly talked — I agree with them passionately — about the need to devolve more fiscal power to the North, so that Ministers here can decide how money is raised and spent. What substance have we seen from Sinn Féin Finance Ministers? Well, one of the main areas is in simply not proceeding with an Act that was introduced by a Sinn Féin MLA. That is, I am afraid, an absurd proposition. <BR /> <BR />We have been consistent as a constructive Opposition in —.”
“However, there was also something called the Budget sustainability plan. We were told that the Budget sustainability plan would mark a step change, that we were going to have to raise all the revenue locally and that it would be tough and penal. <BR /> <BR />Well, if you go through the Budget sustainability plan, you will not necessarily find ambitious areas of new revenue-raising to pay for public services, which we all agree are in a shocking state in this place. What you will find are some remarkably modest and small areas of revenue-raising, including hospital car parking charges. The Executive and the Finance Minister scored against their target for revenue-raising the proposal not to commence an Act, which was brought in by the Finance Minister's party, that would make it free to park in hospital car parks.”
“The report also set out the devolution of corporation tax, which, by the way, has happened in law, but that law has never been commenced; stamp duty land tax, which is a tax on property transactions; air passenger duty, which is already devolved, although I have talked at some length about how I do not think that the management of that tax has been particularly effective; and landfill tax, which is the tax on waste. <BR /> <BR />What has happened? Nothing has happened, as far as I can see, from the Fiscal Commission's findings. Last year, when we had an Executive restoration package, various new processes and structures were set in place. There was a transformation strand, which we have heard something about: £129 million was awarded for what we were told was transformation work.”
“It set out details for the partial devolution of income tax, as happens in Scotland, and the devolution of the apprenticeship levy, which, as we all know and have said repeatedly in the Chamber, is not best optimised for use in Northern Ireland and has not been properly deployed to increase apprenticeships. I am sure that the Chair of the Economy Committee and members of the Finance Committee may have something to say about that at some stage.”
“I do not think that that will be the case going forward, and I add my voice to those who say that the new Government have not set a path that is enough of a decisive break from the Tory party in terms of austerity politics and constrained public spending. Nevertheless, it is clear that there is — or there should be, given all the statements made by Executive parties — a broad consensus on the need to devolve more fiscal power, to take more responsibility here for how we raise money and how we spend it. That is obvious. <BR /> <BR />The Fiscal Commission report that was published in 2022 — its interim report came out in 2021 — set out a range of options. It went through every form of taxation that is levied in the UK and gave its explanation for how it could, and whether it should, in its view, be devolved to Northern Ireland.”
“I come now to the substance of today's motion. Since we returned to the Assembly and the Executive were created in February last year, there have been consistent statements from various Executive parties, particularly from the party of the Finance Minister, relating to the constraints on public finance in Northern Ireland. That is true: we are in a constrained fiscal position in Northern Ireland. There is absolutely no doubt about that. It is worth saying, however, that the 2024-25 financial year, which we have just come out of, saw the greatest ever spending package that a Northern Ireland Executive have ever received.”
“We thought, therefore, that we would put down a concise, clear motion asking the Executive to commit to bringing forward plans for greater fiscal devolution. We thought and assumed, naively perhaps, that the Sinn Féin Finance Minister, who believes in taking more power away from London, from the UK Government, who, as we all agree, do not always have the best interests of this place at heart, would come here to make his case, to respond to our motion and to explain his view on fiscal devolution. He is not here. He is not in the Chamber, so we can draw our own conclusions from that.”
“That organisation reported four years ago. Here is the document. <BR /> <BR />In 2022, the Sinn Féin manifesto promised greater fiscal devolution. Sinn Féin Finance Minister Conor Murphy commissioned the Fiscal Commission to report on greater fiscal powers for Northern Ireland. Led by Paul Johnson, the current head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies in London, it produced a very detailed report. Sinn Féin Ministers have repeatedly promised greater fiscal devolution. The current Sinn Féin Finance Minister has, in this very Chamber, committed himself to pursuing a policy of greater fiscal devolution.”
“We did not name the Minister of Finance in the motion because we thought that it would be obvious that the Minister of Finance would respond to the debate. However, as I turn to my left, I see no Minister of Finance. Why is that interesting? It is interesting because, if you go back and read the Sinn Féin manifesto from the Assembly election in 2022, you see that it is quite clear that Sinn Féin supports greater fiscal devolution to the North. In fact, it was Conor Murphy, the former Sinn Féin Finance Minister — perhaps we should not set huge store by the former Finance Minister's fiscal authority, given his stays in five-star hotels, paid for from the public purse — who ordered the creation of the Fiscal Commission, something that I supported in the Chamber several years ago, which reported on greater fiscal powers for Northern Ireland.”
“On other occasions, Executive parties have even voted for those motions where their own Minister is responsible and nothing has happened. <BR /> <BR />Today, we decided to do something a little bit different. We thought that we would be concise. That is not always a quality that is associated with me, I have to say, but we thought that we would be concise, be focused, ask for clear actions and see how parties in the Assembly voted. The first motion is on fiscal devolution: the principle that more fiscal powers — the power to levy taxes and greater autonomy over how money is both raised and spent — happen here in Northern Ireland, authorised by the Northern Ireland Assembly and overseen by the Minister of Finance.”