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“Clearly, however, the regulatory and enforcement regime for all those watercourses and marine environments is way out of date ecologically and, indeed, economically.”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 45 of 119.
“The Irish state and the British state need to do right by victims. The squalid Legacy Act passed by the previous British Government needs to be replaced in full. We need to have a human-rights compliant legacy process that does right by victims in this place. That has to include the Irish Government and the Irish state being clear and absolutely transparent and engaging in a public inquiry in relation to Omagh, but, more generally, engaging on any cross-border components of issues that have arisen. <BR /> <BR />We would not have tabled this precise motion or amendment, but the gravity of the issues at stake and the seriousness with which our party takes its moral responsibilities to victims of our Troubles mean that we will support the amendment, albeit, as I said, we would not have phrased it in that precise way.”
“As somebody who passionately believes in a new Ireland, I find it grotesquely offensive that someone could think that planting a bomb in the middle of a town with innocent people around was a legitimate or effective way to achieve a united Ireland. However, it must also be said that, if that act was grotesque and illegitimate in August 1998, it was grotesque in August 1997, 1996 and for many years before that. The Good Friday Agreement was an extraordinary and transformational thing on this island, but it did not magically legitimise car bombs being placed in towns, with innocent children and shoppers. That point has to be made.”
“There is a solution to that, which is why there is merit in the DUP amendment, which specifically calls for the Irish state to initiate its own parallel inquiry. We in the SDLP have called for that, and we have no difficulty agreeing with it. We would not have used the precise wording that the DUP uses in the amendment, but, given the importance and gravity of the issues at stake, we will support the DUP amendment. <BR /> <BR />Let me also say that, when we talk about these issues, it is important that we ground all our contributions in honesty. The victims of our Troubles still today face double-talk and evasion from states, non-state actors and certain political parties, it has to be said. <BR /> <BR />The Omagh bomb was a grotesque and squalid act.”
“It is not entirely clear that they would be able to compel the evidence that we all want.”
“<BR /> <BR />We can go back to 2001, when the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland concluded that the RUC ignored warnings before the Omagh bomb. There has been a consistent failure on both sides of the border in both jurisdictions not just to protect the interests of the families but to properly pursue and investigate the perpetrators of the Omagh bomb. Those families have been failed consistently. We are clear that both Governments need to accept their responsibilities, and that includes the Irish state. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the fact that there have been new commitments from Minister O'Callaghan, but we support the call for the Irish state to do more. We have a slight concern with the motion in that it calls for the UK state to compel the Irish state to do something purely because they do not have the vires.”
“It is extraordinary that it has taken 27 years. <BR /> <BR />At the beginning of my remarks, I will say that the SDLP has always been clear about the immorality of the acts that took place in the conflict and about the obligations that fall not just on the non-state actors — the paramilitaries who undertook violence — but on the two states. The British state and the Irish state must do right by the victims of the conflict. Paula Bradshaw is correct when she says that it is wrong to characterise the conflict as something that was simply cut off from the rest of this island and, indeed, the rest of these islands. Those two states — the British state and the Irish state — have a moral and legal obligation to do right by the people not just of Northern Ireland but of these islands who were caught up in that conflict.”
“I welcome the fact that we are able to debate the motion. <BR /> <BR />The first and most important thing is to locate everything in empathy and solidarity with the victims of Omagh and their needs. The 29 people, plus two unborn children, who were callously murdered that day in the middle of Omagh deserve nothing but justice. The public inquiry that is now happening is a reminder of the barbarity of that day, but it is also a clarion call to all of us to ensure that the victims get clarity, decency, justice and all that they are entitled to. <BR /> <BR />Hume's words on that day, when he described the perpetrators of the attack as "undiluted fascists", remain as clear and resonant now as they were then. The families have been extraordinarily resilient and dignified in their campaign for truth and justice over the past 27 years.”
“Minister, it feels to me that the 16-page statement can be summarised as saying, "It is not me, it is them". Given that you and your party have held the Department for the past 15 years, it is a very sorry position that you now appear to be at open war with the criminal Bar. Is bringing a statement like that to the Assembly really the best way to conduct negotiations?”
“Are you specifically saying that NI Water will have the first call on capital investment going forward? That is the upshot of what you are saying when you say that we will continue to fund it in exactly the same way as we have done through monitoring rounds, dribs and drabs —.”
“Minister, people hearing you say that we will continue the way we have been doing for the last few years in relation to NI Water will be tearing their hair out. Lough Neagh is an open-air cesspool. Your constituency faces on to it. The previous Sinn Féin Communities Minister promised 100,000 homes in the next 15 years. How in God's name you will deliver those without proper investment I do not know. You talked about comparing the situation with that in England. Nobody, certainly in the Opposition, is calling for an English-style system — far from it — but that does not mean that we should simply drift along as we have been doing.”
“Minister, the Budget sustainability plan sets out revenue-generation plans, some of which involve no ministerial direction or decision, are tiny and, frankly, a bit surreal. They include things such as hospital canteen charges and Ordnance Survey map charges — hardly revolutionary stuff. Indeed, in response to a question for written answer on that, it was revealed that Departments had raised more money from those measures in previous years than in the years that were covered by the Budget sustainability plan. Do you have a target for further fiscal devolution and real, meaningful revenue raising not for its own sake but to better deliver public services? That is what we are all here for.”
“On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, and thank you. I am aware that the rules in Standing Orders oblige Ministers to acknowledge when they have ministerial accompaniment at NSMC meetings, but, in this statement, the same number of words are devoted to Mike Nesbitt attending the meeting as are devoted to the all-island strategic rail review. Is the Chair's office able to look at whether statements require such energy devoted to listing attendees versus the actual content of the meeting?”
“Minister, will you give us clarity on when you will update the House — indeed, when Dáil Éireann will be updated — on the implementation of the all-island strategic rail review? From reading the statement, it seems like it will just be left on a shelf.”
“Minister, rebuilding and redeveloping our all-island rail network is one of the most inspiring parts of the cross-border agenda. We are supposed to agree on that, but people will be disappointed to see that the statement has just 15 words of a two-page statement on the all-island strategic rail review and simply notes its existence without any clear commitments to implementation. People would have expected more from a Sinn Féin Infrastructure Minister.”
“Minister, there is lots of interesting stuff in the strategy; the test will be in the delivery. One place that the strategy is not mentioned is in the Programme for Government. There is very little detail, and, in fact, the word "curriculum" is not mentioned in the Programme for Government. How much of today's statement has been agreed by your Executive colleagues?”
“Given that the post raised parents' hopes and that the information was entirely inaccurate and false, will the Chair advise whether there is any mechanism to ask the First Minister to reflect on that, retract the information and do anything else that the Chair advises?”
“On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, the Education Minister announced a continuation of the childcare subsidy scheme. The original subsidy scheme was welcome, and my party worked on it with the Minister and the help of parents and others. Also yesterday, the First Minister published entirely inaccurate information suggesting that parents would be able to avail themselves of a 25% cut in costs. That information was shared widely — the First Minister has an enormous social media following — leading to falsely raised hopes for many hard-pressed parents. I appreciate that her words were not uttered in the Chamber and that the post has been deleted, but there has not been any retraction, let alone an apology.”
“— are not conducive to a normal, healthy, democratic society. We need to move on. We support the motion, but we also call for more nuanced debate —”
“The fact that Ministers still meet the Loyalist Communities Council has been mentioned: what gives those people the right to feel that they can dictate the pace of debate in this society in 2025 or sue elected representatives when they wish to make their views known? All those things —”
“The interests of the people of Northern Ireland are in those organisations getting off the stage and going away, and how we go about getting them to do that is, I am afraid, muddied by the fact that a huge amount of obfuscation, double-talk and, frankly, gaslighting goes on among parties in this place and, at times, in both Governments. <BR /> <BR />We will support the motion so far as it goes. I am sympathetic to some of what is in the amendments, but there are a lot of things that the SDLP would have phrased slightly differently. The most important thing is for those organisations to no longer exist and no longer feel that they have the right to impose their will on the public discourse.”
“<BR /> <BR />Sometimes we express our outrage and anger at what London and Dublin are doing when it would be better for us to look internally at what is happening in these institutions. Some of what has been said today about some of what has happened in these institutions is exactly right. With regard to what the UK and Irish Governments are doing, it is important that we recognise that they will probably do it anyway, no matter what happens in the Chamber. That is a harsh, blunt reality. It is pretty shocking that they will go on and engage with paramilitaries and probably seek some mechanism to prolong those conversations because they deem it to be in their interests.”
“It's the other fellas that you need to watch". That is abnormal. Nevertheless, it is true to say that the Executive fund it and have been funding it for basically the entire existence of the institutions. <BR /> <BR />Doug Beattie mentioned the Communities in Transition project, of which it is true to say that the Department of Justice is a stakeholder. It is also true to say that, as was the case with her predecessor, it is within the Justice Minister's power and that of her Department to look at criminal justice reform and create new offences that could lead to more prosecutions. As her predecessor could have done, she could create new and tightened sentencing regimes for such crimes. Some of that has been looked at as part of the tackling paramilitarism programme.”
“I will touch on a few points that have been made and make a few points of my own. We have broad sympathy with the Alliance Party motion and will support it with caveats. We submitted amendments that would have put our phraseology and context into the motion. It is true that the paramilitaries have their feet on the necks of working-class communities in particular. I represent working-class communities in which coercive control is still exercised by people who reserve the right to say when flags go up and when they come down and demand the right to say what type of housing goes where and what colour of people live where and all the rest of it. It may be that, on other days, some of those people go to meetings, avail themselves of public funding and play the game, saying, "Aren't I a great fella? I'm doing my best.”
“Like lots of other people who go away and come back, I am a bit baffled that we are still in a situation where we recycle the same frustrations again and again about the existence of these organisations, but things never seem to move on. I think things do move on, slowly, but it is clear that the continued pernicious presence of paramilitaries in our society is something that is a profound stain on society. It is one of the most intense manifestations of how abnormal, unreconciled and divided this society is. We cannot simply tolerate it.”
“It sometimes feels that this place is not progressing at all. It can feel a bit bewildering and head-scratching at times for people who are watching from the outside when they are told that armed paramilitary gangs continue to exist and that many of those armed paramilitary gangs are not engaged in active, as it were, political violence, but retain arms either to be armed for some hypothetical future political violence that they wish to wage or because it enables them to protect financial or criminal interests that they are pursuing, up to and including inflicting misery on communities, dealing drugs, extortion, loan-sharking, violence and all the unbelievably appalling things that have been listed. <BR /> <BR />I was away from here for 20 years. I have been back for five years.”
“It is slightly bizarre to hear Members and, indeed, the Minister fall over themselves to say that no Minister was found to be in breach. The Executive were found to be in breach of their legal obligation to produce an anti-poverty strategy. That is shaming for the House. <BR /> <BR />I ask the Minister, who is standing in for his colleague who is across the water — the big water, as it were — whether his colleague the Minister for Communities, given that he has said that he will produce the paper by the end of the month, has had any conversations with the Minister of Finance about whether the anti-poverty strategy will be funded.”
“— was it right to create all that hope three years ago?”
“Minister, three years ago, your predecessor as Minister of Education announced nearly 30 schools that were to be put on the major capital works programme, including an amazing school on the Ravenhill Road in my constituency, St Joseph's College, which, like most of the other schools, awaits any news of developments. Can you give it any hope as to whether or when progress will be made? You will say that there are budgetary constraints: that is fine, but —”
“There is an ATM in a shop that effectively serves as the ATM for a large part of the road. Exempting such ATMs from rating would improve access to cash. I draw Members' attention to the ongoing sterling work of my Committee on the banking and financial services landscape. <BR /> <BR />I commend and support the motion.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Rates (Exemption for Automatic Telling Machines in Rural Areas) Order (Northern Ireland) 2025 was formally laid in the Business Office on 14 February as SR 2025/28. At the Committee's meeting on 26 February, members noted that the Examiner of Statutory Rules had reported on the rule and not drawn anything to their attention. The Committee therefore unanimously agreed to recommend that the rule be affirmed by the Assembly. The Finance Committee supports the motion to affirm. <BR /> <BR />It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate whether the Department is looking at extending the measure to other stand-alone ATMs that are independently rated. The issue is not just in rural areas. On the Ormeau Road, a famous and busy thoroughfare in South Belfast, my constituency, we are losing ATMs.”
“Members also noted that there are no directly equivalent statutory instruments in Great Britain and that the Department considered previous regulatory impact findings as still valid. Members noted the Department's position on section 24 of the NI Act and EU implications. <BR /> <BR />At the Committee's meeting on 22 January, members indicated that they were content with the proposal for the statutory rule. However, additional information was sought on stand-alone ATMs, and the Committee considered the response to that at its meeting on 19 February. Members noted confirmation from the Department that, in 2024-25, the average rating charge for stand-alone ATMs, excluding those entitled to the rural ATM exemption, was £1,399.”
“Whilst members noted that only 180 ATMs across Northern Ireland are valued separately and are on the list and, of those, 26 are in rural areas, which is 14% of ATMs, members also wished to be updated on any plan that the Minister may have on other measures to enhance the access to cash as part of the small business rate relief review. The Committee also had a general discussion about whether there is a case to provide an exemption for all separately rated ATMs, considering issues here with access to cash. <BR /> <BR />As per common practice, the Committee noted assurances provided by the Department on equality impact and financial implications, the latter indicating that the estimated maintenance cost for the scheme for 2025-26 is under £50,000.”
“ATMs located in banks, building societies or shops tend to be valued as part of the building so are unlikely to be eligible. During that meeting, members again received a useful briefing from the director of rating policy on current pertinent issues. <BR /> <BR />Members also noted that the scheme is essentially about maintaining the ATMs that are already in rural areas; it is not necessarily about incentivising banks and building societies to put in new machines. It is an area in which the Finance Committee is particularly interested, given our current inquiry into banking and financial services.”
“— in time will be appreciated. Perhaps I will get some applause and maybe hugs of appreciation. <BR /> <BR />I will speak on the order largely for the Committee for Finance, and I may then say something extremely short in an Opposition capacity. There is widespread support for the measure, and I thank the Minister for his comments. <BR /> <BR />The Committee considered the statutory rule to extend until 31 March 2026 the rates exemption for separate entries in the valuation list associated with ATMs in designated rural areas. The Committee first considered the policy in SL1 letter format on 22 January 2025, when members noted that the exemption applies to any ATMs that are valued individually, for example those located outside petrol stations or on high streets.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Although I often detain my colleagues with elaborate speeches, on this occasion, discretion may be the better part of valour, and I think that my drawing my remarks to a conclusion —”
“Yes to the extension, but let us see a lot more ambition. All that we are doing is cycling forward something that we had. I welcome it, limited though it is, but I want to see much more ambition. I encourage and support the Minister to tell us when we will see that. The Opposition will support it when we see it.”
“We want to see much more ambition. Bluntly, we want much more support for people who want to open hospitality, retail and other businesses on our high streets. At the minute, they simply do not get that support. They are the lifeblood of our communities, yet we place a disproportionate rates burden on them and clearly are not doing enough to support them. They face swingeing increases in employer National Insurance contributions. They will also have to deal with the costs brought about by the increase in the national living wage, which I strongly support, because it will put money back into people's pockets and, ultimately, recycle it back into those businesses and high streets, but it is a cost that those small businesses need to face.”
“A 10-year cycle is such an absurd timescale. I wish the previous Minister had never introduced it. It is, frankly, taking the hand out of people who want to see the reform of our rate system. Saying that you need to review something on a 10-year cycle means that you are not really reviewing it at all, because there is no urgency and no real political deadline. <BR /> <BR />I strongly support the extension of the Back in Business scheme. However, it is one small extension — we need to see much more. I have given one practical proposal and suggestion. If the Minister were to introduce that on the Assembly Floor and it were well directed, he would have the Opposition's support. There: I have given him a clear answer, and we have had a constructive, useful debate specifically on that.”
“However, the people who are taking up the property — those who are putting their capital at risk and employing people to open a business on the high street — get the same relief as the landlord who just allowed the property to lie empty for years and years. I accept that there are specific economic circumstances in which people who own properties cannot let them, but should we not look at reforming vacant property relief in order to redirect some of that money to encouraging, stimulating and incentivising more of the kinds of people whom we are supporting through this rates order? <BR /> <BR />There is a positive, constructive proposal that we have made before and that I make again today to the Finance Minister. I hope that he is looking at it and that he is looking at it with a little more urgency than the 10-year cycle.”
“Properties that have been vacant, sometimes straying towards or even falling into dereliction, have been getting a 50% relief the whole time. The Minister challenged me — it is a completely fair challenge — and asked, "Where are the Opposition's ideas?". I could spend the rest of the sitting day telling you about all the proposals that we have put forward. Last week, my colleague Colin McGrath made one on emergency departments. However, specifically on rates, we have said — I have said in the Chamber and outside it — "Let us look at reforming vacant property relief". Our vacant property relief is poorly targeted. Frankly, it sustains and incentivises dereliction and having properties lie empty. The Back in Business scheme is one small part of encouraging people back into those properties.”
“It is not just an economic question; it is one of community resilience and of supporting rural and urban communities, like the one that I represent. It is critical to how we build and sustain thriving communities in the places that we represent. This measure is a small but positive contribution to that effort. My only frustration is that it is a bit lonely: I would like to see a lot more measures like it. I would like to see a lot more ambition from the Finance Minister, and the Executive more generally, in supporting the high street. <BR /> <BR />We talk about the Back in Business scheme, which encourages businesses to take up long-term vacant properties and get a rebate at the vacant rating level for a two-year period. The other way of looking at that is to ask this: what happened for years and years in advance of that?”
“Occasionally, that will prompt a response, which I welcome. <BR /> <BR />One of my frustrations is that we are not seeing more ambition of this kind. This is exactly the kind of area in which we should be seeing it. With the previous motion, we voted through an increase in rates. I accept that it is an inflationary increase — it does not go above the rate of inflation, as calculated by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) — but we did vote through an increase that will affect small businesses disproportionately. As Eóin Tennyson noted, there is a disproportionate burden on retail and hospitality on the high street. which we have accepted for a long time. That is at the core of so many of our communities.”
“Therefore, the Committee agreed to recommend that the rule be affirmed by the Assembly. The Committee for Finance supports the motion to affirm. <BR /> <BR />I will now say a few brief words in my capacity as leader of the Opposition. We support the extension of the Back in Business rebate scheme until 31 March 2026. As we have always said, we support any measure that helps small business, particularly a measure that helps encourage and incentivise the take-up of vacant properties. I want to make a couple of points that are germane to this order and, as they are connected, address a couple of points that the Minister made in the previous debate. I welcome the fact that we are having a debate: that is exactly what the Chamber is about. The reason we have an Opposition here is to force issues, challenge and scrutinise.”
“That work is aimed at allowing businesses eligible for both schemes to factor that into their planning. Committee members also noted information provided on the homes on upper spaces for everyone (HOUSE) programme that LPS has been working on with Belfast City Council. It is a targeted process aimed at gathering information from property owners, owner-occupiers, investors and developers who own unused spaces on upper floors in Belfast city centre. <BR /> <BR />The Rates (Temporary Rebate) (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2025 was subsequently formally laid, as SR 2025/29, in the Assembly Business Office on 14 February 2025. At the Committee on 26 February, members noted that the Examiner of Statutory Rules had reported on the rule and not drawn anything to the attention of the Assembly.”
“<BR /> <BR />At the briefing, the Committee was encouraged to hear about the work being undertaken to promote the scheme further in the coming months. Committee members were content with the Department's policy proposal. They agreed, however, to seek some additional information on what work had been carried out on vacant properties. At its Committee meeting on 19 February 2025, members noted work being undertaken to provide the scheme:”
“As is common practice, the Committee noted assurances that the Department provided on equality impact, financial implications and regulatory impact, as well as information on similar schemes in Scotland, England and Wales. Committee members also noted the Department's position on section 24 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and on EU implications. In particular, I will highlight information that the Department provided on monitoring the effectiveness of the scheme. Members noted and, like me, welcomed the scheme's success in supporting 101 new businesses during its previous period of operation. Since its reintroduction in 2024, it has helped a further 29 businesses, with a good spread across all 11 council areas, and there are a further 13 applications in the pipeline.”
“I am pleased to speak about the Committee's scrutiny of the statutory rule, and I thank the Minister for his comments. The Committee considered the statutory rule, which provides for the continuation of the Back in Business rebate scheme until 31 March 2026. The scheme will allow any new business that occupies a long-term vacant property valued as a retail unit to pay rates at the vacant rating level of 50% for two years. The Committee first considered the policy proposal in SL1 letter format at its meeting on 22 January 2025, at which Committee members received a useful briefing from the director of the rating policy division in the Department of Finance on the current issues in rating policy, which covered some items of subordinate legislation, including the SRs that we are debating today.”
“I appreciate the Minister's giving way. He is generous and always up for a debate. He and I agree that there should not be a border on this island. I do not think that there should be a border in democratic culture. He will agree that there is a very robust Opposition in Dáil Éireann. In fact, they are fighting for more rights there. Does he agree that an Opposition to challenge Ministers is an inherent, core part of any democracy and that if it is good enough for the Irish people on one side of the border, it should be good enough for the Irish people up here too?”
“The Member is right that there was no detailed discussion on this necessarily, but does he accept, and does he agree, that lots of the things that were done to raise revenue were not due to difficult political decisions being made, but related to uprating Ordnance Survey fees and hospital canteen issues? The idea that all of these difficult decisions had to be made is, therefore, a little bit outré.”
“They have simply plodded along, gaslighting and producing verbiage and platitudes, and they are finally asking us to vote through an above-inflation rates increase for ordinary householders in Northern Ireland. There is now an Opposition to call that out and challenge it, and we intend to continue doing so. We will therefore vote against the order today.”