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“Clearly, however, the regulatory and enforcement regime for all those watercourses and marine environments is way out of date ecologically and, indeed, economically.”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 5 of 119.
“On the basis of what is in the Bill, I simply do not think that that would happen. I do not think that the Bill provides for that, and I do not think that it would anywhere near meet a reasonableness test for police and prosecutors. We have to be honest, therefore, and live in the realms of reality. Those questions can be properly interrogated and scrutinised at Committee Stage, and that is what will happen, assuming the Bill passes its Second Stage today.”
“That is an important precedent. I am sure that Members will want to interrogate the example in Scotland. Similar debates are happening south of the border as well. <BR /> <BR />I will say, however, that we have to apply a reasonableness test, just as the police and the Public Prosecution Service apply a reasonableness test when they police and prosecute these incidents. We should sit down and ask ourselves how realistic it is that a dog owner walking in, to pick two areas at random, since people have talked about the urban/rural divide, Ormeau Park or Drumglass Park, would have a dog that saw and then attacked a squirrel. Sadly, it is more likely that the squirrel would be grey than red. Would the dog owner be prosecuted? Would the PSNI go after them? Would they be hauled in front of the court?”
“Some of the Members opposite spoke as if there were a desire to outlaw the laws of nature and animals taking one another's lives, which, obviously, happens every minute of every day across this island. It is not about that. It is about clamping down specifically on the infliction of great and unnecessary pain on wild animals for the purpose of sport. There is a large and growing opinion that is set on outlawing that, and that is why we support the principles of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />I missed Mr Blair's opening remarks, but I think that he helpfully referenced the fact that, in Scotland, there had not been a single prosecution for dog-walking by equivalent law —.”
“I am sure that there will be specific substantive questions that need to be asked, but there will also be attempts, as with all legislation, to find ways to hold up, stall or question the legislation or to cast a shadow over even the idea of legislating in this area. That is a perfectly legitimate but, I think, fairly well-known strategy for delaying legislation. Where there are specific substantive concerns that can be evidenced, they should be brought to the Committee and unpacked. By all means, amendments can then be tabled, and those amendments, in turn, can be interrogated and scrutinised. <BR /> <BR />The principles of the Bill reflect where we are in 2026 and the great and growing desire to protect animal welfare and do everything that we can to minimise and limit the unnecessary suffering of animals.”
“I do not know at what point you heard me say that anything should be made light of. I did not say that at all. I would like you to go back to the Hansard report and to, please, tell me where I made light of anything. I literally said that those are questions to be interrogated. Any question raised that has its basis in fact or the everyday experience of people who are involved in country pursuits — particularly, it is important to say, farmers — has to be interrogated. Mr Butler is not in the Chamber at present, but I am sure that the AERA Committee will do that. As Phillip Brett said, however, those need to be on substantive concerns.”
“I will in a second. Using dogs to inflict great pain on animals in this way is not just outdated; it is immoral. I could show you my inbox: there are messages from many people in this society, from all backgrounds, who agree with me on that. That is why they support the principles of the Bill and want us to support them.”
“That is what the legislative process is all about, but perhaps we have become unfamiliar with that in this place because we spend so much of our time debating non-binding motions. I have no difficulty saying that I do not think that we should compromise all forms of species control or all forms of hunting. Mr Frew went so far as to mention fishing —.”
“Patsy talked about his interest in the area. He has been involved in country sports for a long time and is passionate about them. As I said at the beginning, the Bill, by definition, is not about clamping down on or preventing all country pursuits: not at all. Patsy set out specific questions that the mere fact of the Bill's going to Committee Stage will enable to be scrutinised and interrogated. Patsy and others, including, I think, Áine Murphy, said that there are people who hold firearm licences who want answers to specific questions. Those are legitimate questions that can be answered, and I am sure that the Bill sponsor will be more than happy to deal with them during the Bill's scrutiny stage.”
“It is therefore to create a false dichotomy to say that it is an urban/rural point. <BR /> <BR />When I stand up and talk, as you may do, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, about public transport in Belfast or the state of Belfast city centre, I encourage all my rural counterparts to do the same. There is no prohibition on anyone talking about any issue that affects any part of the North. <BR /> <BR />I will now give way to Paul Frew.”
“I will in one second. <BR /> <BR />I represent an urban constituency and make no apology for doing so. After the next election — Kate Nicholl has left the Chamber, and I do not know whether another Member for South Belfast is here — the constituency will be a lot more rural, because it will become South Belfast and Mid Down. I grew up in the countryside of south Down — that was until my teenage years, when we moved into town — so the binary of urban/rural is, particularly on this island, often a false one. Most of us do not have to go far back in time to find people who lived their lives, wholly or in part, in agriculture, on the land or in other rural settings. I grew up among fields, and East Down Hunt often trampled through fields nearby. Sometimes people supported that, and sometimes they were certainly not supportive of it.”
“Indeed, were such a distinction to be posited, it would be utterly fraudulent. Members talked about the many people from rural areas who are increasingly frustrated at and, indeed, appalled by the excesses of hunting with dogs and the use of dogs for hunting purposes. I also know some urban people who engage in country pursuits, and there is nothing wrong with that. The Bill, however, is a response to increased public pressure and public concern about the use of dogs to hunt and inflict great pain on wild animals. It is not an attempt to prohibit all forms of species control or all forms of hunting. It could not be that — if it were, it would not be before the Assembly — so it is important not to conflate those things.”
“Let me be clear, however, that the Bill does not intend to outlaw — the Bill sponsor can intervene if this is not correct — the routine and necessary control of vermin, protection of biodiversity or necessary stewardship of the land. Rather, it is about preventing something that inflicts immense cruelty on wild animals, which is using dogs to hunt, attack and kill them. It is not about outlawing all forms of hunting. Some Members, from one side of the House in particular, have sought to conflate what is in the Bill with an attack on all forms of land management and, indeed, hunting. That is simply not what is in the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Phillip Brett put it well when he said that there is not and does not have to be a distinction made between the urban and the rural.”
“It is a subject that provokes great passion because people are passionate about animal welfare and the idea of cruelty being inflicted on wild animals for sport and entertainment but also because people are passionate about what they see as traditional pursuits and, indeed, routine and sometimes necessary practices in the countryside.”
“I will speak briefly at this stage of the Bill. This is the Second Stage of a Bill, a version of which we debated in the previous mandate. I commend the Bill sponsor, John Blair, who, it has to be said, has been consistent. I was going to say dogged but that would qualify as an extremely inappropriate and cringe-worthy pun. He has been diligent and consistent on the issues and on his Member's Bill. I welcome the Bill being before the House today, and I commend him for bringing it forward. <BR /> <BR />Lots of interesting comments have been made. It has been a genuinely interesting debate.”
“She refused, at that point, to condemn the words of Gerry Hutch. I do not want to get into political commentary on every remark that is made, but I see that some of your Members are laughing at this. This is extremely serious. Racism has to be stood against in this society, and, all too often, people see parties playing it both ways when it suits them. Do you agree that it is really important that your party, all over this island, is absolutely four-square and clear about these issues?”
“The reason I ask, First Minister, is that, when those specific remarks were put to your party leader, Mary Lou McDonald, she said:”
“First Minister, I am slightly in shock that we are relying on Keir Starmer, a man whose Government are in shambles and a man who does not know whether he will be in the job by the summer, to guarantee public services for the people of Northern Ireland. I agree with you and your colleagues that we want as much money as possible and a better financial settlement, but here is the problem: if the Executive do not agree a Budget, you, in addition to the British Government settlement, will impose an austerity cut on the public of the North. We will be able to spend only a percentage of last year's Budget. That will be a cut created by the Executive. Do you accept that? When will a Budget be agreed?”
“We are very pleased to have been able to work constructively to bring the scheme forward and conclude the process today.”
“I am proud to support the passing of the regulations on behalf of the Finance Committee, and I look forward to the scheme's being implemented in the very near future. <BR /> <BR />In a non-Committee capacity, on behalf of our party, I commend the regulations. I also commend the officials and, indeed, the Minister for working constructively with the Finance Committee to bring the regulations forward. This is a small advance when it comes to what we do in the Assembly, but it will be deeply meaningful for people who are placed in this position. Not everybody will suffer a loss of pregnancy, but there will be a significant number of people for whom this is an important recognition. I thank the Minister for bringing the regulations, and I thank his officials for working on them. I also thank my colleagues on the Finance Committee.”
“We heard from that group about what the scheme will mean for those personally affected by baby loss and how it will make a real difference for them. They will, for the first time, have formal recognition of the emotional impact of their losses. I am honoured to stand up on behalf of the Committee and say that placing the scheme into law is important for all those who have been touched by baby loss. It matters for all the babies who have been lost, including Rosa, Matilda, Leanora, Eli and Dotty, and Noah and his brothers and sisters. Those are some of the losses we heard about in our Committee. Today marks the culmination of the process, whereby bereaved parents can have recognition of their loss.”
“We have been pushing for the scheme since 2024, when we returned after our absence. The applicable primary legislation — the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill — was introduced to the Assembly on 25 March 2025 and received Royal Assent on 25 February 2026. Throughout the Committee Stage of the Bill, members of the Committee were cognisant of the fact that it was an immensely sensitive topic. We heard directly from parties who had experienced loss, and it was, at times, highly emotive and affecting. With the indulgence of the House, I will give one example. On 4 June 2025, we heard from the Forget-me-not Group — a wonderful group that works alongside the bereavement midwives in the Ulster Hospital.”
“That is important to note, because often, as MLAs, we hold not just Ministers but officials to account, and, sometimes, hold their feet to the fire, and often, in the Chamber, we criticise or lambast — sometimes in the Opposition, with my other hat on, we do that — but, on this occasion, I genuinely thank officials who worked to design a novel scheme with sensitivity and professionalism, very quickly. I put that on the record on behalf of the Committee. They answered all our questions thoroughly and comprehensively. <BR /> <BR />As I said, although formal scrutiny of the rule began in April of this year, it would be remiss of me not to point out that our Committee, on a cross-party basis, has been key to the development of the scheme. I acknowledge the constructive work that we have done with the Minister and his officials on this.”
“Having satisfied itself with the clarification and detail provided by officials, the Committee was more than content to approve the proposal. It was formally laid as a draft statutory rule on 11 May and, at our meeting of 20 May, the Committee noted the advice of the Examiner of Statutory Rules that the rule did not need to be drawn to the attention of the Assembly. The Committee is content that the rule be affirmed today. <BR /> <BR />On behalf of the Committee, I also take the opportunity to thank the Registrar General and his team in the GRO for developing the scheme so quickly and for providing ongoing clarification.”
“At that time, members were able to question the Registrar General on a number of important issues, including geographic considerations: where the recipient of the certificate had been living in Northern Ireland when they experienced the loss, but was now living in another part of these islands or, indeed, further afield; whether surrogacy use would preclude eligibility for certificates; and the timeline and anticipated demand for the scheme. Members also considered the layout of the certificates and the contents of template certificates and agreed to send those to the relevant stakeholders, including some of the organisations that the Minister mentioned — people who have experienced this loss themselves and who had given us candid and, at times, moving evidence throughout the scrutiny process.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee first considered the policy proposal at SL1 stage on 15 April 2026, noting that the regulations set out how the scheme would operate, who might apply, the form of application, conditions for application and the information that the certificate would contain. The Committee was, as ever, mindful of the need to balance appropriate scrutiny with the swift implementation of the scheme. In line with agreed procedures, the Committee issued a short call for views on the proposal and agreed to schedule an oral briefing with relevant officials. The briefing took place ahead of schedule on 29 April.”
“In many ways, this journey — at least in relation to the Northern Ireland Assembly — began when the Finance Committee urged the Department to include such a scheme in legislation. Today marks the final legislative hurdle. I am confident and, obviously, I hope that the House will affirm the rule, which the Committee has agreed. Today's motion will allow for the formal launch of the scheme and, I hope, make a real and meaningful change that will enable those who have lost a baby prior to the end of the 24th week of pregnancy to have formal acknowledgement and recognition of that loss.”
“I will speak to the Finance Committee's scrutiny of the statutory rule. I thank the Minister for moving the motion. <BR /> <BR />I reassure the House of the Finance Committee's due diligence in scrutiny of the original legislation and the regulations that are before us today. I, too, warmly welcome the regulations as an effective final legislative stage in the evolution of the baby loss certificate scheme.”
“Minister, a very important milestone would be setting a Budget. While many of the allocations that you have just announced are welcome and, I am sure, noble in intent, others will ask interrogatory questions about them. You have announced a £100 million allocation today while tens of billions of pounds of public spending is, effectively, irregular because we are operating without a Budget. Will you confirm that, if the Executive do not agree a Budget, notwithstanding the fact that you and I want the UK Government to provide more money, the Executive will be imposing further austerity in public services here because we will be able to spend only a percentage of last year's Budget?”
“Minister, whether it is AME —. In response to your colleague, you talked about budget inflexibility from the Treasury, and Stephen Dunne asked about a bid to the Executive. Is it not the truth that all of this is academic if there is not an agreed Executive Budget? Your Executive and the Finance Minister have failed to get one agreed, so, with regard to energy support and all of the other pressures in your Department, what are you doing to plan for the contingency of no Budget being agreed by the Executive?”
“There is nonsense in this place. Set a Budget.”
“I see Members laughing, giggling and turning away at me saying this. It is utterly unacceptable. It is shameful that we are in this situation. <BR /> <BR />If London has not given us enough money — I would like to see more — we are failing community and voluntary services by not taking responsibility, because things will get worse. The Finance Minister has written to permanent secretaries to say that they can spend only 90%-odd of their budget. Yesterday, the Communities Minister said that domestic violence funding was at risk. Last week, the deputy First Minister said that community relations funding —”
“We are told that a negotiation is going on, but where is it? I see no evidence of it. There has been no ministerial statement to tell us when the Budget will be debated, and not one Member from an Executive party has stood up to raise the issue. I do not know where the negotiation is. <BR /> <BR />We can see the political chaos in London. We are told repeatedly about how the British Government do not fund this place properly — I accept that— and that they do not pay attention to us or care about us. All those things are true. Why, then, should we not take responsibility for passing a Budget ourselves, rather than forcing challenges onto the people by not setting a Budget? Things will get worse if we do not set a Budget, even if we accept that the financial settlement is not enough.”
“We are nearly two months into the financial year, which means that the Northern Ireland Executive has been breaking the law for nearly two months. That is right: breaking the law. The Northern Ireland Act 1998 is clear that a Budget must be set by the beginning of the financial year, which is 1 April. None has been set. The excuse given by the Finance Minister and his colleagues in the DUP and other Executive parties is that they are negotiating with the UK Government for more money. To be clear, despite the slurs from the Finance Minister, the Opposition want this place to get more money. We accept that the devolved finance settlement is broken, but it is utterly unacceptable to hold the people of the North and their public services to ransom for their failure to take leadership.”
“Whenever people talk about things such as funding emergency surgery at the South West Acute Hospital, which my party strongly agrees with, or all the other things that we will talk about today, we have to be clear that, when we do not set a Budget and we shirk responsibility for governing this place despite taking our seats and accepting our salaries, which, in the case of Ministers, means accepting a generous salary, having hundreds of civil servants working for them and a ministerial car, we profoundly fail the public of Northern Ireland. We should not wonder why they have such contempt for us.”
“In the past few minutes, we have heard important contributions on a range of topics that are relevant to individual constituencies and important for our constituents. There is nothing wrong with that, but what we should be talking about today and every day until a Budget is agreed is the absence of that Budget. <BR /> <BR />Sometimes, this strange place operates like a parallel universe.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It would be helpful if you could give some guidance on the matter of when we will be able to debate further the Budget, the absence of which is becoming a slow-running crisis in this place. <BR /> <BR />During Question Time today, the Minister for Communities confirmed, I believe, that funding for domestic violence services was being held up as a result of the absence of a Budget. This is a crisis for the people of Northern Ireland. The Executive cannot or will not agree a Budget, so it would be helpful if the Speaker could offer some guidance on when we might be able to debate that.”
“— of the squabbling between your party and Sinn Féin, was utterly unedifying. Will you work constructively to plan for all contingencies later this year?”
“Minister, I welcome the additional detail that you have given us. We have never been churlish about the home heating oil support package — it was a welcome, if belated, step from the Executive — so I welcome the fact that it exists. However, Brent crude still costs more than $100 a barrel — the price for 900 litres is way above the historical average, as you know — and it appears that the instability in the Middle East will continue, given who is in the White House, so I ask you to work constructively with your Executive colleagues to prepare the additional support that might need to be provided to households later in the year. Notwithstanding the fact that support eventually arrived and was welcome, the spectacle earlier in the year —”
“Minister, hundreds of people protested at the lough shore yesterday, including our party leader and my colleague Patsy McGlone. There is a real sense that, despite all the talk about Lough Neagh and whether the source of the pollution is water or agriculture — clearly, both have contributed to the decay of the island's biggest body of water and the source of 40% of our drinking water — we are not meaningfully forward in restoring the lough to health. You have talked about your intentions on SORPI and nutrients: can you give us any clarity about what meaningful progress will have been made towards restoring Lough Neagh by the end of the mandate?”
“We make no apology for seeking to persuade and inspire people of that vision, and I commend the motion to the Assembly.”
“I have just over a minute left in the debate. <BR /> <BR />I would not be doing justice to it if I were to list of those things now. However, I am glad that you agree that it is a legitimate subject for debate. <BR /> <BR />We did not table the motion simply to have a green versus orange shouting match. We did so because the people of Northern Ireland deserve to have a serious proposition put in front of them and to have a serious debate on the topic that Northern Ireland should have the opportunity to live in a country that is not run by Nigel Farage. More broadly, they should have the opportunity to choose a new Ireland that is back in the European Union. Whether you take no constitutional position or have a strong constitutional perspective — whatever your identity — you have a right to make that choice. At some point, we will make it.”
“There is a whole range of things that we can discuss that would be different in a new Ireland.”
“Despite all the heat in the Chamber today, I did not hear anybody else make that argument. I will give way very briefly.”
“By all means, engage on it. Some of us will lead that debate. We will not just engage or be passengers in that debate. We will lead it, we will persuade people, and we will make no apologies for that. That has always been the job of our party. We are proud of it, and we believe in it, and the constant implication that we are engaging in divisive and distracting politics is absolutely ridiculous. <BR /> <BR />I want to make Northern Ireland work. In the here and now, we will champion accountability. We will constantly hold the Executive's feet to the fire for failure to deliver. However, we will also make a hopeful new argument for Northern Ireland being back in the EU, and the only way that we can decisively shape that future, genuinely, is via a new Ireland.”
“Will you let me speak, please? Elected representatives are, by definition, here to advocate for their political positions, including constitutional arguments. It is absurd to argue that we should not do that. Mr Tennyson said that his amendment indicates that it is for the people of Northern Ireland to make the decision. That, of course, is the case. No one disputes that that is the mechanism by which constitutional change will ultimately happen, but the idea that, in advance of that, politicians should not make arguments is absurd. The argument is, of course, that there should be more detail and more meat put on the bone. Who is going to do that? By definition, it has to be elected politicians. That is our job.”
“<BR /> <BR />The idea that politicians should not talk about this, as Mr Tennyson seemed to suggest, is, by definition —. By the way, I have no issue with the Alliance Party not taking a position on this, but elected representatives should be able —.”
“Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I was somewhat amused to hear Mr Buckley accusing the SDLP of being obsessed by ideology. It takes one to know one. There are lots of mirrors in the Building, Jonny: feel free to consult one when it is next convenient. <BR /> <BR />Phillip Brett talked about mysticism and predicting dates. This debate is not about saying when a border poll should happen. It is not even about forcing that question. It is about how we need to reflect on decisions made in Britain that we cannot control and choosing a new future. We make no apology for putting that proposition to the Assembly. It is not responsible to constantly name arbitrary dates for border polls. What matters is building a case, persuading people and then making the argument for a hopeful new future on this island.”
“Yes, I will give way if he is going to tell me if he supports Nigel Farage being Prime Minister.”
“The idea that we are not constantly putting issues forward to hold the Executive to account on health, education, transport and everything else is not just offensive; it is daft and self-evidently ridiculous. Executive parties would do better to agree their own Budget rather than smearing the official Opposition for using Opposition time to debate motions. <BR /> <BR />The energetic Jonny Buckley was up and down. I am not sure whether he is a supporter of Reform UK. The DUP is not normally shy about making its views known, but there appears to be a wee bit of a tentative —.”
“Then, whenever we say, "Could we think about planning carefully" — yes, Gerry Carroll, it is important that we plan carefully — "over the years and decades ahead a new future for ourselves on this island that would, by the way, involve a new and close relationship with jurisdictions on the island of Britain?" — we hear, "No, no, that's divisive. That's backward", and I find that deeply frustrating. <BR /> <BR />The elections in Britain were a legitimate reason for us to debate our response to it in Northern Ireland. That is what we are using Opposition time to do. Yes, we use Opposition time, and we will use it today to talk about a 111 service and Caleb's Cause. The idea that the official Opposition do not come here and constantly hold the Executive to account for their delivery — mostly lack of delivery — is obviously absurd.”