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“Clearly, however, the regulatory and enforcement regime for all those watercourses and marine environments is way out of date ecologically and, indeed, economically.”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 51 of 119.
“It is time for actual delivery and reform of the institutions.”
“The Programme for Government (PFG) is shockingly vague. It has not even been signed off yet. Last week, in Dáil Éireann, Pearse Doherty TD said that the Irish Programme for Government contains "very little that is new", is "lacking specific commitments" and is a "continuation of existing policies". Well, Pearse, you ain't seen nothing yet, compared with what is happening north of the border. <BR /> <BR />We have a job to do in this place. We need to get real. We need to rebuild trust among the people who send us here. We simply cannot mark time and expect the public to cheerlead us.”
“Waiting lists are going up, not down, and the Health Minister has not brought forward a plan. His colleagues in the Executive, despite having the largest-ever financial settlement, have not worked with him to produce a meaningful plan to reform our health service and get waiting lists down. Our waste water infrastructure is crumbling. There is no plan from the Infrastructure Minister — there is a new Minister today — for how we will deal with that. What we get instead is vague waffle and aspiration. Last week, a court in Belfast heard that the failure by the Executive, one year on, to produce an anti-poverty strategy is "appalling". <BR /> <BR />I am not here simply to whine, moan and list grievances; I am here to hold the Executive to account for what they deliver or do not deliver for the people of Northern Ireland.”
“<BR /> <BR />When we came here last year, the First Minister and deputy First Minister said that the discussion on reform should properly be done in the Assembly Executive and Review Committee (AERC). Sadly, that Committee has met just once or twice, and, when a Member from the Alliance Party and I attempted to ensure that the issue of reform was on the agenda, it was batted back by Sinn Féin and the DUP. We need to get real. We need to endorse it at the Assembly, and we need to practically deliver it. <BR /> <BR />I turn to the question of delivery over the past year. Reform and accountability are so important, ultimately, because all of us who seek a mandate to this place have to be honest with the public about what we will use that mandate for. We are treading water.”
“<BR /> <BR />Our motion is about rebuilding trust and accountability in our politics, returning to a theme that we discussed on our first Opposition day, last year, when the question that I posed to the First Minister and deputy First Minister, moments after they took office, was whether they would pledge not to resign their seats and to stay in their jobs until the end of the mandate. They did not do it then, and they have still not done it. We need deeper reform of our institutions to ensure that no party can collapse the institutions and collapse government on a political whim because it suits their interests at any given moment. We need deeper, further reform that looks at how we do government here and at changes to the ministerial code, which is what our motion talks about.”
“People deserve better than a Government who simply demand credit and demand a birthday card and bunting for simply turning up and saying, "We're here. We've done our job". Leading is about more than turning up. Some of our constituents will be preparing for their end-of-year assessments or appraisals with their managers. Their managers will ask them, "What have you achieved in the past year?". If they say, "Well, boss, I turned up. I've been here. I didn't resign", the boss is hardly likely to say, "Well done. That's great. Same again next year". We need to get serious and real about what we have and have not delivered in this place.”
“We have brought practical proposals to the Chamber. Sometimes Ministers turned up to hear our proposals. Sadly, however, as my colleague said, neither the First Minister nor the deputy First Minister nor even a junior Minister has done us the courtesy of turning up today. I am sure that there is a really important photo opportunity somewhere around the Stormont estate that is detaining them. We have done our job of providing accountability throughout that year. We have acknowledged where Ministers have made progress and there have been positive steps. For example, there was an intervention on childcare: we have acknowledged that and other specific areas. <BR /> <BR />The truth is that we have failed. Specifically, the Executive have failed. They have failed to start the work of rebuilding trust in our politics.”
“Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. What a difference a year makes — or not, if you are one of the people of Northern Ireland who is on a waiting list, if your child is waiting for a special educational needs (SEN) referral or if you are waiting to get a housing development built but cannot get a waste water connection. In all those areas, a year of the Executive having returned has not meant the kind of progress that people were led to believe that they would see. <BR /> <BR />We have been here for a year. The Executive have been in office for a year. Rather than making progress, they have largely been marking time. As the official Opposition throughout that year, we have done our best to provide real and robust accountability. We said that we would be a constructive Opposition, and, at every turn, we have been.”
“Minister, your theatrics in waging your culture war today would, I am sure, get you on the stage of any school drama project. <BR /> <BR />I want to focus on something that you mentioned earlier, which is facts and the factual position. You referred to Lisneal College as a "minor" project. I direct you to your Department's website, where it says in black and white that a minor work costs less than £500,000. Separately, to make it absolutely clear, it says that a major work is a capital project that costs in excess of £500,000. Is the Department's website wrong, or does the Minister need to correct the record?”
“It is deeply concerning that, at a time when the international rules-based order is under threat, particularly from President Trump and his acolytes, we face into a very destabilising situation. <BR /> <BR />Northern Ireland has the potential benefit of being at the turning point of two markets: the UK and European markets. I want us to take advantage of that, but, in the context of trade barriers being re-erected by leaders, doing so will be deeply challenging. The situation should worry all of us in the Chamber, whatever our perspective. I therefore condemn the escalation by President Trump, and I hope that businesses and workers here will be protected from it. I will be calling on the newly appointed Minister for the Economy to engage as widely as she can to establish protections for people here.”
“Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I wish to talk briefly about the trade war that it looks like the president of the United States is to inflict upon the world. Obviously, we did not have a vote in the US presidential election in November, although there are strong opinions on the election of President Trump, for and, in my case and the case of others, against. You do not have to be a supporter or an antagonist of Donald Trump to know that unilaterally imposing swingeing tariffs on your nearest neighbours and allies and then threatening the other biggest trade blocks in the world, namely the EU and indeed, by inference today, the UK, with tariffs and trade war escalation is not in the interests of workers and consumers in your own country, let alone stability around the world.”
“Yes: it is important that there are "regular and robust audits" of what people do. Obviously, that should not be around simply dancing on the head of a pin, because, occasionally, in constituency casework, people will draw attention to the fact that Sinn Féin, the Ulster Unionists or the Alliance Party has a particular view on a particular constituency issue. That is not a problem and should not be conflated with what was discovered in the report, which was a concerning centralisation of resources and management and an absurd lack of control, including from the head of Government in this place. I hope that, in future, we do much better. When I say "we", I mean one political party specifically.”
“We cannot continue to inflict damage on people's perception of us.”
“Although there are, of course, lessons for all of us to learn in how we discharge our duties, there are clearly specific practices that have been long and well rehearsed in Sinn Féin on centralising resources and structures and how that is managed that have contributed to the findings of the report. They are concerning, and they are specific and distinct to that party. Therefore, it is for that party to address those and to build confidence in the public that public moneys are being discharged properly. <BR /> <BR />It is important to say, as others have done, that an audit mechanism is already in place. That is true. It is also the case that the repeated collapses of this institution and scandals such as this one simply serve to damage the public's perception of us.”
“<BR /> <BR />I understand the limitations that were placed on those who authored the report, and I do not in any way impugn their motives, because they were operating within limitations. However, specific questions are raised by the matter. It is important that we all take seriously our responsibilities when we sign off every individual claim. Whether it is for a paper clip or for the employment of a staff member, we are making a very important legal undertaking that the money is being properly discharged. We need to provide the public with full confidence. <BR /> <BR />I think that people who are reading the details of this will not have full confidence that that money has been properly discharged. The challenge is that the matter goes yet again on to the pile of things that have damaged confidence in our politics and these institutions.”
“We also know that there is a difference between people who are employed to work for a political party and are perceived to work directly for that party as either press officers or direct central policy staff and people who work for individual MLAs, even if, at times, they do work that is communications-based or policy research. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is absurd and insulting to people's intelligence to pretend that there is not some distinction between people who are centrally employed to be press officers for a political party and people who work individually and are contracted to work individually for Members. That insults people's intelligence a little bit.”
“It is simply surreal that an individual — this is before you even get on to the specific issues around that individual — was contracted to work for 80 hours a week by multiple Members of the Assembly and by Sinn Féin directly. <BR /> <BR />A reasonable observation is made in the report commissioned by the Assembly Commission that there is "no bright line" between party political activities or between political activities and legislative and constituency duties. We are all politicians, and we all know that there is a difference between the FAPP scheme and constituency allowances.”
“I will speak relatively briefly on the motion, which we will support, should it go to a Division. It is important to acknowledge the gravity of the issues that we are discussing and the importance of us all taking seriously our responsibilities in the proper discharge of our duties on spending public money, using it properly and being accountable for how we use it as resource. <BR /> <BR />It is clear that the practices that came to light are bizarre, to say the very least. It strains credulity way beyond breaking point that the First Minister was not aware of the employment status of that person. If she was not aware, that calls her competence into question, given that she is head of the Government here.”
“I will be brief. I do not disagree with anything that the Member has said. He is right that advertising is a reserved matter, but the Executive can take action. Does the Member agree that there should be legislation before the end of the mandate and that it should be in the PFG?”
“I trust that we will have the support of everyone in the Chamber on that.”
“We have certainly responded to the draft PFG. If we have not specifically included this matter, we will respond again.”
“Lo and behold, we have a PFG, and there is no mention of gambling. We are all here, on a cross-party motion, talking about how awful gambling harm is — and, my God, it is. Since we debated it in 2021, lives and homes will have been lost. Families will have been broken up. People will have been pushed into desperation and suicide. <BR /> <BR />If we are serious about it, we will do more than simply agree this motion — well-meaning and thoughtful as it is — we will legislate. Let us get that from today's motion. Let us get a commitment to do all that we can to get something on the statute books by the end of the mandate.”
“That is why we have been sent here. We have the power to legislate and pass laws. We could do that. <BR /> <BR />The Minister of Health is just one Minister. A lot of the stuff that we are talking about is not directly his responsibility. However, I ask whether he agrees that the Executive should go away and look at the draft Programme for Government (PFG), and see whether they can find the scope to put in at least the beginning of work to produce a comprehensive Bill on regulating gambling, including online harms. There will be challenges: a lot of that area is reserved. It will require resources. However, I would welcome it if the Health Minister could bring that back from today's debate and see whether it could be put in the final PFG. <BR /> <BR />We all agreed, effectively, in 2021 that it was for the next mandate.”
“We have lost some of this mandate, but that was back in 2021, three and a half years ago. The Chair of the Communities Committee, Mr Gildernew, remarked that a new Bill would have to go into the next mandate, so that is from 2027 onwards. The previous Minister said, in 2021, that we needed new legislation to deal with all the gambling harm. It will be another decade, apparently before we get that legislation. <BR /> <BR />This motion is very important. It is well intended, and I do not trivialise it at all. It is hugely important. However, we are legislators. As you told us today in a letter, Mr Speaker, we are legislators. We are not a school debating society and did not come in here to wring our hands and say, "Jeez, boys, isn't this bad? Isn't it awful? Something must be done." We are here to do something.”
“I thought it strange that we were talking about gambling harm but were, effectively, liberalising gambling, which is what we did earlier, when we passed the secondary legislation. At that time, the then Minister, Deirdre Hargey, said, and I quote from Hansard:”
“We are talking about something entirely different from someone putting a fiver on a horse at the racecourse or in a bookies. Whatever people's theoretical, moral views about the rights or wrongs of gambling, it is fundamentally a different thing to have to find an open bookies, with a fiver, or whatever, in your pocket, go in and place the bet, write it down and understand all the details. It is totally different from having a phone on which you can gamble away your life's savings at any given moment. <BR /> <BR />The reason that I draw that distinction is that we are here in the Assembly as legislators who have the power to legislate and change that. In 2021, when we debated the previous gambling legislation in the Assembly, I was here and made the point that I thought that it did not go anywhere near far enough.”
“I come from a town where horse racing is very important because it is one of two places in Northern Ireland with a racecourse. One of my first paid occupations — I probably should not say this: I will get someone into trouble — was working behind a bar, phoning through bets. That was 20-odd years ago, when most people did not have phones and did not have online betting. That was a thing that people did in country pubs in rural areas. Therefore, I do not take a puritanical or abolitionist approach to gambling. Enjoying a bit of sports betting is something that can be a bit of craic, and it can also support community, social and sporting endeavours and groups, GAA clubs and, by all means, I am sure, other community groups and all the rest of it. <BR /> <BR />As Alan Chambers said, however, we have entered into a different technological age.”
“I will speak to the motion because I spoke on the order earlier on changing some of the stakes and payouts for certain types of gambling. Given that I remarked on the interaction between the order and motion, it is important that I speak in the debate. I want to be constructive, because the APG does very important work. Although I am not a member of the APG, I have paid some attention to the issue, and, as my colleague Mark Durkan said, our party is represented on the all-party group. Robbie Butler spoke very well about the work of the APG. Philip McGuigan, as always, shared his experience in a very heartfelt and insightful way. <BR /> <BR />I, like other people, have taken the time to say that I am certainly not opposed to gambling. In the past, I have had, and still occasionally have, a flutter on the horses.”
“I pay tribute to the Member and other Members for the amount of work that they have done on the APG. I do not sit on the APG, but I know that it is really important. Does he think that there is a slight disjunction between our debating this motion today and the fact that, earlier, the Assembly passed a regulation that, effectively, increased the availability of gambling? The motion is perfectly reasonable and important, and we will vote for it, but should we not also be looking at legislation to beef up regulation?”
“Minister, I welcome the fact that you are looking at this, but I am concerned that we look as though we are being imprisoned by the strict legal limitations that are imposed on us by London. You and I want a new constitutional future. If we listen to what the Treasury says, we will not be planning for that future. Even if the legislation prevents you from providing a legal Budget, it does not stop you and the Executive providing a five-year indicative Budget for what will be needed to deliver the public services for the population that we will have in 2028-29 and beyond. Can we have that Budget, even if it is just indicative?”
“Minister, in the answer to the previous question, you said that a consultation on rates would begin in the new financial year, but it has not been said clearly enough in the Chamber that there will be a 3% increase in the regional rate for businesses in the 2025-26 Budget. Is it not a bit disingenuous for us to come in here and talk about the seriousness of the issues facing business while slipping through a regional rate increase in the non-domestic rate? Has that been agreed by your Executive colleagues?”
“<BR /> <BR />As you said earlier, Mr Speaker, when you talked about your correspondence to all Members, we are in this place to be legislators and to change the law. We are not a school debating society. We should take seriously the responsibilities that have been given to us. We have the power to change the law and to create criminal offences. We authorise billions of pounds of spending and can levy taxation that is a mandatory charge on the Northern Ireland public. Let us take our responsibilities seriously. That is the simple point that I wanted to make today on the two items of business on gaming that are in front of us.”
“Indeed, I get only five minutes on this legislation. I appreciate the Speaker's intervention, and he is right that we should focus on the matters at hand. <BR /> <BR />My point is to draw the public's attention to the disparity between what we are doing in legislative terms and what we are doing through motions, and I think that they are increasingly drawing that distinction. The Minister has made some legitimate arguments, and I acknowledge that he is engaged in the issue, but it is really important that we take legislative action and not simply pass motions, legitimate as they are. The public will start to become cynical if they simply hear warm words but see no legislative action, which is, after all, what we are here to deliver.”
“Some of the issues that touch on gambling, such as advertising and broadcasting, are reserved matters, but not all of them. I will simply put it this way: there are perfectly good arguments in favour of what is happening today in this secondary legislation and I acknowledge that the Minister is, in many ways, following through on commitments that were made by his predecessor and were agreed to. I do not think that we are necessarily adding to the crisis of problem gambling by increasing the potential payouts in certain community contexts, but it is the case that we are not yet taking visible legislative action to go further, which is what we were told in 2021 that we would do. Later today, we will debate a motion, signed by all five parties in the Chamber, that says that there is a public health crisis. Let us get real.”
“All-party motions are an important statement of intent, but infinitely more important than passing a motion with statements of intent and aspiration is legislative action to, for example, as the Minister mentioned, align with the position in GB. South of the border, in the other part of this island, it is illegal to have gaming machines in pubs. That is not illegal in the North, so there is one alignment that could be brought into force. That is something to consider. I am not saying that that is definitely the right course of action, but it is one potential legislative action that is open to us. <BR /> <BR />There is a range of regulatory measures that, because gambling is devolved — that is why we are debating it today — we have the power to introduce.”
“I acknowledge that, as the Minister said, some of this was agreed to in 2021, but it is also the case that, when the then Minister, his predecessor, introduced that Bill — I have looked at it in Hansard — she said that it was not sufficient. She acknowledged that more needed to be done. That was three and a half years ago. In those three and a half years, lives have been lost, marriages have broken up and families have been pushed into destitution and desperation by what the motion to be debated later today calls a public health crisis. <BR /> <BR />As legislators, the legitimate question that we should be asking ourselves is this: "What are we doing?".”
“I am not seeking to attack the Minister on this. That is not what this is about for me. I know that we are the Opposition, but I believe that there is a disjoint in the Chamber. I have made this point consistently, and I made it yesterday when we were debating certain matters: the public want to know what we are doing to deliver on their priorities. Later, they will see us debate an all-party motion on gambling-related harm, in which we call it a public health crisis. Earlier on the same day, our related legislative intervention is to increase some of the payments that can be made. The fact that our rhetoric often does not match the legislative action invites the public to question how serious and joined-up we are.”
“Yes, perhaps he is a little younger than me. It is important to make that distinction. <BR /> <BR />The important point is that people with addictions are waking up in the middle of the night and gambling away their life savings on devices. It is causing marital break-ups, suicide and desperation. There are Members in the Chamber who have personal experience of it and have talked convincingly about it. At times, there is a mismatch in our ambition in this place. Three and a half years ago, we debated the previous substantive legislation on gambling, and one of the biggest things that it did was to open bookie shops on a Sunday. In a sense, that was fine, because, again, it brought us into line with England and Wales.”
“It is not necessarily the root of the problem of gambling-related harm, which is often done on people's phones and is particularly a problem for young and middle-aged men — people about the age of me and the Minister. He might not like me describing him as that.”
“<BR /> <BR />I understand why these measures are being taken, but it is important to say that this debate is happening in the context of a motion on gambling-related harm that we will debate later today. When we had a Bill in the previous Assembly mandate, we were told by the then Minister for Communities, Deirdre Hargey, that there would be more ambition in tackling gambling-related harm. The motion that we will debate later is all-party. The official Opposition and the four Executive parties have all signed up to the text of that motion, which talks specifically about gambling-related harm being a public health crisis. <BR /> <BR />I do not think that modest increases — although they are fourfold or fivefold in some cases — to potential winnings for people playing bingo or gaming in a community context will be the end of the world.”
“I rise to speak about what is a modest change to the law to increase stakes in bingo halls and other premises where gambling takes place. It is worth saying that I am not opposed to gambling and gaming. In fact, over the Christmas break, I won a few quid on the King George VI Chase, the big race that happens on Boxing Day or St Stephen's Day. I put a couple of quid on a horse, and I won. I come from Downpatrick, which is a town that is proud to have one of the two racecourses in the North. I think that it can be a fun and entirely legitimate way for people to enjoy themselves, and particularly to enjoy sports, and for community organisations and sports clubs to raise necessary funding. It is critical for sports clubs, including GAA clubs, and community groups to raise funding through bingo or local lotteries.”
“Thank you, deputy First Minister, for that statement. This is, indeed, the most vital of subjects and this is an appropriate forum in which to discuss it. You did not mention, however, that Northern Ireland has been a laggard compared with all the other regions. We have a carbon budget, which was passed by the Assembly a number of months ago. I presume and hope that the Environment Minister is now bringing forward a climate action plan. Can you confirm that that climate action plan will be agreed and signed off by the Executive and your party by the time of the next British-Irish Council meeting in Northern Ireland this June?”
“On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Having spent a chunk of time voting on that vital motion about nappy recycling and collection, I wonder whether a Minister will come forward to update us on what practical actions will follow. The public who are watching will want to know what practical policies will follow from that vote.”
“Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I am not changing the subject. In relation to waste disposal and his ability to deliver it through the Executive, have the Minister or his colleagues brought forward a specific proposal on reform to the Executive and sought to get it into the Programme for Government?”
“I am glad that I gave way, because I do not accept that. Our job as the official Opposition is to hold the Executive to account. Some Members may laugh, but their party and other parties in the Chamber have power. We are not elected simply to come here and debate like a debating society. We are elected and people take power and ministerial office to do things for people, to pass legislation, to spend money and to give people concrete plans, not simply debate. Let us take our jobs seriously. As legitimate as the issue in the motion is, we should do better in communicating to the members of the public who elect us what we are doing for them.”
“At a certain point, however, we have to take our jobs seriously and communicate to the public that, although we talk about a circular economy, we are not here simply to have circular debates.”
“Thank you very much. People will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to use all of it, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. <BR /> <BR />The content of what we debate here, like the contents of the objects that we are talking about, is a legitimate subject for debate. Private Members' motions are entirely legitimate, but we have had a lot of them. We are less than 50% of the way through our legislative programme. If we are to debate how to improve our performance against recycling targets specifically in relation to nappies, I would like to hear from the Minister about the specific policies that he will enact. I am sure that he will be able to enlighten us.”
“I am happy to finish my point and get back to the motion, but my point is germane to its subject, because we should be implementing things rather than simply debating private Members' motions. I do not dismiss the legitimacy of the issue at all, but let me say this: we can levy taxation, and we can imprison people by creating criminal offences. In the next few weeks, we will authorise tens of billions of pounds of spending. People expect us to take those responsibilities seriously.”
“I will make a couple of points, then I will give way. This institution, which, obviously, has not sat all of the time, was created by an international treaty after a conflict. We were given significant powers, and although we do not always take them seriously, those powers included the powers to levy taxes, which, effectively, means that people do not have a choice in what taxes they pay to us.”
“However, I must point out, as the leader of the Opposition in the Northern Ireland Assembly, that it is about 4.47 pm on a sitting day, in the midst of a health service crisis and a range of other things, when the Executive are less than 50% — less than halfway — through their legislative programme for last year. If Joe Bloggs or the average punter who sent us here was to tune into this debate, in the middle of a Monday, to find out what we are debating, they would see that it is an important issue, but a non-binding motion on nappy collection and recycling. I am not trying to trivialise it, but —.”