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“Clearly, however, the regulatory and enforcement regime for all those watercourses and marine environments is way out of date ecologically and, indeed, economically.”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 59 of 119.
“No organisation, political party, business or church is responsible for the actions of abusers; they are culpable for their actions. Organisations are, however, responsible for the actions that they take to safeguard vulnerable people. They are also responsible for fulfilling their duty of candour and transparency. A reasonable person, having viewed the actions of your party over the past week, would not think that it had discharged its responsibility of duty of candour and transparency, but I welcome the fact that you are here today. <BR /> <BR />First Minister, specifically in relation to the photographs that were taken in the Great Hall, are you clear, given that a photograph was taken in which you are 10 ft or 15 ft away from Michael McMonagle — closer than I am to you now — that you did not see him?”
“That is the case in certain communities here, including in east Belfast, where East Belfast GAA is unable to safely practise because there continue to be vexatious threats to its grounds. What message does it send when Ministers in the Executive continue to have meetings — I repeat this — with representatives of those organisations?”
“I will assume, hopefully, that the deputy First Minister will not seek the input of loyalist paramilitary gangs when it comes to other policy areas. I will ask this specific question. The Programme for Government says:”
“In the spirit of looking forward and delivering what is in the draft Programme for Government — hopefully, it will get a bit more specific — will the deputy First Minister confirm that she will be here for the remainder of the mandate, that she will not resign her office and that she will deliver what will be in the final document that succeeds the draft Programme for Government?”
“I am grateful to the Committee Chair for giving way. Does she think that the Programme for Government should have specific targets for any of the areas that she mentioned, whether for tackling paramilitarism or for political stability? For example, should the PFG include a target to reform the institutions?”
“I ask the Executive parties to support the motion.”
“Pathetic interventions like that, I am afraid, simply reveal a lack of seriousness.”
“The Member has just floored me by reading out something that was said 13 years ago when neither she nor I were MLAs. If I am right, she has said that, when we were in the Executive —.”
“I will happily give way, but I am about to come to the end of my time. I will happily give way if I get an extra minute.”
“<BR /> <BR />Part of our job as the Opposition is to constructively nudge the Executive and Executive parties, sometimes in a way that may grate on or annoy them, towards more clarity. If that annoys them, I am sorry.”
“When it comes to social housing, we know that we have a shockingly low number of social houses and that we are nowhere near fulfilling what was set out in the plans that were outlined in 2020 and 2021. On water and waste water infrastructure, in parts of the North, you simply cannot build a house, let alone get to the targets that we need to deliver on our social housing strategy. What is the plan for that? The Infrastructure Minister has talked about a proposal or the outlines or concepts of a proposal for a developer charge: we do not have clarity on that yet. If that is a specific legislative intervention, bring it before the House. The same goes for everything else that every other Minister is doing. We need detail, clarity, timelines and targets. We do not have enough of them yet in the draft Programme for Government.”
“I have not been churlish or unreasonable, nor have my colleagues, but we would like to see more clarity on what will be delivered through the rest of the mandate. It may be that it will be indicated in a childcare strategy, when one is forthcoming, but we think that it should be embedded in a final Programme for Government. <BR /> <BR />On biodiversity laws, we have seen an action plan specifically relating to Lough Neagh, but, frankly, with not much specific detail on targets. There are lots of what Donald Trump called recently outlines of a plan or "concepts of a plan" but not specific, measurable targets. We will keep asking for those, because they are important, not for us but for the public — the people who send us here.”
“It is also to say that, if there is not to be a specific target for one policy output, there needs to be a clear plan with a timeline and a delivery mechanism, and it has to be agreed on and made public. We do not yet have that from the Health Minister or the Executive writ large. <BR /> <BR />The next issue that we mention is child poverty. On our second Opposition day, we tabled a series of motions on poverty, one of which touched on child poverty and specifically mentioned the pernicious two-child limit. In the document, there is not a target or even a set of clear intentions around actions being taken to address our shockingly high levels of child poverty, which are higher than in other parts of these islands. On childcare costs, as I said, I recognise the important work that the Minister has done.”
“I will touch on those because they are particularly important, but they are not the only things that are important. On waiting times, we know that we have the most devastated health service, possibly, in western Europe, to be honest. Therefore, we want to see clarity. This may come up in the debate, so it is worth saying that some in the health sector, including the BMA, have been clear that they do not necessarily want complete and detailed specificity on certain targets because they think that it would be more helpful to look at the reform programme holistically. We acknowledge that there will be views on whether one specific target is helpful. The point of our motion is to say that, in a general, broad sense, we need more targets.”
“<BR /> <BR />As I said, the document contains lots of positive aspiration. It also contains lots and lots of warm words but not, in many cases, a lot of clarity. It also misses out on several important things. To pick two examples, there is strikingly little about poverty and mental health in it. However, I acknowledge that no plan can do everything. The fact that those important subjects are not mentioned in the Programme for Government is evidence that, at least to some extent, Executive parties have agreed that there needs to be some level of prioritisation. If there is going to be prioritisation, there needs to be clarity about what actions are being prioritised, whether they are legislative, financial or anything else. <BR /> <BR />Our motion refers to a number of specific areas.”
“I have commended the Economy Minister for the clarity that he has given to his focus on, for example, greater all-island collaboration, taking advantage of our dual market access and, hopefully, placing a greater emphasis on regional balance. However, to make real those intentions, we need to see clarity in the Programme for Government about what will be delivered. To pick one example at random, on the provision of at least 10,000, hopefully, student places at Magee in Derry, I would like to see clarity and specificity in the Programme for Government on what it is promising about when those students will be in Derry, when the places will be in Derry or when the mechanics will be put in place to enable that to happen, with the supporting policies around accommodation, funding and all of that.”
“<BR /> <BR />The document has nine priorities. Some people would say that that is rather a large number of priorities, but, even if we go with the nine priorities — they are all important — we need to see clarity and focus on delivery. I also acknowledge that, in several of those areas, progress has been made. It would be churlish of me to pretend that the Executive and Executive Ministers have done nothing worthwhile or constructive since the institutions returned. I do not say that at all: that is not what I think, and it is not the case. I have, for example, commended the Education Minister on the progress that he has made on childcare costs.”
“It is important to say in parenthesis that many of those problems have been made worse by repeated collapses by the two main parties in the Executive, but, even if we had not had collapse, powers here are not limitless. This is a mandatory power-sharing coalition that relies in large part on a block grant of funding that comes from Westminster, and consensus or, at least, some level of agreement has to be found among the four parties that comprise the Executive. I accept that there are not limitless powers to do everything all at once. That underlines and accentuates the need to have a clear set of targets and, with those targets, clear timelines for delivery and clear measurable outcomes that the public can judge the Executive against. I am afraid that the draft Programme for Government document does not have those.”
“It is slightly surreal, if others do not mind my saying so, for parties that serve in the Northern Ireland Executive to say that they will send in official responses to the Programme for Government, but that, apparently, is what the Alliance Party is doing. However, in the spirit of consultation and fulsome public debate about the Programme for Government, I welcome that. That is what the motion is all about. <BR /> <BR />It is important to say that there is lots of positive stuff in the Programme for Government. It is also important to say that we recognise a number of things. The now eight-month-old Executive do not have limitless powers to solve all the problems.”
“Certain Executive Ministers were clear that we were being a little negative, were not getting involved and were not doing enough positive thinking. They said that we needed to get with the programme a little more. They also said that the Programme for Government was in draft and that there would be a consultation process. Well, this is consultation. This is an opportunity for all the parties in the Assembly, whether they are Executive parties, the official Opposition or independents, to have our say. It is interesting that some Executive parties have said that they will send in their own responses to the consultation on the Programme for Government.”
“There is a range of areas where the public can see public services failing and have not had any devolved, Westminster or, for that matter, North/South clarity on who is delivering what for them. There is a crisis of trust in devolved government. Any of us who declare otherwise are being disingenuous. The best we can do in these institutions is to provide a clear plan and road map for how the Executive will address that crisis in confidence. We think that that needs to happen via a plan and that this document, which is a Programme for Government in draft form, is a key part of improving public confidence. <BR /> <BR />It is important to say that it is a draft. I and some of my colleagues were robust in some of our criticisms of the draft document when it first came out, on the same day as we published our own plan.”
“When we came back here, just over eight months ago, the SDLP was clear that it would be a constructive Opposition. We have been constructive but robust ever since. The purpose of an Opposition is not simply to throw snowballs or stones but to do our job, as a public service, for those who have sent us here collectively but have been failed over years — in fact, for nearly a decade now — through repeated failures of the Executive to deliver for the people of the North. <BR /> <BR />What does our motion say today? The motion is clear: we want to see the Programme for Government (PFG) improved and updated in order to be clear about the targets, timelines and specific deliverables that the people of Northern Ireland can expect from the Executive. That is all: it is not that complicated or dense in policy terms.”
“Minister, I think that I am right in saying that all, or virtually all, of the other Administrations that attended that meeting have implemented or are moving to implement a ban on no-fault evictions. My understanding is that you do not want to do that here. Why should Northern Ireland be an outlier when all our neighbours have taken or are taking that important step?”
“It has been the most indescribable year —”
“However, it would be impossible to reflect on that day without saying that the memory of those people and, indeed, the broader cause of stability, peace and justice in the Middle East have not been served by the limitless violence that has been visited by Israel on that region since. It must be said that the states that have continued to arm and facilitate that action have, I am afraid, created long-term problems in that region and more globally that we will deal with for generations. There are babies alive now who will be dealing with the trauma — possibly with physical injuries and trauma — at the end of this century. <BR /> <BR />Not only do we need a ceasefire, we need a process to create a just, lasting settlement for the Palestinian people and, yes, security for Israelis. We cannot have what we have had over the past year.”
“<BR /> <BR />I want to reflect on the innocent lives lost, first, on 7 October, and on the tens of thousands of innocent people, including tens of thousands of children, in Gaza and now Lebanon who are being bombed in their homes. They have no defence and no ability to know what is about to happen to them. There is no justification for the scale of violence wrought by Israel over the past year. I want to be clear in saying that 7 October was a disgraceful, grotesque act of violence visited on people. People around the world are rightly memorialising that day, and I do not in any way want to take away from that.”
“I want to reflect on the past year. On October 7 2023, Hamas launched an attack in Israel. It was a violent attack that has to be consistently condemned. It was unjustified and unjustifiable. I acknowledge and affirm the profound effect that it had on people living in Israel. They were shocking, shocking acts of violence, and innocent lives were taken. It is, however, impossible to speak of that day in isolation from the year that has followed. The year that has followed has been one of almost limitless violence visited on, first, the people of Gaza by the state of Israel and, subsequently, other neighbours of Israel. We in this place have come to understand that the Old Testament quality of an eye for an eye simply leads to a cycle of never-ending, limitless and ever more depraved violence.”
“<BR /> <BR />Clearly, we will support the passage of the Bill at Second Stage. We look forward to the text of the amendments and to scrutinising the important subjects contained therein.”
“<BR /> <BR />I have also been made aware of another outstanding issue in relation to that legislation about which I will correspond with the Minister and ask her to clarify. It is about the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act 2022. All it does is reinforce the need for us to scrutinise this Bill properly, and I hope that what emerges will be a significant piece of justice reform that will be to the credit of the Minister. <BR /> <BR />I know that sometimes the Minister enjoys robust exchanges in the Chamber; perhaps she does not always enjoy them. However, there is an important point here. This is about challenge — sometimes it is about difficult exchange — to get to a place that is better. It will be better and substantial legislation that actually works, if we do our jobs properly and scrutinise it.”
“I have been talking about civil law and the importance of civil law and criminal law, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have not been in any way uncivil, and I would not seek to be uncivil. <BR /> <BR />There is lots of important stuff in the Bill, and I commend the Justice Minister for bringing — frankly, unlike other members of the Executive so far — a piece of significant legislation. However, we have a precedent to go back to, that other vexed word that has a legal meaning too. There is a precedent, which is that, in the previous mandate, we passed legislation that had a significant unintended consequence. Perhaps it was not an unintended consequence; perhaps it was intended, but it was not fully understood and thought through by the Members of the Assembly. We should be humble about that and should be serious about our jobs.”
“My constituency colleague has robustly clarified her position. I do not think that I put words in her mouth. I think it was relatively clear because I took a note of what she said. We are —”
“I will give way in a second. There has to be some draft legislation. You have to see the text of an amendment or a clause. It would be difficult for a judge to surmise that a piece of policy intent was properly considered in relation to the Bill text until there is Bill text. <BR /> <BR />I give way.”
“The Minister makes some reasonable points, but the simple fact is this: the question of whether the Committee or every MLA did their job properly, given that the Bill, which is now an Act, passed by acclamation — there was not even a Division — only adds to the argument that we should do our job in this case even more assiduously and carefully and scrutinise the text of the amendments, which we should see as early as possible. That is why legitimate concern has been raised around that. <BR /> <BR />Policy intent and the way that it interacts with the Bill text is always an argument that is made in court, and, obviously, it was subject to some discussion in that case.”
“I will give way in one second. It is all well and good talking about policy intent. We have largely debated nothing but policy intent since we returned here. It has been policy intent after policy intent. We have all tabled motions about our intent to do things, but this is law. It will have to be tested in court. We heard from Mr Justice Humphreys that the text of a piece of Justice legislation that we passed in the previous mandate was not sufficiently scrutinised. No highly paid KC can go in front of a judge and say, "Ah, but the policy intent was this". In fact, some of those arguments were defeated in court. I am happy to give way to either the Member or the Minister.”
“I look forward to seeing the substance of the amendments. I do not want to labour the point, because others have made it, but it is reasonable to question a Minister about indicating at Second Stage an intention to amend the Bill. I appreciate that the Minister is not particularly enamoured with that challenge or criticism, but that is our job. <BR /> <BR />I do not completely buy the argument made by her colleague Ms Bradshaw that not seeing the text of the legislation should be fine because we have heard the policy intent. That, with the greatest respect, is completely nonsensical. Legislation is literally about the text that is in front of you. That is what they scrutinise in court.”
“That anomaly points to the slightly strange situation in which the Department of Justice legislates for changes to the civil legal aid system but the Minister of Finance, who has other things on her proverbial plate, has to deal with the substance of civil law reform, whether it is in relation to defamation law, marital law or a whole other range of civil law matters. I do not see any logical reason for that anomaly to continue, particularly when the Department of Justice is literally bringing forward reforms to civil legal aid. It is worth reflecting on that point, and, perhaps, the deliberation on the legislation is an opportunity to do that. <BR /> <BR />I will not go through absolutely every clause in the Bill. Though I am not a member of the Justice Committee, I look forward to continuing scrutiny of and deliberation on the Bill.”
“I appreciate that clarification from the Justice Minister. Again, I am sure that the Committee will find that useful in its deliberations and will seek to understand it on its own account. <BR /> <BR />I point to an anomaly not for the sake of being facetious but because I think that it is worth reflecting on. Clearly, the Bill legislates on the civil legal aid system, but there is an anomaly in that civil justice is not the responsibility of the Department of Justice. It is the responsibility of the Department of Finance. To be fair to the Minister of Finance, she has a lot on her plate.”
“Interest groups will always make representations on behalf of their own interests. I am sure that she will make that argument. However, it is important to understand that, particularly given concerns about the squeezing of the legal aid budget and particularly as it affects people who do not have the means. Access to justice is a consistent challenge, and she has made the argument about the squeezing of her budget, so it would be helpful to understand that. It may well be that I am not in possession of information that would immediately clarify my question, so I will give way to the Justice Minister.”
“That is most helpful. I appreciate the Minister's clarifying that. <BR /> <BR />It is certainly the case that we can challenge and ask those questions, and we will continue to do so. It will be helpful to understand the full background to that. I am sure that Committee members will investigate and interrogate that. It will also be helpful to understand whether the Attorney General for Northern Ireland's having that power has created any specific challenges, what those challenges are and why that matter needs to be addressed. I appreciate that clarification. <BR /> <BR />There are also some concerns, or, at least, questions, that some in the legal fraternity have raised about the update to clause 28, which is on ordering taxation of legal aid costs. It would be helpful to understand that. The Minister has a slight smile on her face.”
“As I understand it, the Advocate General is the legal adviser to the UK Government rather than to the devolved Government. I believe that the current Advocate General is Lord Hermer, who is an adviser to the UK Government. International affairs are an excepted matter, but the Attorney General is legal adviser to the devolved Government, and policing and justice is devolved, so it would be helpful to understand why that change is being made. It sounds, on the face of it —.”
“That provision changes the person who has to sign off on that from the Attorney General for Northern Ireland, who, obviously, is the legal adviser to the Executive, to the Advocate General, who is the legal adviser on Northern Ireland to the UK Government and is, by default, the Attorney General for England and Wales. I do not know enough to know whether I should be concerned by that, but it would be helpful if the Minister were fulsome in explaining why that responsibility is being moved from a legal adviser to a devolved Government — policing and justice powers are devolved — to the Advocate General for Northern Ireland, who is also the Attorney General for England and Wales. If I am misunderstanding it, I am happy to be corrected.”
“It would be helpful if the Minister were to clarify in her closing remarks whether she intends to bring forward a specific amendment to increase the age of criminal responsibility, which is a consistent ask of not only children's rights organisations but international organisations. Why is that not in the Bill? I am aware that it was in her party's manifesto, so it would be helpful to understand whether it is going to be included, and, if not, why not. <BR /> <BR />I have a couple of specific questions about more technical bits. One of the provisions relates to how we go about prosecuting for offences or conspiracy to commit offences in Northern Ireland those individuals who are not in Northern Ireland, that is, they are outside the jurisdiction.”
“Clearly, as touched on extensively by others, there was litigation in relation to biometric material. It is important that the legislation be updated in a way that, yes, is consistent with legacy concerns but that also meets our human rights obligations. Our failure in the past to meet human rights obligations is clearly a theme in the Bill. I commend the Minister for seeking to improve the statute book, particularly on the rights of the child in the criminal justice system. Lots of the measures are about simplifying things, such as improving the consistency of the assumption of bail for young offenders. That is all sensible.”
“I appreciate that useful clarification from the Justice Minister. We heard about measures around serious and organised crime, which is clearly not an insignificant matter. We also heard about measures to reform or change restorative justice. That can be a positive practice, but there has been controversy in Northern Ireland in the past around organisations that used restorative justice, so one's ears tend to prick up when one hears terms like that and is told that amendments will be tabled by the Department in relation to that. <BR /> <BR />I will run through a few specific elements of the Bill and give my views. My colleague Justin McNulty, who is on the Justice Committee, gave a fulsome read-across, but there are a few specific bits that I want to address.”
“I will give way in a second. The Minister is seeking to correct me, of course. Since I have not seen the text of the amendments, I have no idea whether they are controversial, but I am going on what she has told me today. I am happy to give way.”
“It sounds like some of the most substantive, novel and possibly controversial bits of the legislation will come through amendments to be tabled by the Minister.”
“I am not a member of the Justice Committee, but I take an interest in these matters. There is lots of important stuff here, and we should all be able and willing to speak on legislation that is not in our Committee's purview. <BR /> <BR />I have consistently said that I am disappointed by the rather scant volume of substantive legislation that has come before the Assembly since it returned and by the fact that we have not seen very much of the Executive's legislative programme, which is relatively slimline. In the spirit of being constructive, therefore, it would be remiss of me not to say, "Fair play," to the Justice Minister for bringing forward substantive legislation. It is an omnibus Bill with lots of things in it, and we have been told today that there will be lots more things in it.”
“The Bill is deliberately designed to have an extraordinarily wide scope so that the Minister and others can table amendments to it. That is hardly a reason for us to be reassured about potential amendments, given that we need to read and understand their detail.”
“I appreciate the Member's giving way. I rise in a spirit of goodwill. The Member mentioned the policy intent of the Bill: the scope of the Bill includes — I am scanning over the other bits at the start that talk about fingerprints, DNA and live links — making”
“— would relate directly to that, but will the Minister work with his colleagues, particularly the Communities Minister, to see what can be done to tackle the scourge of dereliction, including that which is right in the heart of the city of Belfast?”