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“Clearly, however, the regulatory and enforcement regime for all those watercourses and marine environments is way out of date ecologically and, indeed, economically.”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 6 of 119.
“It is important to say, as I said in my opening remarks, that we talk constantly in the Chamber about decisions made in Britain and frustrations with the British Government. I heard Timothy Gaston talk about the awfulness of the Labour Government. Clearly, they have not been anywhere near the expectations of even their most supportive followers. Clearly, the Tories were 15 years of austerity, chaos and Brexit. I would like to hear from a unionist politician about the kind of British Government that they would like to see, because I hear them talk in the Chamber time after time about the limitations and frustrations of different British Governments.”
“I will give way in a moment. Your ill-timed intervention cost me the conclusion of my speech last time, Andrew. I will give way, I promise, but I will be slightly more judicious about when I offer to. I just want to go through some of my points. <BR /> <BR />Our motion was not intended to thrash out a kind of tribal green-orange debate, as Daniel McCrossan said. Those who frame it as such will have a problem. We have a problem talking about the status quo, because, if anyone talking about change is accused of engaging in some kind of green-orange slanging match, that is a problem, and it says a lot about the status quo. <BR /> <BR />I will just go through some of the remarks that were made and reflect on them, because it is important to respond to them.”
“<BR /> <BR />Our party makes absolutely no apology for believing that bringing the people of Northern Ireland together and bringing the people of these islands together in a new Ireland is —”
“Multiple statements were made, some of which I have. I am sure that Hansard can be consulted afterwards. There was this phrase that was used, I think, by Paula, whom I have a huge amount of respect for by the way as a constituency colleague, where she talked about constituency colleagues and identity politics. She talked about a constitutional headcount: that is not particularly constructive when it comes to anyone having a debate. The point was made that others were focused on making this place work and that us having a debate about the future was not about making this place work. It is a constant pernicious framing. I am afraid that Claire Sugden, whom I also have a lot of respect for, did that, too.”
“I will in a second. <BR /> <BR />— is deeply problematic.”
“I will in a second. <BR /> <BR />— having a view or seeking to have a debate, seeking to use the Assembly to debate the future after what was, clearly, an historic council election with regard to the results in Great Britain, reflecting on that and talking about it and us, as elected officials, saying that the public in Northern Ireland, whether they have no designation preference or have minimal preconceived identity issues, seeking to reflect on it and offer our views on the future is inherently and categorically divisive and tribal —”
“Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Thank you to everybody who participated in the debate. Perhaps predictably, when we debate issues in the Chamber, even if they are framed in way that is hopeful and positive and does not fall down along what might be called traditional, tribal framing lines, that framing is placed on it by others. I would have expected that from some across the Chamber; I was disappointed to hear it from colleagues in the Alliance Party, because, on multiple occasions, Members from the Alliance Party have sought to frame the question of people in Northern Ireland, whether they are unionist, nationalist or do not designate — by the way, lots of people who vote for my party are somewhat bored by traditional labels —”
“This is a really important point for me personally and for our party. Do you accept that issues around communal designation and identity are not exactly the same as constitutional positions? That conflation is really pernicious. Do you understand that it is possible to take a position on the constitution without that automatically being deemed tribal, communal or cultural?”
“I have literally about 20 seconds left, but yes.”
“<BR /> <BR />I sincerely hope that the rise of Nigel Farage is held off in Britain. My party and I will do anything that we can to stop that, but let us be clear: we in Northern Ireland have only one way of genuinely and decisively choosing a new future, not today and not tomorrow but by planning for a new Ireland inside the European Union. It is a hopeful vision, and I hope —.”
“<BR /> <BR />I respect and acknowledge the fact that many Members in the Chamber, particularly those from unionist parties, do not want that future and that it is not one that they seek. However, I will say this: many people in Northern Ireland, from a whole range of backgrounds, do want that future. They do not necessarily want it today, tomorrow or next week, but they want to talk about it for the future of their kids and grandkids. They see dark, authoritarian forces on the rise in the world, and they want a future based on interdependence, cooperation, human rights, decent environmental standards and decent labour standards. They see that future in Europe through working together. They see, through the European context, the potential for respect of our multiple identities on this island, and they want to build that future.”
“Many countries have been formal accession countries and, after a very long time, still have not joined the European Union. I do not want that; I want a new Ireland back inside the European Union. It would be much quicker and more straightforward, and I think that many more people are engaging with that possibility. Of course, to be clear, as was established through the Brexit negotiation process, should a majority of people in this region — Northern Ireland — vote for a new Ireland, we would automatically rejoin the European Union. We would accede to being an existing EU member state. We would have automatic right of re-entry, with all the possibilities that that entails.”
“However, here is the thing: even if there were a referendum on the UK rejoining the European Union, Northern Ireland could vote remain by 99% to 1% and our votes would be wiped out by English voters, if they decided to vote to remain outside the EU. We in this place do not have equal opportunity options on our future. We only have one decisive way of taking our future into our hands and choosing a European future, and that is via a new Ireland. <BR /> <BR />There are, of course, other practical challenges. Even were the UK to have a successful rejoin referendum — as I said, I would like that to happen, but I think that it is unlikely — there would have to be a formal accession process. There would have to be a negotiation, which would take years — perhaps more than a decade.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is not simply a choice between two options to get back inside the European Union. It might come up in today's debate that there has been some chatter about the UK potentially rejoining the European Union. As people will know because I have talked about it many times in this Chamber, I was previously a UK civil servant, and I tried to keep the UK in the European Union. I was not successful in that effort, as others were not. I think that it remains vanishingly unlikely that, in any meaningful horizon, the UK will rejoin the European Union, although I would like it to. If there were a referendum, I would campaign for the UK and Northern Ireland to rejoin.”
“If you live in this region — in Northern Ireland — and want not a future governed by Nigel Farage, the dark authoritarian forces that he represents or the shady people who fund him but a new future back inside the European Union, the only way in which to decisively make that choice is to opt for a new Ireland, back inside Europe. Let me be clear: that process is going to take years. It is not going to happen today or tomorrow. I and my party are sceptical about the worth of simply naming dates for a border poll, rather than practically preparing, persuading and campaigning for change. However, that question and that choice is one that more and more people are engaging with. If we do not want to live in a country either governed by Farage or dictated to by the forces that surround Farage, we will have to make that choice at some point.”
“<BR /> <BR />People here of all backgrounds, including many in my constituency of South Belfast who are certainly not convinced, dyed-in-the-wool nationalists — although many of them have been coming to my office in increasing numbers to have their Irish passport form signed — do not want to live in a country run by Nigel Farage, either; they want, in many cases, the possibility, hope and opportunity of rejoining the European Union. <BR /> <BR />We have put our motion down today to, as we have done in the past, confront the Assembly respectfully with a simple but ultimately unavoidable choice.”
“As I said, the current most likely next Prime Minister is Nigel Farage. I will be clear on behalf of myself and my party, but also on behalf of my kids and everybody who belongs to me: I do not want to live in a country that is run by Nigel Farage. That is not really to do with the colour of my passport, whether I identify as Irish — obviously, I do — or British, or whatever I think about a whole range of other issues; I simply do not want to live in a country that is governed by that charlatan. I really do not.”
“It is clear that, in 2016, we voted to remain in the European Union. We were dragged out against our will by votes on the other island. I am glad that we have a set of protections that exist specifically for this island, but that is far short of what I want and my party wants, which is full EU membership — back in Europe — for the people of this region, with all the opportunities and benefits of that vision. Our party is shamelessly and proudly the most pro-European in the Chamber. <BR /> <BR />We cannot kid ourselves that we have the ability to control who the next British Prime Minister is, whether that is the leader of the Labour Party — we are observers of the fascinating if chaotic process that is unfolding at the minute in that respect — or someone else after a general election.”
“Perhaps they would like his endorsement. I know that there is a little bit of a difference of opinion in that regard. Perhaps that will be flushed out during the course of today's debate. Mr Buckley is smirking pleasantly; perhaps he has something to say about that. I know that he was very pleased about some of the election results on Thursday a week ago. <BR /> <BR />Those election results are a stark illustration of something that has been clear since time immemorial: we have little to no control over decisions that are made in Britain, whether you are a nationalist in favour of a united Ireland, a unionist who favours the continued Union with Britain, or somebody who does not take a position, whether agnostic or just completely disinterested, which is entirely legitimate.”
“We are told the same about the most routine business, whether that is getting agreement to introduce legislation, or getting clarity on whether a certain piece of law applies to the North. Decisions that are made on the other island have huge consequences here. In 2016, English voters voted to leave the European Union. If there were a general election tomorrow, the most likely next British Prime Minister, if current polls are correct, would be Nigel Farage. That decision by English voters would have a seismic consequence for the public in Northern Ireland. I think that it is fair to say that, if Nigel Farage were standing for election here, it is unlikely that he would be elected. I would be interested to hear from some of the unionist politicians opposite about whether they would like Mr Farage to stand here.”
“We already knew that Farage and his movement were a coming force in British politics, particularly English politics, but not exclusively so. We are increasingly learning that his form of authoritarian populism is funded by offshore billionaires with shady connections, to put it mildly. We already knew that the politics of Farage, who, in many ways, was the intellectual force behind the Brexit movement, were a growing force in Britain. That was illustrated starkly on Thursday a week ago. That has consequences, including for all of us. <BR /> <BR />We hear constantly in the Chamber from Ministers and MLAs from all parties that decisions that are made in Britain, specifically in Whitehall and Westminster, have an impact here. We are consistently told that in relation to, of course, the Budget, and the limitations of the financial settlement.”
“I wish that the results, in England at least, had been different, because they demonstrated the rise of a dark and destructive force: Nigel Farage and Reform UK.”
“It is important that, as the official Opposition, we acknowledge that the motion does not completely relate to the business of the Northern Ireland Executive. Others will probably say that it does not relate to the day-to-day business of the Northern Ireland Executive. I will throw that back across the Chamber, however, because I am tempted to say that, were the Northern Ireland Executive more functional and bringing more business before the Assembly, we might be debating different things. <BR /> <BR />As a constructive Opposition, our job has consistently been to confront the Assembly and, in a sense, air issues concerning the consequences of decisions that are made and of those that are not made. The local government elections in Britain that took place 10 days ago were significant, if not historic.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to look at Mr Gaston's remarks during his Member's statement and reflect on whether they violate the Standing Order on unparliamentary language, specifically the comparison that he made when speaking about the Irish Language Commissioner, which, I think, far exceeds legitimate free comment in the House.”
“When will it be possible to assure victims and witnesses of crime that their trials can go forward? At the minute, it seems like a crisis that you cannot or will not solve.”
“Victims and witnesses of crime want their trials to happen. At the minute, lots of trials cannot happen because of the strike. Weeks ago, you received the independent accelerated review, which you talked up, but you do not seem to have taken action to finally bring the strike to an end.”
“Unfortunately, I was not here for all of the debate. I do not oppose the idea of having an additional railway halt, but, given that the Sydenham halt is already there, could the airport, with the support of the Department, not pursue a quick win through having better signage and providing better access for people to use the airport via the Sydenham halt? I have asked questions about that. That halt is not properly advertised or signposted at the minute.”
“Would the Deputy Chair of the Committee that I chair agree — I think that there is a degree of cross-party agreement on this — that there is frustration that the open-book exercise has not been published and that the "Dear Accounting Officer" letter that was sent to permanent secretaries has not been disclosed to the Finance Committee, as is proper? That is a serious concern for the Committee.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. This is a genuine point of information. You may be coming to it, Minister, but, in case I miss my opportunity to ask, is there a specific timeline? Is there a meeting coming up with the Treasury soon? When can we expect to hear more about live conversations that are taking place on the Budget?”
“Minister, forgive me, but I am slightly confused about your position. Your answer seemed to indicate that it is not part of the Department's eastern transport plan, but you also seem to be saying, "but you never know". Can you be clear: do you support the commissioning of a feasibility study? That would be helpful for the record, because I am not totally clear on your position.”
“Members of your party may chunter about that. They never learn their lesson. A decade after flirting with right-wing English nationalism, here we are again. Do you accept that, if people here do not want to live in a country governed by Nigel Farage, it is their right to choose a new Ireland that is back in Europe?”
“You talk about democratic choice, but do you accept that, were Nigel Farage to become Prime Minister — a large number of people here clearly do not want —”
“What does it say to potential investors in this place when the shambolic Executive that you lead cannot agree any of those things?”
“Deputy First Minister, you are very keen to talk up your desire to sell Northern Ireland, and, from your social media, one would believe that you are the only Minister who tries to sell the place. That seems to be your self-definition. However, you have just said that you and the First Minister clearly cannot agree on appointing members to the SIB. You cannot agree the publication of an investment strategy. You cannot even agree on the publication of a three-year Budget.”
“I do not know why they were withheld, but I would like to know whether he was responsible for not sharing that information with us. We should know what the situation is. Permanent secretaries are getting letters from his Department stating, "There is no Budget, so go on spending for the time being, and, fingers crossed, one will be agreed by the summer". If a Budget is not agreed by the summer, the public should know who is responsible for that: the Executive. They have not taken their responsibilities seriously, all the while awarding themselves a pay rise while they get into their chauffeur-driven cars and shifting blame to other people. That is not good enough and is not acceptable. I hope that, eventually, we will be in the Chamber to debate an agreed Budget.”
“Given the cynicism that exists in London, which is real and pernicious, the problem will ultimately be solved only when there is a new constitutional dispensation, but it is made worse when the Executive refuse to take responsibility .The two main parties shift the blame to each other and then simply say, "We cannot do anything until the UK Government step in". We have a farcical and chaotic situation in which, in the final year of what was supposed to be a new start in our transformation of public services, we have no idea at all whether there will even be a Budget. <BR /> <BR />I also ask the Minister whether he will share with the Finance Committee and the House letters that were sent by his Department's permanent secretary to all Departments but were, unacceptably, withheld from the Finance Committee.”
“Whatever the colour of the Government in charge in London, yet and all, the Executive, rather than take responsibility for us, seek to constantly shift responsibility on to that UK Government, who, they say, do not care about this place. In doing so, they fail the public. As Chair of the Finance Committee and leader of the Opposition, I certainly support the Executive's getting the best possible financial settlement for this place. That is critical. Clearly, we are in the situation where we have a higher level of need, for all the reasons that I have outlined and that we all know, including the legacy of conflict, our rurality and our ageing population.”
“However, when the Opposition and I question the Executive's failure to set a Budget, we are told that we are simply speaking up for the Brits, as it were. That is a shocking and pathetic indictment of an Executive who cannot and will not take responsibility for themselves. It is clear that the UK Government are not prioritising this place, but that cynicism and their indifference is made worse by Executive ineptitude. Those two things go hand in hand. <BR /> <BR />The Treasury is deeply cynical about this place. I know that better than most, not least because of my chairpersonship of the Finance Committee. The Government and Treasury are not prioritising us. We are not at the top of their list, not only for funding but for attention.”
“There was in exercise in which Departments were encouraged to draw up five-year business plans, four-year capital budgets and three-year resource budgets. We were to move to a brave new world, yet here we are: six weeks into the new financial year, there is no sign of a Budget being agreed. It is a genuinely farcical situation. <BR /> <BR />Of course, it is an extremely tight settlement, and, of course, this chaotic UK Government are not prioritising Northern Ireland. I do not think that anybody in the Chamber could think that they were, although it was somewhat surreal to hear DUP Members "rejoice" at the idea of a Reform Government, which, I would say, would care even less about this place.”
“When it was published in January this year, the Minister said that it would be transformative. Now, apparently, he himself has disowned it. Certainly, other Ministers appear to have no interest whatsoever in taking responsibility for agreeing a Budget. <BR /> <BR />We are less than a year from the dissolution of the Assembly at the end of the mandate; a mandate that began with the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and the then Finance Minister talking about the need and, indeed, the urgency of passing a multi-year Budget and the opportunity to do so. Next month, we will be a year on from the spending review that was published in London. Again, we were told that we would soon get a multi-year Budget.”
“That is an indictment of the Executive and their failure to take responsibility for the public who elected them and all who sent them here to improve their lives and public services. <BR /> <BR />We are now six weeks into a new financial year, which means that, as of Wednesday this week, we will be six weeks, I think, into the Executive's being in breach of the law. That should be a grave matter for any Government: all Governments should operate according to both the letter and spirit of the law. The Northern Ireland Act is quite clear that a Budget must be passed before the beginning of the financial year. There is no Budget at all at the moment. We are in the surreal situation where we have a draft Budget. Its status is kind of unknown: it is sort of in the ether, and we are debating it as a draft.”
“They acknowledged that there is considerable pressure on the public purse and that difficult decisions will need to be made. <BR /> <BR />We look forward to hearing Members' comments and the Minister's response. Once again, we are grateful that he agreed to respond to the debate. We hope that the debate will be useful at least in flushing out some of the issues in the Assembly. I will close my comments as Chairperson of the Committee for Finance there, having welcomed the fact that we are able to have the debate. <BR /> <BR />I will make a few remarks in a party capacity. It is, I am afraid, deeply disappointing and, frankly, somewhat farcical that we are debating a report on a draft Budget that has not yet been signed off by the Executive.”
“<BR /> <BR />Some Committees were unable to take a formal position because, as I said, Departments had not completed their budget assessments. Many Departments face resource and capital shortfalls, with limited discretionary spending, and most budgets are tied up in statutory duties and fixed costs. Several Committees warned that Departments will be forced to consider cuts to programmes and front-line services. Departments warned that the draft Budget threatens their ability to meet their statutory duties and Programme for Government commitments and to maintain essential services for vulnerable populations. Statutory Committees indicated their understanding of the constrained fiscal context in which we find ourselves.”
“<BR /> <BR />As per the custom in previous years, the Committee agreed to ask other Statutory Committees in the Assembly to review the anticipated impacts of the 2026-29/2030 draft Budget proposals on their respective Departments. The Chairs of those Committees will have an opportunity to comment, but I will note the common themes from the Statutory Committees, including highlighted concerns over the lack of Executive agreement on a multi-year Budget. Without Executive agreement, the Committees found it difficult to provide full scrutiny of the draft Budget. In many cases, it was because their Ministers and Departments have not agreed on the Budget. Therefore, they are not engaging with it as a true final Budget.”
“Notwithstanding some other comments that have been made, our Committee has been very robust and repeated in its engagement with the UK Treasury, whether it is seeking information or presenting agreed cross-party views from the Committee to the Treasury. We have not always had adequate or helpful responses, but we have been consistently robust in engaging with the Treasury. <BR /> <BR />The Committee is working with our Scottish and Welsh colleagues to ensure that our Budget settlements are reflective of our respective needs and are more adaptive and flexible. The current arrangements do not incentivise the Executive to focus on growing the economy or the tax base here, as current arrangements with the Treasury would see us losing growth in our fiscal base to the block grant.”
“<BR /> <BR />With specific reference to the Department of Finance's Budget position, the Committee noted that the Department will carry significant capital pressures that it intends to manage down through a range of measures. The Committee will continue to keep those pressures and other pressures identified by the Department under observation. <BR /> <BR />Through its membership of the Interparliamentary Finance Committee Forum, the Committee continues to engage with the UK Treasury to provide greater scrutiny of its actions, which have a direct and significant impact on the UK fiscal context, not least the Budget for Northern Ireland. For example, the Committee has made a number of representations to the Treasury regarding changes to the local growth fund and will continue to make representations on other budgetary matters.”
“The Committee supports the Minister's ongoing engagement around Northern Ireland's level of need with the Treasury. Hopefully, we will have an update on that today from the Minister and a briefing from the Department over the next few weeks. <BR /> <BR />The council emphasised that, while the Executive clearly need to make hard choices, only the Treasury can fundamentally change the model of funding. It believes that a credible Treasury strategy could set the right path and limit future interventions in order to reintroduce real Budget discipline. The Executive will still need to make real strategic choices, consider revenue raising, address workforce issues and look at genuine transformation of public services.”
“<BR /> <BR />On the level of need, the council acknowledged that the 124% needs-based uplift is based on demographics and structural characteristics today, not historical legacy. Factors such as regional inequality, long-term ill health, legacy issues — that is, legacy from the conflict — and complex ageing profiles in Northern Ireland may mean that the true level of need now exceeds 124%. Indeed, since we took evidence on that, we have had updated demographic data around how fast our population is ageing relative to neighbours here. The council states that the Barnett formula is poor at addressing infrastructure deficits or accumulated social need and that non-Barnett injections may be needed for resource and capital. <BR /> <BR />Members are engaged with the work around the fiscal framework following Professor Gerry Holtham's report.”
“The Fiscal Council warned strongly about the danger of normalising overspending, with repeated Treasury interventions acting as short-term measures that weaken discipline. It noted a cultural shift. Historic overspends, once considered unacceptable, are now more tolerated. Where Departments expect end-year bailouts, overspending becomes a rational expectation. <BR /> <BR />The council confirms that the draft Budget theoretically balances at year start, but it is unlikely to unfold as presented. The repayment of the reserve claim over the next three financial years makes the underlying funding tighter than the headline numbers. Baselines for Health and Education start below their current spending levels, making re-emerging overspends highly likely.”
“I thank the Fiscal Council, Pivotal, the Ulster University Economic Policy Centre, the Nevin Economic Research Institute (NERI) and all the Statutory Committees that were able to respond with their views. I will reflect on some of that evidence on the Finance Committee's behalf. <BR /> <BR />The Fiscal Council highlights the fact that the proposed multi-year Budget is significant. It is significant that a multi-year Budget has been proposed in the first place, but it starts from an exceptionally challenging position. The Fiscal Council notes that Northern Ireland overspent in 2022-23 and only avoided overspends in 2023-24 and 2024-25 due to exceptional Treasury interventions.”