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“Clearly, however, the regulatory and enforcement regime for all those watercourses and marine environments is way out of date ecologically and, indeed, economically.”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 65 of 119.
“I have an extra minute, but my time is still relatively short. I will respond to a few of the points that were made. <BR /> <BR />Despite the fact that, respectfully, we will not be able to support the DUP amendment, I acknowledge the degree of consensus in the Assembly on the need to ban harmful conversion practices and on the need, when legislation is introduced, as, I hope, it will be, for some of the religious activities that were talked about to be exempted. There is no question of outlawing non-harmful prayerful activity, as it is called, and faith-based activity of the type that Mr Kingston elaborated on. To be honest, however, I do not think that that is a realistic prospect anyway. I am afraid that I do not accept some of the risks that he put forward.”
“I am glad that the Member has raised that point, because I was going to do so in responding to some of the Members' points. The report by Professor Ashe and Dr Mackle is not draft legislation or a draft policy paper; it is an academic study of practices. We note the report's findings because it was commissioned by a Executive Minister as research to inform policy. That is what it does. Will every line of it be converted into policy or legislation? No. I do not think that the motion's noting of the review's findings is a reason to not support it. I need to make some progress now.”
“The purpose of our motion is to underline and progress that principle.”
“Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. The purpose of our Opposition day was to focus on human rights and the rights that underpin a civilised, free and plural society. We have talked about a free press. We have talked about the need for stand-alone hate crime legislation. Now we are talking about the need to proceed with something that, the Assembly, as several Members acknowledged, agreed in 2021 in a previous version of its existence, should be proceeded with: a ban on harmful conversion practices. Those grotesque practices are underpinned by the completely outdated, profoundly objectionable and even evil notion that human beings can be changed, sometimes through violent or traumatic practices, from who they fundamentally are. As I said, the Assembly agreed in 2021 to proceed with a ban on harmful conversion therapy.”
“— is to legislate on people's private affairs. It can, however, set out a clear framework for tackling hate crime. I commend the motion to the Assembly.”
“<BR /> <BR />On the broader motion, we have an opportunity, finally, to start to deal with some of the deep legacies of division and hatred in our society. Hate crime legislation will not solve all those problems, nor should it come close to doing what Mr Allister suggested, which —”
“I apologise, Minister. If the Minister does not like that, I am very sorry, but my job is to hold Ministers to account for the job that they do. <BR /> <BR />With respect, the reason that we will not support the amendment is that the argument has been made, including by the Alliance Party and its leader, for a stand-alone piece of hate crime legislation. Yes, it is important. If we are not successful, and the Minister introduces a statutory aggravation model through a different Bill, such as that which she called the "victims of crime Bill" in response to a question for written answer that I tabled but seems to have renamed the "victims of hate crime Bill", that is fine, and we will, of course, engage with it. A stand-alone Bill is what was promised, however, and that is what people have the right to expect.”
“I am aware that the Minister does not like to be criticised in any context, ever, but my job is to be an Opposition politician who holds Ministers to account.”
“I will give way briefly, as I do not have much time left.”
“The Alliance manifesto promised a stand-alone hate crime Bill. I did not make that up, and it is not me promising it off the top of my head. It was, with the greatest of respect, a specific pledge in your party's manifesto.”
“With respect to my fellow South Belfast representative, I completely reject the idea that I am focused on this as a panacea. We are debating a hate crime Bill because that is what is in the motion. Of course, we need to debate broader issues of racial equality and community cohesion. Of course, that is true, but the motion is specifically about a hate crime Bill.”
“I agree with her that there is too much permissiveness and tolerance of low-level hate, which then escalates into permissiveness of explicit acts of hate crime of whatever kind. I again come back to the point about the signal that we are trying to send. Kate talked about leadership and why it is important. The exercise of debating specific hate crime legislation would enable us, as legislators, to unpack some of the issues, including the broader cultural and historical context of hate crime and hate in this society, be that the deep legacy of sectarian hate that we have all inherited or, indeed, the fact that we have yet to grapple with and properly embrace the new diversity that we have in this society.”
“The Minister and I may be able to find a degree of common cause on that; I do not know about that. He also said that we should not rush something through. I do not think that we have rushed on this: we have been talking about it for a number of years. <BR /> <BR />Paul Frew talked about getting the legislation right. I go back to the point about why talk about getting the legislation right supports the argument in favour of specific, stand-alone hate crime legislation. Because of the discrete nature of the issues that we are talking about, it makes sense to debate them in a discrete and targeted way, when we can unpack some of the controversies and complexities. <BR /> <BR />Kate Nicholl spoke passionately, as always, about the diversity of South Belfast.”
“That is one of the best arguments for having a stand-alone hate crime Bill rather than simply having provisions in a separate sentencing or victims of crime Bill, because it is important that we unpack and are mature about unpacking things such as the definition of hate crime. In his review, Desmond Marrinan offers a definition of hate crime that is pretty usable — he is much more qualified to define it than I am — but that is the kind of thing that we, as legislators, particularly those on the Justice Committee, will have to unpack. That and the fact that that will then have to be communicated to the wider public make the argument for a stand-alone Bill. <BR /> <BR />Doug Beattie speculated about being ginger being a protected characteristic.”
“<BR /> <BR />Deirdre Hargey mentioned the importance of a specific hate crime Bill. She talked, I think, about a stand-alone or dedicated hate crime Bill. Deirdre, like me, represents South Belfast, and, I know, takes the issues seriously. If that is Deirdre and Sinn Féin's position, I urge them, in the most respectful way possible, not to support the amendment, because it does not specify a stand-alone hate crime Bill, which is what we need. <BR /> <BR />Joanne Bunting talked about the importance of scrutinising the legislation carefully and understanding that we are dealing with complex matters in relation to definitions of hate crime. They are complex, sensitive areas that require all of us to scrutinise them in detail.”
“To be honest, that almost goes without saying when we debate any form of legislation that involves a culture change, particularly in relation to criminal justice. Of course, legislation is only ever legislation; it is only ever as good as the public servants who deliver it and the society in which it operates. It is important to acknowledge — this point was made multiple times — the effect of years of stalemate and lack of an Assembly. Again, that goes without saying. It is also important to say, however, that, as Stewart Dickson acknowledged, hate crime legislation has been a specific commitment since 2016; indeed, the Marrinan review was published in 2020. Notwithstanding the fact that there was a period of collapse, there was a clear commitment to stand-alone hate crime legislation at that time.”
“The people who owned and operated the BMCA centre, which was in a former church at the end of Donegall Pass, simply gave up on occupying the premises, because they did not see any meaningful investigation that was going to lead to prosecutions for what was, self-evidently, more than one hate crime being committed against their premises, from which they did extraordinary work in that part of South Belfast. That is the context in which we need improved and updated hate crime legislation, as Judge Marrinan's review said. That review was nearly four years ago. That is why the urgency exists today. <BR /> <BR />I will deal with some specific points from the debate. Stewart Dickson said that legislation alone is not enough: of course legislation alone is not enough.”
“It is a constituency that is proudly the most diverse constituency not only in Northern Ireland but, quite possibly, on the island of Ireland. In that constituency, however, we have constant reports of hate crime. We constantly deal with individuals — our constituents — who are subjected to hate. Other examples have been mentioned, but I draw attention to one particularly stark and startling example: the burning of the Belfast Multi-Cultural Association (BMCA) centre on Donegall Pass on more than one occasion.”
“She has been a champion not just via the SDLP and the North West Migrants Forum but day-to-day as a public representative. <BR /> <BR />Yesterday, the Alliance Councillor Micky Murray — Paula Bradshaw's colleague — became the first openly LGBTQ Mayor of Belfast, and my colleague Pete Byrne was confirmed as the first openly LGBTQ chairperson of Newry, Mourne and Down District Council. The reason why I point out those events out is that we are making progress in this society. We are moving towards greater acceptance and, indeed, celebration of diversity, but we cannot kid ourselves about the huge problem that we have with the permissiveness around hate. <BR /> <BR />Kate Nicholl's remarks struck me. Kate represents South Belfast, as do Deirdre Hargey and Paula Bradshaw.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Hate crime is an issue in which there is often more heat than light. I welcome the fact that the debate was mostly undertaken in a civil and balanced way. It acknowledged the seriousness, sensitivity and complexity of the legal and moral issues at stake and that the issues are extraordinarily important. <BR /> <BR />The debate takes place the day after, as Members acknowledged on several occasions, the inauguration of Lilian Seenoi-Barr as the first black mayor in Northern Ireland. It is an extraordinary, historic moment not just for the city of Derry but for the whole region. We were extraordinarily proud to nominate Lilian to that post. Over the past weeks, as Sinéad McLaughlin said yesterday, Lilian has been subject to a torrent of disgusting racial abuse. Lilian is a talented public representative.”
“If I understand you correctly, Minister, the fiscal framework context for devolution was discussed but perhaps not the precise powers that you would like to see devolved here. <BR /> <BR />Minister, the Fiscal Commission reported in 2022. I just quoted from your 2022 manifesto. We have been back here for several months, and we are several years on from first having debates on greater fiscal devolution. Which specific powers would you seek to devolve — you will need Executive agreement — and when will the House be updated on that?”
“The Minister mentioned the fiscal framework. A Joint Exchequer Committee has been set up. That has a precedent in Scotland and Wales, but what does not have a precedent is something that we have not heard very much about: the public sector transformation board. Will that board completely undermine devolution? At the minute, we do not know who will be on the board. Will it be Whitehall officials? What role will it have in making the core decisions on public services and spending here?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He mentioned the 2004 Order, which is, in effect, hate crime legislation. It is the hate crime legislation that exists in Northern Ireland, so such a law exists. It is there. He also talked about scrutiny. It is an Order, so it was brought in by a direct rule Minister when this place was not functioning. Number one, we already have a form of hate crime legislation, so the question is whether it is good enough. We happen to think that it is not, and I think that the Minister shares that view. Number two, the previous Order was not scrutinised at all or very little, because it came in through direct rule.”
“The Member is right: this is a big subject, and, as Joanne Bunting said, it requires really careful consideration. We support the principle, but it requires careful consideration. Does the Member agree that that argues in favour of a stand-alone Bill, where Committee members and Assembly Members writ large can examine in detail things such as criminal thresholds and definitions of hate crime, rather than the issue being part of, for example, a broader sentencing Bill? It requires that really detailed stand-alone focus.”
“— I call on the Justice Minister to work with colleagues, whether there are budgetary issues or anything else, to set that up.”
“Should that require an independent inquiry, ultimately —”
“I, of course, acknowledge that there are pressures on the budget. Let me say this: we cannot let the debate go by, and let the issue pass by, without acknowledging the seriousness of it. We need a proper, robust, independent investigation to get to the bottom of this.”
“I have very little time, but I am happy to give way, very briefly.”
“Yes, of course, the SDLP is proud of its work in developing the Policing Board and the recommendations of the Patten inquiry. It is not our role to undermine or question the role of the Policing Board, but there are real questions about the ability and the budget of the Policing Board to take this forward. We hope to see that accountability emerge from the Policing Board.”
“The Justice Minister being named in our motion is, in a sense, vindicated by the fact that she has come and given us a detailed explanation of the legal position, and acknowledged that, should there not be a satisfactory outcome, or a clear, robust, independent process and an inquiry from the Policing Board — should it be necessary that an inquiry emerges from the Policing Board — she is willing to take the necessary action to set up an independent inquiry, acknowledging that, legally, she may need to ask others, such as particular Departments in the UK Government, to set up an inquiry. I acknowledge that, and I welcome that. It proves that it was worth having this debate, and worth having the Justice Minister accountable in the motion.”
“Patsy also acknowledged, and I will repeat it, that there is a degree of hypocrisy sometimes: people in public life here talk about press freedom when certain people have used some of the powers relating to the defamation regime to silence public-interest journalism. That point was made clearly and distinctly. <BR /> <BR />I move now to the Justice Minister's remarks. I welcome the fact that the Justice Minister gave us a clear overview of the legal position in relation to RIPA — the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act — and the oversight role of the investigatory powers tribunal. Yes, of course, those are excepted matters.”
“It will be on all of us to hold her accountable to those remarks, but, before then, to hold the PSNI and the Policing Board accountable for the process that emerges in the coming days and weeks around the independent review by Mr McCullough KC, with the advice of the panel that I have mentioned. <BR /> <BR />I will respond to some of the other comments that were made. My colleague Patsy McGlone highlighted the "industrial scale" — he is right to use that term — of spying that happened here. That term is important; it was not simply one discrete example. We do not know — to use that cliché — how far or how deep this goes.”
“Of course, I have acknowledged the role of the Policing Board. The point that I was making is that this is a Chamber to which we are elected to debate the vital matters of the day. Should the Policing Board not be able to take this forward because there is no consensus in the Policing Board to do so, or it feels that it does not have the budget, for example — an issue that, I know, has been raised — there will be a role for the Minister. Let me acknowledge that we got clarity from the Minister that she is willing to, as it were, go there, should that be required: I welcome that.”
“It is frankly churlish to respond to the debate —.”
“It is important to say that it is a review, and I recognise the huge stature of Alyson Kilpatrick, Daniel Holder and Nuala O'Loan, who are giving advice on this. They are very serious people, and we can all be confident in them. Those people, the CAJ and Amnesty have acknowledged that it is not yet an independent statutory inquiry, and that may be where we ultimately need to get to. <BR /> <BR />Peter McReynolds talked about us undermining the Policing Board. I will slightly push back on the idea that having today's debate and asking the Justice Minister to be accountable is somehow undermining the Policing Board, notwithstanding the fact that, in the current context, we are not minded to divide on the Alliance amendment. I do not accept the idea that we are undermining the Policing Board by having the debate in the Chamber.”
“<BR /> <BR />Linda Dillon also asked about who else the PSNI surveilled. That is why, unless a robust independent statutory inquiry ultimately comes out of the Policing Board process — I hope that it does, because that is the first port of call — the Minister may need to step in and set it up. Why do I say that? I say that because a couple of Members said that the Chief Constable, whom I respect, given his record on Operation Kenova, has set up an independent review. That review is independent in the sense that neither the Chief Constable nor other PSNI staff are doing it, but it is not wholly independent as it is not being set up on an independent statutory basis under the Inquiries Act.”
“I acknowledge that there is a process at the Policing Board, and I will come on to say what we think about the amendment, the actions of the Policing Board and where the board might go from here. <BR /> <BR />Part of the reason for tabling the motion and asking the Justice Minister to take some accountability was not simply so that we could play ministerial politics; it was because we cannot simply defer to due process. Due process, as it were, got us into this situation in the first place. Barry McCaffrey and Trevor Birney would probably not have found out that they were being surveilled had they simply followed due process and taken the word of the authorities. Yes, it is important to give the Policing Board its head and role in all these matters, and I will come on to our reflections on the amendment on that basis.”
“I like to think that I am occasionally thought of as a troublemaker; I would wear that badge of honour. It is important that we get to the heart of this and find out whether surveillance has happened routinely and goes beyond journalism. <BR /> <BR />I will respond to a few of the comments that were made, and I will pick up on comments about the amendment. As I said at the beginning, our desire is to get to the right outcome; it is not simply to make a political statement. Stewart Dickson said — other Alliance Members reflected his comments — that there was a need to follow due process and to respect the process that has been laid down. The Alliance amendment asks us to defer to the existing process.”
“We can add to that the heinous Legacy Act, which, I hope, an incoming Government will repeal, which will place an even greater burden on public interest journalists — I will give way in one second to Mr Carroll — who want to get to the heart of some of the darker recesses of what happened during our conflict, including actions by the state and paramilitaries. That is what Barry McCaffrey and Trevor Birney were doing with 'No Stone Unturned', which led to some of the revelations in the first place.”
“As I said at the start of the debate, we have a particular duty in the Chamber and in Northern Ireland to guard jealously the freedom of the press, not just because we are a society coming out of conflict but because we are, according to Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and others, among the most dangerous places in Europe for journalists to operate. We have a particular challenge with our defamation regime and the use of SLAPPs, which Patsy McGlone mentioned, to silence legitimate public interest journalism. Those are the structural problems that exist. When you layer on to those the routine surveillance of journalists who do deep investigatory work, that is an unacceptable situation. We should not cavil or quibble about its seriousness.”
“I welcome the fact that we have had broad consensus on the importance of a free press and, indeed, broad or relatively broad consensus on the unacceptability of what happened to Barry McCaffrey, Trevor Birney and other journalists operating in Northern Ireland. We know now that inappropriate surveillance of those journalists happened. There are real concerns about the breadth and depth of the surveillance of others — journalists and lawyers — and that is the core issue that we are discussing. <BR /> <BR />Sometimes, amid the back and forth on scrutiny responsibility and statutory powers, it can be lost on us that the core thing that we are debating is protecting and defending the freedom of the press in this society.”
“I appreciate the Minister giving way on that point. Am I to understand, given that that bit of the Cabinet Office guidance implies that other avenues should be exhausted, that, should those avenues be exhausted and there be a view in the House — hopefully with some consensus — that an independent inquiry would add to that work, the Minister would be willing, in principle, to call an independent inquiry — in those circumstances?”
“Does the Member agree that the late disclosure and loss of documents is, as we know when we look at some of the legacy cases, a complete symptom of the state and part of the reason why an independent inquiry with statutory powers may, ultimately, be required?”
“<BR /> <BR />I also acknowledge the news that came out yesterday, which was that the Chief Constable, Jon Boutcher, has appointed a KC, with Amnesty International, the CAJ and some others advising that KC to review the evidence. I would be cautiously positive about that as a step forward, but it is not an independent inquiry. Whilst it is a first step towards a proper guarantee that we are not routinely surveilling journalists, it cannot be the end point. It is clear that there needs to be an independent inquiry. Yesterday's news was a positive step forward, but we need absolute clarity. We cannot have the free press in this society compromised. <BR /> <BR />I await to hear the Justice Minister's response to what we have discussed today, but I otherwise commend this Opposition motion to the Assembly.”
“Were journalists in Northern Ireland routinely surveilled by the PSNI? If so, why? <BR /> <BR />I appreciate that there is an ongoing inquiry by the investigatory powers tribunal, and I appreciate that the Policing Board is going to discuss this matter later in the week, but neither of those things — as long as we do not stray into details that are sub judice — matter. It is important that this Assembly makes clear its position: this is not acceptable and should the Policing Board not be able or willing to proceed with a full independent inquiry, the Minister of Justice will do so. I want to hear from the Minister on whether she intends to bring forward an independent inquiry in the event that the Policing Board cannot or will not.”
“We think that if the Policing Board cannot do it, the Justice Minister should, because the revelations that we heard about today and over the past year or two are simply too serious to ignore. <BR /> <BR />Barry McCaffrey and Trevor Birney have high profiles and have done extraordinary high-profile investigative journalism, not just on Loughinisland but on a whole range of other areas. They have the public profile to defend themselves and make a robust case on their position around the IPT and on their surveillance. We, as an Assembly, need to ensure that all those journalists who do not have the profile of Barry and Trevor, or the experience and confidence, do not feel intimidated into not doing their job robustly. It is critical that we get to the bottom of what has happened over the past decade or more.”
“I do not think there is any doubt that the Alliance Party believes in a free press. However, I would like to hear what the Minister of Justice intends to do should the Policing Board, for whatever reason, not decide to undertake a full independent inquiry under the powers that it has. That is what needs to happen. If it is done via the Policing Board, then, yes, we think that that can be the way, but if the Policing Board is not going to do it, or if, for budgetary or other reasons, it cannot do it, an inquiry needs to be established, and the Minister who should establish it is the Justice Minister. <BR /> <BR />I would like to hear from the Minister, given that her colleagues laid today's amendment, whether her view is that there is no possible way that she, at any point in the future, can announce a public inquiry.”
“The reason for that is that several organisations — Amnesty International, the Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) and others — are clear that we need an independent inquiry into the surveillance and phone tapping of journalists in Northern Ireland, so serious is the issue. It is true that the Act that created the Northern Ireland Policing Board provides the Policing Board with the power to undertake such inquiries. It is also true that, later this week, it will be discussed again at the Policing Board. <BR /> <BR />I acknowledge that there is some common ground with the Alliance Party and that the Policing Board has a role to play here, but I want to hear more from the Minister of Justice when she speaks to the House about her view. She has commented on it in the past, and I acknowledge that she leads a liberal party.”
“There is a very real concern that the wiretapping of journalists and others is routine in Northern Ireland. We need to get to the bottom of that. It simply cannot be acceptable that the police feel empowered — if this is what they are doing, and we need to understand whether it is — to routinely surveil, in one form or another, the phones or other digital devices of journalists operating in a free press. <BR /> <BR />I now come on to the amendment that has been laid by the Alliance Party. I want and hope to build as much consensus as possible in the Chamber today. Our motion calls on the Justice Minister to set up an independent inquiry.”
“Journalism has been critical to us and to this society, both through the dark days of our conflict and in the years after the conflict, in upholding norms, holding all of us to account and showing us a way to a better, more democratic future. It is important that we set out that context. <BR /> <BR />At the beginning of today's proceedings, I should have declared an interest as the person who founded the all-party group on press freedom and media sustainability. <BR /> <BR />Let us go back to the context of the wiretapping of Northern Ireland journalists. Barry McCaffrey learned last year, via the IPT, that that surveillance had happened. Then more revelations emerged, including those earlier this year about the potential surveilling of Vincent Kearney, a former BBC, now RTÉ, journalist.”