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“Clearly, however, the regulatory and enforcement regime for all those watercourses and marine environments is way out of date ecologically and, indeed, economically.”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 67 of 119.
“I understand that senior leaders in public services are having to take or at least consider decisions that they would not otherwise take, but it is important for those of us who are public representatives, particularly public representatives for areas such as south-east Belfast where, as has been said, significant groups have not done as well as they should have in skills and education, to say that those people deserve the best possible opportunity. <BR /> <BR />There is a historical and real tradition at what was, as I said, previously known as Castlereagh College, now the Castlereagh campus of Belfast Met, of those groups getting access not just to traditional apprenticeships or trades, important though those traditional qualifications are, but to cutting-edge qualifications, whether in advanced manufacturing or in cyber and tech.”
“For a start, it is highly regrettable that the proposed closure has been communicated in this way. There are real concerns among students, staff, unions and other key stakeholders that the process has not been handled well, to put it in the most diplomatic terms. Before I engaged with senior management in Belfast Met, I engaged with concerned staff members, affected students and, indeed, unions. There was genuine shock and sadness at the development and at the approach that was taken by Belfast Met. It is important to acknowledge that there are real budgetary constraints on the Department and, consequentially, on Belfast Met.”
“It is a significant contributor to our FE offer in the greater Belfast area, as has been said.”
“I am pleased to speak in this Adjournment debate and congratulate Joanne Bunting for securing today's debate. It is a vital subject. I do not represent East Belfast, but I do represent South Belfast, which is right next door to the boundary. In fact, the campus is very close to the boundary of South and East Belfast, or it was until the most recent boundary changes. It is important to say that although what was Castlereagh College, now the Castlereagh campus of Belfast Met, historically takes a significant chunk of its intake from that part of east or south-east Belfast, its intake goes significantly further than that heartland, as it were, into south Belfast, other parts of Belfast and further afield to parts of Ards and north Down.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. I cut across her in mid-sentence there, which was a bit rude of me. Is the Minister suggesting that it may be possible to include a provision on no-fault divorce in the law that is being prepared on marital changes, including reducing the age limit — sorry; increasing the age limit, to correct myself? It has been a long day.”
“I appreciate the Member giving way. Given that people, often in tragic circumstances, are more likely to engage with divorce law in their lives than they are to be directly affected by — just to pick something at random — the regulation of goods moving across the Irish Sea, does he think it is more of a problem for basic rights with regard to, for example, one's ability to access divorce, that there should be a divergence in the law between Northern Ireland and England and Wales on divorce? Is that not a problem but divergence in the regulation of goods is?”
“It would be a positive sign that we in this place have, at a devolved level, got our act together with moving forward practically with social reforms and that we have not become tangled up in the weeds of those reforms. The Opposition, including me, welcome and support the motion. We hope to hear that the Minister will be able to legislate on the matter quickly.”
“<BR /> <BR />No-fault divorce will, frankly, make divorce smoother, simpler and cheaper for many people in the situation — a situation that is often sad and sometimes very sad — where a relationship has come to an end. It will make it as amicable as possible, which is in everyone's interests. It is in the interests of the couple who are sadly divorcing, and it is certainly in the interests of their children. Frankly, it is in the interests of society and of the legal system. We heard from the Justice Minister about the extreme burdens on the legal system and delays in the judicial system. Anything that we can do to ease that burden is an added benefit of introducing no-fault divorce. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the motion. It is, in 2024, overdue.”
“I am sure that most of us, as elected representatives, have dealt with constituents in the extraordinarily difficult — I put it far too mildly — life-altering and traumatic situation of being in an abusive relationship. In many cases, those people do not have the option of waiting for two years to have a separation period; nor, often, have they the financial or emotional wherewithal to find somewhere else to live, often with children alongside them. <BR /> <BR />When we legislate for people here, we are not simply legislating for dry, hypothetical or legally perfect situations; we are legislating for ordinary human beings. Everything at the front of our minds should be about making the lives of our citizens and constituents more straightforward and better and about reducing damage and difficulty for them when we can.”
“I appreciate the extra minute. <BR /> <BR />The Member has much more legal training than me. I think that the answer to the question is that no other contract exists in law that is like a marriage. No other contract in law is the same: a contract between parties that involves human emotion and, often, children in the way that a marriage does. To compare it to a deed to a house or anything else is, I am afraid, to completely miss the point. We are talking about human beings and their lives and children, so treating it like another matter to be litigated is exactly the problem in many cases. <BR /> <BR />There are situations in which, for example, one party — often but not always the woman — in the relationship is in an abusive situation.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is clear that our divorce law is a product of an earlier time, one with different moral and legal expectations. It is only right that we now update the legal framework to make the process much smoother. There are particular circumstances that need to be borne in mind and which argue for the introduction of no-fault divorce. One is —.”
“The SDLP will support the motion, and I welcome the fact that it has been tabled. I look forward hopefully, in the Minister's summing up, to hearing about specific intent to legislate on no-fault divorce during this mandate. <BR /> <BR />The motion is right to acknowledge that divorce is a difficult, often traumatic, process for those who have to go through it. As Cheryl Brownlee said, no one undertakes or enters into a marriage expecting or hoping that that marriage will end, but the reality of life and human relationships is that relationships do end. It is in the interests of those people and, particularly, in the interests of any children who are involved and, indeed, their wider families and friends that, when those relationships come to an end and end in divorce, that process is as amicable and, frankly, as smooth as possible.”
“I strongly support the Test match coming. As someone who enjoys bowling fast balls at the Minister, I am glad to see that he is open to that. Does he agree, further to the question from his colleague Brian Kingston, that the biggest potential sporting event that would ever come to Northern Ireland is the European Championships in 2028, but that, for that to happen, we have to build Casement Park, and it has to be ready on time? Will he confirm that he supports the Euros coming to Belfast and that he and his Department will do whatever it takes to make that happen?”
“— are where they are, but I ask the Minister to look creatively at other sources of funding, such as the Shared Island Fund or financial transactions capital. Alternatively, will he agree to ask the Economy Minister and Finance Minister to discontinue our subsidisation of non-existent flights for £2·5 million a year to North America so that we can give that money to our struggling artists?”
“Minister, we often spend time in the Chamber comparing ourselves to down South or across the water. One area where there is no comparison is in arts funding. We spend less than half of what Wales spends, which is the lowest spender in the rest of the UK. We spend a fifth of what the Republic of Ireland spends on arts, and, over the past decade, the arts sector has had its budget repeatedly slashed. I understand that budget pressures —”
“Thank you, Minister. Of course, we know that we have lost two years, but it is true to say that officials in your Department have been working on this since 2020, so it is not new to them. You were clear, some years ago, that we needed a stand-alone hate crime Bill. Last week, it was called the "victims and crime Bill", but it is now called the "victims of hate crime Bill", so it has taken on a new title but that is fine. Is it not the case that your officials have been working on this for four years? With respect, Minister, you campaigned loudly to get this job. People who need the legislation will be wondering what is taking so long and why we are not going to get a stand-alone hate crime Bill.”
“Minister, I acknowledge that there is real constraint on your and every other Department's budget. That is obvious. It is true to say that, in this round, your Department has done slightly better than some other Departments, but it is worth acknowledging that that comes after years of constrained budget settlements. You mentioned that that will constrain and curtail services. Can you be more specific about which services you are looking at for prioritisation and, by extension, for de-prioritisation?”
“Minister, I welcome you formally as Economy Minister, but I hope that it is not for too long and that we have you back on the Finance Committee. Obviously, I wish Conor Murphy all the best for a quick recovery. <BR /> <BR />There are lots of things to agree with in the statement, but the economic vision of your predecessor — and, hopefully, successor — was clear about growing the all-island economy and maximising dual-market access opportunities. There are not, though, many specific actions in the statement that help to make that happen. Will you outline what those are? For example, there is the approval of backward-looking plans, budgets and grants for 2022, 2023 and 2024, but, on a forward-looking basis, what specific actions will be executed to maximise dual-market access and all-island opportunities?”
“Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. Apologies for cutting across you there. <BR /> <BR />It would be helpful to get advice from the Chair on whether it is in order for a Minister — in this case, the Minister of Education — to lay a written ministerial statement on an issue that is clearly of significant interest, namely the strike involving education staff, when he could have given that statement orally to the Assembly.”
“On a point of order, Principal Deputy Speaker.”
“We also know that we have a much more rural society and that small business is a bigger part of the economy than it is across the water. It is really critical that, in what is left of the mandate, we try, at the least, to agree a set of interventions that we can take to the people in London who make the decisions about financial services in this society and what they mean for our economy. <BR /> <BR />I wanted to make those broader points, but we support the order.”
“We cannot expect financial services policy to be designed and tailored for this region, so we need to think hard about how we, as an Assembly and an Executive, can be front-footed and even proactive, even if the policy matter is, technically, reserved. That would involve communication with the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), so I genuinely welcome the fact that the Minister has already started that engagement. It is vital that she and the Finance Committee do as much as they can in that space. <BR /> <BR />Banking here is regulated by the PRA, the Bank of England and the FCA, but, obviously, our banking market is structurally different. We know that it is much more all-island, which means that it has been affected by Brexit.”
“We will have a debate on related matters later, around insurance services. It gets to a broader point that the Committee has agreed to look at around financial services here. We are in a particular, unique position, and we have never quite grasped it in the devolution era. Financial services are a reserved matter; they are a matter for the Treasury. I think that the Minister would agree that, in the Treasury — this is not to impugn the officials working in financial services there — as is the case with lots of things, the needs of Northern Ireland and the specific financial services picture here, including the rurality of our society, are not well understood or, frankly, a priority.”
“<BR /> <BR />I would also suggest that, given that some of those people will be members of retail bodies, such as Retail NI or the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) — often ATMs in rural areas are in the forecourt of the Spar garage, Vivo or whatever — any communication that can be given to those entities, whether they are a bank or retail premises that might not already be availing themselves of an ATM service or might be thinking of closing one, is critical, given that the amount of money does qualify. I do not want to be too flippant about this: it is a trivial sum of money, even in constrained times, but it is not a trivial issue for rural communities. <BR /> <BR />I would also just make a point about financial services. I welcome the fact that the Minister is reaching out to organisations such as UK Finance and banks in general.”
“It is a self-described micro-measure, but the fact that it exists means that it should be communicated loudly and publicly to all of the banks so that any excuses for removing services — whether full-blown branches or ATMs — are removed. I would welcome the Minister updating us on that, including on whether there is some kind of partnership with UK Finance or some way of communicating that.”
“Those cash services help to support such things as small, charitable, community, sporting groups and clubs in all their activities, endeavours and fundraising. It would be unthinkable to see a further decline in the number of ATMs. <BR /> <BR />Some of what we learned in the Committee suggests that it is important that the Department, having taken this step and the fact that we are debating the legislation today, does all that it can. I welcome the fact that the Minister met UK Finance and the banks, and I would welcome an update from her on the contents of that conversation. As much as is possible should be done to really dig into the locations of rural ATMs and to be absolutely blunt and direct with all of those institutions about the availability of the rate relief. It is not a huge measure.”
“<BR /> <BR />Finally, members noted that the Department does not hold data on which operators charge for ATM services. During the Committee's consideration of the rule, members noted with concern the more general decline of banking institutions and ATMs in rural areas. Members have agreed to look at the issue more closely as part of a piece of work around banking services. The Committee supports the motion to affirm. <BR /> <BR />I will now make some brief remarks in a political capacity. We obviously support what is, in cash terms, an extremely small measure but is useful nevertheless. It is vital for rural communities to keep hold of ATMs because access to cash is extremely important in all areas but particularly in rural areas.”
“<BR /> <BR />In Committee on 8 May, members noted the geographical distribution of the current ATMs that are valued as separate rateable entries and are exempt from rates under the scheme. Members noted that the valuation approach to ATMs has significantly altered following a Supreme Court ruling in Cardtronics UK Ltd and others versus Sykes and others, and, as a result, the number of ATMs valued as separate entities in the valuation list has significantly reduced. However, that does not mean that the ATMs are no longer in place but that they are no longer valued separately. The Committee also noted that the rate exemption for rural ATMs is not a rebate. It is applied automatically before bills are issued according to rural wards set out in legislation and known to the Department. Therefore, it is felt that publicity is not required.”
“While members agreed to recommend that the rule be affirmed by the Assembly, further information was requested from the Department on a number of issues relating to rural ATMs, including statistics on the number of rural ATMs over the past five years, on the current location and operators of rural ATMs and on whether the Department has considered ways in which to publicise the availability of a rates rebate for rural ATMs. The Committee also agreed to request information on how many current recipients of the rates rebate for rural ATMs charge for the use of those ATMs — ie which are the kind that charges people £1 or £2 to withdraw cash rather than the free ones.”
“The Department indicated that that has been the case since the scheme was first put in place and that one aim of the scheme is to encourage banks and money services companies to keep the ATMs in their current locations. <BR /> <BR />Some members expressed concerns that a number of recipients of the exemption are banks. The majority of members, however, indicated that the proposal has merit. The Committee agreed that it was content with the proposal for the statutory rule. SR 2024/88 was laid in the Business Office on 4 April. At the Committee's meeting on 17 April, members noted that the Examiner of Statutory Rules (ESR) had not drawn any matters to do with the rule to the attention of the Committee.”
“Again, I speak for the Committee for Finance about our scrutiny of the statutory rule. I thank the Minister once again for her comments. <BR /> <BR />The Committee spent considerable time discussing the policy proposal to reinstate a micro-policy in the rating system, giving a rates exemption to ATMs in a designated rural area. The policy was first considered by the Committee on 6 March 2024. At that time, members agreed to seek clarification from the Department of Finance on recipients most likely to benefit from the rates exemption. At the Committee's meeting on 20 March 2024, members noted information from the Department that highlighted the fact that the majority of recipients of the relief are banks or electronic money services companies.”
“If someone is claiming vacant property relief for more than a decade, I do not think that they are doing their best to get that property let. We should, therefore, think about that, and I encourage the Minister to look at it. I am sure that that is one of the things that she is looking at. <BR /> <BR />More broadly, the SDLP supports the reintroduction of the scheme. It is useful, albeit relatively modest, and we welcome it being brought to the Assembly.”
“Statistics contained in the Minister's response to a question for written answer in the past couple of weeks show that nearly 6,000 of the businesses that claim vacant property relief have been doing so for more than 10 years, and almost 9,000 have been claiming it for more than five years. That suggests, at the most generous, that there is a little bit of dead weight in that tax incentive. It also suggests that there is space to better target vacant property relief and to better do what the Minister is trying to do with the Back in Business scheme, which is incentivise people back into business rather than have them avail themselves of a never-ending tax relief on a property that, in some cases, it seems, they have no realistic desire to let or reoccupy.”
“I strongly suspect that the Minister may already be thinking about it. Obviously, the scheme is linked to vacant property relief, because when businesses take up vacant properties, the property is no longer vacant and is occupied by going concerns and operating businesses, which hold on to 50% of the vacant property relief for a period afterwards. We know that the vacant property relief, generally, as opposed to the Back in Business scheme, which keeps hold of the vacant property relief, is, in Northern Ireland, very generous. That is not to say that it should not exist, but it is much more generous than schemes in any neighbouring jurisdiction.”
“We support the reintroduction of the Back in Business scheme. I welcome that, upon her appointment, the Minister moved swiftly to do that. It is an important, albeit, in scale, relatively modest, incentive in the rates system to get businesses, particularly microenterprises, back into vacant properties on the high street. It is worth saying that that can only be one part of the effort: we need something much broader. I know that she is looking at the rates system, more broadly, and taking advice from her officials, including on foot of the review that was first ordered by the Secretary of State, I think, before Christmas. <BR /> <BR />I also want to point out one other slight anomaly. Perhaps, it is not an anomaly, but something for us to think about: vacant property relief, more broadly.”
“Since then, stakeholders have not made vocal calls for a revision of the scheme, but they did publicly request that the scheme be reintroduced by the Assembly when it returned. That was also requested at a ministerial meeting with stakeholders on 22 February 2024. <BR /> <BR />The SR was, subsequently, formally laid in the Assembly Business Office on 4 April as SR 2024/87. At the Committee meeting on 17 April, members noted that the Examiner of Statutory Rules (ESR) had not drawn any issues with the rule to the Committee's attention. Therefore, the Committee agreed to recommend that the rule be affirmed by the Assembly. The Finance Committee supports the motion to affirm it. <BR /> <BR />I will make some brief remarks in a political capacity as leader of the Opposition and leader of the SDLP group in the Assembly.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee, at its meeting on 20 March, noted additional information from the Department indicating that the enabling power used for the rule expressly prevents the award of additional rate support in the rating system, as per article 31D of the Rates Order 1977. Members also noted that the majority of recipients in the last active period of the scheme were small, independent enterprises occupying units with low rateable values. <BR /> <BR />Finally, the Committee noted that adjustments to the scheme on foot of the recent consultation on additional revenue raising had not been considered. However, the Department indicated that the scheme was extended in its last iteration to provide support for 24 months, as opposed to the original 12 months. That was done on foot of the findings of the business rates review in 2019.”
“At that time, members agreed to seek clarification from the Department of Finance on a number of issues related to the policy proposal, including confirmation that it was not possible for businesses to avail themselves of the Back in Business scheme at the same time as being in receipt of any other rate relief, information on the recipients most likely to benefit from the scheme and any data to support that information. Members also agreed to ask whether officials had examined potential adjustments to the scheme in the context of the recent consultations on additional revenue raising.”
“In the first instance, I will speak on the statutory rule as Chair of the Finance Committee. I very much thank the Minister for her comments. The Committee has given extensive consideration to the statutory rule to reinstate the Back in Business scheme, which allows any new business that occupies a long-term vacant property valued as a retail unit to pay rates at the vacant rating level for a two-year period. <BR /> <BR />The policy proposal was considered first at the Committee meeting on 6 March 2024.”
“I appreciate the Minister's giving way. I welcome everything that she has said. It all makes sense. She mentioned receiving guidance on having one Bill a year. Did that guidance come from the head of the Civil Service, or has it come to Ministers via TEO? It would be helpful to have clarity on that.”
“I am not saying that there has been undue delay in the Department, and I welcome the fact that the Minister has said that that is the clear intent. I put that on the record and say that we support the secondary legislation that is being brought forward today.”
“We will support the continuation of the statutory rule and the provision for live links to be used in the way that they are. I will simply echo the point that it is really important that we move beyond the temporary provisions in the coronavirus legislation. The Minister was absolutely right when she talked about the huge benefits of the use of live links, particularly for victims of crime. However, as we were clear about with the Health Minister when he unsuccessfully moved much broader coronavirus legislation, it is really important that we move beyond those provisions. <BR /> <BR />In a principled way, we are legislators here, and we debate motion after motion, none of which has any legislative effect. We find time to do that, so it is important to put the provision on a permanent basis quickly.”
“As someone who originally comes from nearby the area that we are talking about, I strongly agree that Ballynahinch needs a bypass. Part of the congestion stretches into Carryduff, in my constituency. Does the Minister agree that part of reducing all those emissions and congestion down the Saintfield Road — from Carryduff onwards — is extending the Glider to Carryduff so that commuters from the like of Ballynahinch, Downpatrick and Newcastle can get the Glider from Carryduff into Belfast to their jobs? Will he commit to delivering that soon? I know that he is looking at it.”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will the Speaker's Office provide clarity? When I asked the Minister whether she was answering on operational matters, she said that she was not, but, with all due respect, the content of the statement included a long and significant update on operational matters. It would be helpful if the Speaker's Office could confirm whether it is in order for Ministers, effectively, to decline to answer on the content of statements that they have just given to the Assembly.”
“Minister, thank you very much for that update. I hope that you will not take this the wrong way, but, when we question you in the Chamber, we spend a lot of time being told by you that certain types of policing and other enforcement activities are operational matters and are nothing to do with your Department. However, your statement today consists in large part of operational updates. Since, I presume, we are able to ask you about the contents of the statement, are we to understand that we will be able to ask you about operational policing matters relating to the PSNI and other agencies in the future? They form the vast bulk of the statement.”
“The motion simply calls for a package of support to be examined and I commend it to the Assembly.”
“There is an example of very bad taxation devolution — I see some of my colleagues across the Chamber are rolling their eyes — but it is true that the policy to devolve long-haul air passenger duty to Northern Ireland has generated precisely zero long-haul flights from Belfast International Airport, but we pay the princely sum of £2·5 million a year. If we moved the £2·5 million that we pay for phantom flights and used it to pay direct grants or pay for a VAT reduction for the hospitality businesses, that would be more impactful than paying for non-existent flights. <BR /> <BR />The hospitality sector is critical. There is a clear argument for harmonisation, but, more broadly, there is an argument for support.”
“I would not necessarily talk about competing with our "land-border neighbour", but we have inevitably, rightly and positively integrated our all-Ireland tourism offer: some 70% of our visitors come via Dublin Airport. That is why Tourism Ireland exists and why we support extending the Wild Atlantic Way and, indeed, Ireland's Ancient East. <BR /> <BR />The motion asks the Minister to look at the potential devolution of VAT. We have mentioned Dublin Airport and competing with our "land-border neighbour".”
“which is worst of all. On that note, I am tempted to quote a certain Mr Ian Paisley Jr, whom I do not quote that often. He is another North Antrim representative, along with Mr McGuigan and Mr Frew. He once stated that he wanted to:”
“It is intriguing to hear Mr Frew criticise them now. He may not be aware — we were using proxy voting at the time — that he voted for my amendments.”