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“Clearly, however, the regulatory and enforcement regime for all those watercourses and marine environments is way out of date ecologically and, indeed, economically.”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 68 of 119.
“The Member quoted the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, and its input is welcome. We maintain a close and positive relationship with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. On this occasion, we think that there are strong arguments for examining this policy. Of course, interest groups will occasionally disagree with particular policy proposals. This is a specific proposal that we think should be examined, but we are not, as the Member acknowledged, saying anything definitively. There are, however, strong arguments for an examination. <BR /> <BR />Paul Frew mentioned some of my previous work on licensing. I tabled some amendments, which passed, on licensing. It is true that one or two people registered concern, and they were relatively cautious amendments that just reviewed how the licensing system works.”
“I will give way in one second. <BR /> <BR />Since Mr Nesbitt and Mr Brett both raised the issue of cost, I will say that recent studies suggest that the cost of lowering hospitality VAT to 5% could be about £16 million annually. Obviously, that would be significantly less if it were to simply equalise VAT with the lower rate in the Republic, which is 13·5%, so it would probably be closer to a figure in the single millions of pounds. That, however, would all be subject to policy rotation. We are not saying that it should definitely happen; we are saying that it should be brought forward for consideration. I will give way briefly to Mr Nesbitt.”
“We definitely need to look at those things, and there are strong arguments for them, but our motion is very careful not to call for a specific proposal that will cost x amount, unlike some Executive party motions that I could mention. Since Mr Nesbitt —.”
“It is also the case that we have not provided enough support, certainly in more recent years, particularly for some of the smaller, family-owned businesses as they struggle with increased costs. There are associated social benefits with them that are not simply about inward tourism to Northern Ireland but are societal and communal benefits. <BR /> <BR />Before I touch on a few of the comments, it is important to say that a few Members commented on the fact that we are calling for the devolution of VAT for hospitality and implying that that would necessarily mean that VAT would definitely be devolved and would definitely be lowered.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. <BR /> <BR />I thank everyone who participated in the debate. It has been thought-provoking and colourful, which is always fun. I have never experienced a situation like this. Clearly, in opposition, we are winning friends and influencing people. A succession of people got up to slag us off and then said that they would agree with our proposal, so we are making some progress. <BR /> <BR />I will reflect on some of the comments made. I think that there is broad consensus that hospitality and tourism are disproportionately important economic drivers for this region. That is obvious. We all know that the tourism offer in Ireland as a whole is unique and special. We are deeply proud of it, and it is tied into deep cultural and communal things that we cherish.”
“For information, the general definition that is used by Hospitality Ulster is that it applies to accommodation and food, so it would not apply to alcohol-only pubs, for example.”
“I am grateful to the Member for giving me the opportunity. He will note that the motion is careful. It does not say that we should definitely cut that tax. As an Opposition, we have been consistent, unlike the Executive parties, in providing costings. The motion says that we should look at whether devolving VAT for hospitality — not for everything — would help. I hope that that helps him.”
“I thank my colleague for giving way. Does she agree that it is slightly surprising and really disappointing that some in the Chamber are trying almost to downplay or deflect the seriousness of the crisis that we face and prolong it by calling for more reviews? We have two things: a crisis in one of the biggest freshwater lakes in Europe and one of the biggest environmental crimes in Europe at Mobuoy. The idea that we do not now need serious environmental enforcement is, frankly, unthinkable.”
“It cannot be called a Programme for Government or a serious strategic vision for the region with targets and outcomes for when waiting lists will come down, when there will be a meaningful intervention on childcare that will help working families with costs or when we will see poverty addressed. All that we ask for is a plan. That is not unreasonable or unfair; it is the bare minimum of government. I hope that the motion will pass and that it will be delivered on. Wouldn't that be something?”
“The Member has put his remarks on the record. <BR /> <BR />What I would say about that is that we need a better financial settlement from the UK Government — I do not dispute that, and we have been on record supporting the Executive parties — but we also need a plan. No one says that the Executive are not operating within constraints, such as having an austerity-obsessed Tory Government, and, yes, there are the challenges of mandatory coalition and a period of high inflation. All of those are challenges, but there needs to be a plan. <BR /> <BR />In her response to me, the deputy First Minister said that lots of things have happened. I am sure that all of those individually — a million pounds here and there — are important initiatives, but that is the everyday business of government.”
“I will give way in a second. To call the act of simply pursuing equitable finances "begging-bowl politics" is, I am afraid, not acceptable. I challenge that. I will give way to him.”
“If that is a begging bowl, I am afraid that, contrary to what the Member spends a lot of his time moaning about, we really are in a situation in which we are not equal citizens. People in Belfast pay tax on an exactly equal basis to people in Birmingham and Bristol, so, to call it "begging-bowl politics" —.”
“Other Members in the Chamber were there, so perhaps they can tell me whether I am wrong. Perhaps it was improvisation or team building. People laugh, but there were nearly two years of meetings. All that the motion calls for is for key outcomes and targets to be published by the Executive parties. That is not in any way unreasonable. <BR /> <BR />A range of comments was made. Mr Allister, in his particular way, made points about Executive performance. I will challenge Mr Allister on one point with which I fundamentally disagree, which is his depiction of "begging-bowl politics". From most of what he says, I think that he believes that Northern Ireland should stay in the United Kingdom. Obviously, I do not think that, but the whole basis on which this place operates is that we get a block grant from London.”
“Yes, 100 days is an important milestone, but, with respect and through the Chair, you and the Executive parties have not simply been debating a Programme for Government for 100 days; rather, as the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party put on record during the debate, a Programme for Government has been being debated since June 2022. That is getting on for two years. We, as the prospective Opposition, were briefed about the fact that there were ongoing Programme for Government meetings that were apparently substantial and substantive. All four Executive parties were in rooms — maybe with whiteboards, flip charts and Post-it notes — talking about priorities. Those meetings were convened by the head of the Civil Service. I was not there, so I do not know what all the sessions were about.”
“That was 26 years ago. It was the first time that we had had a proper and durable new power-sharing institution. The comparison is pretty trite, and I do not think that a lot of people will wear it. Of course, it is also true to say that, this year, we are celebrating or marking the 50th anniversary of the first attempt at a substantive power-sharing Administration in Northern Ireland. For a variety of reasons, we were not able or were not allowed to make that work. People can draw their own historical conclusions, but it is not a completely fair comparison. <BR /> <BR />Today marks 100 days since the institutions came back. That is an important landmark. It is an important milestone at which to say to the people who hold office, "Where's the plan?" and, "What's happening?". I will come on to a bit of what the deputy First Minister said.”
“It is also worth saying in passing that we were told at that point that it would be at the Assembly and Executive Review Committee that all the ambitious reform would be taken forward. I am yet to see the AERC take it forward. I am not sure whether it will bring forward the ambitious plan of reform that we discussed on that day in February. <BR /> <BR />A couple of DUP Members raised the particular point that there has never been a Programme for Government in the first 100 days of an Executive. In the literal, factual sense, that is true. Members said that, going back to the initial Executive, when Seamus Mallon and then Mark Durkan were deputy First Minister alongside David Trimble as First Minister, they took longer to agree a Programme for Government. That is factually true, but the context was a little different.”
“<BR /> <BR />I agree with several Members who said that the stop-start nature of government here is completely inseparable from the public's frustrations about how we have performed. That is the blunt truth. We still do not have agreement from Sinn Féin or the DUP on fundamentally reforming the institutions to prevent the one-party veto. We endeavoured to pass a motion on that on our first Opposition day, and those parties did not support it. That is a blunt truth, and we do not yet have agreement from the First Minister or deputy First Minister that they will decline to use their power to resign and collapse the institutions at some point. Those veto powers have never been given up, not even rhetorically, let alone in substance.”
“Even if Executive parties have different constitutional aspirations or look in different directions when it comes to left/right political orientation, they have a responsibility to form a cohesive Government and tell the public what they are delivering on their behalf and not to govern by improvisation. I am aware that the deputy First Minister objected to my use of that term. I will not say that it is like improvised comedy, because I do not think that it is always that funny, but there has been a degree of improvisation in the past and a reliance on PR and staged fallings-out. However, I welcome the fact that it looks like Executive parties will support the motion.”
“That is, of course, true. He said that strategies can sit on the shelf. He is completely right that strategies can sit on a shelf and not be delivered. The motion is about delivery. There have been lots of draft Programmes for Government that were never agreed and other strategies that have never been implemented, but the first and most important thing is to have the strategy down on paper, because, otherwise, there is no way of judging the Executive and the Executive parties on their delivery. <BR /> <BR />It was interesting to hear Ms Bradshaw, the Chair of the TEO Committee. I welcome the fact that Alliance will support the motion. Ms Bradshaw said that the Executive Office was "rather dysfunctional". The Opposition have a key role to play in a way in which we have not seen in these institutions historically.”
“I respect that, without trying to create hostages to fortune, but, if parties support our motion, we, as the Opposition, and the public will interpret that support as a commitment to abide by the terms of the motion, even though, as with all other motions that we have passed in the previous couple of months, it is non-binding. I will take Executive parties at their word in agreeing that, by summer recess, by the first week in July, we will have either the Programme for Government or the key summary outcomes from it. <BR /> <BR />I will go through a few of the points. Winding-up speeches are better if people respond to criticisms and points that have been raised rather than simply summarising what others have said. Mr Harvey moved the amendment and said that a Programme for Government was not a substitute for delivery.”
“The motion's substantive point is that those priorities now need to be converted into a plan for delivery, which is the Programme for Government that we want to see delivered by the time that we break up for the summer. We do not believe that that is unacceptable or unreasonable. <BR /> <BR />We also think that, if the Programme for Government document is not deliverable, there is no reason why we should not have a list of key summary outcomes. I asked the deputy First Minister about that at Question Time and received a diplomatically worded answer about seeing delivery "shortly" or "as quickly as possible".”
“I am pleased to make a winding-up speech on the motion. It feels a little strange, because we had a break for Question Time during which we had a substantial discussion on the various priorities that Ministers and all Members have. I will reflect on a few of the comments made by Members, and I will, hopefully, secure support. We had, I think, broad cross-party support for our motion. I will say early on that we have no particular difficulty with the DUP amendment. With the greatest of respect, I am not entirely clear exactly what it adds to the motion, but I do not dispute that there has been some indication that those are the Executive parties' priorities, because they have been debated in the Chamber.”
“Another element of the 'Farming — On Life Support' report was the reflection that the Going for Growth strategy was environmentally hugely destructive and that it worked against small family farms to the advantage of large corporations. Will he confirm that no official in his Department is working to deliver outcomes in the Going for Growth strategy and that that is not operative policy?”
“I welcome the deputy First Minister's clarity. She said, "Very shortly". She will appreciate that I asked the question of the Executive Office in February and received the answer a couple of weeks ago that we would be kept informed of the process. I ask that it is expedited and that there is clarity before the summer recess on how the Identity and Language Act 2022 will be delivered. The appointment of a commissioner was the reason for a spurious and unacceptable fight for many years, so it would be helpful to have clarity before the summer.”
“We could spend all day talking about your definition of "pace", deputy First Minister. It might not be quite the same kind of pace that we saw at the North West 200 at the weekend, by all appearances. Since the debate that we have just been having on the Opposition day motion is about publishing either a Programme for Government or a summary of actions and outcomes by the summer, will you commit now to our having, by the summer recess, one of those two documents, that is, either the full Programme for Government or the summary of outcomes?”
“— I do not know why they are in power in the first place.”
“I do not have much time left, so I will not give way. I will be happy to give way later in the proceedings. <BR /> <BR />All that we ask for is a plan — a road map. We are not asking for the earth or for miracles. The public of Northern Ireland have a right to expect that parties that have sought power and have successfully been elected to power have a plan and will tell them the choices that they will make to rescue our public services. That is all we ask. If the parties that have sought that power and have it cannot sign up to the motion —”
“I am therefore willing to acknowledge where there has been progress made. What I am not going to do, however, is simply accept that we can have government that has no plan or road map and that drifts along, week to week, simply on the back of PR. I am afraid that that is what appears to be happening.”
“<BR /> <BR />I am sure that I am going to be accused of simply carping from the sidelines, but I am not, and neither is my party. I acknowledge the positive signs and the instances in which the Executive have made specific progress. I say, genuinely, that I welcome the positive symbolism and the strong imagery between the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. That has to be acknowledged, and I acknowledge it. I also say that the Economy Minister, who, as we know, is away for, hopefully, a brief hiatus, set out some clear themes on regional balance and a greater promotion of the all-island economy that he wants to pursue in his economic policy. That is to be welcomed. The Communities Minister has also made some progress and acted swiftly to help deliver legislation on defective premises.”
“None of that, however, is an alibi or an excuse for parties that sought power — parties that are made up of people, the faces of whom, in many cases, were on most lamp posts across the country — not to set a plan, set priorities and be honest with the public about the choices that the Executive need to make. The limitations that I have acknowledged, be they related to the devolved spending settlement or to being in a power-sharing coalition, are all the more reason that we need a road map — a Programme for Government — to tell us as an Assembly, and the public more broadly, what the plan is and what is being delivered. Without one, as we have seen in the past, the Executive simply improvise from week to week and run on glossy PR and positive vibes. Those are welcome, but they cannot be a substitute for delivery in government.”
“I do not think that it is unreasonable to ask for them, because how else can the public judge what the Executive are, or are not, delivering for them? <BR /> <BR />Executive parties face the challenge of navigating a multiparty mandatory coalition. Yes, constraints are imposed on them through having a devolved settlement with limited control over revenue and an austerity-obsessed Tory Government in Westminster. Our motion acknowledges the extremely difficult financial position that we are in and that the Executive are in. Nobody should be in any doubt about that or be in any doubt that the UK Government should agree a better and more reasonable funding settlement for this place.”
“I remind the leadership of the Executive that we have not had an operational Programme for Government in nearly a decade. I see that the deputy First Minister is shaking her head. I am happy to take an intervention from her at this point if she wants to correct me on that statement, but my understanding is that we have not had a fully signed-off Programme for Government since the 2011 Programme for Government, because the 2016 Programme for Government was published only ever in draft form. During the brief 2020-22 period of an Executive, there was no formally signed-off Programme for Government. I therefore do not think that we have had agreed, updated Programme for Government targets in a decade.”
“If we cannot see the document itself, we want to know when it is going to be published. What is it going to state? Will it appear alongside some meaningful form of multi-year Budget, and, if the Executive's position is that a multi-year Budget will have to wait for a multi-annual spending review from a new UK Government, what types of targets, what indicative spending plans and what key targets for the rest of the mandate can the public expect to see be prioritised and delivered against? Is that so unreasonable? Is that such a mad, unreasonable ask of a Government? <BR /> <BR />It was disappointing to be told recently by the First Minister that, collectively, we should not be in a hurry to see a Programme for Government.”
“We have not had one in nearly a decade, and we know, as our motion highlights, that the Executive parties met, and were meeting, for, I think, more than 18 months with the head of the Civil Service to agree the key parameters and the outline of a draft Programme for Government so that it would be ready to launch when an Executive were formed and our devolved institutions restored. I do not know how many of those meetings happened, and I do not know specifically what the outcomes — outputs, as management consultants say — are or were, but I do know that they happened. There have been countless meetings about strategies and priorities, but we have not yet seen a Programme for Government, nor do we know when we are going to get one. We therefore want to know when we are going to see a Programme for Government.”
“We would like to see a Programme for Government (PFG) delivered soon. Is that so unreasonable?”
“In many cases, those motions are presented as if they substantively change the law or allocate funding: they do not. A casual observer watching the First Minister publicise motions calling for improved childcare or support for holiday hunger might naturally assume that, since the person speaking is the joint head of the Government here, the motions come alongside a meaningful plan involving legislation or allocation of funding, but they do not. While motions in the Assembly by governing parties can be a legitimate way of putting items on the agenda and airing issues, they cannot be a substitute for practical action and delivery. Otherwise, the Executive parties collectively risk inviting even more of the cynicism that our politics has generated in recent years. <BR /> <BR />Our motions today, starting with this one, focus on delivery.”
“That is not possible in any society, let alone one where we have allowed the health service to get to the state that we have in Northern Ireland. I acknowledge today the complexity of the challenges that the Executive face, and we have done that since we entered into opposition. However, the public of Northern Ireland are not unreasonable, and they are not daft. They know that the challenges will take time and effort to resolve, but they expect a plan. If the plan itself is not yet ready, which it does not appear to be, then, at a bare minimum, they deserve to be told when the plan will be published. <BR /> <BR />One hundred days on from the restoration of the institutions, we have had 28 motions from Executive parties promising action on everything from waiting lists to childcare support to the MOT backlog.”
“We know, for example, that the health service requires more investment but also a multi-year programme of reconfiguration of services around specialisms; longer-term recruitment strategies for all healthcare professionals; more use of cross-border services; and, ultimately, a broader societal shift towards a greater emphasis on prevention and upstream public health improvement to limit the burden of managing chronic conditions for an ageing population. <BR /> <BR />I use the example of health to acknowledge the complexity of the challenges that we face and the solutions that are required. It would be utterly wrong of me to stand up, bang the lectern and insist that we get all the challenges in the health service sorted overnight.”
“<BR /> <BR />Since taking up the role of opposition, we have been consistent in saying that we intended to be constructive. We recognise that, after years of collapse, austerity and deteriorating public services, not everything could or would be fixed overnight or, indeed, fixed in the course of this mandate. From the health service to housing, our infrastructure, the childcare crisis that was just mentioned in Members' Statements and our stubbornly high poverty levels, the incoming Executive were faced with challenges that are not easily resolved but are, in fact, deeply embedded and, in some cases, structural.”
“Today is our third Opposition day. We intend to use it to focus on delivery, but, before I move on to my substantive remarks, I wish Conor Murphy well. He has temporarily stepped down from his role as Economy Minister, and I think that all of us will wish him a speedy recovery and hope to see him back at his desk and in the Chamber soon. <BR /> <BR />I also associate myself with the remarks made by Deborah Erskine and John Blair in relation to the 20th anniversary of the accession of eight Eastern European countries and the role that they have played in broadening our society in Northern Ireland and increasing our diversity. It is hugely welcome, and I too will be at the event later today organised by the new Friends of Poland group.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. First, as others and I have said, the scale of what Israel has done in the past seven months goes way beyond any concept of defending oneself. <BR /> <BR />The Member spoke about Israel existing. If he reads our motion, he will see that the text affirms support for a two-state solution, and clearly implicit in recognition of a two-state solution is that the state of Israel would exist.”
“The Member has said a few things since I asked him to give way that I could respond to, but I appreciate his giving way. He is always open to debate. He said that everything had changed for Israel on 7 October. I acknowledged that 7 October was appalling and unjustifiable, but will he accept that the logic that he is using is, effectively, an eye for an eye, meaning that Israel can kind of do whatever it likes? The equivalent could be said for Palestinians, who could say that the actions of the last seven months have changed everything for them and therefore, by that logic, justify any response from Hamas or, indeed, any other violent actor. Is it not the case that, ultimately, you need to de-escalate and scale violence down?”
“Nothing we say now can undo the horror that has happened in the past seven or eight months, but there can be an immediate ceasefire. Politics and peace can replace violence and vengeance. Given our experience and what we have learned in a different context, we should all be willing to stand over the motion, express our solidarity with those who have experienced unimaginable pain, trauma and loss in the past number of months and say that now is the time, finally, to move beyond violence and vengeance and towards peace. I commend the motion to the Assembly.”
“<BR /> <BR />The other day, a representative of UNICEF, after his journey through Gaza, said of what he saw:”
“<BR /> <BR />Even if the current ceasefire proposals are accepted by Netanyahu's ultra-nationalist Government — we must all hope that they are and that international pressure is brought so to bear very quickly in the days to come — the people of Palestine and, indeed, those in Israel affected by the events of 7 October will live with decades of pain and trauma caused by the conflict. Young children suffering now with lost limbs and lost parents will carry their pain until the end of this century and beyond, long after all of us are gone. Nothing that can be said or done now, in the Chamber or anywhere else, can undo the trauma of those children or the loss experienced by ordinary Palestinians or, as I said, the Israelis who lost family members on 7 October.”
“That is true of what is happening in the Middle East; it is important not to draw facile comparisons. In the past seven months, as I said, 35,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israel. That is 10 times the number killed in 30 years during our conflict. Indeed, on 7 October, 1,200 or 1,300 people were killed; that is more than a third of the total number killed in our Troubles. None of us can imagine the scale of the suffering being experienced in Gaza, but we in the Chamber know that, at some point, however deep the feelings of injustice are and however real the historical sense is of a wrong that needs to be righted, violence and vengeance need to be replaced by politics and, yes, by peace.”
“Collective punishment is specifically outlawed in international law, but that is what is being meted out to the Palestinian people. The wrongs that were committed by Hamas on 7 October — they were profoundly wrong — in no way justify, legally or morally, what has been visited on the people of Palestine since. That is why our motion uses the phrase "ongoing genocide". <BR /> <BR />It is important not to make trivial comparisons between our experience here and conflicts elsewhere. I wanted to make that point. I hope that the debate will be mature, albeit grave. I am sure that strong opinions will be expressed, but I hope that we can do that in a mature way. It is important not to draw trivial comparisons between Northern Ireland and other parts of the world.”
“To put those numbers into context, that is nearly the population of Northern Ireland — the region that we represent — sheltering, beleaguered and hungry, in one city. They are hungry, beleaguered and, in many cases, injured or suffering. They are injured from the conflict — from munitions that are manufactured in Western countries — or suffering from diseases that have not been treated properly because of the Israeli bombardment and destruction of medical facilities. <BR /> <BR />We do not know exactly when or whether Israel will begin a full-scale invasion of Rafah, but we know that, if it does, the consequences will be grave. That would inevitably and unavoidably lead to the further large-scale killing of one particular national group: the Palestinians. It will be, as it has been repeatedly over the past months, a collective punishment.”
“In January, the International Criminal Court (ICC) said that there was a "plausible" case that Israel should take action to prevent a genocide. While it is correct to say that the court has not yet made a specific finding of genocide in a legal case, I ask Assembly Members to reflect on whether anyone could honestly and sincerely argue that they believe, in the four months since that ICC judgement was rendered, that Israel has made any serious attempts to prevent a genocide. <BR /> <BR />The definition of a "genocide" is the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group, with the aim of destroying that nation or group. More than 35,000 Palestinians have been killed since October, and, as we speak, 1·5 million are sheltering in the border city of Rafah.”
“Such actions do not just threaten the prospects for peace in the Middle East; they undermine the ability of Western democracies, which claim to support and uphold human rights, to have meaningful credibility when they talk about human rights. They undermine their ability to robustly challenge truly heinous actors, such as Vladimir Putin, by tolerating the depths of inhumanity that Israel has inflicted in Gaza. <BR /> <BR />Our motion is clear in both moral and political terms. Some people will ask why we have specifically used the word "genocide" in the text of our motion. In March, the UN special rapporteur said that she found:”