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“Clearly, however, the regulatory and enforcement regime for all those watercourses and marine environments is way out of date ecologically and, indeed, economically.”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 7 of 119.
“It is therefore timely for the House to debate the motion, with no agreed Budget despite our being in the new financial year. The permanent secretary of the Department is already preparing for emergency measures should a Budget not be agreed by the end of June. I thank the Business Committee for agreeing to schedule the debate. The Committee asks the Minister for timescales as to when a Budget may be agreed and whether it will be a single-year or multi-year Budget. It is extremely important that that be agreed sooner rather than later. <BR /> <BR />The debate today is informed by the Budget document itself; the useful Fiscal Council assessment; oral and written evidence taken by the Finance Committee; and the scrutiny undertaken by other Statutory Committees.”
“Finance officials have highlighted to the Committee on a number of occasions the fact that in-year funding will be significantly less than last year's and that Departments must live within their allocations. The Committee noted that, following the publication of the draft Budget, the Treasury recognised the challenges facing the Executive and the savings realised in 2025-26. The Treasury has agreed to provide the Executive with a reserve claim of £400 million of resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) in 2025-26, with repayment over the following three financial years. Officials have confirmed to the Committee that section 64 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, stating that an agreed Executive Budget should be laid before the Assembly before the beginning of each financial year, has been breached.”
“Today's debate provides Members and Chairs of the Statutory Committees, in particular, the opportunity to debate the 2026-29/2030 Budget. The Finance Committee takes its role in leading scrutiny of departmental budgets seriously, with members seeking ways to support and facilitate other Statutory Committees in budget scrutiny. The Committee is grateful to the Minister for agreeing to respond to the debate, and I welcome having the debate today, even if an agreed Budget has not yet been introduced. <BR /> <BR />I start the debate by noting that this is not an agreed Executive Budget, with the Minister confirming that he is yet to reach an agreement with Executive colleagues on a final Budget.”
“Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to be able to speak to the Finance Committee's detailed scrutiny of the draft Budget, which was published earlier this year. I will speak largely in my capacity as Chairman of the Committee and will then make a few remarks in a party capacity afterwards. <BR /> <BR />Members will be aware that the Committee for Finance undertakes a round-robin exercise to hear the views of other Statutory Committees on their respective Departments' budget allocations. As has previously been the case, the exercise also takes in the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council's view on the draft Budget. The Committee has compiled a report on those views, and it has been published.”
“I have very little to respond with, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Assembly for considering the motion. I trust that it will be confident that the Committee will treat the extended date not as a target but as a limit. Hopefully, the motion will be passed.”
“<BR /> <BR />In requesting that the Assembly supports the extension, the Committee is simply asking for the flexibility that is required to give the Bill the time and scrutiny that it deserves while, again, emphasising that the Committee views the extended date of 13 November as a limit rather than a target. The Committee commends the motion to the House and seeks Members' approval.”
“The Committee has also been careful to take account of recess periods and to plan scrutiny in a realistic and transparent way. Accordingly, the proposed approach allows for the summer and Halloween recesses and extends Committee Stage into mid-November. <BR /> <BR />Members will be cognisant of the importance of applying appropriate time to legislative scrutiny, including the reputational risks that can arise from inadequate scrutiny, and the importance of adhering to well-established Bill scrutiny procedures. Given some of the consequences of previous bits of legislation, it is important that we are all mindful of that and of the reputation of this institution more broadly.”
“Secondly, it raises the minimum age of marriage and civil partnerships to 18, without exception, and introduces an offence that is aimed at conduct that is intended to cause a child to enter into a marriage. <BR /> <BR />The proposed extension to Friday 13 November 2026 would allow the Committee to undertake scrutiny in the usual and appropriate manner, which would include a six-week call for evidence; consideration of written submissions and survey responses; and a number of in-person evidence sessions during Committee meetings. It would ensure that the Committee could continue its wider programme of work alongside scrutiny of the Bill, including its ongoing inquiry into the performance and culture of the Northern Ireland Civil Service.”
“Without an extension to Committee Stage being agreed, the last day of Committee Stage would be Wednesday 3 June, when the Committee would be required to lay its report on the Bill. In practical terms, that would significantly curtail the Committee's ability to undertake the level of scrutiny that the draft legislation warrants. <BR /> <BR />I will not go through all the Bill's provisions in detail, as they were rehearsed at Second Stage. First, the Bill brings non-religious belief marriage fully within the statutory framework of the Marriage (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, placing belief bodies on the same statutory footing as religious bodies for the purposes of registering officiants and granting temporary authorisations.”
“<BR /> <BR />We bring forward the motion to extend the Committee Stage in order to ensure that we have the necessary time and flexibility to discharge our statutory scrutiny role appropriately. The Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill was introduced to the Assembly on Monday 16 March 2026. It completed Second Stage on Monday 20 April, with Committee Stage beginning on Tuesday 21 April. As Members are aware, Standing Order 33(2) states:”
“I am pleased to be able to move the motion today. First of all, the Committee welcomes the Bill. In bringing the motion, we are clear that we regard 13 November 2026 as a limit rather than a target. Indeed, with several recent Bills, the Committee has proved itself able to rigorously scrutinise legislation significantly more complex than this Bill. That is not to say that this is not an important Bill. With those Bills, we have completed our reports without undue delay, and, where evidence-gathering has concluded earlier than anticipated, we have been able to conclude our scrutiny sooner than anticipated. We hope that that may also be the case with the Bill.”
“The elections last week are a stark reminder of that journey, and the SDLP and others will talk more about that opportunity in the weeks and months ahead.”
“<BR /> <BR />I slightly, gently, push back at colleagues from the Alliance Party who once again push the idea that to believe in change on this island is and must always be a distraction from making this place work. As leader of the Opposition, I, along with my colleagues, come here every day and hold the Executive robustly to account for their many failings in delivery. There is no contradiction between doing that and believing in, choosing and advocating a new Ireland as the route to the best possible future for people in Northern Ireland and on the whole island of Ireland. Increasingly, people who do not want to be governed by Nigel Farage and have their future shackled to a poorer and unstable UK state will want to make that choice.”
“The UK's economy is radically smaller than it otherwise would have been had the UK not left the European Union. Its politics have become profoundly unstable. There have been six Prime Ministers in the past decade, I believe. People here have a right to choose something different from that destabilisation. The results in Scotland and Wales are one manifestation of that, but they are far from the only one. Indeed, for lots of people, it is not just that they dislike the prospect of the potential, perhaps even likely, election of Nigel Farage as Prime Minister of the UK because they dislike his politics and his crypto-billionaire-backed gang of hard right adherents or dodgy dealers; it is that they simply want to choose a completely different future for their country.”
“Last week's election results indicated something that has been clear for at least a decade and can, in fact, be dated specifically to June 2016 and the Brexit vote: the destabilisation of the UK state, which is significantly and radically poorer, less influential and less stable than it was before that date. Many of us have always supported constitutional change — a new Ireland that is based on reconciliation and is without a border — but many more people, from all sorts of backgrounds, are now thinking about that future as a result of the UK being a poorer, less prosperous, less stable and less influential state.”
“The public has contempt for us because we continually refuse to take responsibility. Small and irritating as we are, the official Opposition's job is to constantly try to force responsibility to be taken in this place. If others do not like it, fine. Slurs will be cast at us, and our motivations will be questioned, but we will keep doing it, and that is what we are doing today. <BR /> <BR />I hope that Members will support our motion. There is some sense in both amendments, but I am pleased that we have been able to discuss this today.”
“I want us to be run from this island; I do not want us to be run from London. We are not going to get there by not taking responsibility. We are literally asking the public on this island to take collective responsibility; we are not going to get there by not taking responsibility. There are limits to what the Finance Minister and the Executive can do. The UK Government should not have imposed this wrong and reckless split, but we will not make progress in this society, serve the community and voluntary sector or build a united Ireland, as I and others in the Chamber want — others do not, obviously — by simply not taking responsibility. Our job is to take responsibility collectively, despite all the difficulties and divisions”
“I am glad that you said that, Minister, because then we are making progress. The progress is that, if you take ministerial office in this place, you are responsible. <BR /> <BR />I will come on to a point that is important to me. I am in politics here to build a new Ireland back inside the European Union. I used to work in the British system — people carp — and I know how little they care about this place. I am here now trying to make change in Ireland. Those of us who want a new and united Ireland are engaged in a big act of taking responsibility back onto this island. That is what I want.”
“— or whether it is legitimate simply because it is a DUP Minister. Is her asking that question taking the Brits' side? I am genuinely confused. I am happy to give way.”
“<BR /> <BR />I noticed that the Member for Foyle Ciara Ferguson has submitted a question to the Minister for Communities asking what plans he has to mitigate the loss of local growth funding. I do not know whether it is illegitimate for Ciara to have asked that question of a Minister —”
“That is why our motion says that we knew that that was what was happening. <BR /> <BR />Let us be clear: of course I agree with Sinn Féin Members that this is another example of why our interests are not best served at Westminster. We agree with that, and we agree that we want to build a new future in a new Ireland back inside the European Union, where we can access all sorts of funds, including, hopefully, the European Investment Bank and other things, to rebuild our communities. It cannot be an answer simply to say, "It's their responsibility. They've created this problem, but we are just going to wash our hands of it". If we agree that they have created the problem, it is incumbent on us to do our best to mitigate it. It is not just me asking that question.”
“That is who is primarily responsible for this. There is no contradiction in saying that the British Government are responsible for mishandling it and that the Executive will have to deal with the consequences. That is not taking the Brits' side, and it is not misleading the community and voluntary sector; it is holding people accountable. If you do not want to be held accountable, do not take the salary, and do not take the ministerial Pledge of Office.”
“<BR /> <BR />I will read out our motion, because it has been distorted and, frankly, lied about in the Chamber today. I really do not like that, so I will be absolutely clear and do my job here. The motion states that we regret:”
“<BR /> <BR />We did not table the motion today to score points against the Executive; we brought the motion today to stand up for people in the community and voluntary sector and those whom they serve and to try to get answers for them. It is important to say, as Gerry Carroll did, that money has been found for other priorities in the Executive. I am told that there are conversations about a bid to the transformation fund for use in relation to economic inactivity. If that is the case, why could money not have been found to help plug the gap that the British Government created? <BR /> <BR />It is not enough to say that the British Government caused the problem. To be clear, our motion states that the British Government caused the problem. Does it not say that? I am happy to give way to the Minister.”
“We have heard again in the Chamber parties not taking responsibility. When the Opposition challenge them, they say, "Oh, you are taking the Brits' side" and "The community and voluntary sector should not have even protested here". There has been a shameful refusal to take responsibility for the people whom we serve. <BR /> <BR />To go back to the point, when the Shared Prosperity Fund came in, the Executive realised a saving of about £30 million. I do not know where that money went. I presume that it went to meet other pressures in other parts of the Executive Budget, which is fair enough, but we should have at least been told. In the same way, we should be told what happened to the working group that was apparently going to be set up in January last year. However, we have heard no detail of any specific outcome.”
“When the European social fund came to an end and was replaced by the deeply flawed Shared Prosperity Fund — I went to meetings, as, I am sure, Members across the Chamber did, with consortia and community and voluntary groups that were deeply concerned and frustrated that that previous cliff edge has now been replaced by another inadequate fund, the local growth fund — one of the things that happened at the last minute with that successor fund was that there was no obligation for match funding, so, in a sense, there was a saving for the Executive. There would have been other pressures, but we have never been told what happened to that money. I presume that we were not told partly because there was no Executive here at the time. Again, that goes back to certain parties choosing not to take responsibility.”
“<BR /> <BR />I come to other parties, including the DUP, which supported not just Brexit but a hard Brexit that removed critical European funding. We cannot pretend that Brexit had nothing to do with that. We cannot pretend that the reason that we are here is nothing to do with Brexit — the decision to leave the EU. It was warned of in advance, and it was clear afterwards that the funds would be placed at risk. For people to say, "Oh, this is nothing to do with Brexit," is an absurdity that insults people's intelligence. That has to be challenged. <BR /> <BR />There is also the question of what happened to some of the successor funding and moneys that were returned to the Executive. I am happy to take an intervention if someone wants to explain that to me.”
“Indeed, an aspersion was cast that the community and voluntary sector was somehow wrong to bring a protest to Stormont, and it was suggested that they should have, if not spoken to the hand, brought that protest to the NIO instead. Let me be clear: in spite of what was said, our motion is clear in calling out and challenging the British Government's unacceptable and indefensible distortion of the funding split. They have acted heedlessly and recklessly. I do not know how many times I will have to say that before Sinn Féin Members stop their pathetic, desperate attempts to reject any form of legitimate scrutiny from the official Opposition as somehow taking the Brits' side. That is pathetic. The people whom we serve deserve better.”
“They have had to make their colleagues redundant and are having to turn service users away: people who are vulnerable; people whom the community and voluntary sector has helped to get into work but whose employment is, perhaps, fragile and contingent; and people who have issues in their lives that require employment support, such as additional needs or vulnerabilities. Those people are literally being turned away. That is why we tabled the motion. <BR /> <BR />For clarity, Members, including those in Executive parties, we make no apology for doing our job as an Opposition. Carál Ní Chuilín had a rant at me earlier — I say this with the greatest respect; she has left the Chamber — because of the idea of the official Opposition bringing before the Executive a matter of vital public importance.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Before I get into the meat of my remarks or cover comments made by Members, I will say that, despite some of the fairly lurid and pretty pathetic allegations that have been thrown at us from across the Chamber, particularly from the Minister's party, the reason that we tabled the motion and that is at the very front of our thoughts is the fact that we care about the community and voluntary sector and the people whom it serves. We have engaged with its representatives, including in the Building today. Brian Kingston mentioned Belfast Works Connect: I have engaged with that consortium, with community and voluntary groups and with NICVA, the umbrella organisation. I know the seriousness of the situation that they not only face into but face now.”
“Does the Member agree that the same person, David Babington from Action Mental Health, while robustly challenging decisions that have been made by the UK Government, also said that the Executive needed to step up, and that he was very frustrated with the Executive's response to that and their desire to simply push all the responsibility onto the UK Government? They clearly need some of the blame, but there is frustration there, too, about the Executive's responsibility.”
“If the amendments are not successful today, the public will legitimately say, "I wonder why".”
“The Minister talked about flexibility and said that the council should set its own work programme. As I said, I largely agree with that. It will not totally set its own work programme, however, because it will be doing Budget assessment reports and fiscal sustainability reports that are constrained to an extent by specific provisions in the Bill. <BR /> <BR />For the Fiscal Council to have an additional set of expectations from the Assembly was an opportunity. Unfortunately, I fear that we will miss that opportunity today. That does not mean that the Fiscal Council Bill is not hugely important legislation, because it is. I am, however, deeply disappointed, because it looks as though certain parties will vote against improving the scrutiny of delivery in Northern Ireland.”
“With respect, I do not think that that is a legitimate question. <BR /> <BR />It is fair enough to raise the point that flexibility exists in the legislation. That is why the amendments are flexible. There are not dozens upon dozens of them; there are simply a few in specific areas.”
“Including the additional words from the amendments would mean that the Fiscal Council would have to engage with the legislation that we have passed and that it would have specific powers and obligations. However, it would have to carry them out independently and objectively, because it has been set up in law, which is the whole purpose. We would not, then, have an opportunity to steer or second-guess the council. If we pass the amendments, we will not be saying at a later stage, "Remember we passed that amendment? That means that you have to do it this way". That is not what it is about at all.”
“If the Fiscal Council Bill passes Consideration Stage and goes to Final Stage, we will, by definition, be passing it into law and giving it a mandate. That is no more or less political than Eóin Tennyson, me or anyone else putting down an amendment to give the council a specific responsibility. When we are putting a body into law, there is nothing illegitimate about MLAs seeking to give that body additional powers or to clarify what they would like it to do, but I recognise that certain parties in the Assembly do not want it to do those things. <BR /> <BR />The suggestion was made that we would be steering the Fiscal Council politically. By passing the Bill, we are, to an extent, steering it politically.”
“In one sense, whether or not we are compared with any other jurisdiction, or whether one has a view on that, we need to know more about how policy affects economic outcomes. Whether that is microeconomic outcomes, such as the performance of the high street, or wage levels or anything else, that would be useful. The amendments would simply have given the Fiscal Council the ability to look at some of the economic consequences of Budget-making; it would not have obliged it to build a model to do lots of yearly forecasting. <BR /> <BR />Deirdre Hargey mentioned that this is about independent, objective analysis. Yes, that is absolutely the case. There is nothing wrong with MLAs, whether in the Opposition or the Executive, tabling amendments to improve a piece of legislation — that is not party political.”
“OK. It has been touched on — I have said it myself — that we are not discussing amendments that are not on the Marshalled List. I have been clear that the purpose of the amendments is to improve the policy debate. It is clear that other parties agree with that and see the legitimacy of the amendments. <BR /> <BR />To finish, I will go through a couple of other points, as I had been doing. Eóin made good points about the absence of an investment strategy and the lack of clear scrutiny on these things. I make no apology for tabling the amendments and attempting to improve scrutiny. On Steve Aiken's contribution, I welcome the fact that the Ulster Unionists are in broad agreement with the amendments, although I did not mention the growth level compared with that in the Republic.”
“I am doing that, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I —.”
“I did not raise that matter, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.”
“First, it is important to say that those amendments did not —.”
“— that genuine scrutiny is sometimes avoided. <BR /> <BR />Having said something slightly political, I am happy to give way to the Member.”
“I am afraid, therefore, that it is a redundant argument to simply say that we should never give this organisation the power to say something that might cause someone some political discomfort. That is not acceptable. The fact that it might cause the DUP and Sinn Féin political discomfort is not my problem; it is a problem for the public, who, I am afraid to say, feel —”
“This is an opportunity to improve the quality of scrutiny and to see how well Budgets do or do not deliver. <BR /> <BR />I do not want misquote the Deputy Chair, Diane Forsythe, but I think that she said that I had effectively given the game away that this was about political point-scoring. I do not accept that, because any body that has a watchdog role, whether it is the Fiscal Council, the Audit Office or another body, invariably strays into matters that become political and invariably says things that cause discomfort and displeasure to politicians and Ministers. A body cannot scrutinise Ministers without occasionally saying things that displease them, cause them discomfort or result in difficult interviews. That is the entire point.”
“<BR /> <BR />Eóin Tennyson made a couple of other points that were really important. In referring to amendment No 1, which is about alignment with the Programme for Government, he mentioned the absence of an investment strategy. The failure to properly join up and create strategic policy planning documents is a long-running challenge that has emerged in so many reports. There is then the question of implementing them, but the absence of an investment strategy, the absence — I will not labour this point — of a multi-year Budget and the absence of a sense that it will deliver a coherent set of plans for the public in Northern Ireland are points that are made repeatedly, not just by me, as leader of the Opposition, but by the public, business groups, trade unions and interested parties who comment on our politics, and they are not wrong.”
“I will make two points about that. The first is about the economic question. When we talk about economic consequences, we are talking about a broad area. Most independent fiscal institutions use the words "economic" and "fiscal" as big descriptors, either together or with one hived out. There is a difference between "economic and fiscal" and a range of issues that are "economic or fiscal" or "economic and/or fiscal" that you might not want to put into a Bill. Given that economic analysis is not provided for in the Bill, unlike Acts that have set up other fiscal bodies, we felt that it was appropriate to include economic analysis in a specific provision. I make no apology for that, and I am genuinely frustrated that it looks as though it will not pass today; I hope that Members will think otherwise.”
“We know that we have persistently high levels of deprivation, that poverty levels in Northern Ireland are still unacceptably high and that it is about the communities that bore the brunt of conflict. We talked earlier about the Springhill massacre. There is an intersection between post-conflict issues and the economic challenges that face those places today. All those things are true. That would be a legitimate economic question for the Fiscal Council to analyse, were it to be given the specific power to look at economic issues. That is a legitimate economic subject.”
“The passing of either of the amendments today would not prescribe any policy intervention, because that is for democratically elected politicians and Ministers, not an independent fiscal body. It is important to say that council members are not politicians and that the council does not have a democratic mandate. All that it can do is come up with data and analysis, which we have lacked, including on the cost of division. We know that it is there and that it has a fiscal as well as a societal consequence. That could give us a little more data to work with in addressing it and could help us to move the debate forward. <BR /> <BR />Deirdre Hargey mentioned deprivation. She is absolutely right.”
“<BR /> <BR />Diane Forsythe mentioned that we would be writing a blank cheque; I am afraid that that is just not true. I enjoy the irony in the idea of a blank cheque and the Fiscal Council, but we would not be doing that. We would simply be providing for an additional but limited set of obligations on it. I genuinely reject the idea that there is something inherently political in attempting to amend a Bill. We are legislators and, fundamentally, that is what we are here to do in order to get the legislation right. <BR /> <BR />Eóin Tennyson spoke well about the cost of division, which is a hugely significant issue that has been the subject of debate.”
“It should happen, because, given that we fail to do a whole range of things in this place, and people wonder why we have not made policy in a better way, it would provide us with one opportunity to do that. <BR /> <BR />The Fiscal Council does not make policy for us — I will come to Diane Forsythe's point — as it cannot and should not, and the Bill, amended or unamended, does not give the Fiscal Council the power to do so. All that it does is give it the power to scrutinise and to generate better information and data for better scrutiny by the public and by MLAs. It has done its job exceptionally well over the past four or five years. It has proven that it can do it robustly and rigorously without anyone questioning its political independence or impartiality. It could do so with a view to economic analysis without jeopardising that.”