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“Clearly, however, the regulatory and enforcement regime for all those watercourses and marine environments is way out of date ecologically and, indeed, economically.”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 71 of 119.
“<BR /> <BR />Our motion on child poverty should also be seen as intimately linked to tomorrow's first motion in Opposition day business. That motion is on the removal of the pernicious and unjustifiable two-child limit in universal credit, which the UK Government introduced nearly a decade ago. We believe, as do most expert advisers, academics and campaign groups, that that removal will be the fastest and most effective way of getting rid of child poverty. We will also bring forward motions on eradicating fuel poverty and ending no-fault evictions in housing. Today's motion on child poverty is the start of that work. <BR /> <BR />What does our motion say?”
“One in five children is living in relative poverty; nearly one in 10 households is struggling to afford basic goods; nearly 300 people in Northern Ireland are dying in cold homes; and we are in the midst of a housing crisis. <BR /> <BR />This place — the Assembly — is not powerless to help. The SDLP Opposition is proposing a series of practical steps that we hope that the Executive parties will sign up to and that can be implemented through the rest of the mandate. We have, in the past, through welfare mitigations, proven that the devolved Assembly is able to take steps in order to alleviate poverty and mitigate the very worst of austerity. All that we are asking is that we do more of that and, indeed, go further.”
“Today's motion should be seen in conjunction with our motions for tomorrow. The SDLP has tabled a series of motions for today and tomorrow that are designed to get to the root of the scandal of the poverty that afflicts our society. We believe that, 25 years after the Good Friday Agreement, we have a moral obligation to finally tackle the stubbornly high levels of deprivation and poverty that exist in Northern Ireland and that are among the highest in these islands, blighting lives, ruining aspiration and, ultimately, putting longer-term pressure on other services. Over the past number of years, sharply increased inflation has combined with a decade and a half of immoral Tory austerity to create real need and suffering not just among the most destitute but in working households.”
“As an Opposition, we have always said that we would be constructive and welcome progress where Executive Ministers make it, so I commend the statement and thank the Minister for bringing it to the House and for working collaboratively with his colleagues to act swiftly on the matter. It is very welcome. Is the proposed legislation going to be designed in such a way that will allow the Victoria Square residents, many of whom are my constituents in South Belfast — you mentioned the High Court case — to reopen their case? Will the legislation be drawn in such a way that will allow them to take new action?”
“We should therefore reflect on how awful that atrocity was, the unacceptability of the UK Government's action and the fact that we all, in this society and in this place, need to underline our commitment to real truth, real justice and real reconciliation in order to move forward.”
“There are people on various sides of our political divide, and people who were on various sides of the conflict, who wish to draw a veil over the appalling actions that took place during that conflict. Although it is important that our politics not be defined by the past — we have all agreed and signed up to a process of moving on, working together and building something better — it is important that we do not simply submit to attempts, including that by the UK Government through their appalling legacy Act, to draw a gauzy veil over the past and blur what happened. To do that would be to fail people such as Alan Black and the families of the other victims of the Kingsmills massacre.”
“<BR /> <BR />What happened all those years ago in 1976 was as disgusting and reprehensible an act of sectarian slaughter as it is possible to imagine. Men were ordered off a minibus, identified by their religion and then gunned down. That has been exacerbated not only by the absence of truth and justice for half a century since but by the fact that, in plain language, the IRA, which is the organisation that everyone knows was responsible for that outrage, has never formally acknowledged that it was responsible. It is therefore important that all of us who talk about these things be careful and precise with our words. Awful things happened during the Troubles. Awful things were done by paramilitary organisations and, at times, the state.”
“The Kingsmills massacre, which happened 48 years ago, was a grotesque sectarian slaughter. It was a grotesque sectarian slaughter in the same way as the Reavey and O'Dowd murders, which happened the night before, were. As others have said, however, and as was said at the inquest, the Kingsmills massacre took significant planning ahead of time. When we talk about these issues, it is vital that we do not seek to score political points about what happened in the past, but we do need to be specific and direct about the appalling actions of the IRA, other paramilitary organisations and, at times, the state. As other Members have done, I pay tribute to the dignity and courage of Alan Black, a man now aged 80 and not in the best of health, who has been a voice for decency and truth for almost half a century.”
“Minister, you said that you are left dealing with the consequences of the removal of the ring fence, but one of the consequences is not that the Executive have to remove money. It is really important to nail that myth. A ring fence being removed does not remove the money from those schools. That was a decision made by the Executive. Was it made by the Education Minister or was it made by you in conjunction with the Education Minister? It is really important that we be precise about that. Removing the ring fence does not cut the funding. That was a decision that the Executive made.”
“Minister, you said twice that you want to grow the tax base, but you also said that you do not want a fundamental review of the rating system. In simple terms, how should we grow the tax base and from where should we generate additional revenue?”
“Does the Member agree that it is really important that, in talking about this, no one should be in any doubt that he is right that Chris Heaton-Harris and the UK Government imposed a punishment Budget? We know that we have had more than a decade of austerity, but the decision on the cuts to integrated education was effectively one made by the Executive, particularly by the two Ministers about whom he has talked. Yes, the ring fence was removed, but that did not in any way impose a decision on any Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive to remove that money.”
“It is about spending money that will improve people's lives, so I would like to hear from the Finance Minister about when we will see a full Budget statement, even if it is for a single year, and when and how that will be joined up to the priorities in a Programme for Government. That is, I am afraid, the least that the people who elect us can expect, because they have been promised, via motion after motion here, that we are dealing with their priorities. <BR /> <BR />I am pleased that we are here. I am pleased that we are, retrospectively, approving theoretical headroom for Departments — in some cases, for money that has already been spent in a financial year that has already passed — but it is much more important that we get down to the work of setting a Budget and passing laws to improve people's lives.”
“Those are the key strategic policymaking tools that we have to change people's lives — I mean the lives of the constituents who send us here — and we do not yet know when we will get either from a new Executive. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the fact that we have seen significant positive imagery and a joined-up collective approach, and I mean that. I genuinely and sincerely mean it. It is really important, in a divided society and plural society with a set of political institutions that require parties to work together, that we have seen that, particularly from the First Minister and deputy First Minister. However, the next step is the most important, and it is about actually delivering for people.”
“Let's not rush everyone into something like a plan for people. We can, of course, put down motion after motion, which implies to the people of Northern Ireland that childcare, the crisis at Lough Neagh, the waiting list crisis, help for holiday hunger and help for school uniforms are all being dealt with. We can, of course, imply that, but let's not be in a hurry to deliver a Programme for Government or a costed plan to deal with those things." <BR /> <BR />I say that because the two key strategic tools that we have, as an Assembly, to deliver change for people are a Programme for Government, which sets out priorities, and Budget documents, which will be Budget statements that come ideally on a multi-year basis. We have not had either a multi-year Budget or a Programme for Government in close to a decade now.”
“It is not even clear when we will get a single-year Budget, and it is not clear how that will prioritise any of the pressing issues that Executive parties have brought before the Assembly over the past two months, nor do we know when we will get a Programme for Government. The Executive parties have been meeting for the past nearly two years now. Even amid the political dysfunction, they met to discuss a potential Programme for Government, including, presumably, all the priorities that have been outlined by their members in the Chamber. Yesterday, however, when the First Minister was asked when we would see a Programme for Government, she said to my colleague Colin McGrath, "Let's not be in a hurry. Let's not rush ourselves after five of the past seven years not having any politics here.”
“<BR /> <BR />I welcome the fact that the Minister has made several statements on financial allocations, but we do not yet have a full-year Budget. To be clear, that is in breach of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which requires that we get a draft Budget statement for consultation before the end of the financial year. We have not had that. Now, that would be fine if we were going to get a comprehensive, costed plan for public service recovery, which is what the Assembly agreed to on 6 February. However, as far as I can tell, we are not going to get that. <BR /> <BR />We are not going to get a multi-year Budget.”
“<BR /> <BR />What we are debating today is somewhat surreal, but it still has some kind of legal effect, unlike any of the motions that we have debated over the past two and a bit months. The public, who have been crying out for political institutions to work and to deliver for them and who have seen video after video of Ministers, including the First Minister, talking about motions that are being passed here, would be forgiven for thinking that those motions, whether relating to childcare, ending violence against women and girls, waiting lists or Lough Neagh, have some kind of legal effect, create some new legal obligation on public bodies or commit a penny of spending towards those issues. However, they do not. They do not, because we have not yet properly got down to delivery in this place.”
“As I said, the spring Supplementary Estimates do not set a Budget. They do not even set a Budget looking backwards, let alone looking forwards. They adjust the level of headroom that is open to Departments, and today's debate is largely technical. However, the motion is substantive. It has a kind of legal effect, unlike the now more than a dozen motions that we have debated in the Chamber since we returned, which pledged support for, among other things — I do not have the full list in front of me — a childcare strategy; the cost of school uniforms; a strategy on ending violence against women and girls; capital investment in our fishing industry; a rescue plan for Lough Neagh; and, yesterday, a strategic framework for a shared future. All those motions were submitted by Executive parties. The list could go on.”
“<BR /> <BR />Nevertheless, that is where we are, which is a consequence, in part, of our political dysfunction and the fact that we have not had political institutions for five of the past seven years. The fact that we have to do budgeting in this surreal, often backward looking, often hurried way is a product of our intense and repeated political dysfunction. It is a manifestation of our continued political failure, and it makes the point again, lest it need to be made, that we need to reform the way that our political institutions work so that they cannot simply be collapsed and so that Budget making cannot be thrown into chaos because the inability to set a Budget is, of course, one of the fundamental problems that is created when our institutions do not exist.”
“<BR /> <BR />I will now speak as leader of the Opposition. As an Opposition, we will not force today's motions on the Vote on Account and the spring Supplementary Estimates to a Division, but I do want to make some important points about the context that we face, two and a bit months into the restoration of these institutions, and the financial and budgeting consequences therein. The spring Supplementary Estimates that we are debating today, as has already been said, relate to a financial year that has already passed. It is quite an interesting philosophical question to debate what would happen if we chose not to authorise money that has already been spent. It is a somewhat surreal position to be in.”
“Members have been assured, however, that the Minister and her Executive colleagues anticipate bringing the Main Estimates and a Budget (No. 2) Bill prior to the summer recess. In relation to the 2024-25 Budget, Members will also be aware of the Budget envelope that the Treasury has awarded the Executive through the Minister's written ministerial statement of 26 March. <BR /> <BR />The Committee knows that the picture is extremely challenging, even bleak. Members will be working hard between now and the summer recess to apply the appropriate level of scrutiny to the 2024-25 Budget. Members are aware that this debate is a largely technical exercise, and the Committee has applied an appropriate degree of scrutiny on that basis. While the timing and timescales are not ideal, the Committee will support today's Supply resolution motions.”
“The SSEs document sets out the provision included in the spring Supplementary Estimates beyond the outcome of the Executive's 2023-24 final plan. The Committee noted a number of functions that the Departments are carrying out on the sole authority of the Budget Act 2024. Those are highlighted by the use of a black box in the spring Supplementary Estimates document, which I am sure everybody has read in detail. <BR /> <BR />Members will be aware that the Vote on Account allows Departments to continue to deliver public services into the early months of the 2024-25 financial year. That does not constitute setting a 2024-25 Budget. The Committee has noted the larger than normal Vote on Account, 65% of the 2023-24 Budget, which would be sufficient to last until after the summer recess if necessary.”
“However, the uncertainty over the total quantum of funding available and the need to wait for the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to confirm the detail of the financial package meant that it was only possible for Ministers to make a decision on 15 February on allocations to Departments to address overspends and provide funding for public-sector pay awards. <BR /> <BR />Since the Budget Act 2024, the Finance Minister announced the outcome of the Executive's "final plan" in her written ministerial statement on 15 February 2024, and Ministers have committed to constrain their Departments' expenditure, including pay awards, to the Budget allocation agreed by the Executive and not by the amount of headroom included in the spring Supplementary Estimates, if that is higher.”
“Those spring Supplementary Estimates are what the Supply resolution debate today constitutes, together with the 2024-25 Vote on Account. <BR /> <BR />Members should be aware of the review of the financial process, following the passage of the Financial Reporting (Departments and Public Bodies) Act 2022, which resulted in a number of changes to how financial information is presented in these Estimates and in all Estimates documents and the associated Budget Bills. Members will also be aware that, normally, there would have been a series of monitoring rounds over the 2023-24 financial year, resulting in a final plan and position being agreed in early January to which the SSEs would be written.”
“I will first speak as Chairperson of the Finance Committee and then I will make some remarks as leader of the Opposition. <BR /> <BR />The Finance Committee received a briefing from officials on the spring Supplementary Estimates and the Vote on Account at its meeting on 20 March. On behalf of members, I thank officials. It is worth reminding Members that the spring Supplementary Estimates and the Vote on Account relate to the 2023-24 Budget, as has just been said by the Minister. Usually the SSEs would be brought to the Assembly in February for approval, prior to the introduction of a Budget Bill. However, due to issues with Departments running out of money, the Finance Minister took the unusual step of bringing the Budget Bill 2024 to the Assembly in advance of the spring Supplementary Estimates being completed.”
“Did the First Minister know about that appointment beforehand, and does she support it?”
“Thank you, First Minister. On a separate but related issue, just before recess, in a written ministerial statement that was not delivered orally to the Assembly, the Minister of Education appointed the serving Justice Department permanent secretary to be chief executive of the Education Authority. He has confirmed to me in a written answer that there was no internal trawl. It appears that that appointment did not follow the updated guidance outlined in the renewable heat incentive inquiry recommendations.”
“Does the junior Minister agree that, notwithstanding all the good work and good relations that you mentioned, the Executive's decision not to put back the ring fence for integrated schools, effectively colluding with the UK Government to remove that funding from integrated schools, damages the good relations agenda?”
“<BR /> <BR />Finally, as I have only 10 seconds left, all of us who have a constitutional aspiration, whether that is Northern Ireland remaining in the UK or a new Ireland, need to be able to explain how our vision for the future will involve ending division and building a reconciled society, and that is not impossible. I commend the motion. I am pleased to support it, and I hope that we see real delivery in a Programme for Government.”
“It is a great project, and I do not in any way diminish its importance, but there are concerns about the timing of the announcement and the fact that Ministers appeared to know that the money was going to be cut from integrated schools but went along to dig ground at the Limavady shared education project. I say that because it is important, and the reason I made the point, and we will follow up on that, is that we need to be serious, specific and real about delivery when it comes to building a shared future and not simply indulge in photo ops.”
“I have answers to questions for written answer from both the Education Minister and the Finance Minister, who appear to say different things about when they were formally told that the shared and integrated education funding had been cut. What is clear is that it was known by mid-February, by both the Finance Department and the Education Department, that the funding was going to be cut, but the schools were not told until a week later. <BR /> <BR />In the interim, there was a visit by the First Minister and deputy First Minister and the Education Minister to a new shared education project in Limavady.”
“<BR /> <BR />I will touch briefly on something very disappointing in relation to building a shared future that has happened under the new dispensation, which is the cut to integrated education funding. The UK Government removed a ring fence, and that has affected 10 integrated and shared projects. In particular, 10 integrated schools that expected new schools to be built that will now not be built. It is important to say that although the UK Government removed the ring fence, that did not impose any duty on any Executive Minister to not spend the money. They could have put the ring fence back for those integrated schools, but they chose not to.”
“Sometimes, it is important not to minimise that and pretend that it does not exist. <BR /> <BR />Carál Ní Chuilín was right when she said that there is sometimes a tendency to pretend or imply that sectarianism is either something that them-uns do, but not us, or, indeed, that it is something that plagues or affects working-class communities and that others do not need to deal with it. That is simply not true. <BR /> <BR />Division is profound, deep and defining in this society, but what do we mean by a strategic framework for a shared future? We are happy to support the motion because it is important that this be a core priority for the new Executive, and I hope that agreement of the motion today means there will be specific commitments in the new Programme for Government around delivery.”
“When I returned to this place to become a politician four years ago, I had been away for nearly 20 years. I am part of the Good Friday Agreement generation. I am never entirely clear about when those generations begin or end, but I was 15 when the Good Friday Agreement was signed, and I am a middle-aged man now. I was away from the island for nearly 20 years. I returned regularly, but when I moved back here, I was struck by some of the individual, discrete bits of progress that had been made. I was proud to represent what is probably the most diverse, most shared constituency on this island — South Belfast. I was also struck by the many ways in which division continued to plague and define this society. We should be honest and direct about that, because sectarianism continues to be extraordinarily defining in this society.”
“Mr Nesbitt mentioned our former leader. We in the SDLP sometimes talk about our former leader Mr Hume, and we are sometimes accused of talking about him too much. As a moral, intellectual and political North Star, he left us with, among other things, a belief that difference and diversity must not and should not become a source of division. Of course, we know that, in this part of Ireland, difference has been a source of division, and, sadly, it continues to be so. Our core mission is to end all the divisions in this place and on the island of Ireland in all the different ways they manifest.”
“I and the SDLP will, of course, support today's motion, which I commend the Alliance Party for tabling. <BR /> <BR />I will make a few points about the motion and on the broad theme of reconciliation and moving our society away from division. The work of ending division is core to my party.”
“Whether that is internally inside political parties, in the news agenda or in the broader diplomatic scene, there will be always be something that comes along that can destabilise. Destabilisation should never come at the cost of basic governance here and the ability to continue devolution. That is all I want to say today, and I use the opportunity to reflect on that point.”
“They are of interest to the public, but the real, true public interest is in ensuring that we have the continuation of devolution here. I simply wanted to reflect on my concern that one of the first places that we have gone when something has developed in the news is one where we debate political stability and ask, "Will devolution sustain itself?". I hope that it does, and I am assured by some of the comments made by leading parties in the Executive, but the very fact that that is even speculated about concerns me. It makes the argument for fundamental reform of the institutions so that our institutions are not placed at risk by the news agenda, because there will always be something coming along.”
“That should not be one of the questions that is asked, not because people should not be allowed to talk about the political consequences of high-profile things that are in the news, but because devolved governance simply cannot be placed at risk by even very surprising and shocking things in the news agenda. We need to get to a place where the presence of governance here is taken as a given and where public servants know that their budgets will be set, that decisions will be made and that they can get on with delivering public services without the threat of political instability removing governance in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />I am not really getting into a specific discussion about any of those matters.”
“The political question that I want to reflect on is that, two months in, while we have seen a significant and welcome move towards a constructive and positive tone at the top of the Executive, many of us who believe in reform of the institutions have said all along that one of the reasons why we need reform of the institutions so that parties cannot bring the institutions down is that there is always a new moment of political instability in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />Some of the commentary in the past little while has been about what the events of the past 10 days that we all know about mean for Stormont and for political stability.”
“I will touch on a broader political question and simply reflect on the events of the past 10 days. I do not mean the specific, clearly noteworthy and, to many people, shocking news developments — those are now a matter for the legal system, and it is important that none of us gets into speculation as, unfortunately, some have done online — but it is important to reflect on the broader political questions.”
“Let that be the practical outworking of what we are talking about today.”
“That is for those outlets to account for, but they have not done so in the past and they might not do so now. <BR /> <BR />Suffice it to say that this is a hugely difficult time for the princess. We wish her well not just because of her public role but because she has a very young family. It will be extraordinarily difficult for her to deal with that, but she has our best wishes and, I am sure, those of everybody, as she makes, we hope, a full recovery. <BR /> <BR />I also endorse the comments just made about the message that the matter sends out about our cancer waiting times. The role that we have as legislators is to back up our words with practical legislative action and financial commitment. We should have clear delivery commitments over the next few years to address our unacceptable cancer waiting times in Northern Ireland.”
“I pass on my thoughts and those of my party to the princess after the cancer diagnosis that has been made public in the last few weeks. It is, obviously, extremely difficult to be in the public eye in such a high-profile role and face the kind of speculation and lurid reporting that has happened over the last number of months. It is particularly difficult for someone who is relatively young and has a very young family to deal with a cancer diagnosis, which is extraordinarily difficult in itself, and that has been compounded by extraordinary levels of media and public attention. There have been shocking levels of hypocrisy in some of the media coverage of the matter. Some of the people who pursued the story somewhat changed their tune when the difficult news of the diagnosis was made public.”
“— this is a point of order — that Minister will give clarity on whether they genuinely believe, unlike what is stated in the explanatory memorandum, that this represents a new regulatory border? Thank you.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would it be in order — I ask for your advice on this — given that the overwhelming majority of the Assembly voted to maintain our dual market access and benefits for small craft producers, that you write to the UK Minister of the Crown, who is named in the relevant legislation, to ask whether —”
“I appreciate the Member giving way. Speaking of people who voted to impose things, though he calls me, along with other parties, a protocol implementer, I never had the opportunity to vote in total and overall to implement the protocol, which is a good thing in the context of Brexit being a very bad thing. Has he spoken to his new colleagues and friends Mr Habib and Mr Tice who, unlike anybody in the Chamber — unionist, nationalist, Leave, Remain, other — did something that none of us ever did, which was to vote to make the protocol law? Is he aware that his new partners did that? Certainly, no one in this Chamber can make that claim. Has he raised that with them?”
“I thank Mr Clarke for that answer. On 3 February, we were nominated as the official Opposition, and I took up the role as leader of the Opposition. Although I am sure that it causes occasional irritation to colleagues, that is a role that I have been charged with doing. As yet, we have not received a penny of the assistance that the Assembly agreed in 2022 that we should be allocated. Of course, it is not money for us as individual MLAs; it is for basic research to do our jobs. Mr Clarke, can you confirm that the allocation will match what was agreed under the independent review in 2021? Can he confirm when it will be brought back to the Assembly to be agreed properly and formalised, and will it be backdated to 3 February?”
“A previous iteration of the protocol, now the Windsor framework, omitted guarantees of origin from the North being sold into the South and more widely onto the electricity market in Europe. Will the Minister explore with his officials getting that added to the protocol so that we can benefit from our access to the single European market?”
“Therefore, we will support the DUP applicability motion and will support our dual market access and our amazing local craft producers.”