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“Clearly, however, the regulatory and enforcement regime for all those watercourses and marine environments is way out of date ecologically and, indeed, economically.”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 72 of 119.
“If we cannot be serious and if the DUP playbook is to be simply to drag issues like this, which should be relatively uncontroversial, into stunt politics on the Floor of the Assembly every other week, we will have a problem, I am afraid. This is not what we should be doing after being away for two years. I am happy to debate and to use the democratic scrutiny mechanism that exists now — the applicability motion. I will never shy away from debate and will never say that people should not debate the issues, but I will come here and talk in substance about the potential benefits and send a clear message to people that our dual market access is here to stay and that it is a positive thing. I will do that on the basis of the detail, because the case that the DUP is trying to make today simply has not been made.”
“Why would we deny this to our craft producers? The idea that it is some horrible imposition of new EU law is simply not borne out by the evidence, and I honestly, honestly plead with my DUP colleagues and, indeed, Ulster Unionist colleagues not to simply fall into the trap of trying to appease Mr Allister and his new friends in Reform UK. Let us bear it in mind that his new allies in Reform UK, Mr Tice and Mr Habib, have done something that no one else in the Chamber can claim to have done: they voted for the protocol. <BR /> <BR />We should be about trying to maximise opportunities and benefits for our businesses, including the brilliant, small craft producers all over the island but specifically in Northern Ireland. I do not think that this will be transformational, but it could be one small positive benefit.”
“That was a bit of a speech. I am happy to give way for Members to make interventions that are specifically about the debate. I do not think that the DUP motion and motivations today are the right ones, but I am here to debate the substance because that is what is in the Order Paper. Those of us who believe in the EU single market and dual market access need to make the arguments and need to be specific about them, so I am taking on some of the wrong information and claims that have been made today. <BR /> <BR />Members will be relieved to hear that I will now come to a conclusion. This is a potential upside for our craft producers. They can participate in a GI scheme that can give them a leg-up in the largest single market in the world. The UK Government themselves say that there is a very limited downside.”
“In the interests of having a fulsome debate, I am happy to give way to Ms Eastwood, if she wants to say something.”
“The concerns are very minimal and they are”
“I will give way to Mr Buckley, and then I will give way to Sorcha Eastwood.”
“— import it into Northern Ireland were we not in this position. <BR /> <BR />The Member for Lagan Valley puts her head in her hands. It is important that we debate the detail of this stuff, and all that I am doing is debating the detail.”
“The Member's point would be valid if the UK Government thought that the introduction of the EU scheme in Northern Ireland would have a bad impact on east-west trade, but they do not. They wrote an explanatory memorandum, and they do not say, "This will disrupt the internal UK market". If they had stated that, the debate might be different, and people like me would have to answer that point, but they did not. As I said, Del Boy and Rodney, making their knock-off Chantilly lace and Murano glass, would be able to —”
“Then, when we are back on Tuesday after the bank holiday, we debate this motion, which, if defeated, would undermine confidence in our participation in the single market, to no real benefit. When there is no real, discernible or proven downside to the internal UK market —.”
“It will not create tens of thousands of jobs, and it will not be a major boost to GDP, but it could be important to some of our generations-old craft producers, who will get a leg-up in the EU market, just as, as I mentioned, producers of Comber spuds, Lough Neagh eels and, indeed, Bushmills and other Irish whiskies produced in the North have benefited from that marketing potential. It is not transformational, nor is it the end of the world, but it is important. To reiterate what other Members have said, the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and other Ministers have, in the past week in Washington DC, been selling Northern Ireland and its dual market access.”
“If we were part of the scheme, we would not be able to have knock-off Murano glass, which, for those who are not aware, is a specially designed type of Venetian glass, or Chantilly lace in the shops of Northern Ireland. Is that the terrible east-west trade disruption about which the DUP is so worried? I think not. There is a small but significant potential upside for our craft producers. <BR /> <BR />We know, as Sorcha Eastwood said, that part of our all-island tourism offer is craft production, not just of food but of textiles, ceramics, silverware: the stuff that people, when they holiday on the island of Ireland, whether they travel North or South, want to take back with them. I am talking about Irish linen, woollens and those kinds of things.”
“I do not see the horrible downside for what is called the "internal UK market" — east-west trade — and Mr Buckley did not explain to me what the potential downside is for the internal UK market, although I am sure that other Members who oppose the applicability motion will do so. <BR /> <BR />The only new Irish Sea border that I can foresee — it is detailed in the explanatory memorandum — would be if some theoretical Del Boy were to set up a warehouse in the English Midlands and say, "I am going to produce knock-off Murano glass or Chantilly lace", presuming that those products get EU-protected status under the scheme. I am not an expert on either product, but that could happen, and he could say, "I want to market them in Northern Ireland".”
“The UK Government themselves — this UK Government — accept that, if the scheme were to apply in Northern Ireland, its effect would be limited. It is not the end of the world, one way or the other. It is a good thing for our craft producers — I will come on to talk about that — to have the potential advantage of recognition and a leg-up in the European single market of half a billion consumers and possibly beyond that market. That is a small but significant uplift. Why would we deny our consumers that, when the downside is apparently so limited that even this UK Government cannot bring themselves to complain about it and put that down in black and white?”
“On cost implications, the explanatory memorandum states:”
“The Member for Upper Bann made great play of the potential regulatory border as one of the core reasons that the DUP will vote against its own applicability motion. He talked about the explanatory memorandum from the UK Government. What does that state about the effect on trade across the Irish Sea? It states, in black and white:”
“I do not know, but, theoretically, there could be a future non-agriculture GI to protect the status of Irish linen in order to give it that premium mark of quality. We are talking about what happens in the future, so we have to legislate for potential future outcomes. If we are outside the scheme, that will limit the ability of Northern Ireland linen producers in the Irish Linen Guild (ILG) to be part of it. I am not making an assumption that that will happen, but it very much could happen, because there is precedent for all-island GIs for beef and whiskey. Those are some of the specifics.”
“For example, in Northern Ireland, particularly in the constituencies of Upper Bann and Lagan Valley, we produce lots of Irish linen.”
“Certainly, Mr Paisley, the MP for North Antrim, has always been very clear that Bushmills, the oldest whiskey distillery in the world, should hold on to that special recognition. As far as I am aware, that has been his position. I am happy to be corrected if that is wrong. <BR /> <BR />The other one, which was agreed only recently after strong lobbying from the Ulster Farmers' Union, is all-island grass-fed beef. That was done on a cross-border basis, including with the support of the Dublin Agriculture Minister, Charlie McConalogue. There we have examples of all-island GIs. Why is that important for the non-agricultural GIs? It is because we do not know what could happen in the future. Theoretically, there could be all-island non-agricultural GIs.”
“By definition, they are different, of course. We are debating non-agricultural GIs; that is the entire purpose of the debate. I was acknowledging the precedent that came from agricultural GIs. However, there is an important precedent, which I will to link to the non-agricultural GIs, around all-island geographic indications. <BR /> <BR />People, including Mr Beattie, have said that we do not know what could happen in the future or the long-term effects. There are two all-island agricultural GIs. I am sure everyone in the Chamber knows what they are. One is Irish whiskey. I do not know whether, and would not presume that, Mr Allister partakes, but I am sure that the people who produce Bushmills whiskey would be very upset if Mr Allister were to say that Bushmills whiskey should lose its Irish whiskey designation.”
“They are, in a sense, a device that allow products with a specific geographic origin to better market and sell themselves in given markets, whether that is in the EU single market of half a billion people, which is the world's largest single market, or around the world via trade deals. They have traditionally and largely been used for agricultural products: food and drink. We, in Northern Ireland and, indeed, on the island of Ireland, being such talented producers of amazing food and drink, have benefited from them. We have several GIs that are still operational post-Brexit. Many of us thought that it was important to retain them. For example, Comber spuds, Lough Neagh eels and Armagh Bramley apples, which are produced in the Ulster Unionist Party leader and Mr Buckley's constituency.”
“I will be robust and specific. I will not simply make generic points about being pro-EU. I will engage in the specifics of what this scheme could mean for our local craft producers. I hope that those who brought the motion will consider seriously the upsides and downsides of the motion and not simply ideological points. I clearly have a strong anti-Brexit view, and my party is clearly strongly pro-European, but there are substantive and rigorous reasons why we should support this applicability motion. I am delighted to support this DUP motion, even though the DUP itself will not support it. <BR /> <BR />First of all, what are GIs? GIs are geographic indications.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was unaware, happily listening to the debate. <BR /> <BR />In answer to Mr Beattie's point, I will scrutinise a little bit of what is in the legislation, though we have had very little time to look at the detail. The detail is not mysterious or unknown to us. I will cover a little bit of the detail. We have not had very much of that in the debate so far. I am not an expert in the area, but I know a bit about it and I have done some research. I want to unpack, insofar as I can, some of the mistakes and claims that have been made. <BR /> <BR />Before I come on to the precise legislative and scrutiny procedures, let me say up front that, under the new rules, whether or not I agree with all the new rules, the DUP is entitled to bring this applicability motion. Having brought it, I am happy to debate it.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. This should not have come at such short notice, but there is a lot of information out there. I know that we were all busy during the St Patrick's Day weekend, but there is a lot of information out there, and this is not a huge deal, one way or the other; it is of medium-positive benefit to our producers. There is lots of stuff about it out there; whether it is the UK Government's explanatory memorandum or the EU Parliament analysis paper, the information is there. <BR /> <BR />We are deciding whether to say, in the Chamber, that this could be the end of the world and we are going to put a block to it. That seems to be the position that those two parties are taking. In my view, however, it is not correct that there is no information.”
“I appreciate the Member for being open to interventions and giving way. He mentioned Donegal tweed as an example and the UK Government being responsible for taking it off the shelves if it was not compliant. Would not that only be the case if it was non-compliant Donegal tweed? If it was Donegal tweed produced in a knock-off warehouse somewhere in the Midlands of England and imported, it might be removed from the shelves. I presume that most of us in the Chamber care about the economic well-being of small producers in Donegal. It would be taken off the shelves only if it was not genuine Donegal tweed, and that is the whole point.”
“I am happy to debate the issue at length today with the Member. Since we are talking about ironies, does he think that it is ironic that the DUP has tabled an applicability motion that it is going to vote against?”
“<BR /> <BR />Many of those people have faced financial ruin and extreme emotional distress. Some are dealing with profound illness — in some cases, they are battling cancer. They have had to deal with this unacceptable burden over the past number of years. There is a legislative remedy that we can bring forward here. We have debated a lot of private Member's motions over the past month and a bit. Here is legislation that we can pass to improve the lives of our citizens and ensure that people are not placed in that situation in future. I therefore hope that the Communities Minister can take action, and take it rapidly, and that we can all agree to pass the legislation.”
“That is a completely common-sense, essential and urgent legislative change that we, on a cross-party basis, can agree here. <BR /> <BR />I am pleased that the Minister for Communities moved at least to indicate publicly last week that his Department would take ownership. There was a little bit of bureaucratic pass the parcel for the owners over the past year or two, with different Departments, in the absence of Ministers, saying that they were responsible but not wanting to take responsibility for delivering the legislation. Now, I hope that the Communities Minister is able to confirm urgently that he can and is willing to bring that legislation forward. The Victoria Square owners, in particular, need it to help them. They need it to be retrospective enough that their case can be heard again.”
“As people will be aware, last week, that reached a very difficult moment for them when, because what is called the limitation order for Northern Ireland is for only six years, their case was struck out, despite the judge being clear about the unjustness of the situation that they were placed in. <BR /> <BR />There is a clear legislative answer to the problem of the injustice faced by the Victoria Square owners, which is to bring our legislation in Northern Ireland into line with that of England and Wales. Legislation there was updated in the wake of the Grenfell disaster to ensure that people in defective properties have 30 years rather than six years in order to seek legal recourse and to make claims to see them whole.”
“— but some pleasant surprises await us in the Assembly. <BR /> <BR />I want to speak about the important matter of my constituents who, around a decade ago, invested in apartments at Victoria Square in Belfast city centre, which is located at the northern edge of the South Belfast constituency. They purchased in good faith from what they believed to be reputable developers. Since then, many of them have had to vacate the property because it is not fit for human habitation and has serious structural defects. <BR /> <BR />In the past number of years, in many cases, they have had to continue to pay not only mortgages on those properties but rates and service charges. That is completely inappropriate. They have been seeking legal recourse from the developers.”
“First, I should say that, when I came into the Chamber today, I did not expect to hear Mr Allister talk about the subject of budgie smugglers —”
“— my party's support for his motion today?”
“I am intrigued. The Member is clearly dying to play politics with the issue rather than get agreement on a motion that we are actually supporting today. It is slightly strange that I am having a debate with someone whose motion and policy intent I support. Will he also confirm that it was clear, unlike statements that his party colleagues made, that the reallocated money was always in the £3·3 billion? That is a statement that some of his party colleagues have tried to deny. They have tried to say that this was never part of the financial package, so will he confirm —”
“The Member is pointing out the fact that I was at Hillsborough Castle before Christmas. The fact that I went in front of TV cameras and did interviews would rather indicate that that was not a big secret. In fact, I issued a press release saying that we were not going to go back into Hillsborough Castle. Factually, when did he and his party colleagues first learn that the £150 million for shared and integrated projects was going to be cut? It appears that Alliance MLAs submitted questions for written answer in advance of the announcement being made formally, so I am interested to know exactly when he and his party colleagues were aware that those cuts were happening.”
“Let us restore that money. Let us make that a priority for the Executive.”
“I welcome the fact that the Minister has, at least, given a commitment that several of those projects will be priority projects in the capital programme. I welcome that the Minister has engaged on that. As I said, I ask that he and others around the Executive table commit to reinstating the ring fence properly. <BR /> <BR />I strongly support the sector, as do others — the shared and integrated sectors — but we have to put our money where our mouth is. We have to be willing to prioritise, because politics and government — we are not in government, of course; that is why I am making these points — are, ultimately, about choices. We can all debate our core principles and aspirations, but we need to be able to put our money where our mouth is.”
“If we are serious about this, there should be an Executive position that that £150 million should be restored. <BR /> <BR />Briefly on Mr Butler's point, he is right to point out the potential of shared education projects too. It is also important to say, notwithstanding the many commendable things in his amendment, that the specific projects affected are the 10 integrated schools. That is not to demean in any way the shared education projects that he mentioned. <BR /> <BR />My strong view is that the commitment that I would like to hear from the Minister, if he is able to make it, is that he will use his good offices to encourage the Finance Minister and others round the Executive table to agree that that ring fence should be restored. I hope that we can get agreement on that today. I hope also that we can see prioritisation.”
“The answer to that question is that we were not party to those discussions, because we left the room at that point. We left because we were not going to be in the Executive. <BR /> <BR />It is one thing to say that money will be re-profiled; it is another to ask what that money is and who will be affected. I do not want to spend all my time waxing on about that; what I want now is to see all the Executive parties — all parties here, including mine as the Opposition — agree that that ring fence should be restored. We can all talk about our first-principles views about integrated and shared education. Most of us, I hope, support it. However, let us be clear that the upshot of all this is not about that; it is about the ring-fenced £150 million that was promised and then taken away.”
“I do not have time, I am afraid. I would normally take an intervention. I will take a very brief one from the Education Committee Chair.”
“I do not want to labour the point too much, but contradictory and inconsistent claims have been made about what was and was not included in the £3·3 billion. The UK Government, and, indeed, the Independent Fiscal Commission, from which we took evidence in the Finance Committee last week, have been absolutely clear that that reallocated —.”
“Indeed, when the money was first announced nearly a decade ago, I believe that Theresa Villiers — do you remember her? — said lots of warm things about integrated education. Successive Ministers and Westminster politicians of different stripes have talked about their support. To then withdraw that money as part of a financial package is perhaps to be expected from this particular Tory Government, but it is profoundly wrong and objectionable. They should be held to account. I hope that those in the NIO and Treasury who have made clear in the past that they support integrated and shared education will feel some shame while watching the debate. <BR /> <BR />There are also questions today for Executive parties, which have agreed in part, it seems, the financial package without nailing down the details.”
“I am, clearly, a strong supporter of the integrated sector and of shared education, but whatever your views are on those sectors, there is a fundamental fairness principle. I welcome the motion today. I also welcome Barry Corrigan of Millennium primary and Neville Watson of Forge primary, who are here watching the debate today. I am sure that other integrated education leaders are watching as well. <BR /> <BR />I want to touch a little bit on the detail of some of the funding. As I said, we have talked a lot about the first principles of different sectors. There is a question for the UK Government, first of all. The UK Government and their Ministers, including successive Prime Ministers and Secretaries of State, have made much and said many warm words about their support for integrated and shared education.”
“That is frustrating and unfortunate, because the motion is about a fundamental principle of natural justice. If schools, school leaders and communities are promised money to build new schools and are told to go through the planning process to tender contracts, and they are then to tell their pupils and school communities, "We're going to have a new school in a number of years", or, "By x date, we will have a new school", there is a basic point of natural justice. That money was ring-fenced, and, for nearly a decade, it was clear that not just the expectation but the planning assumption, which has legal and financial consequences, was that those schools would be built. To then withdraw that money is profoundly objectionable. It is wrong.”
“Before I begin in earnest, I will declare an interest. I am a parent of a child who attends Forge Integrated Primary School, which is one of the affected schools. For nearly a decade now, it has been promised funding to build a new school at the old Knockbreda High School site, but it has now had that funding withdrawn. However, like Millennium Integrated Primary School, which is another school in my constituency, the question of proceeding with its build is as much an issue of natural justice as it is of belief in the integrated sector. I am a strong believer in integrated education and a proud parent of a child who is at an integrated school. However, there is a basic point. As sometimes happens in the Chamber, we have entered into a first-principles debate about different sectors.”
“I commend the Minister for coming to the Chamber even though she is feeling slightly under the weather. I hope that, the next time we debate anything fiscal, we have a little more detail on what the money is actually going to be used for.”
“I take the Member's point and totally agree with it; it is always useful to have a debate in which we indicate our direction of travel and our aspirations. This afternoon, I will strongly agree with the Alliance Party's motion on integrated education, but my ask in that debate is that it is followed up by the Executive, with a solid plan to put back the ring-fencing of moneys for shared and integrated education that has been taken away, so that we follow that motion with practical action. <BR /> <BR />I have drifted away somewhat from the regional rates order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, and I am sure that you are about to drag me back to it. I will simply say that we will not be endorsing today's regional rates order. It will not be for us to say whether it will go to a Division.”
“The Member made her point. I did not say, at any point, that no party should ever table a motion; we will be tabling lots of motions to be debated in the House. However, through the Chair, I remind the Member that her party is in the Executive; we are the Opposition. Parties that are in the Executive should have the honesty to tell the public what they are doing with the power that they have in the Executive and how they will use that power to change people's lives. <BR /> <BR />I totally agree that we can debate motions — we are all politicians and all enjoy debating things — but the test of any Government is what they do with the law and their spending power to change people's lives. That is a very reasonable question that we will be asking as the Opposition.”
“I will, in one second. The first is through passing legislation that actually changes people's lives, creates legal rights and creates burdens on public authorities. The second is by assigning money. We have not properly done either of those things yet, so we need to be careful about the message that we give to the public. I will give way to Nuala McAllister.”
“The Member makes a very strong point. There are two key ways in which we can deliver positive public services.”
“<BR /> <BR />Now, there are justifications that Ministers can give for that, but we should be honest with people that that is what we are doing, and we are not being honest yet. If Ministers feel that they have no choice, that is one thing, but they should at least be honest with people about when there is actually going to be a plan to rescue our public services and deliver on all the promises that have been made in the Chamber over the past month. That is not too much to ask, and that is what we, as a constructive Opposition, will continue to ask for in the days and weeks ahead.”
“I want to deal with that, too, after a decade and a half of us falling behind on basic worker and employee rights. I am glad that we are debating a whole range of other things, including the burden of childcare that faces working families who get minimal support. I am glad that we are dealing with all of that, but, at a certain point, we will have to be honest with people about how we are planning to deal with all those things. All we have done is express aspiration. The two substantive pieces of legislation that we will have passed are, one, a Budget Bill that solidifies the cuts that were imposed by a Tory Government last year and, two, a regional rates order that will increase ordinary families' taxation.”