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“Clearly, however, the regulatory and enforcement regime for all those watercourses and marine environments is way out of date ecologically and, indeed, economically.”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 80 of 119.
“It does not, for example, change the common funding formula, and nor does it affect the means by which existing maintained or controlled schools access funds for new buildings, amalgamations or expansions. Clause 8 is now quite clear about that. <BR /> <BR />I do have to take issue with the broader point that the Bill elevates the integrated sector above others. The integrated sector represents only 7% of schools here. So, if we are serious about offering choice, when we talk about supremacy and other sectors being disadvantaged, we must accept that a Bill that seeks to give a leg up to one particular sector will, by definition — it is called the Integrated Education Bill — focus on that sector. To me, that seems obvious and axiomatic.”
“My colleague Daniel McCrossan has done work on that, often with detailed engagement — possibly, sometimes, too detailed from the perspective of members of the Education Committee. Detailed work has been done, as has been said. <BR /> <BR />As a strong supporter of integrated education, I have no difficulty saying that there were genuine concerns about the Bill as drafted and introduced. However, the vast majority of those concerns have been ironed out through amendment and extensive debate. I am afraid that, as was said earlier, a significant amount of the continued lobbying around the Bill has been based on incorrect information, or at least references to the Bill as introduced and not as amended.”
“I will come on to talk about some of the points that the Member raised about natural integration and her school's diversity in having pupils from different backgrounds. I will address those points respectfully. I will not cover everything that was in her intervention, because it was quite long, but I will come on to talk about most of the points that she raised. <BR /> <BR />In commending the Bill as amended, I want to address some of the concerns that have been expressed about it. Part of the challenge is to reassure parents and children in the controlled, maintained and Irish language sectors about the impacts that the Bill will have on them. First is the substance of the Bill. Many of the substantive concerns around its legal effects on other sectors have been addressed, and, I think, addressed pretty comprehensively through amendment.”
“I thank the Member for her intervention. There was quite a lot in it, so I will not be able to cover all of it. To answer her first point about how the Bill will move that forward and improve inclusion — with respect to the Bill sponsor, while it will not change the world, it is, from my perspective, a positive, modest step forward — if you believe that integrated education, and, specifically, integrated education with an integrated ethos that celebrates educating children together, diversity of education and people's understanding of the diversity of this place, a Bill that promotes and supports that sector is, by definition, with the amendments — many of which I will come on to talk about — a positive step forward.”
“I will in a moment. That process will be moved just a little further forward by the Bill. I am pleased to support it as amended. I will give way briefly.”
“Was it the desire of the Churches — not just the Catholic Church — to retain control over education in both parts of the newly partitioned island? <BR /> <BR />All those things can be true at the same time, but whether separate education is a cause or symptom of our deeper divide, we are all, as legislators and leaders, still faced with one stark question: are we happy that so many children are educated separately and relaxed about division as some kind of natural and inevitable phenomenon in this place? I cannot be relaxed about division. Whether separate education is a symptom or cause of that division, or both, we have to be willing to do all that we can to educate children together.”
“We certainly like to go back much further in our history.”
“In many ways, the division has softened over the past two or three decades, particularly since the Good Friday Agreement, which has been mentioned multiple times today. Many more people are crossing boundaries and learning new ways of seeing this place and themselves. <BR /> <BR />As someone who returned to live here just two years ago, after two decades away, I say that this remains a starkly, markedly and sometimes shockingly divided society in which community background determines a huge amount of how we live and how we see the world around us. Not only are we divided, but we are divided on why we are divided. Is it because of the partition of this island; is it the way in which the new jurisdiction that was created 100 years ago was governed after it was created; or do the roots of the division go back much further in our history?”
“I thank the Bill sponsor for bringing the Bill to the Assembly. I am pleased to speak at the Final Stage of the Integrated Education Bill and to support its final passage. Before I come to the detail of the Bill, I want to talk about some deeper historical context and backdrop, if you will permit me to do so. I will be brief, but it is important. <BR /> <BR />Often, when we talk about the Bill and about education here in general, we are, in fact, talking about deeper historical and communal issues. That has been obvious throughout the debate. We are a divided society on a divided island. That division remains the most fundamental and defining fact about this place. That division is why these institutions exist and why we have power-sharing.”
“I very much appreciate the Member's giving way. I want to go back to what he said about the single education system and link that to what he has just said about sectors being panicked and disliking the Bill. If he wants to create, as I think we all do in theory, a genuinely single education system that will inherently be an integrated education system that unites all the sectors, will he accept that, in order to do that, you will, by definition, have to put some noses out of joint in the controlled schools, in the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools and, indeed, in every other body that, by definition, has an interest, to some extent, in the continuation of the status quo? You cannot have a single education system while keeping happy absolutely every interest group. Does he accept that?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. She mentioned that only 7% of pupils would benefit from this because only 7% were in integrated schools. Her argument is that this will give supremacy to one sector. Will she accept that, if one sector represents only 7% of the school population or of schools, that is, by definition, unequal and that seeking to promote and grow that sector is hardly an unreasonable aim in that context?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He is right to be very concerned about and alert to issues around our scrutinising and using our control and supply powers properly in the Assembly. He is right to be concerned about our not doing that. Does he agree that we would be in a far worse position in relation to scrutiny and control should there be no Executive and Assembly after the election? In that case, these decisions would be made with basically no scrutiny, as happened between 2017 and 2020. Will he therefore encourage the DUP — over which he exerts, I would say, a degree of influence — and people in his party to enter into these institutions after the election?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect to the Member, we are talking about the Budget Bill, not the three-year Budget. I am slightly concerned that people watching the debate will think that there is a three-year Budget that will do all those things in health, when it will not —”
“<BR /> <BR />This last Budget moment that we have before the election in May is an opportunity for us to say what we, as MLAs, should be doing now and what those of us who hope to be returned after the election in May should be doing then. We should be in the Chamber delivering strategies, policies and law to improve people's lives and delivering Budgets that are matched to those priorities. If we are not willing to do that, we are not serious about serving people.”
“If the next Budget Bill for here is passed late on some Tuesday or Wednesday night at Westminster, the people on whose doorsteps we stood and told them that we were going to deliver for them will rightly ask what the point of us is. I say that directly and bluntly to one party in particular, which is threatening not to establish our institutions after the election. We can talk today about all the plans. I have heard DUP Members — it was Sinn Féin in 2017, but, at the minute, it is the DUP — talk about pressures on spending and about priorities and issues. You cannot talk out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand, you are talking about budgeting pressures, things that need to be prioritised and money that needs to be spent, but, on the other hand, you are threatening not to come back here and do your job.”
“Although it is welcome that spending will continue to be legal after today, that is all that we are doing. We are just ensuring that the spending has a legal basis. Let us not kid ourselves that we are delivering strategic spending that is aimed at people's priorities. We will go to the people and tell them what our plans are for the health service, the cost-of-living crisis, economic recovery and climate change. If we then fail to come back here after the election in May and do our job by producing a three-year Budget with meaningful targets and a Programme for Government with meaningful strategies to deliver on people's priorities, it will be totally shameful.”
“We had an opportunity through a three-year Budget to do something about that by prioritising the issue. Yes, I would have liked to see more detail in the Health Department's plans, but, fundamentally, we had an opportunity to do something about that crisis. Of course, the climate crisis sits above all and will dictate everything that we all do, probably for the rest of this century, long beyond the period for which most of us will be not just in the Chamber but on the planet. <BR /> <BR />As legislators, we should be dealing with all those big, critical issues, but we cannot, unless we are back here after the election, doing our job by making Budgets and plans and explaining to the people whom we serve what we are doing for them. <BR /> <BR />I wanted to make that point.”
“In a few weeks' time, we might be telling civil servants, "Guys, can you keep it going? Keep things ticking over. Just keep your hand on the tiller so that nothing goes too awry". How shameful that would be, for some of the reasons that have been mentioned, such as the cost-of-living crisis. Around 70% of households in Northern Ireland use home heating oil, the price of which has gone up by 75% in the past fortnight. We face a huge cost-of-living crisis that will affect not just people on the lowest incomes but people on middle incomes. <BR /> <BR />We face a huge crisis around regenerating and regrowing our economy after COVID. We do not know how all of that is going to pan out. Frankly, we do not yet have a proper economic recovery strategy. We face an appalling crisis with waiting lists, about which we talk and talk.”
“<BR /> <BR />Let us not kid ourselves today that this is some great moment for the Assembly, because, as of now, we do not know and cannot say when we will be back in the Assembly debating a Budget Bill. It is important to say that and to make that clear to the people outside the House, because some people will be led to believe that we are concluding the Budget process for the financial year. We are doing that in one sense — legally — but all we are doing is authorising the "float", if I may use the word that the Chair of the Finance Committee used, so that things can keep going.”
“I agree with my colleague. He is absolutely right: we had a golden opportunity to agree a three-year Budget. I did not agree with everything that was in the Finance Minister's multi-year Budget. I was planning on scrutinising it and trying to get him to agree to change it in certain ways. I did not agree with every prioritisation at all, but the fundamental principle of having a three-year Budget and having us agree on prioritisation, presenting a strategy to the people whom we serve and telling them that that is what they can judge us against is critical. We are not doing that. Today, we are simply legally authorising spending that has already happened and authorising spending so that public services can continue for the first few months of the financial year.”
“I will give way to my colleague in a second. <BR /> <BR />We should be debating a Budget (No. 2) Bill later this year, but, in all probability, if some people in the Chamber or some parties get their way, we will not be doing that.”
“It would be unconscionable if the debate today were to be the last moment in which we debated any budgeting for months upon months or years, but that is what could happen. <BR /> <BR />Today is the Final Stage of the Budget Bill, so, when we pass the legislation, we will have authorised the remainder of spending for this financial year and the first chunk of spending for the next financial year, but, as of now, most of us in the Chamber cannot say for definite when we will be back here to debate the next Budget Bill. We should be debating —.”
“<BR /> <BR />Today is the Final Stage of a Budget Bill that authorises spending, some of which has already happened in the financial year 2021-22, which comes to an end in a few weeks, and authorises the first 40-odd per cent of spending for the next financial year, 2022-23. It is a relatively technical but essential thing that we are doing today. In many ways, it is the most fundamental thing that legislatures do: they authorise spending. <BR /> <BR />Let us pause and reflect on doing our jobs, because certain people in the Chamber at the moment do not want us to do our jobs or to have a proper functioning Executive. For three years, we had no institutions. We did not have an Executive or Assembly in which to authorise spending.”
“Today is the Final Stage of the Budget Bill. As I always say when we debate Budget Bills, we often do not really know what we are talking about. I do not mean that mischievously; I mean that people stand up and talk about budget documents, things in their local area and quite discrete things. I made points yesterday about the need to be more strategic and focused on both prioritisation and the technical details of what is in front of us. <BR /> <BR />The Bill is not a budget document. It is not a single-year Budget, nor is it a multi-year Budget. We do not have that. The DUP has walked out, so we cannot have that — at least, not ahead of an election — and we do not know whether we will debate any Budget after the election.”
“I will try to be as brief as some of the other Members have been. I support the small, modest change to the price of entering data for EPCs. Clearly, for homebuyers, they are a useful means of finding out the energy efficiency of properties in domestic and non-domestic settings. We have no problem with the proposal.”
“I agree with a lot of what the Member has said, but, with regard to his characterisation of the Fiscal Council and his comments on how we are not to be trusted to mark our own homework, is it not a better way of looking at it, rather than looking as if we are patronising Stormont and MLAs who are not able to do their job — I pass no comment on that — to recognise that, in London, Dublin and, indeed, Edinburgh, they have independent fiscal advisory councils to scrutinise and give clarity to the public and the people whom they serve? It is not necessarily about second-guessing us as institutions; it is about giving robustness to how we do budgeting.”
“— because we need to have them in the Chamber.”
“— and how we prioritise. I am sure that the Finance Minister will be back after the election to have more of these debates —”
“Hopefully, the thing that will define this century and will define all our lives in politics and some of our lives in general is the transition to a new low-carbon economy and to adjusting the way that we live our lives to deal with that. The multi-year Budget should have embedded the low-carbon transition to net zero in its targets, and I hope that, post election and a new Executive, should certain parties be willing to come in and form one, we will have that. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the fact that we have had the debate today. The formation of the Fiscal Council and the Fiscal Commission is a good thing. I hope that we have some more hard conversations about how we raise revenue —”
“I accept that the three-year Budget was developed before the cost-of-living crisis became just quite as acute as it is now. <BR /> <BR />Thirdly, on our broader economic development strategy, we remain the least productive part of these islands. We have really acute economic challenges, but we simply do not have a joined-up strategy to deal with them. On that joined-up strategy, one of the particular things that is picked out by the Fiscal Council is the lack of a detailed investment strategy. In a sense, the document would have wasted the opportunity from the draft multi-year Budget by not having an investment strategy. <BR /> <BR />Lastly, I want to touch on climate change.”
“For us as MLAs not to be able to tell our constituents, "This is how they are going to get waiting lists down with the extra allocation that we have made", it lacks meaning. <BR /> <BR />It is the same when it comes to some of the other big strategic priorities that we face. We all talk about the cost-of-living crisis, and we will be talking about that on the doorsteps of our constituents and at hustings events over the next few months, not just because of what is happening in Ukraine and Russia, but that is adding to the pressures. Costs are becoming unsustainable especially for people on low incomes and, frankly, also for people on middle incomes. We need to understand the strategic interventions that lie behind that.”
“The Finance Minister has made many decisions. I have agreed with many of them in terms of prioritisations; others I have not. However, in how we debate and scrutinise this stuff, we need to understand how the prioritisation has worked. We have talked about the prioritisation of health. My party agrees that health needs to be prioritised, but, in order for us to test whether the three-year Budget is properly delivering on that prioritisation, we need to see a strategy from the Department of Health, and the Department of Finance needs to agree on that. It is not meaningful simply to say that we will prioritise health and for Health to say, "Great, we will gobble up all that money".”
“The Finance Minister and the Finance Department are not just there to make allocations, but I am afraid that our scrutiny of Budgets here reinforces the idea that they are and that it is simply about doling out allocations that come from London and there is no strategy or intervening process in that. There clearly is.”
“In the absence of a Programme for Government, the default strategy-making document is the Budget, whether that is the one-year Budgets that we have had over the past few years or the multi-year Budget that we hoped to have but will not now have for obvious political reasons. We are not talking about that three-year Budget, so I want to focus, in the few minutes that I have, on what the Fiscal Council said. <BR /> <BR />As I have said to the Minister before, I welcome the fact that he created the Fiscal Council and the Fiscal Commission. However, the Fiscal Council says that there is a lack of strategy in the document. It says that the three-year Budget is:”
“I am not singling out any party — all parties do it — but it goes to a fundamental problem with how we debate budgeting in this place, which is that it is not strategic. <BR /> <BR />If you read the excellent Fiscal Council document on the Northern Ireland draft Budget, you will see that it says many interesting things. It talks about winners and losers. It points out the lack of an investment strategy. It points out the pressures created by the loss of EU funding. However, the most important thing that it points to is the lack of a single, overarching strategy. It means that we are flying blind when we scrutinise this stuff. With respect to the Committee Chairs who have stood up today and listed the pressures, I am afraid that what we need to do when we scrutinise the Executive's Budget is to have a proper sense of what the strategy is.”
“I am delighted that we have the opportunity to debate the motion, particularly given that we will not really have the opportunity to debate a final draft Budget for 2022-25 before the end of the mandate. However, there is something wrong with the way in which we have debated this today, and I will be direct about it. Every time we debate a Budget Bill — I think that we have the Final Stage next week — we stand up, time after time, and people on various Committees say, "There is a pressure here. That is not being met. This is not being met.", and then Members from literally every party in the Assembly stand up and say, "You need to fund x community centre in my constituency, or x, y and z". It is the same with Committees and constituencies.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He is right: there was and remains broad agreement that, given the state of our health service and waiting lists, we have to have prioritisation around health. Does he feel that he, as Committee Chair, has had enough clarity from the Department about how it intends to use that prioritised money? Does he feel that he knows enough from the Department about how it is going to use its allocation, whether it is from this Budget or another that is signed off post-election, to get waiting lists down in 2022-25, and beyond, because, at the minute, from my perspective, there is a bit of opacity?”
“From our perspective, this is a sensible measure that would mean a sensible reform of defamation law. It does not abolish trials with jury; it simply slightly raises the threshold for trial with jury in this particular area of civil law. On the balance of evidence that we received, that is sensible. <BR /> <BR />The other amendments from the Bill sponsor are mostly technical. I have gone through most of them. The final amendment is around commencement. I know that he had to do some work on that, and the amendment seems sensible to us. <BR /> <BR />I have set out our intentions. I very much hope that the Bill survives intact, particularly with clause 1 and clause 11.”
“In many other areas of law, judges are trusted to make subtle judgements on what is in statute and in case law. This law would not preclude jury trial in any circumstances, but it would make it less automatic, which is sensible. <BR /> <BR />Once or twice, people made the link between our history in this jurisdiction of not having jury trials for criminal purposes. For very good reasons and because of the history of this place, there are understandable and substantial concerns and sensitivities around jury trials for criminal proceedings. However, it is important not to conflate that with civil proceedings. In many areas, it is routine for civil proceedings to happen without juries. In fact, this area of law is possibly slightly more exceptional in that jury trials are more routine.”
“<BR /> <BR />By the way, if the outcome that the Member talked about — the serious harm test and the provisions around jury trial for defamation — had prompted the end of the world, I presume that we would have seen it in England and Wales. However, we have not seen it yet. The average person is not a huge user of defamation law. This is about getting defamation law right. <BR /> <BR />I will go back to clause 11 on jury trials. Dr Scott was clear that this could shift the balance. It is only if we think that judges are unable to make careful decisions based on what we will hopefully set out in the new defamation law and in case law that we should reject that. If we think that judges are unable to try those cases, we are saying that they cannot make lots of other judgements.”
“If someone printed a lie about me, it would depend on what the lie was. In certain circumstances, yes, I would go to my solicitor. I am not saying that we do not need a defamation law. By definition, we do. It is important that legal recourse exists and that it is strong and clear. However, the clear evidence that I have taken from our consideration of the Bill is that, at the minute, it is often skewed towards litigants in particular circumstances. <BR /> <BR />If I were defamed, I would be annoyed about it. I have made this point multiple times in the Chamber: I am legislating for the whole of society, and part of the whole of society is a free press. We need a defamation law regime that works sensibly.”
“At the minute, we are far too balanced on the side of litigants who want to settle quickly and perhaps, even, directly or indirectly, have a chilling effect on the behaviour of a particular journalist or publisher. In evidence, we heard that clearly from at least one journalist. I have heard from journalists in this region that that happens on numerous occasions. It often happens at the behest — let us be blunt about it — of politicians in this place. We heard stark evidence about politicians from particular parties being canny and enthusiastic about using our defamation law not only to get cash occasionally but to get an outcome that they want in the reporting on them.”
“A lot of what has happened — we heard this repeatedly in evidence — is that Northern Ireland defamation law has promoted not only settlements out of court but settlements long before a writ is ever issued. <BR /> <BR />Mr Paul Tweed has been mentioned. He is an eminent, successful and authoritative libel lawyer. He might say that that is a perfectly proper way for these things to proceed, and, in some instances, that may well be the case. I do not think that we want a situation in which every engagement between a libel lawyer and a plaintiff media company proceeded to trial. <BR /> <BR />To me, however, the evidence is fairly clear.”
“A key thing that came out of the review, which was commissioned by the previous Finance Minister, Mr Ó Muilleoir, who understands the publishing world because he is a publisher, was Dr Scott's finding — it was emphasised by others — about what happened when cases automatically proceeded to jury trials. Assumptions, frankly, were made by lawyers who advised media companies that, whatever the merit of the case, juries were much more likely to be litigant-friendly and to award high costs. Let us be blunt about that. People might say, "Why not? Someone has been defamed", but, in many cases, it is not necessarily the actual finding of defamation but the volume of costs that might be awarded that has the chilling effect on the media company.”
“<BR /> <BR />We supported the Bill sponsor's intention in clause 5, but we understand and are sympathetic to his action in not, I understand — he may say more about it — moving it. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 5 is a technical amendment. Amendment No 6 has been explained to us by the Bill sponsor. It clarifies the jurisdictions in which actions can be taken, and it is sensible. <BR /> <BR />Clause 11 was the subject of some debate and controversy. That clause ends the relatively automatic right to jury trial in defamation cases. In our consideration of the Bill, we talked a lot about the Scott review.”
“<BR /> <BR />There is definitely a need for much more international action — it would not be a speech from me if I did not throw in a little line about Brexit — but, of course, it would be much preferable if we were able to do that at an EU level. Indeed, the digital single market, which is one of the big developments of the European Union in the past decade, is one of the reasons why we have all been able to enjoy — hopefully, we will continue to do so; there are no guarantees post Brexit — no roaming charges in the European Union. The digital single market has also allowed the European Union to develop its work on regulating online behaviour. The EU would be an obvious place for us to do that work, but we cannot now, unless we decide to do it at bilateral level.”
“I understand that the Bill sponsor will not now move the clause. I understand that; we would have had a hard time passing it, given all the other unknowns surrounding how clause 5 would operate. <BR /> <BR />The Bill sponsor had a particular concern, which I share. That is about potential defamatory content put up by, for the sake of argument, 'Belfast Live', the 'News Letter', the 'Belfast Telegraph' or whomever, without having the capacity to moderate that, and then being subject to a defamation action, giving it a reasonable defence and, possibly, giving the litigant the ability to identify the person. On the balance of evidence that we got, there are many unknown questions. An online safety Bill is proceeding through Westminster. It is flawed, but, hopefully, it will make some progress.”
“The Bill sponsor has tabled a number of technical amendments, which we support. <BR /> <BR />The Committee gave notice of its opposition to clause 5. Clause 5 has been challenging for all of us, because the Bill sponsor's intention was welcome and understandable, and my party's instinct was to support it. In the end, we abstained at Committee Stage on whether it should stand part, as we were waiting to hear more information. <BR /> <BR />I will go back to what the challenge is. We all know — I think that we would unanimously agree — that the online space has become a Wild West of speech that is not just horrible and hateful but defamatory, which sometimes affects local politicians in profound ways. The question was whether this clause and this Bill were the right means of addressing that.”
“We support clause 1. The balance of evidence that we got was strongly in favour of clause 1 as it stands. We were in the minority on the Committee when its verdict was to oppose the Question that the clause stand part, but we still support it and think that it is core to the Bill and to improving our defamation law.”
“This is nothing to do with me scrutinising this Bill, but a journalist on a local title told me that their reporting on a very important story was inhibited because of the potential for defamatory action. I will not talk about that particular case, although it is fair to say that I am not naming the potential litigant and I am not talking about the case in any detail, so I do not have to be that careful. Even based on our current situation, they should not have had a particularly strong case, but the truth is that, because of the way that the law is at the minute and the way that it operates, it has been very favourable towards litigants.”