Debate contribution: Illegal Immigration: Impact in Northern Ireland

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 20 May 2025.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

20 May 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Illegal Immigration: Impact in Northern Ireland

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4964225

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I beg to move the following amendment:

May I double-check that I have 10 minutes to move the amendment?

Thank you very much. There is not, and should not be, any prohibition on talking about issues that affect our constituents. Immigration is, of course, one of those issues. The operation of a humane and competent immigration regime that supports sustainable economic development and the delivery of public services, and which upholds human rights, is one of the major policy challenges of this century. That is the case whether migration is regular — through conventional processes — or irregular and involving a claim of asylum. The challenges only get more acute as other challenges compound one another: conflict and war in other parts of the world — most recently in Ukraine, Syria and, of course, Gaza — forcing human beings to flee conflict; an aging population placing greater dependence on healthcare services; labour demand that struggles to be met locally; and, increasingly, climate change making parts of the world less liveable or, as we will probably see in the future, entirely uninhabitable, creating new waves of forced migration. Those are only some of the challenges that are forcing all kinds of movements of people now, and will do in the decades to come. There is simply no way to close ourselves off and wish away those issues, and trying to close ourselves off is not only impractical but immoral. In approaching these questions, our approach should be focused on two core principles: common humanity and practicality. The DUP motion does not deal with either of those things. It is part of a political strategy to play the same populist right-wing tunes of Farage and Reform in the hope of stymieing the even more right-wing TUV in the polls. Let me counter in advance the accusation that I am not aware of public sentiment on these issues or, as is a common right-wing populist accusation — indeed, one levelled already by Mr Buckley in the debate— that I am somehow out of touch by opposing or amending the DUP motion. My office is in the most diverse part of Northern Ireland — probably the most diverse part of this island. It has the highest density of asylum seeker accommodation in this region, including very high numbers of HMOs literally on the street that my constituency office is on. My team knows and deals with the challenges that are created, including for asylum seekers who are fleeing conflict as they try to access services and ultimately make a life for themselves here. If the DUP motion were serious about that issue, it would not simply focus on one symptom: the density of HMO accommodation — I note that Mr Buckley barely talked about HMO accommodation when proposing the motion — it would suggest practical leadership via the Executive through the publication of a refugee integration strategy. Its Assembly leader — the deputy First Minister — has joint responsibility for that, and the Executive Office has been sitting on it for four years. However, in one sense, all that is irrelevant, because the DUP is not interested in practical strategies to integrate refugees and ensure that migrants are given the best possible chance to contribute to this society; it wants to play the same populist games as right-wingers all over Europe. It wants to tell working-class communities that feel disempowered by declining public services and a lack of economic opportunity that they should be angry not at the DUP but at migrants — others — many of whom have arrived here fleeing persecution. Of course, parts of unionism have been playing that game, or versions of that game, since time immemorial. Rather than empower working-class communities with strong public services and economic opportunity, it is easier to tell them that they are struggling because some other community, whether it is local or is made up of people who arrived here from elsewhere, is winning at their expense. It was the same last summer when we saw shameful displays of race hate in this city. The reaction to brazen displays of racism and violence on the streets of Belfast, especially in my constituency, including the area around my constituency office, was to say, "There are legitimate concerns to be addressed". To be clear, no legitimate concern can ever be addressed through wanton violence. I will look at the concerns that are expressed in the motion so that I am not accused of dismissing them. First of all, on the cost of asylum seekers, let us be clear: those costs are neither borne by the Executive nor directly related to policy choices here. My party and I are not enthused about the level of profits that Mears earns from its management of asylum seeker contracts. If there are legitimate questions about HMOs, they should be dealt with. Mr Buckley could have dealt with them during his speech, but he barely touched on them. It has been a consistent decision of the Home Office to prevent asylum seekers from working, thereby preventing their moving on to contribute economically to society here. It is also the case that, as I said, the refugee integration strategy, which was published for consultation in 2021, has been sitting on a shelf, unpublished by the First Minister and deputy First Minister and the Executive Office, for four years. The motion does not mention the refugee integration strategy. Nor does it mention any of the other policies that would help working-class communities, including the ones that I represent and the ones that he and others in the DUP represent but have failed for so long. The DUP is very keen on blaming others for problems that it does not want to solve. If it were really serious about giving opportunity to working-class kids, it would not be so keen on forcing them through the transfer test. If it were really so keen on improving public services for them, it would not have collapsed political institutions here multiple times, forcing public services into an even worse state than they were already in. If it were serious about the neglect of working-class areas and high streets, it would not have allowed the high street task force to be abandoned or been so blasé about economic improvement in those areas. These are important issues. It is important that working-class people and all communities feel that they can talk about issues, including migration. There should not be any prohibition on that, and I do not think that there is. However, let me be clear: what we see today from the DUP is part of a populist right-wing game to stymie the TUV and promote the careers of young right-wingers in the Democratic Unionist Party. When I was a child, my MP was a man named Enoch Powell. I did not know it at the time, but he was my MP. He was a man who was so right-wing that even the Tories got him out of the Commons. The Ulster Unionist Party imported him — he was a migrant, in a sense — to Northern Ireland to represent South Down. One of the proudest achievements of my party was, via an honest, tolerant public representative named Eddie McGrady, getting Enoch Powell out of the politics of Northern Ireland. In the Chamber, we have our own pocket Powell from Portadown in Mr Buckley.

I will not give way. Your colleague did not give way to me. Mr Buckley is a pocket Powell who is determined to drag us back to divisive identity politics. I am afraid that it says a lot about the state of unionist politics when the best that the DUP can offer to working-class communities, and, indeed, all people in Northern Ireland, who, we are told, are supposed to be sold on the benefits of the UK, is that kind of miserable, divisive, populist, right-wing nonsense. It has to be said, however, that it is not just the DUP. Language has become darker and more concerning in other parts of these islands. Mr Buckley quoted the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, who talked about "an island of strangers". Keir Starmer said "island of strangers", but I do not live on his island, and I do not want to live on an island of strangers. I want to live on an island that is cognisant of its past, which is a past in which human beings, through economic necessity and conflict, were forced to flee. They were forced to leave and find opportunities and safety elsewhere. I want to live on an island where people are not just tolerant of but deeply connected to the fate of people who come to our shores. We do not live on an island of strangers. We saw that in the past week or two. In Buncrana, Emmanuel Familola, who was 16 and originally from Nigeria, and Matt Sibanda, who was 18 and originally from Zimbabwe, died in tragic circumstances in Lough Swilly. At one of their funerals, Father Bradley said that their passing had a:

"profound impact on this community, not only by their death but by the way they lived"

their lives. Those two young men, who were born in Africa but made their lives in Ireland, were given a guard of honour by Scoil Mhuire and the community in Buncrana. That is the island on which I want to live. That is the future that I want to build for the rich, diverse communities that live on this island, rather than have the pocket Powell nonsense that we have heard today or the Farage-driven future that the UK Government, other parties across the water and, I am afraid, the DUP and TUV wish to subject us to. That is a different future. By all means, we can discuss issues of public service provision, but that is not what today is about. In opposing the motion, I submit our amendment, which I hope that the Assembly can pass.

1,669 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:32 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification