Debate contribution: Public Appointments

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 22 June 2026.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

22 June 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Public Appointments

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5638443

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to make a winding-up speech on the motion, which, it is fair to say, has prompted considerable commentary from different sides of the House. Members have chosen to selectively oppose or, indeed, to selectively support different parts of the motion. First, let me be clear that, in being a robust and constructive Opposition, the SDLP has never shied away from being honest about the crisis of trust in our politics, its origins and, indeed, its symptoms. One of the symptoms is a sense among the public that this place — when it sits and functions — operates on the basis of a stitched-up deal between two parties for which being in office is about divvying up the spoils, managing the other side and ensuring that you get what you need for your own people rather than building the common good, prioritising the public's needs and delivering a clear set of priorities. That is a symptom of the dysfunction and failure at the heart of our political culture, so, to answer one of the first points in the debate, which was made by Deborah Erskine, we make absolutely no apology for bringing the debate to the Assembly today and robustly focusing the public's mind on the questions of cronyism in public appointments. To be clear, our motion does not do what some Members accused it of doing, which was to seek to prevent anybody from holding public office who has a past, such as somebody who was involved in our conflict, even if they have a conviction. Mr Gaston talked about the Political Appointments Bill that his party leader, Mr Allister, introduced back in 2021. I was in the Assembly at that point, and the purpose of that Bill was to prevent anybody who had a criminal conviction above a certain tariff from ever serving in public office. The reason why we did not support the Bill was in recognition of the fact that we are a post-conflict society and that a judgement had been made in 1998 that, in order to move on from that conflict and bind people in, people's past did not mean that they could not have a future.

That remains our position.

That also answers some of Mr Delargy's points. I apologise for missing nearly all of what he said, although I heard some of it on a remote screen. Business moved a bit more quickly than expected, and I was unable to get back to the Chamber. However, I am aware of what he said. He appeared to say that the motion was somehow about penalising republicans: that is nonsense. The motion does not mention republicans. It is not about any one particular group of people. As I have just confirmed, it is not about undermining the ability of people who have a past to participate in our present or future. The issue is that we have commonplace appointments of serving political representatives to public bodies. That risks creating a perception of cronyism. Colin McGrath mentioned appointments by Sinn Féin and DUP Ministers. Let me be explicit and give examples. The current chair of the Education Authority is Mervyn Storey, who is a serving DUP politician. He used to be a Member. I cast no aspersions about how Mervyn has conducted himself in that office. He is an able and very personable man, and he knows a fair bit about education. I acknowledge all that. However, he is a serving DUP politician; he is still elected and takes the DUP whip in, I believe, Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council. The public out there see that the chair of a public body with a vital role in regulating the education system is not a former politician, as Deborah Erskine seemed to imply, but a current politician. I presume that he, as a member of the Member's party, takes instruction on many issues of policy from —

Does he not? I am happy to give way to the Member for her to tell me that he is not a councillor any more because he has resigned in the past little while.

Sure.

We are clearly not doing that. We have raised an important point, but you, Mrs Erskine, have attempted to shut down debate by pretending that I said something that I did not. I did not say that. I said that a perception is created when serving political representatives are appointed to public bodies. It is not best practice. I do not think that you see it in lots of other roles. By the way, that is different from political representatives on those boards. Political parties are able to appoint political representatives to the board of the Education Authority and the Policing Board, for example. Colin McGrath, who proposed the motion, is a political member of the Policing Board. Political parties are able to nominate people for the specific purpose of providing —

I will in a second. — elected oversight and scrutiny. Nuala McAllister, who is in the Chamber, is another member of the Policing Board. Those are legitimate roles; political parties have appointed persons to scrutiny roles. However, in the case of the chair of the Education Authority, that is a serving politician who has been publicly appointed, which is distinct from being specifically a political appointment. By definition, those are not political appointments; they are public appointments. The same goes in a different regard for the deputy chair of InterTradeIreland, Mr Cathal Mallaghan, who is MP for Mid Ulster. I am sure that he is a fine public representative, and I know that he has lots of expertise in business matters, but he is still a serving Sinn Féin politician. I am saying nothing libellous or controversial; I am simply saying that those are public bodies to which we have appointed serving political party representatives as chairs and deputy chairs. That is not normal in most places. That is not to say that those people cannot have any role in those public bodies; we all scrutinise them in the course of our activities as political representatives. Indeed, in certain specific circumstances — I have mentioned the Policing Board and the Education Authority — political parties are entitled under statute, standing orders or whatever the specific provision is to appoint people to represent them on those boards. However, those are public appointments that have been given to political appointees. That will potentially create a public perception of cronyism, particularly when we did not have a Commissioner for Public Appointments for five years. Sinn Féin and DUP Members who look askance at me and ask how dare I say such things ought to wake up and ask the public what they think. Deborah Erskine mentioned people on the doors: she should ask people on the doors whether they think that Sinn Féin and the DUP carve things up among themselves. They will give her a fairly honest impression about what they think. What I have just said is not particularly controversial. To repeat — because this is a highly litigious society in which people constantly threaten things — I am not saying anything offensive or libellous about any individual; those are two decent public representatives. However, there is a legitimate question that I have raised. There are other examples. People have talked about Invest NI, but I draw a distinction between former politicians — people who were formerly elected — and current politicians. There is a legitimate distinction there. Robbie Butler spoke for the UUP, which is supporting the motion, as is the Alliance Party. I welcome the remarks that Stewart Dickson made. This is not about scoring points, but it is important to say in response to some of what was said that the Opposition and other parties that are not on the Executive come here to scrutinise the Executive, and we make no apology for that. That is often called "scoring political points": perhaps if we had more political point-scoring on practical policy and on improving governance here, we might make more progress, rather than simply having the two big Executive parties ping-ponging on whatever angry issue of the day there is. We are clear that we need to improve trust in our politics. There is a perception that has gotten abroad that we have a kind of Wild West, with a divvying up of appointments. The failure to appoint a Commissioner for Public Appointments for years and years contributed to that. We need to improve public trust, which is what our motion is about. That is why we think that a review would be healthy. We also are fearless about being honest about the need to improve public perceptions of this institution. Just look at the response when the pay recommendation for Members came back from another independent public body. That was part of a broader picture of lack of trust in our politics and in the institutions. We should do absolutely everything that we can to improve trust in the transparency and probity of the institutions, and anybody who thinks otherwise is, I am afraid, kidding themselves and is in denial about public perceptions of our politics and Stormont. At every opportunity, we will seek to challenge those perceptions in order to improve them, and we make no apology for doing that. To that end, I hope that other political parties will support the motion.

1,575 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:07 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