Member's statement: Responsibility to Govern
Member's statement by Mr Matthew O'Toole on .
- MLA
- Mr Matthew O'Toole
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 29 September 2026
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Responsibility to Govern
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5761229
Read the official Assembly record
Text
We are at a moment of acute political — possibly even societal — crisis, given what has become a stand-off. My party and I have been clear that the people of Garvaghy Road did not want that deep, dark past — that wound — reopened after decades. It is clear that some people want to use that dispute to provoke division, dysfunction and polarisation in our society, and we cannot let that happen. Therefore, while I want a resolution to the issue at Garvaghy Road that upholds the rights of the residents, I also have to be clear about the unacceptability of walking away from the responsibility to govern this place. This place is complicated and difficult to govern. I accept that we have to make trade-offs and compromises to govern here. That is distinct from the question of the rights of the people on that road. This is about how we govern every day. We are nearly six months into the financial year and do not have a Budget. Public-sector workers have no idea whether there will be a pay settlement this year. We heard the previous Member talk about Daisy Hill: people who are planning health services have no idea what their budget is for workforce and planning. How do we expect to recover public services and give people hope not just in politics but in life here? I talked yesterday about the fleadh and how it gave us a sense of hope that we could achieve positive things together, and we can. Huge challenges have been created by Drumcree — I have been clear about who, I think, is responsible for trying to reopen that wound; Mr Sheehan is not far wrong when he talks about who is leading unionism — but nobody in the Chamber should be thinking — some are — about collapsing government, because that would lead to a darker future. I acknowledge that Mr Burrows has said that that would not be a constructive way forward and that other parties do not want to go down that road, but we need to be clear about the need to take responsibility and govern this place, even in dark moments. My party and I have stood with the residents of Garvaghy Road and will continue to seek a positive resolution. We will also seek to provide governance and leadership to the people of this society and to move us forward together. That is why we need to reform our political institutions to make it much harder to collapse government. It simply cannot be acceptable that we have a situation where the most regular topic of conversation is when government here will collapse.
447 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.30 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.45).
- Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.21 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.10 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.26 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.22 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.25 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.46 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.30 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.21 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.02 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.45 |
| Adopts it | 0.32 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.56 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.24 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.20 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:23 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.