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

Not flagged

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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.21No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.10No
Cultural grievance politics0.26No
Dog-whistle messaging0.22No
Controversy escalation0.25No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.46No
Overall judgement0.30At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing0.21
Reports or questions it0.02
Criticises or condemns it (chosen)0.45
Adopts it0.32
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.56
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism0.24
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.20
No identity-related subject0.00
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00

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.

Challenge this classification