Debate contribution: Building Political Consensus

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 13 October 2026.

MLA: Mr Matthew O'Toole
Party at the time: Social Democratic and Labour Party
Date: 13 October 2026
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Opposition Business
Heading: Building Political Consensus
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5789722

Text

I beg to move
I am proud to move another motion. It follows neatly from the previous motion marking 20 years since the St Andrews Agreement, with all its flaws, and recognising the progress that we have made and that which we definitely have not made. After last night's difficult debate and the past few weeks of toxicity, we clearly need to refresh our politics and remind ourselves of the fundamental duty on those of us who have the privilege to serve in elected office, which is to serve the people and offer solutions for the future; not to divide, offer division and distraction and drag us back to the past. That is what this institution, which was created in 1998, was changed, not entirely for the better, in 2006 at St Andrews and still somehow exists today despite all its flaws, was supposed to be about: making decisions, sometimes difficult decisions. The problem is that we have not really made any serious decisions, so the big challenges get worse and the public get less and less interested in this place and buy in less and less to the idea that there is a point to this place existing at all. I want to be clear and upfront that I believe in a new Ireland. With all due respect to the people who feel differently, my party and I do not think that Stormont, the Northern Ireland Assembly or our current framework will allow us to maximise our potential; we do not. We think that the best possible future for this place — Northern Ireland, the North or whatever you call it — and the whole island is a new Ireland where we are back inside the European Union. However, while we are here in this set-up, we can make it better. We have a profound moral obligation to make this place and its public services better and to do as well by the people as we can. We must deliver the best possible services and work together to heal the divisions of the past and break down the divisions that have brought us so much tragedy. That is what we do every day by using our voice as a constructive Opposition. In many ways, our work as a constructive Opposition has been the most successful and meaningful outcome of the reform of these institutions. Even though it is uncomfortable for others in the Chamber and we are often pilloried for doing our job, we are proud to have done it. Today, we bring forward not cheap, empty populism — we are not simply saying, "Whatever you're having yourself" or, Gay Byrne-style, "There's one for everybody in the audience" — but an acknowledgement that there is not one for everybody in the audience all the time and that, sometimes, politics is about decisions and prioritisation. With us in the Chamber we have a recently departed Health Minister and two Members who served in ministerial office: my colleague Mr Durkan and Ms Hargey, who was Communities Minister. They are three — I am not saying this simply to curry favour — able public servants.
Mr Frew was, I believe, briefly a Minister. I meant no harm to Mr Frew in omitting him; it was just the brevity of his ministerial career. They are public servants who, I think, genuinely want to make this place better and serious people who worked hard in ministerial office. This is not about individuals; it is about the structure of our politics, because it is clear that the way our politics works does not incentivise decision-making and priority setting. You only have to look at the record of the Executive thus far, some of which we talked about in the previous debate, to see that. The first two years of the mandate were wasted in political stasis and crisis. We came back here in February 2024 with our party as the official Opposition, and we were proud to take on that role. The Executive, however, took nearly a year to agree a Programme of Government that is largely full of waffle and aspiration and has no clear targets and, at the first available opportunity, tried to collapse — certainly, lots of people, possibly including some in the Executive, want them to collapse — into disarray and disorder. That is not to say that there is perfect equality of responsibility on all parts of the Executive — it is clear that certain parties have done more blocking than others — but it is to say that there is a structural problem with our politics, which is that it does not prioritise delivery for the public. Nobody — nobody — can dispute that now. Our politics as it stands is not about delivery for the public, and that is why the public, whether they are unionist, nationalist or neither, are so frustrated. What we are calling for today and what we will bring forward in our manifesto ahead of next spring is a commitment to building a new political consensus that may occasionally involve difficult decisions on difficult things. In our motion, we mention a couple of examples. That is not to prejudge a particular outcome or decision, but it is to say that there may be difficult decisions, one of which is the decision to invest in waste water infrastructure. That need not mean water charges, and I do not think that it would be acceptable to the public for it to mean water charges any time soon. However, I will say this: it might mean prioritising investment in waste water through increased borrowing from the British Government or by saying, "We want to prioritise this, and that will have to mean deprioritising investment in something else". We need to take that decision.
I will probably get some hard feedback telling me that it is all about the British Government not giving this place enough money. Here is the thing: that is part of the story. I do not dispute that the British Government underfund this place relative to Scotland and Wales, in part because there is no political incentive for them to offer us more money other than making us go away. However, that only underlines the importance of this place having a clear set of priorities and a plan for investment, because our argument to the Treasury and the British Government is undermined when we do not go with a clear and coherent set of asks and priorities. Whether it is waste water, building social homes or investing in the reform of our health service, we need to be clear about what we want to do with the money, and the parties in the Executive need to sign up to that. The Opposition have only ever encouraged the Executive to be clear about prioritisation. Do not simply fall out theatrically over stuff that you do not agree on: set a clear list of priorities for the public and say, "This is what we are going to do. This is how we are going to fix the health service. This is how we are going to repair our waste water infrastructure and build social homes. This is how we are going to fix Lough Neagh". It will involve difficult decisions at times, but that is what politics is about: leadership and taking responsibility. If you accept office and accept the wages, you have to accept the responsibility. Part of the reason why the public do not trust us is that no one here accepts responsibility. It is always somebody else's fault. We need to accept responsibility. That is not the same thing as saying, "We have enough money. We should just accept what London gives us". That is not the case. We need to take responsibility for building the argument and setting out a vision, a plan and a set of priorities, which will sometimes involve difficult decisions. A couple of weeks ago in the Chamber, I gave the example of my father, who went to a local hospital that was not equipped for his needs. He nearly died, and he would have died had he stayed there. He got a worse outcome than he would have had if he had gone to a specialist stroke unit earlier. I commend the former Health Minister and his successor, who have done so much to deliver 24-hour thrombectomy care, which is a real testament to how this place can improve lives and services. Here is the thing: we have to be honest with people about those difficult things, such as how hospital services are allocated. That is not to say that local representatives will not stand up and champion local services; that is their job. In some cases, particularly Daisy Hill Hospital, of which my colleague Justin McNulty has been a champion, there is a cross-border element whereby a hospital is underused because we ignore tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people who might use the facility but do not because of a border. It means that, occasionally, politicians will not be able to get by by simply telling the public, "It is grand. Whatever you are having yourself. Sure, I want that too". If everything is put into the manifesto, no decisions are made and no responsibility is taken, things will get progressively worse, and that is part of what is happening in our politics. If we are honest with ourselves, we all know that. We will have to occasionally make some difficult decisions. For those of us who want to build a new Ireland, it is a choice that we will have to make. I believe in a new Ireland because I believe in taking responsibility on this island. I do not think that the people who make the big decisions on tax and spending and the strategic decisions in London care particularly about this place or prioritise it. I do not think that they do. I think that lots of unionists think that too. That is why, ultimately, I believe in a new Ireland, where we take responsibility for ourselves, but we will not get there unless we start taking responsibility here first, proving to one another that we want to build something new in this place. Next year, there is an election, and, hopefully, after that, there will be a Government and a multi-year Budget and a Programme for Government with clear priorities and trade-offs, with honesty with the public about the decisions that we need to take to improve people's lives. This mandate has thus far, I am afraid to say, been a failure in that regard. We are more than halfway through the financial year, and there is no Budget. The Programme for Government is a dead letter full of aspiration and waffle. The public have completely lost trust not just in the ability but in the willingness of the Executive parties to deliver. The next time must be different. We do not have a choice: we need to get real, take responsibility and be honest with the people whom we serve.

1,853 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Awaiting analysis

This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.

Disagree with this assessment?

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

Challenge this classification