Debate contribution: Ad Hoc Committee to Consider Legislation to Prevent the Suspension of the Devolved Institutions

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 4 March 2024.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

4 March 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Ad Hoc Committee to Consider Legislation to Prevent the Suspension of the Devolved Institutions

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4254784

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I beg to move

This is the final motion for debate on our Opposition day. I am sure that some Members are relieved that that is the case. I think that we have put down some markers. We may make some progress. Hopefully we will make some progress with this, the final motion of the day. All three Opposition motions are designed to complement and, indeed, to implement one another. The first was designed to set out principles around the need to end the toxic veto and to express to the people whom we serve our regret and shame about what has happened in this place over the past decade. The second motion, which I am pleased to say we have just passed, was designed to reflect the importance of public-sector pay and to get a speedy resolution to the outstanding pay settlements. This motion is an opportunity for those who voted against the first motion to do the right thing. To use another phrase, it is never too late to do the right thing. We designed this motion as an implementing vehicle to carry through the will that was expressed by the Assembly in the first motion. Only one Member from Sinn Féin spoke in that debate. The First Minister and deputy First Minister declined even to live up to the convention of the House by coming to answer the first Opposition motion of the mandate. What we heard from the one Sinn Féin Member who contributed to that debate was that their objection, such as it was, to the previous motion was that it did not specifically call out Tory austerity. In our remarks as Opposition, we were clear that Tory austerity and, indeed, Brexit have been part of devastating the public realm and public services in this place and other parts of the UK. That is a given. I have repeatedly made the point that, if you believe that there is an economic ideology of making the most vulnerable pay the price of austerity, surely the worst and most objectionable thing that you can possibly do is to give that Government — those ideologues in London — the power to do whatever they like to the people here. If Sinn Féin Members are serious about that being their objection, this follow-up motion should not give them any trouble. That is presuming that what they were actually troubled about was the apparent absence of a reference to that in the motion or to this not touching on public services, because this motion is very specifically about a Committee of the Assembly to debate options for reform. I will run through the motion briefly, because my time is limited. It sets out the composition of the proposed Committee. I have no difficulty acknowledging that the two big parties, who, let us face it, have the biggest mandates of any in the Chamber, collectively have the right to the biggest presence on that Committee. We think that the Committee should look at the options for ending the veto; we think that it should be focused on ending the veto and not get into broader conversations about reform of the institutions, although there are legitimate debates to be had about reform of the institutions. I would like to see emphasis on durability and delivery of strand two, which has been sorely neglected over the past years — in fact, in many ways, it has been neglected since 1998. I also want to understand how strand three will fit in with some of the new things that, apparently, have been bilaterally agreed between the DUP and London. Many of the comments that have been made about looking at designation and how it works in 2024 are completely legitimate and necessary, but, first, we have to focus on veto. We must remove that one toxic, nuclear button that threatens not just political stability but our ability to do anything — pay public-sector workers, reform the health service or take economic advantage. We cannot collapse the institutions again. The Committee is designed to look at the issue and make legislative proposals by September this year. A huge amount of homework has been done. This does not need to take years. The Committee's members will not need to go away and undertake a PhD. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee at the Commons did a report earlier this year. There have been multiple reports, and there are multiple options. Given that we propose a Committee of different parties, it can look at the options and reflect on them.

I do not have time. I do not think that I will get an extra minute. I would normally give way, and I am not seeking to be difficult, but I am very limited in time. We have heard a lot in recent weeks, including from the new Economy Minister, from the First Minister and from the president of Sinn Féin, the leader of the Opposition in Dáil Éireann, about the need to look at and take forward reform of the arrangements. We have heard fairly warm words about that. If people are serious about reform, let us get the Committee set up, get it working and get it reporting by September. Then, if people want to have a longer look at reform, that can happen in the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. Bluntly, this is the chance to do the right thing. Having done the wrong thing a few hours ago and voted with the DUP and Jim Allister against reform, let us do the right thing. Let us not gaslight people. Let us reform the institutions, deliver political stability and get the Committee up and running.

I commend the motion.

954 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:43 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