Debate contribution: Programme for Government

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 13 May 2024.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

13 May 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Programme for Government

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4489168

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I am pleased to make a winding-up speech on the motion. It feels a little strange, because we had a break for Question Time during which we had a substantial discussion on the various priorities that Ministers and all Members have. I will reflect on a few of the comments made by Members, and I will, hopefully, secure support. We had, I think, broad cross-party support for our motion. I will say early on that we have no particular difficulty with the DUP amendment. With the greatest of respect, I am not entirely clear exactly what it adds to the motion, but I do not dispute that there has been some indication that those are the Executive parties' priorities, because they have been debated in the Chamber. The motion's substantive point is that those priorities now need to be converted into a plan for delivery, which is the Programme for Government that we want to see delivered by the time that we break up for the summer. We do not believe that that is unacceptable or unreasonable. We also think that, if the Programme for Government document is not deliverable, there is no reason why we should not have a list of key summary outcomes. I asked the deputy First Minister about that at Question Time and received a diplomatically worded answer about seeing delivery "shortly" or "as quickly as possible". I respect that, without trying to create hostages to fortune, but, if parties support our motion, we, as the Opposition, and the public will interpret that support as a commitment to abide by the terms of the motion, even though, as with all other motions that we have passed in the previous couple of months, it is non-binding. I will take Executive parties at their word in agreeing that, by summer recess, by the first week in July, we will have either the Programme for Government or the key summary outcomes from it. I will go through a few of the points. Winding-up speeches are better if people respond to criticisms and points that have been raised rather than simply summarising what others have said. Mr Harvey moved the amendment and said that a Programme for Government was not a substitute for delivery. That is, of course, true. He said that strategies can sit on the shelf. He is completely right that strategies can sit on a shelf and not be delivered. The motion is about delivery. There have been lots of draft Programmes for Government that were never agreed and other strategies that have never been implemented, but the first and most important thing is to have the strategy down on paper, because, otherwise, there is no way of judging the Executive and the Executive parties on their delivery. It was interesting to hear Ms Bradshaw, the Chair of the TEO Committee. I welcome the fact that Alliance will support the motion. Ms Bradshaw said that the Executive Office was "rather dysfunctional". The Opposition have a key role to play in a way in which we have not seen in these institutions historically. Even if Executive parties have different constitutional aspirations or look in different directions when it comes to left/right political orientation, they have a responsibility to form a cohesive Government and tell the public what they are delivering on their behalf and not to govern by improvisation. I am aware that the deputy First Minister objected to my use of that term. I will not say that it is like improvised comedy, because I do not think that it is always that funny, but there has been a degree of improvisation in the past and a reliance on PR and staged fallings-out. However, I welcome the fact that it looks like Executive parties will support the motion. I agree with several Members who said that the stop-start nature of government here is completely inseparable from the public's frustrations about how we have performed. That is the blunt truth. We still do not have agreement from Sinn Féin or the DUP on fundamentally reforming the institutions to prevent the one-party veto. We endeavoured to pass a motion on that on our first Opposition day, and those parties did not support it. That is a blunt truth, and we do not yet have agreement from the First Minister or deputy First Minister that they will decline to use their power to resign and collapse the institutions at some point. Those veto powers have never been given up, not even rhetorically, let alone in substance. It is also worth saying in passing that we were told at that point that it would be at the Assembly and Executive Review Committee that all the ambitious reform would be taken forward. I am yet to see the AERC take it forward. I am not sure whether it will bring forward the ambitious plan of reform that we discussed on that day in February. A couple of DUP Members raised the particular point that there has never been a Programme for Government in the first 100 days of an Executive. In the literal, factual sense, that is true. Members said that, going back to the initial Executive, when Seamus Mallon and then Mark Durkan were deputy First Minister alongside David Trimble as First Minister, they took longer to agree a Programme for Government. That is factually true, but the context was a little different. That was 26 years ago. It was the first time that we had had a proper and durable new power-sharing institution. The comparison is pretty trite, and I do not think that a lot of people will wear it. Of course, it is also true to say that, this year, we are celebrating or marking the 50th anniversary of the first attempt at a substantive power-sharing Administration in Northern Ireland. For a variety of reasons, we were not able or were not allowed to make that work. People can draw their own historical conclusions, but it is not a completely fair comparison. Today marks 100 days since the institutions came back. That is an important landmark. It is an important milestone at which to say to the people who hold office, "Where's the plan?" and, "What's happening?". I will come on to a bit of what the deputy First Minister said. Yes, 100 days is an important milestone, but, with respect and through the Chair, you and the Executive parties have not simply been debating a Programme for Government for 100 days; rather, as the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party put on record during the debate, a Programme for Government has been being debated since June 2022. That is getting on for two years. We, as the prospective Opposition, were briefed about the fact that there were ongoing Programme for Government meetings that were apparently substantial and substantive. All four Executive parties were in rooms — maybe with whiteboards, flip charts and Post-it notes — talking about priorities. Those meetings were convened by the head of the Civil Service. I was not there, so I do not know what all the sessions were about. Other Members in the Chamber were there, so perhaps they can tell me whether I am wrong. Perhaps it was improvisation or team building. People laugh, but there were nearly two years of meetings. All that the motion calls for is for key outcomes and targets to be published by the Executive parties. That is not in any way unreasonable. A range of comments was made. Mr Allister, in his particular way, made points about Executive performance. I will challenge Mr Allister on one point with which I fundamentally disagree, which is his depiction of "begging-bowl politics". From most of what he says, I think that he believes that Northern Ireland should stay in the United Kingdom. Obviously, I do not think that, but the whole basis on which this place operates is that we get a block grant from London. If that is a begging bowl, I am afraid that, contrary to what the Member spends a lot of his time moaning about, we really are in a situation in which we are not equal citizens. People in Belfast pay tax on an exactly equal basis to people in Birmingham and Bristol, so, to call it "begging-bowl politics" —.

I will give way in a second. To call the act of simply pursuing equitable finances "begging-bowl politics" is, I am afraid, not acceptable. I challenge that. I will give way to him.

The Member has put his remarks on the record. What I would say about that is that we need a better financial settlement from the UK Government — I do not dispute that, and we have been on record supporting the Executive parties — but we also need a plan. No one says that the Executive are not operating within constraints, such as having an austerity-obsessed Tory Government, and, yes, there are the challenges of mandatory coalition and a period of high inflation. All of those are challenges, but there needs to be a plan. In her response to me, the deputy First Minister said that lots of things have happened. I am sure that all of those individually — a million pounds here and there — are important initiatives, but that is the everyday business of government. It cannot be called a Programme for Government or a serious strategic vision for the region with targets and outcomes for when waiting lists will come down, when there will be a meaningful intervention on childcare that will help working families with costs or when we will see poverty addressed. All that we ask for is a plan. That is not unreasonable or unfair; it is the bare minimum of government. I hope that the motion will pass and that it will be delivered on. Wouldn't that be something?

1,647 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:28 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