Member's statement: Assembly: Responsibility and Accountability
Member's statement by Mr Matthew O'Toole on .
- MLA
- Mr Matthew O'Toole
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 30 September 2024
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Assembly: Responsibility and Accountability
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4563399
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I reflect on the important question of accountability and responsibility-taking in this place. It is a theme on which I have reflected on many occasions since we took up our role in opposition, and it is getting more and more important. There are more and more examples of Ministers and Executive parties seeking to shift blame and responsibility and not to take accountability for decisions that they have taken or could take. It matters, because all of us stand for election to this place and take the Pledge of Office. I welcome the new Member, Ms Armstrong, who took the Pledge of Office today. We all sign the Pledge of Office and join the Assembly as an act of responsibility to the constituents whom we serve and to Northern Ireland at large. Over the past few weeks, we have seen examples of comic and grave responsibility-shifting. Last week, we heard from the Infrastructure Minister about how he could not install a few bollards in Hill Street, one of the most important thoroughfares in our hospitality district in the middle of Belfast, because of austerity. Austerity is a grave and profound challenge for this place, for the Executive and for these islands, but austerity is not to blame for his not being able to install a few bollards in the Cathedral Quarter. That is pathetic, and it is drivel for the Minister simply to shift blame in that way. We have also seen Executive party after Executive party table motions about delivery when their Ministers are the ones responsible for the specific areas of delivery. Sinn Féin colleagues tabled a motion on ticket touting and secondary sales after the scandal with Oasis tickets. They did, however, not call on their Minister, the Minister for the Economy, to take any action. That is ridiculous. We saw the Alliance Party table a motion on green growth in which it congratulated and garlanded with praise its Minister, the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, for action that he had taken, yet the motion did not call on him to do anything to deliver the green new deal that is in the party's manifesto. All of that, I am afraid, goes to the heart of responsibility-shifting in this place: the sense that all of us in here want a little power but no one wants to take responsibility or accountability. It is pathetic. We need to do better, and, through taking responsibility and delivering for them, we need to prove to the people who elect us to here that we are properly about our work. Given the day that is in it, it is important to reflect on another area of accountability on which we need to see some clarity. In the past couple of days, we have seen in the news the grave reports about a former member of staff in the Assembly who was given references by employees of a party in the Assembly and went on to seek employment in another organisation. When it comes to accountability and responsibility, there are further questions to be answered about that. I and others will ask those questions, and we hope to get clear answers.
531 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: 0.07 (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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.05 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.08 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.29 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.96 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:06 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.