Debate contribution: North/South Bodies: Funding

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 27 May 2025.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

27 May 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

North/South Bodies: Funding

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4972613

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Before I came back to the Chamber to finish the debate, I spoke with a group of young people — I think that they are in the Gallery now — from Rockwell College in Tipperary. They are very welcome, and it is great to have them here, but it strikes me as embarrassing that, in 2025, a group of young people from a secondary school in Tipperary still have to come and endure debates like this about the basic tenets of North/South cooperation. The quality of some of what we have heard today has been — frankly, it has been drivel. I will touch on a few points. The purpose of our amendment is not, as Ms Ennis incorrectly said, to deflect from the DUP's blocking North/South funding. In fact, the wording of our amendment is exactly the same as that of the Sinn Féin motion when it comes to the DUP's actions on that. We said that they are "nonsensical" — we do not change even that — so it is absurd to say that we are somehow blocking. What we are doing with our amendment, as my colleague Sinéad McLaughlin said, is taking responsibility. We are seeking to create a situation in which Ministers here — that means Sinn Féin, DUP, UUP and Alliance Ministers — take responsibility. That is our job as the Opposition. It is all well and good for the Finance Minister and his colleagues to come and make assertions about blame. In this case, there is a lot of blame to go to the DUP. I have five minutes, I have plenty of blame to ladle on to the DUP, and I will do that in just a moment's time, but Mr O'Dowd is the Finance Minister for the North. Before him, Caoimhe Archibald was the Minister. Before that, Conor Murphy was the Finance Minister, and, way before that, before the institutions collapsed, Máirtín Ó Muilleoir was the Finance Minister. Sinn Féin Finance Ministers have had the power to go further and faster on greater fiscal devolution. I acknowledge Conor Murphy's appointment of the Fiscal Commission, and I acknowledge the Minister's saying at the Dispatch Box that he intends to do more in that area. However, part of the answer to the underfunding from London and to the DUP's playing the dog in the manger on the North/South bodies is for the Finance Minister and the Executive to take more power over and show more purpose and vision on North/South funding and fiscal powers here, not for them simply to blame the UK Government, the DUP and Uncle Tom Cobley for everything. I come on to our friends in the Democratic Unionist Party and their long-running dog in the manger act when it comes to the North/South bodies, which has crystallised in the past month or two because they are scared of the TUV's polling numbers. We have seen, I am afraid, a tragic vision of what unionism has to offer, with Member after Member standing up to say, "We do not want that money from the Irish Government". It is genuinely pathetic. I could give you a detailed policy account of why it is pathetic and the impact that it will have on public service delivery, but, to be honest, it all just feels like we have gone back 60 years. It is 2025, and our Speaker, Edwin Poots, turned 60 today, but we might as well rewind 60 years to Paisley and his friends throwing snowballs at Seán Lemass outside, because that is where we are at with the DUP and its attitude to funding. It is pathetic. It was fascinating to hear Mr Gaston, who, clearly, in effect, leads the DUP in many ways with his mentor, the long-lost former Member for North Antrim, talk about how awful the Loughs Agency is. It is terrible that we have bodies such as the Loughs Agency. I presume that his plan is that we pour concrete and cement into Carlingford lough and Lough Foyle, because it is awful that those bodies of water exist and have to be managed on a cross-border basis. He talked about Intertrade UK and the East-West Council: I remind him — Sinn Féin Members should be reminded too — that the East-West Council and Intertrade UK are products not of any agreement between all parties and the two Governments but of a dreamt-up, stitched-up bilateral deal between the DUP and the Tory Government to calm their nerves over a Brexit that they created. It was not my party that agreed to their being inserted in the Programme for Government with, as you will see if you read the text, apparent but spurious equality with the North/South Ministerial Council and InterTradeIreland. The parties that are in the Executive can account for that decision, because they agreed to it. The rest of the century will involve enormous challenges and, yes, enormous opportunities. People on this island from all backgrounds see the huge potential of greater North/South cooperation. They want it fulfilled. They want it to improve their lives.

They do not want to engage in any more —

— of the generationally nonsensical drivel —

— that is coming from the DUP and others.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Second assessment

Jev’s answers did not settle this record, so a second model, claude-opus-5-5, read the same text (without the MLA’s name or party) and gave its reasons on 21 October 2026. How the second assessment works

Verdict

Not flagged

Public interest or divisiveness

Mixed

Against the published rubric

The speech is an Opposition wind-up on funding for North/South bodies. It defends an amendment, argues that Finance Ministers should pursue 'greater fiscal devolution', and criticises the DUP's refusal of Irish Government money. The attacks are sharp and mocking: 'genuinely pathetic', the Paisley and Lemass snowball jibe, and the sarcasm about pouring concrete into Carlingford Lough. But they are aimed at a party's stated policy and conduct, not at unionists or British identity as a community. The line about 'a tragic vision of what unionism has to offer' and the dismissal of East-West bodies as 'spurious equality' edge towards identity point-scoring, but they sit inside a substantive argument about cross-border funding, ministerial responsibility and public service delivery.

Public interest or divisiveness

The main thrust is accountability: it allocates blame between Executive parties, presses Ministers to take responsibility, and argues for cross-border cooperation that 'people on this island from all backgrounds' want. Its tone is heavily partisan and derisive, and its broad swipe at unionism and the mockery of opponents add a substantial element of communal point-scoring. Both elements are significant, so the record is mixed, though the substance outweighs the identity element.

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:37 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