Debate contribution: Holding Ministers to Account

Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on 10 November 2025.

MLA

Mr Gerry Carroll

Party at the time

People Before Profit Alliance

Date

10 November 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Holding Ministers to Account

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5225108

Read the official Assembly record

Text

As others have said, today really shows the absurdity and the lack of accountability that we have in the House when it comes to holding Ministers to account. We had a democratic vote encompassing several parties, with a majority of MLAs — 47 — voting for a motion of no confidence in a Minister, while 33 voted against, and still, for this week at least, the Education Minister remains in place. That shows you how accountability mechanisms do not really exist in this Building and how Ministers can effectively do what they want. I am therefore bamboozled at the amendment in the name of Mr Gaston. Effectively, he wants to limit the already limited or, I would argue, non-existent accountability mechanisms that are in place to hold Ministers to account.

Thank you. My next line was going to be that the Commissioner for Standards has an important role. I remind the Member — I know that he was not here at the time; I was not either — that, in 2011, his party leader called for a motion of no confidence in Conor Murphy. I do not know which one it is. Following the logic of your argument, that will embolden Ministers and prevent MLAs from bringing forward motions of no confidence, which is understandable if your party is in the Executive, but I do not understand it from a party and a Member who is not in the Executive. I have issues with the mention of political stability in the amendment from Sinn Féin and with the motion generally. Obviously, it will mean different things to different people. I am concerned that it could mean "protect Stormont at all costs", and I do not support that position. It was the correct thing for Sinn Féin to pull down Stormont in early 2017 over RHI — our party called for it in 2016 — when hundreds of millions of pounds of public money was splurged by the DUP. The only way for Arlene Foster to face some limited accountability at the time was to pull down Stormont. So, I do not support keeping it up at all costs. During the period of welfare reform, there should have been a political crisis caused by pulling down the institutions, rather than hammering working-class and poor people. Given the context that we may be approaching, with more austerity Budgets, as we have heard today, and damaging Budgets, protecting Stormont at all costs is not a position that we should advocate. The motion talks about "institutional reform", which is needed. I obviously agree with that. It should also include people who are othered in the House, including me, when their votes do not count, as Alliance Party Members have said. We should look at the recommendations of the NI Affairs Committee. It stated that the Assembly Speaker should be elected — no disrespect — by a two-thirds majority of MLAs in the House. We should take such a position, rather than having backroom stitch-ups and deals. It also proposed changing the titles of First Minister and deputy First Minister to joint First Minister and having joint First Minister elections that would to be open to people from any party, including those who are others. I have issues with the Sinn Féin amendment. Parts of it are OK, but it removes the part that:

"calls on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to bring forward proposals for ... reform".

I am sceptical about whether those proposals will ever be —.

I will in a second. I am sceptical about whether those proposals will ever come forward, but, at the very least, that line should remain in the motion. I give way to the Member.

I thank the Member for that. I did not accuse his party of anything. His intervention was slightly defensive, but that is his right. The Member should be clear: if proposals are made about reform in this place, shout about them; say them. He made some points with which I generally agree, but, again, he should vote for the motion as it is. The motion is not ideal, but voting for it is better than amending it to remove the responsibility of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to bring forward proposals to reform this place. It should be on them to ensure that that is done quickly and that the can is not kicked down the road to the Committee. It is an important Committee, but I argue that people are trying to put work on it to absolve the First Minister and deputy First Minister of the responsibility to act. I am sceptical as to whether it will happen at all, but we should, at least, not vote for the amendment for that reason.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:43 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