Debate contribution: Holding Ministers to Account

Debate contribution by Ms Sinéad McLaughlin on 10 November 2025.

MLA

Ms Sinéad McLaughlin

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

10 November 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Holding Ministers to Account

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5225196

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will close the debate by stating something really plainly: the refusal to reform the institutions is the clearest possible admission that this place will never work. Every Member here knows that. For years, we have tiptoed around the truth, pretending that our problems are cultural, political or temporary. They are not: they are structural and systemic. Our problem is that the current make-up of our institutions, which were forged by the two greatest parties — the two largest parties; that was a Freudian slip — in the St Andrews Agreement, has been bent and twisted beyond recognition. Going by your comments, Phil Brett, that might be news to you. The changes that happened under the St Andrews Agreement were an affront to the Good Friday Agreement. Yes, the Good Friday Agreement is a precious achievement, but it is also a living document. It is not a museum piece. Those who claim to be its defenders, some of whom come from strange places, while refusing even the most basic reforms are, in reality, its biggest threat. As a member of the Committee for the Executive Office, I see first-hand the dysfunctionality of its structures. Frequently, the Executive Office cannot even agree on papers to be issued to the Committee for scrutiny. Officials have to cancel evidence sessions on fundamental issues, such as an update on the delivery of the Programme for Government. It is an absolute mess. The public have lost confidence not just in the parties but in the competence of this place. People watching at home genuinely doubt whether Stormont can ever function like a normal Government. Can you blame them? Earlier, we saw how Ministers cannot be held accountable for their actions. How can we have a situation where a motion of no confidence is brought before the House, passed by the majority of Members and yet amounts to nothing? That is not symbolic of a healthy democracy, nor is it purely the pursuit of those outside the Executive. The First Minister signed the motion of no confidence seeking the removal of the Education Minister: what message does that send to the public about how partners in government act? How can people have faith in delivery when that is what they see from those who are entrusted to lead? We have allowed a political culture to develop where division is rewarded; personal attacks replace policy; every debate becomes a performance; and the question at election time is not about the values, principles or — heaven forbid — a manifesto but simply about who sits in the high chair. While parties posture over meaningless titles, the public get nothing. Failure to reform is a failure to deliver. At times, the debate was thoughtful and, at times, it was depressingly predictable. It has proven a simple truth: we can pass all the motions that we like on health, housing, childcare and infrastructure, but none of it matters while the fundamental flaw in the institutions remains untouched. I remind the Chamber of what the First Minister said during the last collapse of the Assembly. When the DUP refused to enter the Executive, Michelle O'Neill warned that its boycott:

"threatens our democratic governance, public administration, reconciliation, and the fabric of this society."

She was absolutely right. Every word was right. I therefore ask the First Minister, with respect, whether she still believes that. If she does, does she accept that the same warning must apply equally to her refusal to rule out collapsing the institutions in the future? If the collapse of Stormont threatened democracy then, it threatens democracy now. I welcome Sinn Féin's endorsement this evening of reform and the strengthening of the institutions. Time will tell how serious that party is. When my colleague proposed to look at it at the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, Sinn Féin members initially voted against it until they realised that it was a bad idea politically to do so. With the greatest respect, Carál, your party did not even submit a response to a call for evidence. Whether you support the Union or a united Ireland and whether you are a nationalist, unionist or neither, the truth remains the same: you cannot sell anything if the house from which you are selling it is falling apart. Unionists want to sell the Union, and we want to sell a new Ireland, but nobody will buy a basket case. Right now, that is what this place is. The dysfunction of the institutions overshadows everything and every aspiration, be it constitutional, social or economic. Nobody wants to buy ideas from a system that they do not believe works. It does not have to be that way. We have an opportunity in this mandate to fix it and to change how this place works and to do so ourselves, rather than being forced into it by Westminster after another collapse. That is why the SDLP tabled the motion. We believe that, without reform, anything else is pointless. Let me be clear: equalising the titles of First Minister and deputy First Minister is only the beginning. If we are serious about building institutions that work, they need practical, not performative, reform. We need a Speaker who is elected by a broad Assembly majority, not on the whim of whichever party wants to hold the Chamber to ransom. We need the nomination of First Minister to be tied to the d'Hondt system so that no party can threaten collapse simply by refusing to nominate. If a party does not take the post, it should move on. We need genuine power-sharing, which means ensuring that parties beyond the two big ones have a meaningful route into the Executive. Our society has changed significantly since 1998. For example, the average house price in 1998 was £50,000: it sits today at £185,000. We now live in diverse, multicultural communities. Our electorate is no longer limited to the political definitions of unionism and nationalism. I am much more comfortable calling myself a social democrat than saying I am a nationalist. The Alliance Party is right to question the outdated political structure that does not give weight or value to a significant proportion of our people. Good government should not be confined to a nationalist or unionist headcount. It is unacceptable and undemocratic, and, worse, when abused, it is absolutely sectarian. We need Ministers who meet their responsibilities, including their North/South and British-Irish duties. It is time to put ransom politics to bed. If a Minister refuses to do the job, they should not keep the job. It is that simple. Those are not radical ideas; they are basic steps that are needed to stop collapse and to stop parties gaming a system that was meant to serve the public, not their electoral tactics. I know that some people hate to hear this, but we reached the point long ago at which every strategy and campaign is overshadowed by the dysfunction of this place. Whatever side of the constitutional debate you are on, it is impossible to argue that the institutions work. The SDLP has been consistent. We brought forward reform proposals in February. We have pressed for accountability. Just last month, my colleague Matthew O'Toole secured agreement at the AERC to examine serious options to prevent future collapse. I will briefly address the Sinn Féin amendment. It would rid the First Minister and deputy First Minister of their responsibility to help to reform the institutions. It argues that the AERC is the place for reform to be formulated. However, that completely ignores the fundamental issue: if the Assembly were to collapse, the Assembly and Executive Review Committee would no longer exist. The continued refusal of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to rule out collapsing the institutions fundamentally undermines the ability of the AERC to deliver any meaningful reform.

I have no time. Sorry. The First Ministers now have a choice: engage constructively or keep defending a system that repeatedly falls apart and fails the public. Northern Ireland deserves a Government that works, not one that merely survives, staggering from crisis to crisis, and can be pulled down by parties when it suits them. Reform is not optional —

— it is essential, and —

— the SDLP will —

— continue —

— to push for it.

1,392 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