Debate contribution: UK COVID-19 Inquiry: Institutional Reform

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 9 December 2025.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

9 December 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

UK COVID-19 Inquiry: Institutional Reform

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5295694

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. It is one of the final motions before we break up for Christmas, and, in many ways, it is fitting because, since we came back in February last year after our two-year forced absence — forced by one party, as it had been forced by a different party previously — in one sense, as an official Opposition, we represent one of the bits of institutional reform that has happened. I hope that — perhaps I am not the one to judge — we have been relatively successful, or the idea of opposition has been successful. As leader of the Opposition, the first thing that I did was challenge the newly appointed First Minister and deputy First Minister not to resign their offices. The only way to directly collapse these institutions is for one of the two major designated parties to resign that office and then refuse to appoint a replacement. Neither of those individuals, nor their parties, has ever given me that commitment. That speaks to a fundamental problem with the way our system works. It is why the motion is necessary, and it speaks to dysfunction. However, that is not the only thing that is dysfunctional about the way that our politics works. Our amendment is an important one. It is about accountability. Yes, it is about holding Executive parties to account. We make no apology for that, because, as I said, one of the most important bits of institutional and political reform that has happened here is the creation of an official Opposition. Like everybody else, we deserve to be held to account through robust debate in the Chamber, and robust debate in the Chamber is necessary so long as it is focused on policy and outcomes for the public, not personalities.

I will come on to the Executive parties — all of them — and their failure to make progress on a Programme for Government, because that is important, but, first, I will reflect on the core thrust of the motion: the findings of module 2 of the COVID inquiry. They are shocking. Let us remember not only the awfulness of the years of COVID-19 and the difficult position in which every individual and family across the world was put but the immense pressure that healthcare workers, educationalists, teachers, families and, indeed, policymakers were under. For those of us who had to legislate and make decisions for people, it was extraordinarily difficult. All those things were made worse by the two major parties in our Executive. The inquiry is scathing about that and about how our system of government let down the public, who lost loved ones. The inquiry made it clear that the situation was worse for families and the public in Northern Ireland because of decisions that were made by the two big parties. Sinn Féin facilitated and attended a funeral in the middle of Belfast in clear violation either of the restrictions themselves or of the spirit of them, which undermined people's confidence in leadership at a time when others' loved ones either died alone or were buried effectively in private. That was immensely hurtful, and it took years for an apology. The DUP used cross-community vetoes to block public health measures. That was an extraordinarily inappropriate thing to do.

I will give way in a few minutes, not just yet. That is not what those vetoes are for. As we know from yesterday, the DUP is trying to use those vetoes again. At least, in the case of yesterday, the use of the veto is totally futile, because it is being used in relation to a non-binding motion, but it comes back to how, unfortunately, the DUP occasionally sees politics. The COVID-19 inquiry exposed why we need to change how we do politics here. As a party that was an architect of the Good Friday Agreement, we remain profoundly morally, politically and intellectually committed to the idea of sharing power, but, as Paula Bradshaw said, it has to be about sharing. In order to share power, you have to have a vision of the common good that respects different identities and aspirations for the future. Our politics has become about negative vetoes, stalemate, divvying up power and sharing it out when it suits one another. We have already seen that this week, with the failure to agree a multi-year Budget in time for the end of the year and the beginning of the financial year. There are multiple examples of that every day. The case is proven for the need to reform how this place works. The word "reform" is often bandied about without precision about what it means, and it can mean a multiplicity of things. It is understood most definitively as meaning "institutional reform", but what we have to mean by that is making it harder to collapse the institutions, so that they are more sustainable. It should not just be about their being here and our showing up and debating motions that have no legal effect but about our Government's being more effective at dealing with the issues that face people in their lives. It is about recognising that there are different aspirations and traditions in this society, having a clear list of priorities, ideally in a Programme for Government that is matched to a Budget, and saying to the public, "This is what we are delivering for you". That is what reform should be about, and that is what we are about. That is why we have championed reform, and I acknowledge that others in the Chamber want to do that too. That brings me on to the thrust of our amendment, which is about accounting for all the parties in the Chamber. Literally every party in the Chamber has said at one point that it wants to fundamentally reform how the institutions work. It is a much more recent move for Sinn Féin, but it now says — rhetorically at least — that it wants the Assembly and Executive Review Committee to investigate that. I welcome that. To be honest, I do not think that that would have happened without political pressure from other quarters, including from us as the official Opposition. I do not think that that is an unreasonable position for Sinn Féin to take; it is a welcome development, and I hope that it keeps that up and is serious about delivering on it. I will come on to the Alliance Party, but we know that the Ulster Unionist Party has acknowledged that there needs to be reform. The DUP, however, now seems to be implacably opposed. It keeps talking about how any change to the way in which Stormont works would be a profound offence. I will very briefly read out some words:

"We believe that in the long-term, the best means of governing Northern Ireland would involve a voluntary coalition Executive and weighted majority voting of around 65% in the Assembly, resulting in an end to Community Designation. This ... could provide for both an Executive and an official Opposition"

— we are flattered to be included —

"which would be consistent with normal democratic institutions",

blah-blah-blah. Those words are not from the Alliance Party or the Ulster Unionist Party's manifesto; they are, in fact, from the DUP's manifesto in 2011. When a Programme for Government was agreed, we did not see any of that. When it comes to accountability, we are —.

I am not going to give way; I have been asked to give way multiple times. I am happy to do so in a second, if I have time, but I need to make some progress. I think that I am one of the most generous Members when it comes to taking interventions in the Chamber. I want to say this, however: we know that all parties in the Chamber, including the Alliance Party, have a long-standing commitment to reform. I do not say this to be gratuitous — it is pre-Christmas, and I say it in a spirit of goodwill — but it is important to say that the Alliance Party won an extraordinary mandate in 2022. I know that it was extraordinary, because we lost a third of our seats thanks to the Alliance Party. The Alliance Party is right when it says that that was an historic mandate. Unfortunately, however, the people who voted for the Alliance Party on that day have not seen a clear, meaningful return on that investment. That is not just the fault of the DUP and Sinn Féin — they cannot simply be blamed for that. This is a really important point: when discussions were had about restoring the Executive last year, a lot of people would have felt that it would be entirely reasonable for the Alliance Party, with a more than doubled representation in the Executive, to say to the other parties, "As a condition of our participation in this Executive, we insist upon a commitment to make progress on institutional reform". That would not have been, as it is sometimes described, ransom politics. It could not have been ransom politics. The Alliance Party does not designate as First Minister or deputy First Minister, so it could not have blocked Sinn Féin or the DUP from forming an Executive. It would simply have been keeping true to the mandate that it received in 2022, but I am afraid that it did not do that.

I do not have time, but I am happy to engage. If I have time at the end, I will give way. That party did not hold faith with its mandate. I am not saying that that would have been easy, nor am I saying that it would have led to institutional reform, because the two big parties may well have blocked it. However, it is true to say that it would have been an entirely reasonable and, in fact, obvious thing to do, because the upshot of some of the Alliance Party's proposals for reform is that it wants a more voluntary or more flexible form of coalition. Saying that your participation is conditional not on getting everything that you want but on at least making progress on one thing, even if it involves saying, "We will enter an Executive for a period of time, subject to its being included in a Programme for Government", would have been the entirely responsible thing to do. It is hugely regrettable to me that that did not happen, because I want to see reform. It is also true to say that many people who voted for a party that does not traditionally designate as unionist or nationalist and who wanted to see reform have not seen progress on that. I do not say that to be rude or unkind — it is pre-Christmas — and I want to work with the Alliance Party to deliver reform, but it did not use the mandate that it received in 2022 to deliver on that. Where do we go from here? We must use all the means that are available to us. Let us go back to being honest. All of us in the Chamber must acknowledge that trust in politics is at an all-time low. We simply cannot go on like this. The Assembly and Executive Review Committee is doing some important work, but it is a relatively obscure Stormont Committee. Let us agree today in the Chamber with the Alliance Party motion that we need to make progress on this. Let us do it; let us not simply write to Santa Claus, Hilary Benn, asking him to do it for us. Let us start the work here, and let us take responsibility. People do not trust us; they have contempt for those of us who are in the Chamber. Let us reform this place —

— and let us take responsibility for our actions.

2,001 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:07 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