Debate contribution: Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 3 February 2026.

MLA: Mr Matthew O'Toole
Party at the time: Social Democratic and Labour Party
Date: 3 February 2026
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Oral Answers to Questions
Heading: Public Office (Accountability) Bill
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5362755

Text

Thank you for that answer, Minister. I am slightly concerned that there is a motion in your name in the provisional Order Paper for next week, asking for legislative consent for the Public Office (Accountability) Bill. That is notwithstanding the fact that there are real concerns that there are carve-outs for MI5 and other state security agencies. That has prompted concern, as you have said, including for the Manchester Arena families. That is very troubling, frankly, given your Department's record in relation to other legislative consent motions (LCMs) and, indeed, the rates fiasco last week. Why have you put forward an LCM when there are still such outstanding concerns about the operability of the Bill, what it means for security agencies and, indeed, whether it is going to proceed at Westminster? It has been pulled by the UK Government, but we, apparently, are proceeding with an LCM next week.

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

Part of an exchange

This follow-up belongs to: Oral question AQO 3044/22-27.

Assessment

Not analysed

This is the same MLA’s follow-up within the exchange on their own question. It is analysed together with that question and is not counted separately, so one question is never counted twice.

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