Debate contribution: Ministerial Code of Conduct

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 10 February 2026.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

10 February 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Ministerial Code of Conduct

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5435494

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I am afraid that today's debate has been something of a festival of whataboutery and deflection from the real issues. It has been a challenge at times, for you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, not just to keep order but to remind people of the terms of the debate. Let me say first of all, in relation to what the Minister said, that the motion is about more than Gordon Lyons, more than the breach found in relation to the events and the Facebook post of June last year. It is about a broader question of accountability in our politics, improving our standards process and overhauling the way we do politics, seeking to find some consensus. That needs to change and improve. I genuinely do not know how any elected representative in Northern Ireland who presumably walks around the streets of this jurisdiction, goes into shops and engages with constituents could find anything other than that public trust in our politics is strikingly and remarkably low. Further to that, the Minister is entitled to make a response. Part of the purpose of today's debate is to get Minister Lyons to give his response on the record to the points put in the standards report. He had the opportunity to do that and did it, even if I disagree with him. He outlined an entire indictment, from his perspective, of the process that he was subject to.

I will in one second. The Minister outlined his own indictment of that standards process, but I presume that he and his colleagues will vote against a motion that is about improving and overhauling how we do standards here. That is ironic. It is ironic that Members, including Mr Gaston, lambast the way we do standards in this place but then say, "No: it would be terrible to support any change." I give way briefly to the Minister and then to Mrs Dillon.

Well, if the purpose is to say that the Irish Government have no role in these institutions, I am afraid that I do not agree with that. Of course we know about the previous standards breach that the Minister was subject to because he refused to engage in the NSMC. I give way briefly to Mrs Dillon because I want to be generous in interventions where I can be.

It is reasonable for any Member who is subject —

It is, of course, reasonable for any Member who is subject to a standards process and the outcome of a report, including Mr Gaston, to respond to it, disagree and challenge it. That is an entirely legitimate part of the process. However, Linda Dillon is right when she says that simply questioning the motivations of the standards commissioner and dismissing them as "woke" is not an appropriate thing to do. In his response, the Minister — I thought it was interesting — at least did something that he did not do last June. I think I quote him correctly when he said:

"I never set out to hurt or offend anyone."

OK. I acknowledge that the Minister says that he said that before. Today, he is saying, "Trust me and my intentions when I did that post, but the Standards Commissioner? No, that is woke nonsense. That is woke nonsense from the SDLP, the Alliance Party and Sinn Féin". The Minister nods to confirm that that is his position, which gets right to the crux of the problem: rather than engage seriously and respectfully in the debate, the DUP consistently seeks to dismiss any criticism, any challenge and any accountability. That is not acceptable, I am afraid. I have held the Minister to the same standard that I and my party, as the official Opposition, have held every other Minister in the Assembly and Executive.

Yes, we have.

Yes, we have. I dismiss utterly the idea that we have not. Go online, and look at the challenges that I get from supporters of all parties, including Sinn Féin and the Alliance Party, for the robust challenge that —

No, I will not right now; I will in a second. — my colleagues and I give to all Ministers — all Ministers — whether they are DUP, Ulster Unionist, Alliance or Sinn Féin. I need to make some progress in responding to comments made by others. The motion is not just about Gordon Lyons; it is about building a culture of accountability in our politics, improving the way that the institutions work and rebuilding trust in the public that we can deliver services for them. It is deeply disappointing when Mr Jon Burrows dismisses as "wasteful" an entire debate that is fundamentally about accountability. Lots of people who have heard lots of words from Mr Burrows in recent weeks will wonder whether he is serious. A man who came in promising to be the new sheriff in town turns out to be Deputy Dawg to the DUP. He will not utter one syllable of criticism of the DUP.

I will give way in a second.

One second. I will consistently call out and criticise Sinn Féin Ministers. Often, I have to put up with more than glares in the Chamber; I have to put up with responses online. I and my SDLP colleagues will challenge the Justice Minister and the AERA Minister: that is what opposition is about. Mr Burrows, in his office, has not uttered one syllable of criticism of the DUP. He reinforces the opinion that lots of people have that the mission in unionist politics is simply to create three versions of the DUP. I will give way briefly to Ms Ennis briefly and then Mr Burrows.

I will give way briefly to Mr Burrows, and then I will finish my remarks.

I think that —.

I cannot. I am afraid. I have only got three minutes left. There has been a festival of whataboutery today. The core of the motion is about standards in public life, building a culture of accountability and reforming the way that our politics works. It is disappointing to see that so many people have ignored that and fallen into the whataboutery trap, simply saying, "What about yousuns this? What about yousuns that?". Multiple Members opposite mentioned the Bobby Storey funeral: at the time and subsequently, my colleagues on these Benches and I were robust in challenging Sinn Féin Members —

Yes, we were. The Minister of Education, I am afraid, is a man who has ignored and spurned any form of accountability. I have held Sinn Féin robustly to account on the Bobby Storey funeral. I have held the Alliance Party robustly to account. I will do that to the DUP. The fact that your party believes itself to be immune to any criticism is, ultimately, what is damaging trust in our politics. Your party, as the leader of unionism, should, more than anybody else, care about trust in politics here, but you seem completely indifferent to generating contempt for our politics. I will briefly mention some of the comments that were made. Pam Cameron asked, "Why bring the motion forward at all?". It is about accountability, I am afraid. She went on to criticise other parties for actions that they had taken. Accountability matters. Yes, we are all politicians, and, of course, everything that we do is political. There is nothing wrong with that; we are democratically elected people. However, we have, without fear or favour, challenged different parties. Sian Mulholland mentioned her experience of being an elected representative in North Antrim last June, and I think that that was sincere. We should not forget the gravity of the situation. That is why the report was made in the first place. I believe that Mr Kingston is a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee: he should be mindful of some of his utterances in the Chamber during the debate. The reason why it was a matter of such concern to the public was the gravity of the situation, with people sheltering in fear for their safety. Minister, your responsibility —.

Where? In County Antrim.

Here is the point, Minister. We were in an extraordinarily serious situation, and you, as a holder of ministerial office, were expected to reflect —.

I am afraid that I do not have time, Mr Buckley. I am generally generous in conceding time, as I have shown. There has been a consistent desire to talk up the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement. We passionately believe in the Good Friday Agreement, but we also believe that it can be reformed and improved. It was funny to hear Mr Lyons talk about the Good Friday Agreement. He was previously found to be in breach of the ministerial code because he refused to participate in strand two of the agreement by attending the North/South Ministerial Council. Our motion is not simply about Minister Lyons; he has said his piece. I hope that today's motion will pass. More generally, the public will continue to lose trust in our politics and in all of us, whoever we are — unionist, nationalist or other, socialist or green — because they do not believe that we can do politics properly and deliver accountability. We have an opportunity to pass the motion today to continue the process of pushing for reform and improvement in our politics. If Members think that the public think that it is all grand and we can go on like this, I genuinely wonder what planet they are living on.

We cannot go on like this. I commend the motion.

1,598 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:51 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