Debate contribution: St Andrews Agreement: 20 Years On

Debate contribution by Mr Peter Martin on 13 October 2026.

MLA

Mr Peter Martin

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

13 October 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

St Andrews Agreement: 20 Years On

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5789514

Read the official Assembly record

Text

The DUP endorsed the principles of devolution, including the establishment of the Executive and Assembly. We did believe, however, that the arrangements handed individual Ministers too much power to make contentious decisions that would ultimately negatively impact on public confidence. We had deep concerns around a lack of accountability over North/South structures, ministerial support for the rule of law and the devolution of policing and justice. It is our party's view that the St Andrews Agreement addressed those fundamental concerns through some reforms. I will not go into those in detail today, but we still support those principles. It is not clear from the motion which of the safeguards — my words — the SDLP proposes to repeal. However, I note that it was happy to justify some lawbreaking that we saw recently on the Garvaghy Road. Perhaps one can therefore conclude that it would be comfortable with Ministers being freed from any requirement to support the rule of law before entering office. Rather than undoing the St Andrews requirement around that, there is a clear argument to strengthen accountability regarding it.

I will, briefly.

Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. My comments were about lawbreaking. As the leader of the Opposition knows, those are two different things.

I thank my colleague for the intervention. My colleagues and I have reflected on that in recent debates. I am disappointed in the stance that the SDLP has taken over the Garvaghy Road. I was also surprised by it, because I know the Members involved in that party. I will not dwell on that. I want to make progress, but that is my position on it.

No. We stand over St Andrews and warn against any attempt to unpick it. Such arrangements, in my view, could lead to a nationalist/republican-Alliance-backed supermajority in this place to ride completely roughshod over the unionist community in Northern Ireland. In the current mandate of the Assembly, Alliance has voted with Sinn Féin 73·6% of the time. The proposer's party, the SDLP, has voted with Sinn Féin only 69% of the time. Alliance is, by definition, more republican than the SDLP on votes alone. I am not sure whom that is a compliment to. That in itself should be a wake-up call to all those who view the Alliance Party as some sort of liberal, fluffy, cross-community party and vote for them accordingly. Voting for Alliance is the same as voting for Members opposite — Sinn Féin — three out of four times. Cross-community consensus remains integral to the future of devolution. That applies as much to reform of these institutions as it does to any current operation. Therefore, any reform should be about ensuring effective, local, accountable government in Northern Ireland that will secure the future of Northern Ireland for our children and grandchildren. Reform should not be used as a short-term tool for pure political point-scoring. We believe in and completely share the concept that local decision-making is the best route to building a prosperous and thriving Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. We are a devolutionist party and believe that people making decisions here is the most accountable mechanism.

It is clear that, when direct rule Ministers were in place, they showed scant regard for unionists' views. Over the past 10 years, we have seen them force through some of the most liberal abortion laws in the whole of Europe and laws on the Irish language and identity and on relationships and sexuality education (RSE). Extended direct rule is not something that we in the DUP regard as being in the UK's best strategic interests.

No, I am going to see whether I can finish my contribution. Sorry, Matthew. It is only because of time. The tactics of people who advocate that this place should not exist, such as those in the TUV, simply play into Sinn Féin's hands. Mr Gaston, who is a smart guy, may advocate that the First Minister be removed through the removal of the deputy First Minister, but I am sure that he realises that that is exactly what Sinn Féin wants to happen in this place, given its Ministers' lamentable delivery. On top of that, it would allow Sinn Féin to play the victim card. I proffer Mr Gaston some advice on that point. In battle, you do not do what your enemy wants you to do. Rather, you do the opposite. In a letter that was published in the 'News Letter' this morning, Steven Owens said:

"Unionism needs responsible leadership, not political brinkmanship."

My party will continue to deliver strategic and —

— responsible leadership for the unionist community —

— in Northern Ireland.

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

Assessment

Uncertain

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 01:22 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification