Debate contribution: Ministerial Code of Conduct: Breaches

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 18 November 2024.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

18 November 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Ministerial Code of Conduct: Breaches

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4655699

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I beg to move

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Since we took up the mantle of opposition, we have been clear that we will be constructive in putting forward positive ideas. Today, in our final Opposition day of 2024, we are doing just that on EU affairs, childcare and dereliction in the heart of Belfast. We also said that we would be robust in holding those in power to account. Today we are doing that, too. In July this year, a report from the ministerial standards commissioner found that five different DUP Ministers had breached the ministerial code by failing to attend a range of NSMC meetings in late 2021. That finding is, of course, hardly surprising, given that the High Court ruled that those actions were totally unlawful, but that did not stop the boycott continuing in 2021. Indeed, in her report, the ministerial standards commissioner is clear that the decision to proceed with the boycott in clear knowledge that it was unlawful exacerbated the breach. To quote the commissioner:

"In choosing to act unlawfully, they"

— she means the Ministers in question —

"set a bad example to their Assembly colleagues and the wider society that they are somehow above the law, which ultimately could serve to lower standards within and outside the Assembly and diminish public trust and confidence in the Assembly."

That gets to the heart of the breach and why it matters. Politics in this place is held in low esteem. People believe that parties in the Assembly, particularly the larger ones, believe that they can do what they like and face minimal or no consequences. All too often, that is true. There is a crisis of accountability in our politics. That was in evidence recently when the First Minister felt that she could instruct a Committee Chair on what could and could not be asked during scrutiny by a Statutory Committee. Part of our job in opposition is to effect a change in that culture. It is worth pointing out that, while the rules of the Assembly now provide for more stringent penalties, including formal censure or even exclusion, our motion today does not do that. That is not to say that those sanctions cannot be used in the future, but it is to say that our motion is about registering clear condemnation, affirming the centrality of the NSMC to these institutions and looking forward to solutions. It is not about scoring points; it is about accountability. When it comes to accountability, people may remember the words of Tony McGleenan KC, who was defence counsel for several of the affected Ministers. He argued in court that a judicial remedy to the boycott was not appropriate back then because the Assembly was there to hold Ministers to account. Well, after two years of it being down, here we are. There is a broader point here about the legitimacy of using boycotts, which cripple the operation of government, as a legitimate political tool. That logic has seen us without a Government for half of the past decade. The collapse of the NSMC is part of that. It is pernicious. Strand 2 of the agreement is designed to be equal and interlocking with strands one and three, and it is important to make that point as often as possible. The NSMC was not and is not a bauble. It is supposed to be as core to the functioning of our Government as the Chamber and the Executive, so collapsing it for party political ends was never a legitimate action. The NSMC had no role at all in Brexit or the UK's withdrawal from the European Union. That brings us back to the question on which the two big parties refuse to engage: reform. Reform is needed not just of the veto that allows one party to collapse the operation of strand one of devolution but of the system that requires a Minister to have a chaperone for a routine meeting with their southern counterpart, which is how the DUP was able to thwart the NSMC for so long. Sadly, neither area of reform is likely to make progress any time soon, because both big parties see continued advantage in a system that offers them not just a veto power but a shield from accountability. That is, once again, on display because, as I look to the ministerial Benches, I see that neither the First Minister nor the deputy First Minister, or even the junior Ministers, is here to respond to the debate, despite the motion clearly calling on the First Minister and the deputy First Minister to explore reform of strands one and two. They are not here: they have not turned up to engage in that simple ask and show accountability to the Assembly Chamber. That, I am afraid, says it all. It is why our role in opposition is so important. Even if it makes people in and outside the Chamber uncomfortable, we intend to keep doing it in the public interest. I commend the motion to the Assembly. I reiterate the need for real accountability, real reform and an end to the politics of boycott.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:30 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