Debate contribution: Ministerial Code of Conduct: Breaches

Debate contribution by Mr Doug Beattie MC on 18 November 2024.

MLA

Mr Doug Beattie MC

Party at the time

Ulster Unionist Party

Date

18 November 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Ministerial Code of Conduct: Breaches

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4655751

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I was, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will briefly contribute to what is a very short debate about a very important issue. The motion is factual in its truth but narrow in its content, and I have to say that it points at just one party — in this case, the DUP — when the issue of breaches of the ministerial code of conduct goes much wider by far. The truth is this: DUP Ministers' failure to attend NSMC meetings did not achieve anything that they set out to achieve, and we are no further forward today than we were back then. We do need a mechanism to hold Ministers to account, however, but I am not sure what the motion is trying to do about that. I will raise a number of issues. First, the line in the motion that states:

"Ministers are duty-bound to uphold the ministerial code"

is absolutely right, but we need much more robust action to be taken, and far quicker and more timely action, when they do not adhere to the ministerial code. I am not sure what is going to be achieved by having a debate about the DUP's failure to attend meetings, three years after the fact, albeit the proposer of the motion did say that it is about highlighting an issue. That is fair enough, as I have no problem with our highlighting an issue.

My point was not directed at the SDLP for tabling the motion three years after the event. Rather, I am saying that the issue is that the commissioner published her findings quite late. Things need to happen an awful lot quicker. The reality is that the ministerial code is not fit for purpose. We were promised a revised ministerial code following the New Decade, New Approach deal, but we have not yet received it. We were also promised that the ministerial code would be looked at following the passing of the Executive Committee (Functions) Bill, but we are still waiting. From recent engagement with the commissioner, I have found out that the ministerial Pledge of Office does not fall within her remit. When a Minister breaches the Pledge of Office, the commissioner does not have the remit to look at the situation. The Nolan principles of standards in public life, which apply to the Pledge of Office, are therefore not being looked at by the commissioner.

The second point that I would like to raise is on the second half of the motion, which talks about looking at a review of strand two of the Belfast Agreement. I am always mindful that we should never tinker with just one part of the Belfast Agreement. I tell you now that, if you start pulling at the thread of strand two, it will have an effect on strand one and on strand three, so I am always mindful of that. I understand what the party is bringing forward in the motion. There is no issue with that, but I am mindful that you do not want to pull at just one thread, because the whole thing could unravel, and the unbalanceable agreement that we have managed to balance could come apart very quickly. All that I will say on that is that we need to be careful. We are in a reduced mandate. We have just over two years left. We, as an Executive and an Assembly, are struggling to get legislation out. This is not the time to start looking at one strand of the Belfast Agreement, although I understand the reasons for it.

597 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