Debate contribution: Ministerial Code of Conduct: Breaches

Debate contribution by Ms Paula Bradshaw on 18 November 2024.

MLA

Ms Paula Bradshaw

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

18 November 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Ministerial Code of Conduct: Breaches

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4655763

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I support the motion. The motion as framed is good, and we fully support it in its entirety, although we add that it is a pity that the opportunity was not taken to add a section on institutional reform — that very much speaks to the comments of Doug Beattie — which, if we looked at the wider piece, would include ensuring that breaches of the ministerial code are not just passed over. Mr Kingston clearly outlined why we need institutional reform: so that we cannot have a stop-start, collapsing Assembly. We strongly share the proposer's frustration that vital North/South work has not been taken forward as well as it could have been in recent years in part because of a boycott of the institutions in their entirety and in part because of a previous boycott of the North/South institutions. Indeed, we are still in a position that the North/South bodies are not operating properly because their boards have vacancies, predominantly on the Northern side. We feel that that represents a significant opportunity lost. We also await updates on the ministerial code. A question also arises about why we have a code that appears to be unenforceable without itself falling foul of the sectarian veto that stalls so much progress in this place. That has already been touched on this afternoon. We may note that the code applies to covering the full range of functions, including promoting good community relations. It is also hard to see how outright boycotts are in the public interest that we, as politicians, are supposed to serve. Therefore, we welcome the proposal of a review of strand two; indeed, we would support a review of the institutions more broadly. Sticking with strand two alone, however, we share the view that it is a fundamental aspect of the agreement that cannot simply be ignored at will. With much more focus on ensuring that the administration and resourcing of North/South bodies were improved, we would eventually get to the point of being able to demonstrate more clearly the benefits for all our communities in Northern Ireland. The motion could have been strengthened to make clear reference to how a sectarian veto should not be able to block a review aimed at ensuring that the North/South Ministerial Council and the ministerial code could function more effectively. I would argue that abuse of the sectarian veto is, in itself, contrary to the ministerial code, which demands that Ministers work for the whole community and towards a shared future. As long as that veto remains in place without review, we are left meekly calling for things that will probably never happen, leading to the public losing faith altogether, as we continue to lose opportunities to improve society. Nevertheless, we support the motion.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 01:20 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