Debate contribution: Ministerial Code of Conduct: Breaches

Debate contribution by Mr Patsy McGlone on 18 November 2024.

MLA

Mr Patsy McGlone

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 4655831

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Go raibh míle maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle.

That really takes us to the heart of the matter, does it not? This is supposed to be a Government by the people, for the people and for all the people, and, quite clearly, that is not spilling out of the letter that you referred to. My colleague pointed out that five DUP Ministers had failed to attend North/South Ministerial Council meetings. We went into the details of the finding of the Commissioner for Standards that the DUP had chosen to act unlawfully. Indeed, she stated that they felt:

"that they are somehow above the law",

which, clearly, is not the case. The centrality of the North/South Ministerial Council to the functioning of those bodies of the Good Friday Agreement, which many of us went out and voted for and which helped to bring us peace, is integral to the way forward for this community and, indeed, for this island.

Yes.

Go raibh míle maith agat.

I take the logic that the boycott now applies to the Assembly itself. That is not where people should want to place themselves. This is about real accountability and reform. Declan Kearney said that the Good Friday Agreement cannot be subordinated. Chuala mé an méid a bhí le rá aige.

He said that the three strands depend mutually on one another. Clearly, from the letter that you have just referred to, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, his party has a task to seek to persuade Members from the DUP that, indeed, that applies to the Assembly, too, and to accountability within the Assembly. He referred to the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. As my colleague aptly pointed out, it has met only once. Its outcome seems to have been quite marginal. Brian Kingston referred to unionists being trampled upon. I do not think that any of us would ever come with the mentality of trampling upon anyone, least of all our unionist colleagues or, indeed, neighbours and friends. Certainly, that is not why I am here. I would venture to say that the very man whom his own party supported, Boris Johnson, was the person who trampled upon them, danced upon them, laughed at them, sneered at them and did the dirt on them. Meanwhile, the DUP not only supported him and his Government but cheered for him at their party conference. Let us face facts, folks: you were taken for a bit of a run.

I am sorry: I do not have any time. That is the reality of it. He referred to 300 areas of EU law that have been imposed on Northern Ireland. Another issue has to be explored here: are we suggesting that we discard those 300 elements of EU law? That is not the place where we want to be. Let us face facts: many elements of EU law are good law that has been brought to us here. Indeed, in many instances, it was brought forward through the mechanisms of the EU while Britain was still a member. Doug Beattie pointed out the issues that need to be achieved around the Pledge of Office and that the Commissioner for Standards does not, in fact, have any remit or role to look at that. Paula Bradshaw, in supporting the motion, referred to other reforms. Indeed, the SDLP was one of the first parties in the Chamber to realise that further reform was required. In fact, the motion refers to "other reforms" that are needed to contribute:

"to the functioning of secure and stable institutions for all communities in Northern Ireland."

Harry Harvey referred to the non-attendance. Of course, it could have been avoided, Harry. The boycott did not achieve a lot. On the issue of the protocol, as I have said, the protocol was the spawn of Brexit, for which, in fact, many in your party voted. The protocol was the child of Brexit. Having voted for that, people cannot absolve themselves of responsibility and say, "Ah, well. Sorry: it was not my fault". It gave the red light — I say "red light" rather than "green light" because it stopped us and took us backwards — to a process that wound up with the protocol and subsequently with the Windsor framework. As for "bad guys", Harry, I would never refer to you as a bad guy, but your own party helped to deliver Brexit and the protocol. Eóin Tennyson referred to the boycott and disregard for the Good Friday Agreement. My colleague Daniel McCrossan also referred to it and to the DUP's digging itself deeper into a hole. The North/South Ministerial Council was there, and is there, to deal with relevant issues, whether those are about North/South, all-island economic cooperation, environmental regulations and support or health issues, which many Members have referred to here. Nobody — nobody — can tell me that boycotting those institutions delivered anything positive for the community in Northern Ireland. Nothing. The boycott delivered nothing positive in dealing with key, instrumental and positive elements that people should be getting on with.

If you choose to absent yourself from those key responsibilities and duties, you are neglecting your duties to the entire community. Sin a bhfuil le rá agam.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:31 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