Debate contribution: Holding Ministers to Account

Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on 10 November 2025.

MLA

Mr Timothy Gaston

Party at the time

Traditional Unionist Voice

Date

10 November 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Holding Ministers to Account

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5224985

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. Through necessity, there will be a degree of overlap in some of my comments on the earlier motion and this one, given that the earlier motion dealt with the exclusion of a specific Minister, while this one deals with how Ministers can be removed from office and held accountable through the ministerial code. The purpose of my amendment is to highlight the fact that we already have a process in place. We have an independent mechanism through which alleged breaches of the ministerial code can be examined. The problem with the motion, and, indeed, with the House in a recent example, is that both have chosen to ignore that existing mechanism. Let us be honest: the so-called constructive Opposition were quite happy to go along with that for the sake of protecting the process. My amendment changes the motion's final line. Instead of vaguely calling for the First Minister and the deputy First Minister to dream up some more nice reform proposals, it requires them:

"to respect the role of the Commissioner for Standards when it comes to investigating breaches of the ministerial code as required by section 5 of the Functioning of Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 2021",

because we already have a structure in place for accountability. It is simply not being used. In fact, the Assembly allowed it to be bypassed. The 2021 Act, from my party leader, Jim Allister, was borne out of the findings of the renewable heat incentive (RHI) inquiry and the public demand for integrity in government. It recognised, as Mr Allister said during the Second Stage debate on the Functioning of Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill:

"Ministers have a ministerial code, but there is no accountability." — [Official Report (Hansard), Bound Volume 127, p77, col 1].

I thank the Member for his intervention. To be clear, he is putting the cart before the horse. I want to see the report. It is important that evidence be gathered and that we then make our determination on the report, instead of the pantomime that we saw this morning, where Members were willing to hang the Minister out to dry without due process being followed. I am very clear: let us see the content of the report, and we will take it from there. Clause 5 of the Bill was designed to close that gap. Its purpose was simple. Mr Allister said:

"If MLAs are subject to the Assembly commissioner, why not Ministers?"

He asked:

"Why are we reinventing the wheel? We have ... a standards commissioner to deal with issues of conduct." — [Official Report (Hansard), Bound Volume 127, p77, cols 1-2].

He then asked why we should not widen that commissioner's remit to include the ministerial code. The intention was to ensure independent oversight, to remove discretion from the Executive and to give binding effect to standards, which, until then, existed only in a code. At Second Stage, Mr Allister quoted Lord Bingham's observations on a code, which he made in another case. Lord Bingham said that a code:

"does not have the binding effect which a statutory provision or a statutory instrument would have." — [Official Report (Hansard), Bound Volume 127, p71, col 2].

That was the point. Codes are fine, but they are simply not enough. When the McMonagle scandal broke — when the First Minister and other Sinn Féin Members were accused of a serious misuse of public money — the statutory route was ignored. Instead of referring the matter to the commissioner, as the law permits, the investigation was handed to an insider: the Assembly's head of Legal Services. It was, by its own admission, a purely paper exercise, with no witnesses, no testing of the evidence, and, I would argue, no independence. When the Assembly debated the matter in January, the House agreed with me that the process was unacceptable. Yet, 10 months on, the same paper review remains the only investigation to have been carried out. I attempted to refer the scandal to the commissioner. She declined to accept the referral, citing the fact that the head of Legal Services had already reviewed the issue. That meant that significant evidence was never tested by an independent investigator, including Sam McBride's report that, contrary to Sinn Féin's claims, McMonagle had worked as a press officer in a party political capacity. There was no new inquiry, and the report that the Assembly regretted is still treated as definitive. Sinn Féin, the Alliance Party and the SDLP tolerated that, but were quite prepared to hang, draw and quarter the Education Minister earlier without any report. The SDLP speak this afternoon about accountability, transparency and integrity, yet when the opportunity arose to use the proper processes to investigate the First Minister, it played along for the sake of the process. The motion calls for respect for the law, yet the law, specifically the requirements of the 2021 Act, was ignored in our handling of the McMonagle affair. The DUP should also reflect. When I tabled a motion of no confidence in Michelle O'Neill because of that scandal, the DUP was nowhere to be seen. Tellingly, as the DUP found out today, the favour was not returned by its coalition partners. There is one rule for Sinn Féin and another rule for unionist Ministers. So-called accountability is not a principle but a political weapon, and that is why my amendment is necessary.

I am happy to speak to that. Indeed, it allows due process and an investigation to take place, and then it is up to the standards commissioner to take that forward. The gap was narrowed to make sure that everybody in this Building was treated in the same way. Indeed, my amendment does not propose new structures or commissions; it simply insists that the Assembly uses the independent mechanism that it already has — the Commissioner for Standards — and that Ministers be investigated in line with statute, not by their colleagues or party allies. As Mr Allister said, when introducing his then Bill, giving the commissioner that role:

"would put everyone in the House on the same footing." — [Official Report (Hansard), Bound Volume 127, p142, col 2].

That is what equality before the law looks like. If Members genuinely want to build trust, they should start by following the law. The 2021 Act was designed to end the era of insiders marking their own homework, but the McMonagle affair showed that, when tested, the House still prefers cover-up to candour. Members have a choice this afternoon. They can support the SDLP's motion as it is written and sign up to another talking shop on reform, while the statutory safeguard that we already possess lies unused. Or, they can support my amendment and commit the Assembly to respecting the law, using the commissioner, who was appointed just last week, and investigating Ministers based on the evidence. If we truly believe in equality before the law, there can be no more insider reviews, no more paper exercises and no more selective outrage. One standard must apply to us all, whether we are an MLA or a Minister. The Functioning of Government Act 2021 gave us the mechanism for achieving integrity, consistency and respect for the rule of law — a rule that Sinn Féin has never honoured. I commend my amendment to the House.

1,231 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:43 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