Debate contribution: Holding Ministers to Account

Debate contribution by Mrs Pam Cameron on 10 November 2025.

MLA

Mrs Pam Cameron

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

10 November 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Holding Ministers to Account

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5225089

Read the official Assembly record

Text

The Democratic Unionist Party recognises the need for strong and effective measures that enhance transparency and accountability in the devolved institutions. Accountability and trust matter, and Ministers should always conduct themselves to the highest standard of propriety and integrity. The public are entitled to nothing less. However, we also recognise something else that is fundamental: before any reform of our institutions, we need a period of sustained political stability. Stability is not a luxury; it is the foundation that allows accountability to operate properly and fairly. The SDLP motion claims that, under the current structures, it is impossible to hold Ministers to account even when there has been a breach of the ministerial code or the law, but that is simply not accurate. Accountability mechanisms already exist. Since the passage of the Functioning of Government Act in 2021, the Assembly has given the Assembly Commissioner for Standards clear statutory power to investigate alleged breaches of the ministerial code. In addition, the Standards and Privileges Committee already possesses authority to set the procedures for those investigations and can require the commissioner to revisit a decision if a complaint is ruled inadmissible. Therefore, when the SDLP claims that no process exists, it is ignoring the powers that the Assembly put into law. Our party has consistently supported fair and robust measures that ensure that Ministers are accountable for their actions. In our engagement with the Standards and Privileges Committee earlier this year, we acknowledged that the careful use of powers, particularly the ability to explore or recommend sanctions, could improve accountability, but any such reforms must be subject to essential safeguards. That is where the motion and Sinn Féin's amendment are deeply flawed. First, any reforms or changes to Standing Orders must command broad political support. Accountability should never be driven by temporary voting strength on one side of the Chamber. Reforms must be considered within the wider framework that already exists to examine such matters, namely the AERC. That is the proper structure to review institutional reform, not motions dropped on to the Floor of the Assembly without detailed scrutiny. Critically, the power to appoint or dismiss Ministers must continue to rest solely with the party leaders and their nominating officers. The SDLP motion implies that a grouping of parties should be able to dictate the appointment or dismissal of Ministers from parties that they oppose. That directly contradicts the motion's language about stability. The integrity and independence of the Assembly standards commissioner must not be impeded. The commissioner was given powers to investigate Ministers precisely so that accountability could be independent. If the intention is to allow what would essentially be a pan-nationalist coalition to ignore the commissioner's findings and impose its own sanctions for political purposes, that is unacceptable. Any recommendations for sanctions of any kind must require cross-community support in Committee and in the Assembly. In a power-sharing system, cross-community support is not optional but fundamental. No sanction should ever be recommended or approved on the basis of a simple majority vote. Sinn Féin's amendment speaks grandly about protecting the Good Friday Agreement, yet Sinn Féin has happily abandoned the agreement's cross-community principle when it suited, most notably on the protocol. It will be interesting to see whether Sinn Féin's professed concern for the agreement extends to its upholding of core protections today. Any arrangements must guard against vexatious or frivolous allegations: without that, accountability becomes a political weapon rather than a safeguard. Finally, we must be clear on one point that seems to have been overlooked. If a sanction prevents a Minister from taking part in the Assembly, such as their being suspended from the Chamber, that reduces accountability, as it prevents MLAs from questioning that Minister about their departmental work. That frustrates rather than improves scrutiny. Without those safeguards, the SDLP motion and the Sinn Féin amendment would do real damage. They would undermine the independence of investigations, erode cross-community protections and destabilise the institutions. The DUP supports accountability, transparency and consequences where wrongdoing is proven, but it will not support a model that allows political parties to remove Ministers from office simply because they do not like the party to which they belong. Accountability must protect democracy, but it should not be used to manipulate it. Accountability? Yes. Cross-community safeguards? Yes. Political power plays? Absolutely not.

721 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