Ex DUP man: I fear that safeguards against Sinn Fein won by our party at St Andrews in 2006 are being unpicked in a rush

I have been following the News Letter’s coverage of the rapid progress of the Executive Committee (Functions) Bill with some confusion and concern.
By David Cather
Published 26th Jul 2020, 06:00 BST
Updated 27th Jul 2020, 09:11 BST
Unionists who feared that the 2006 St Andrews Agreement was just the same as the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, above, were told by the DUP that ministers would not be able to run their departments like fiefdoms any longerUnionists who feared that the 2006 St Andrews Agreement was just the same as the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, above, were told by the DUP that ministers would not be able to run their departments like fiefdoms any longer
Unionists who feared that the 2006 St Andrews Agreement was just the same as the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, above, were told by the DUP that ministers would not be able to run their departments like fiefdoms any longer

The key paragraph in the bill, as highlighted by Jim Allister is: “Nothing in subsection (3) requires a Minister to have recourse to the Executive Committee in relation to any matter unless that matter affects the exercise of the statutory responsibilities of one or more other Ministers more than incidentally.”

This would seem to imply that any minister, who can argue that any matter their department is dealing with does not impact any other department, more than incidentally, can act with impunity.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Richard Bullick outlined on Friday (see link below) how this goes against what has been DUP strategy for 16 years.

Letter to the editorLetter to the editor
Letter to the editor

I can only add a personal perspective from having been a rank and file party member for most of those years. Naturally in those days I got challenged by friends that the St Andrews Agreement was just the same as the Good Friday Agreement and my key counter-argument, was that ministers would not be able to run their departments like fiefdoms any longer.

It is worth remembering how enraged ordinary unionists were when Martin McGuinness signed the 11 plus out of existence by himself, and no-one and nothing could stop him. How could this level of power reside, unchecked, with one individual and an individual with a terrorist past at that?

Moreover, regardless of a minister’s past, unchecked power in the hands of one person is bad for democracy. At the time, I believed that the DUP was the party to ensure that such concentration of power could never be allowed to happen again.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Yet under the terms of this bill it is easy to see how Martin McGuinness could successfully argue that the 11 plus is not an issue which affects any department except education.

I hope that protections and safeguards, hard won in the past, are not being unpicked by this alarmingly rushed piece of legislation; but the confused messages coming from Arlene Foster, over a three minister call-in mechanism which apparently doesn’t exist, do not exactly inspire confidence.

The bill seems to have been tabled in response to issues around planning, but has been drafted in such a way as to give it much wider implications. It urgently needs pared back to its original purpose.

David Cather, Belfast BT6

• News story: Crucial ‘veto’ claim now dropped by Arlene Foster, leaked DUP note shows as vote on key bill looms

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

• Doug Beattie: It is madness to hand ministers more unchecked powers, and hard to understand why DUP is backing it

• Morning View: MLAs should back Doug Beattie’s amendment today

• Jim Allister: The plan to unfetter powers of Stormont ministers must be delayed for crucial scrutiny

• Richard Bullick: The DUP won key safeguards for unionism, yet seems to be sleepwalking into removing them

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

• Sam McBride: With the incurious scrutinising the inept, Stormont is sinking lower into disrepute

• News story: Arlene Foster still backs ‘dangerous’ law – but offers no rebuttal of ex-aide’s warning

• Morning View: Court ruling cannot be basis for removing essential legal constraints

——— ———

A message from the Editor:

Thank you for reading this story on our website. While I have your attention, I also have an important request to make of you.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

With the coronavirus lockdown having a major impact on many of our advertisers — and consequently the revenue we receive — we are more reliant than ever on you taking out a digital subscription.

Subscribe to newsletter.co.uk and enjoy unlimited access to the best Northern Ireland and UK news and information online and on our app. With a digital subscription, you can read more than 5 articles, see fewer ads, enjoy faster load times, and get access to exclusive newsletters and content. Visit https://www.newsletter.co.uk/subscriptions now to sign up.

Our journalism costs money and we rely on advertising, print and digital revenues to help to support them. By supporting us, we are able to support you in providing trusted, fact-checked content for this website.

Alistair Bushe

Editor

Related topics:DUPSt AndrewsMartin McGuinnessSinn Fein