Arlene Foster’s stance on bill to give ministers more power contradicts her own position in court

Arlene Foster’s own lawyer argued on her behalf against the position which she is now advocating, it emerged last night.
Arlene Foster and Michelle O'Neill are jointly bringing forward the legislationArlene Foster and Michelle O'Neill are jointly bringing forward the legislation
Arlene Foster and Michelle O'Neill are jointly bringing forward the legislation

In 2014, Mrs Foster, the then enterprise minister, issued judicial review proceedings against the SDLP environment minister, Mark H Durkan, in relation to a planning policy decision relating to Sprucefield shopping centre.

The case centred on her argument – which the court upheld – that Mr Durkan had a duty to bring the issue to the Executive as a so-called ‘cross-cutting’ issue.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

However, an extract from the arguments made to the court was tweeted last night by Mrs Foster’s former special advisor, Richard Bullick, and that shows that the DUP leader argued for a broad interpretation of cross-cutting – something which would give more power to the Executive, and less power to individual ministers.

That was in line with longstanding DUP policy aimed at curtailing the unilateral power of Sinn Fein ministers, but is directly contrary to Mrs Foster’s current move to hand back power from the Executive to ministers.

Citing case law, Mrs Foster’s lawyer had argued: “These decisions all support an expansive interpretation of the matters which must be referred to the Executive for discussion and agreement.”

The argument on behalf of Mrs Foster went on: “In relation to cross-cutting matters, it is clear that a decision which involves or touches upon the responsibility of another minister should be referred to the Executive; and that the complexity of government makes it inevitable that this will arise frequently.”

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The News Letter asked the DUP if Mrs Foster was aware that she is now asking MLAs to vote in opposition to the position she outlined to the High Court.

In a statement, the party did not address why Mrs Foster was adopting a position contrary to that which she had argued in court, but it defended what she was doing.
The party said: “The amendment clarifies the requirements on ministers to bring cross-cutting matters to the Executive to simply reflect in legislation the practice and interpretation of ‘cross-cutting’ by the Executive since the St Andrews Agreement.

“As this simply reflects practice, it is anticipated that there will no reduction or change on the volume or type of matters that are required to come to the Executive under this requirement.

“The amendment’s purpose is to give legislative clarity and does not change Executive’s collective responsibility or ministerial obligations to bring cross-cutting matters to the Executive.”

Read More:

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Sam McBride analysis: Arlene Foster seems to be tearing up historic DUP policy, perhaps without even realising

——— ———

——— ———

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.

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.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

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