Lawyer warns controversial bill likely to see more court cases – contrary to what Foster and O’Neill claim

A senior lawyer has raised concerns about a second aspect of the bill which Arlene Foster and Michelle O’Neill are attempting to rush through the Assembly.
Solicitor Maria O’Loan has expressed concerns about the Executive Committee (Functions) BillSolicitor Maria O’Loan has expressed concerns about the Executive Committee (Functions) Bill
Solicitor Maria O’Loan has expressed concerns about the Executive Committee (Functions) Bill

Maria O’Loan, a consultant at major Belfast law firm Tughans, said that rather than reduce the likelihood of legal challenges – as the first and deputy first ministers have claimed – the Executive Committee (Functions) Bill is likely to see more Stormont decisions ending up in court.

That, she said, would slow the economy – the opposite of what the DUP and Sinn Féin have said.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Writing in the Irish News, Ms O’Loan set out concerns which are separate to those of Arlene Foster’s former adviser Richard Bullick.

The solicitor, whose specialises in planning and public law, said the bill had already proceeded to an advanced stage of the legislative process “with little scrutiny or consultation” and that it “creates more uncertainty and potential for legal challenge”.

That, she said, “could have unintended consequences on planning and inward investment for years to come” by creating confusion and delay where businesses want to have clarity.

The lawyer also said that one implication of the bill would be to re-write one of the safeguards of the Belfast Agreement. Rather than significant, controversial or cross-cutting decisions coming before the whole Executive, the legislation gives complete freedom to the Infrastructure Minister to take those decisions alone “no matter how controversial or significant, and regardless of how many other departments that decision would affect”.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

She said: “In a post conflict society planning applications may be received for politically controversial developments which are the very type of ‘significant and controversial’ matters which the authors of the Good Friday Agreement envisaged would come before the Executive.

“Intentional or not, the draft legislation represents a significant constitutional shift where the infrastructure minister is in effect given more power and less Executive scrutiny than their ministerial colleagues.”

Read More:

——— ———

——— ———

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