Foster and O’Neill Dodge Question on Unenforceable Pledge of Office
General

Foster and O’Neill Dodge Question on Unenforceable Pledge of Office

Statement by TUV leader Jim Allister:

“Following the finding of Justice McAlinden the deputy First Minister’s delay on moving forward with a victims’ pension amounted to “deliberately choosing to ignore the requirement to comply with the rule of law to express a political advantage” I tabled a question to the Executive Office asking what action would be taken, specifically because the Ministerial Pledge of Office places Ministers under an obligation “to uphold the rule of law based as it is on the fundamental principles of fairness, impartiality and democratic accountability”.

“All Mrs Foster and Ms O’Neill can say in response, which typically for their office is a month late, is that the Department of Justice has been designated to progress the scheme. There is not even a pretence about attempting to address the actual issue highlighted by the question.

“In the aftermath of St Andrews the DUP claimed that one of their main achievements was that, in the words of Peter Robinson, “The St Andrews Agreement requires republicans to support the rule of law including the courts and the judicial process”. Their manifesto in the subsequent Assembly election also cited this as a major victory for Unionism, even claiming that “Taking this Pledge of Office is a precondition for anyone wishing to become a Minister in Northern Ireland. This legal requirement does more than make Ministers take the pledge. It requires them to deliver on their obligations.”

“Now we see that even in an office jointly headed by a DUP Minister the Pledge of Office isn’t worth the paper it is written on!

“My Private Member’s Bill currently making its way through Stormont would help to rectify this situation as it would make it possible for the Assembly Standards Commissioner to investigate breaches of the Ministerial Code. This answer is a reminder of why the current defect needs to be addressed.”

Note to editors

Mr Allister’s question and the response received are as follows:
To ask the First Minister and deputy First Minister what action, in light of the Pledge of Office, will be taken on foot of the finding by Justice McAlinden that the deputy First Minister’s thwarting of movement on the victims’ pension is a patent example of an attempt to subvert the rule of law for political ends. 

The Department of Justice was designated to exercise the administrative functions of the Victims’ Payments Board on the Board’s behalf under para 2(1) of Schedule 1 to the Victims’ Payments Regulations 2020 on 24th August 2020.