Reader TTS

Last week, the Stormont Assembly passed a controversial bill that could eventually spell the end of Arlene Foster’s leadership of the DUP. The party is known for its strict discipline, but

on Tuesday, eleven of its MLAs launched an unlikely rebellion during a vote on procedural legislation. It had appeared that the passage of the Executive (Committee) Functions Bill through

the assembly would be routine and dull, until Richard Bullick, a former special adviser to the first minister and key DUP strategist, alleged that it would have far reaching consequences

that he suspected Foster did not understand. Ostensibly, the bill was supposed to be about making everyday decision-making easier, particularly when it came to planning. Back in 2018, when

Stormont was suspended, the high court blocked approval for a controversial waste incinerator, on the basis that the decision must be taken by a minister rather than a civil servant. In the

absence of devolution, and with the Westminster government refusing to restore direct-rule, that put in doubt officials’ authority to keep Northern Ireland running from day to day. When the

judgement was appealed, the court went further, ruling that such a significant and controversial decision had to be taken by the power-sharing executive as a whole. The judges argued that

ministers’ collective involvement was particularly important in this case, because the incinerator would “cross cut” issues of interest to the department of agriculture. According to Arlene

Foster and the Executive Office, the new bill is designed to clarify the grounds on which decisions have to be discussed by the executive, ensuring that most planning disputes can be dealt

with by the department of infrastructure. Other “non-controversial” matters remain within the remit of the appropriate departments. In contrast, Bullick argues that it dismantles safeguards

that previously prevented ministers going on “solo runs”. He believes it rolls back constraints that the DUP negotiated as part of the St Andrews Agreement in 2007, when it agreed to operate

the devolved institutions alongside Sinn Fein, having previously opposed power-sharing. Back then, the party was prepared to curtail its own ministers’ autonomy, in order to make sure that

Sinn Fein couldn’t operate outside the collective responsibility of the executive. They’d been shaken by previous examples of republicans acting unilaterally on controversial issues, against

the protests of unionists. One prominent example took place in 2002, as another political crisis engulfed Northern Ireland, when the education minister, Martin McGuinness, abolished the

Eleven Plus exam on the final day of the Assembly. Power-sharing was collapsing because Sinn Fein officials had been arrested for running an IRA spy ring at Stormont. The decision and its

timing was a deliberate insult to unionists who’d been asked to accept that a former terrorist commander would be in charge of their children’s education. Against that historical backdrop

and with the tension between Sinn Fein and the rest of the executive parties currently high, Mr Bullick’s insistence that the Executive Functions Bill will have an impact far beyond planning

decisions alarmed DUP MLAs and their unionist rivals. Mrs Foster and her allies argued that any three ministers could still “call in” departmental decisions to the executive, preserving the

DUP’s power to veto controversial policies, but she failed to show that this convention was backed up by legislation. Three of the party’s elder statesmen, Sammy Wilson MP, Sir Jeffrey

Donaldson MP and Nigel Dodds, former deputy leader, asked her to pause to consider the likely consequences of the legislation, but she refused. Indeed, the first minister chose not to attend

the Assembly last Tuesday, as the bill passed its final vote. The Ulster Unionists tabled amendments that they claimed would address the problems with the legislation, but they were

defeated. All non-DUP unionist MLAs voted against the bill, while eleven DUP MLAs, many of them in the party’s younger, more liberal wing, “actively abstained” by visiting both lobbies. When

you discount the DUP ministers and whips who were bound to vote for the legislation, that meant more than half its Assembly party rebelled. Pointedly, they were persuaded to take such

drastic, uncharacteristic action by an argument that directly called into question Arlene Foster’s understanding, judgement and attention to detail. It’s possible that the vote will remain

an embarrassing episode that took place during a pandemic, when the first minister’s attention was understandably focused elsewhere. Then again, Mrs Foster’s reputation has already been

damaged by the RHI renewable heating scandal, perceived concessions to Sinn Fein aimed at restoring Stormont and the ongoing debacle of the Northern Ireland Protocol, agreed by a Tory

government, propped up by her party. Worse than the cock up theory, is the insinuation that Foster’s decision to loosen the constraints of collective responsibility may have been deliberate.

The _Belfast News Letter_’s political editor, Sam McBride, wrote a column on Saturday suggesting that figures in the DUP quite deliberately drove the legislation, knowing what its

consequences were likely to be. Either way, if (when?) an executive minister makes a controversial, unilateral decision following the enactment of the bill, and unionists are powerless to

stop it, then it could mean the end of Arlene Foster as leader of the DUP.