2025-05-02 23:00:00

---

It is, in fact, far more than a debate about language, it is a challenge to the very foundations of how devolved government was restored and how it is supposed to function. Let us be clear, with proudly British DUP members who are fluent Irish speakers, I recognise the Irish language is part of our cultural tapestry. It has however been abused by republicans who have sought to use it for political ends and sadly therefore policy relating to its use has become patently controversial. From day one when this controversy arose, I said across many interviews and press comment that we have a plan and will not countenance the unilateral exercise of ministerial power that bypasses the executive’s decision-making mechanisms enshrined in law. In response to an Irish language protest, this Sinn Fein decision was a calculated and politically motivated attempt to demonstrate action for vocal activists with limited regard to the law or the requirement for cross-community consensus at the heart of the executive’s operation. Had the minister sought advice prior to her impugned decision, the direction of travel would have differed significantly. There has been some misguided commentary, both in the courtroom and in the public square, that signing an NI assembly petition under section 28B of the Northern Ireland Act, would have a material impact on the DfI minister’s decision. That assertion is not only wrong in law, but also in fact. Our plan all along has not been to score political points for the DUP but to demonstrate that the tramlines within which ministers operate, are sufficient to deal with episodes like this where ministers seek to go on solo runs and plough their own controversial furrow. Firstly, DUP ministers and MLAs consistently articulated this decision was controversial. Secondly, the communities minister wrote to the infrastructure minister seeking the basis on which this decision was made and citing previous examples, reminding the minister of the legal framework within which ministers must operate. Thirdly, we tabled the matter at the executive under Any Other Business and our ministers laid out explicitly the need for this decision to be rescinded and brought to the executive for discussion and decision. Fourthly, our deputy first minister reiterated our position clearly at an executive press conference, describing the decision as “utterly shambolic” and demanding that it be brought to the executive for proper discussion and decision. Fifthly, in face of the DfI minister refusing to bring the matter to executive, our communities minister has sought legal assistance to challenge the decision in court. Whilst we have been taking meaningful action, those relying on a section 28B petition fundamentally misunderstand its effect. Indeed, the notion that signing the petition would have consequently and independently deprived the minister for infrastructure of her ministerial authority could be best described as legally illiterate. Signing that petition would have served little more than to flag the issue under “Any Other Business” just like we had already done. The petition is a mechanism which may garner political headlines but has limited practical consequence, hence why is has seldom been used since 2007. Having already raised it at the executive there was no need to repeat the same process for ‘likes’ and ‘shares’ on Facebook. Last Wednesday in the Royal Courts of Justice, counsel for the department of infrastructure sought to advance an argument that the DfI minister’s decision was not ‘controversial’ because there was no valid Section 28B petition. The judicial review applicant rightly rebutted the spurious notion that signing the petition would have made a material difference. Subsequently the judicial review applicant wrote to me seeking clarity on several issues aired in the court. I have responded with a 1,200-word letter for the court setting out how the DfI minister’s controversial decision is not supported by law. The minister cannot, on her own volition, implement a measure that is controversial and politically divisive without bringing it to the executive. Her refusal to do so not only bypasses the established norms of decision-making, it violates the statutory obligations that flow from St Andrews. It is telling that no credible observer, regardless of their political stance, can honestly argue that this is not a controversial issue. The public debate alone confirms that it is. The fact that the minister chose to press ahead without seeking executive agreement is, therefore, not just procedurally flawed, it is profoundly disrespectful to the institutions of power-sharing. This is not the first time Sinn Fein ministers have attempted to govern by edict rather than consensus. On each previous time, we have followed the same path of warning and then securing successful legal remedy. We will follow the same course on this occasion too. Litigation is never a step we take lightly. But when all political avenues are closed, when reasoned calls for process are ignored, legal action becomes the only recourse left. That is why this case is now before the courts, and why I believe it is neither a close nor difficult call. The proper course is clear. The minister must accept that this matter falls within the remit of the executive and bring forward a paper for executive discussion and decision. Until such time as that happens, the DUP will continue to challenge this decision legally via our ministers and also support those challenging the decision which is why I have written to the support the judicial review. This episode has grown beyond language or identity. It is about defending the legal tramlines of executive decision-making and respect for the delicate political structures that allow Northern Ireland to function. When ministers ignore the rules, they imperil more than just their own credibility. We will not stand by and allow that to happen and we will work with others who hold to our viewpoint. Click here to read an article by the TUV’s Timothy Gaston, who accused the DUP of ‘doing nothing’ on Irish signs at Grand Central station.