Stormont’s Communities Minister has disregarded his legal duty to develop an anti-poverty strategy for Northern Ireland, a court has been told.
A legal challenge against the 18-year-long failure to fulfil a statutory obligation to introduce such a plan in the region was heard in Belfast High Court on Friday.
A barrister for the applicant taking the case – the Committee for the Administration of Justice (CAJ) – claimed Communities Minister Gordon Lyons’ approach to the issue suggested he is setting the strategy up to fail.
Karen Quinlivan KC also accused First Minister Michelle O’Neill and deputy First Minister Emma Little-Pengelly of an “abject failure” to progress the strategy.
Daniel Holder, the director of the Committee on the Administration of Justice, talking to the media outside the Royal Courts of Justice in Belfast (David Young/PA)
The St Andrews Agreement struck by the UK and Ireland in 2006 introduced a legislative obligation on the Stormont Executive to develop a strategy to tackle poverty in Northern Ireland.
A previous court challenge in 2015 ruled that the failure to act on the obligation was unlawful.
Despite that, a strategy has still not been introduced in the years since.
The CAJ, backed by the Public Interest Litigation Support (PILS) organisation, has taken a fresh judicial review challenge against Mr Lyons, Ms O’Neill, Ms Little-Pengelly and the Executive as a whole.
Arguments were heard by Mr Justice Humphreys in the High Court on Friday morning.
Ms Quinlivan, representing the CAJ, characterised Mr Lyons’ actions on a strategy as “lethargic”.
She also accused him of “binning” preparatory work undertaken in the previous Assembly mandate prior to the collapse of powersharing in 2022 – a period when Sinn Fein held the communities portfolio.
The barrister further alleged that the minister moved on the issue – by asking fellow ministers to set up a working group to examine a strategy – only when a legal letter from the CAJ threatening court action was sent last September.
“There’s no evidence of urgency on the part of the minister in relation to this issue,” she said.
Ms Quinlivan added: “We submit that, in truth, the minister appears to be aiming at a strategy which is set up to fail.”
The barrister claimed “procrastination” was a feature of Mr Lyons’ attitude to the strategy.
“The minister lies at the heart of the delay in developing this strategy,” she said.
“He has disregarded entirely the work undertaken during the lifespan of the previous executive.
“He has disregarded the statutory obligation which he as a minister was designated to bring forward.
“He has disregarded the exhortations of his own Assembly colleagues on the Communities Committee, which to their credit have sought, albeit unsuccessfully, to persuade him to fulfil his obligations.”
She added: “In truth, we say the evidence shows that he’s thwarted progress of the strategy in a manner inconsistent with his duties as a minister and inconsistent with his duty as a member of the Executive Committee.”
Ms Quinlivan said Ms O’Neill and Ms Little-Pengelly could have pressed for progress on the issue by placing it on the agenda of the Executive for consideration.
“It’s ultimately an Executive Committee responsibility,” she said.
“It is the collective responsibility of the Executive Committee and, as leaders of the Executive Committee, there’s a clear onus on the First and deputy First Ministers to identify the committee’s statutory obligations and to ensure compliance. We say they’ve manifestly failed to do so.”
Dr Tony McGleenan KC, representing the Stormont ministers, rejected the applicant’s arguments.
He insisted ministers had been making progress towards an agreed strategy since the return of powersharing last year.
The barrister acknowledged that the 18-year total delay was a material factor but he stressed that, in regard to the current Executive, the “clock begins to run” when devolution returned in February 2024.
He said Mr Lyons was fully entitled to look at the issue afresh when he became Communities Minister and insisted he was under no obligation to continue the work done in the previous mandate.
“We can’t ignore the fact of a new mandate,” he said.
“A new incoming minister and executive are entitled to say ‘we will look anew at this’.”
He said Mr Lyons had nevertheless ensured “quite a significant degree of continuity” with previous work on the strategy.
“So it isn’t a case of reset to zero and start again,” he added.
“The issue is picked up.”
Mr McGleenan said there was “no evidential basis” to support the argument that Mr Lyons was acting in “bad faith”.
The barrister said while the St Andrews Agreement had introduced a statutory obligation, he highlighted that there was no legislative timeframe on when such a strategy should be introduced.
He added: “If you stand back and look at this case and ask ourselves whether the Minister of the Communities is frustrating the statutory purpose, or whether the First Minister, deputy First Minister or the Executive are frustrating the statutory purpose, I’d say that’s a conclusion that it’s difficult for the court to reach because all the evidence in this mandate is that they are progressing towards the discharge of that statutory purpose.”
The judge said he did find it “peculiar” that a strategy had not been implemented in the years since St Andrews, as he made the point that a desire to tackle poverty should not be a “contentious” issue for a government.
He said he would reserve judgment in the case and deliver a ruling as soon as was possible.
Justice Humphreys said: “Obviously, this is an important case, both in terms of the applicant and the public interest more generally, but also it’s an important case concerning the respective roles of ministers of the Executive Committee and indeed of the court in the exercise of statutory duties in bringing forward strategies and policies of this nature.”