(1) Is the Westminster concept of ministerial responsibility still relevant;

(2) Do the Chief Minister's earlier statements (a) that "our whole system of government is based upon ministers being responsible for what happens in their departments" made on ABC Radio on 24 November 1994; and (b) in evidence to the VITAB inquiry on 10 May 1994 that (i) "I believe that it would be up to a government that I was minister in to ensure that absolute accountability was in place" (Transcript, p. 136); (ii) "I think the major issue comes back to accountability, to, well, straight ministerial and departmental control" (Transcript, p. 13 7); and (iii) "At the end of the day the minister is responsible" (Transcript, p. 142) reflect current Executive policy;

(3) Since 1995 has the Chief Minister been applying criteria in deciding the applicability of ministerial responsibility; if so, (A) what are they, and (B) is the Chief Minister able to provide an explanation as to under what circumstances she would (a) require a minister's resignation for breach of ministerial responsibility; and (b) deem it necessary for herself to (A) resign from the Executive or (B) step down from office for the period of an inquiry into her conduct;

(4) Is the Code of Conduct for Ministers issued on 27 August 1998 still applicable, in particular (i) the provision that the general obligations of Ministers are to include respect for the law and the system of government, respect for persons, integrity, diligence and economy and efficiency; and (ii) the provision in the preamble that, interalia, "Ministers must accept standards or conduct which may set a higher standard to those applying to others having office in the Assembly or the wider community".