Debate contribution: Ministerial Code of Conduct: Breaches
Debate contribution by Mr Brian Kingston on .
- MLA
- Mr Brian Kingston
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 18 November 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Ministerial Code of Conduct: Breaches
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4655722
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The action of DUP Ministers in the previous Executive and the subsequent legal judgement were a collective demonstration that the original protocol imposed by the EU and the UK Government caused a deterioration in political and economic stability in Northern Ireland. The concerns of unionists had been trampled on, and the DUP makes no apology for having brought matters to a head. Only then did the EU reverse its position and return to the negotiating table. Ultimately, legislative changes were made. We in the DUP will take no lectures from other parties that resisted bringing about a political resolution to that impasse and, instead, called for the rigorous implementation of the protocol — the arrangements that were at the heart of the problem.
Yes, I will.
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Absolutely. My colleague is right: the party was right to make that stand. It brought about benefit to our constitutional position and to our economic position in the UK internal market. During that period, we made it clear that it would not be appropriate for us to thwart decision-making on crucial issues such as health cooperation. In fact, cross-border meetings took place during the period, with the attendance of other Ministers to sign off on those issues and on PEACE PLUS funding. It is a pity that other parties did not follow that example: in 2008, Sinn Féin boycotted Executive meetings, and, in 2017, it pulled down the institutions and deprived the Assembly of the ability to sit, prevented British-Irish Council meetings from taking place and stopped the North/South bodies from being able to operate in any shape or form.
Until now, the common thread running through all strand two and strand three institutions has been that they are accountable to Stormont. Regrettably, the undemocratic imposition of over 300 areas of EU law on Northern Ireland has reframed the terms of North/South cooperation, attacking and diminishing the principle that the North/South Ministerial Council and other bodies are accountable to the Executive and the Assembly. That is where the act of bad faith lies. The DUP supports practical, sensible and targeted cooperation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. We do not feel that our proud British and unionist identity is under threat from the many positive examples of beneficial and life-saving cross-border health projects, including the all-island congenital heart disease network and the North West Cancer Centre. The DUP wants that vital work to continue. When it comes to having respect for the institutions and the various codes that are applicable to Members, we should perhaps take a look at the recent history of those parties that are championing the motion. When Gerry Kelly admitted committing a criminal offence at the Tour of the North parade in 2013 and was sanctioned by the then Assembly Commissioner for Standards, it was the SDLP that used the petition of concern to block those sanctions from taking effect. In the same year, the then Lord Chief Justice ruled that Michelle O'Neill, the then Agriculture Minister, had breached the ministerial code by trying to transfer money from the direct farm support budget into rural development programmes without there being Executive consideration. More recently, the former Alliance Party MLA Patrick Brown was found to have failed to observe the principles of conduct for MLAs and to have brought the Assembly into disrepute.
In closing, I say that —
— those championing the motion would do well —
— to remember that those in glass houses should not throw stones.
587 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.49 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.50).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- The overall probability was moderate at most and none of the culture-war criteria was close to being met.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.43 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.10 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.08 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.37 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.29 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.23 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.49 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.48 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.50 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.88 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.06 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.03 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.03 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:30 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.