Debate contribution: Ministerial Code of Conduct: Breaches
Debate contribution by Mr Harry Harvey on .
- MLA
- Mr Harry Harvey
- 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 4655765
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I will make a few points. First, it is interesting to note the new-found interest that the SDLP has in the events of 2021. It is a pity that it did commit itself back then to working constructively to address the issues facing us in order to avoid the action that was taken. Non-attendance at North/South Ministerial Council meetings could have been avoided with a political resolution, a resolution that the SDLP and other parties in the Chamber resisted to such an extent that they called for the rigorous implementation of the mechanisms at the very heart of the problem. The motion makes no reference to the steps that we in my party took to ensure that our removal from the Council did not impact on or impede essential decision-making on crucial issues such as cross-border health cooperation. In that regard, the motion is factually wrong. Before the Opposition attempt to caricature my party as the bad guys holding up sensible solutions by way of cross-border cooperation, it is worth stating that we have no issue whatever with working collaboratively with neighbouring jurisdictions, particularly the Republic of Ireland, to achieve better, quicker and more efficient results for everyone on the island. Practical and sensible targeted cooperation on areas of mutual benefit is a no-brainer and should be welcomed. The motion calls for a review of strand two; however, it should be remembered that the goalposts have already been moved in relation to the impact of the protocol on the North/South relationship. The undemocratic imposition of over 300 areas of EU law on Northern Ireland has reframed the terms of North/South cooperation. It has attacked and diminished the principle that the NSMC and other bodies should be accountable to the Executive and the Assembly. That is where the act of bad faith lies, meaning that there is inevitable damage to the delicate balance of relations. On reform, I remind Members that the institutions that we are all privileged to serve in are built on consensus and the necessity of working and delivering for all and are founded on commanding the ongoing support of unionism and nationalism. In times past, the SDLP was quick to remind unionism of that fact but is now, sadly, less so. No level of reform should be used as a short-term tool to punish one community or elevate another with knee-jerk reactions. On the contrary, reform should seek to better solidify cross-community support and equality. Where devolution can be improved to benefit better governance —.
Yes. I would welcome the Member's intervention.
Thank you very much. I thank the Member for his intervention. We in the DUP have demonstrated that we will not be found wanting, whether on the reduction in the number of MLAs, the reduction in the number of Departments, Ministers and advisers or on the wider streamlining of politics here. We have always been to the forefront of change for the better. The reform of strand two or elements of strand one cannot be conducted in isolation from a wider discussion of reform. Piecemeal reviews based on party political motivations will not serve to better our institutions. The normalisation of our system of government towards voluntary coalition, for example, is something that we would wish to see in future. However, we must approach that and other issues with a strong realism that is in the here and now.
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.
570 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: 0.38 (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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.77).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- The overall probability was low and the text did not adopt any identity-based framing.
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 | 0.47 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.06 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.04 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.20 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.18 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.37 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.38 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.77 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.09 |
| Adopts it | 0.13 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.65 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.28 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.05 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 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.