Debate contribution: Ministerial Code of Conduct: Breaches

Debate contribution by Mr Eóin Tennyson on .

MLA
Mr Eóin Tennyson
Party at the time
Alliance Party
Date
18 November 2024
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Opposition Business
Heading
Ministerial Code of Conduct: Breaches
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4655781

Read the official Assembly record

Text

It is telling that Minister Lyons and former Ministers McIlveen and Middleton are not in their place to answer for their actions, albeit they have wheeled out their colleagues to lay out a valiant defence of the indefensible. The Good Friday Agreement relies on three strands: strong relationships internally in Northern Ireland; strong east-west relationships between this island and Britain; and strong North/South relationships. This place functions only on the basis of interdependence, respect and cooperation. In boycotting the North/South meetings, the DUP intentionally sought to disregard that agreement, disrespect its colleagues and disrespect the people whom it is here to serve. It claims to have done so in order to exercise leverage over the EU, in which it has failed. It exercised leverage only over the most vulnerable, who languished on ever-increasing waiting lists, were under pressure from huge spikes in the cost of living and struggled to get adequate education provision for their kids. Those were the people who suffered, not Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak or the European Commission. It is telling that none of the Ministers or Members concerned are here to answer, because they know that that was the sole consequence of their actions.

The report of the Standards and Privileges Committee was clear in pointing to the fact that Ministers acted unlawfully and continued to act unlawfully even after the High Court decision had been made, setting a poor example, lowering standards and destroying what was left of public trust and confidence in our institutions.

I find the level of hypocrisy striking. We have Members of the DUP and Sinn Féin standing up and pointing fingers at each other for actions that their own parties engaged in. Mr Kearney talked about the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, but says that we could not possibly look at a review. A review was promised in the original text of the Good Friday Agreement and has never been implemented. This is not about elevating one community over another: it is about equality. It is about ensuring that everyone in Northern Ireland is treated equally by the institutions, irrespective of whether they are nationalist, unionist or represented by the Members on these Benches who do not align with either of those two boxes. It is also about accountability. Had the Assembly wished to debate a statutory motion of censure of any of the Members concerned, that motion would have been blocked by cross-community vote. Accountability in the Assembly will be a pipe dream for as long as the current arrangements are allowed to stand. I implore the two largest parties, who have been the stumbling block to reform —

— to wake up —

— and to deliver for the people whom they represent.

457 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.29 (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 (0.62).
  • Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
  • The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.

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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.16No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.09No
Cultural grievance politics0.05No
Dog-whistle messaging0.18No
Controversy escalation0.20No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.56No
Overall judgement0.29At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.62
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.36
Adopts it0.02
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.65
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty0.32
Another identity-related subject0.02
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism0.01
No identity-related subject0.00

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.

Challenge this classification