Debate contribution: Ministerial Code of Conduct: Breaches
Debate contribution by Mr Daniel McCrossan on .
- MLA
- Mr Daniel McCrossan
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 18 November 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Ministerial Code of Conduct: Breaches
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4655797
Read the official Assembly record
Text
We tabled this important motion because of the determination in the July report, which very clearly indicates that there was a breach of the ministerial code. That is unacceptable, but I know that it would suit some Members or parties if we were to continue down the road of simply brushing everything under the carpet and saying, "It's in the past. Don't worry about it. Sure it's done now". It also suits the DUP to define good governance when it suits it to do so, but the reality is that the public have lost all confidence in the institutions. We have a huge mountain to climb if we are to reassure people that this place is here to serve their best interests and the common good. Unfortunately, instead of saying, "Yes, fair enough, we should not have done that," the DUP continues to dig the big hole that it is in. That attitude will disappoint quite a lot of people, but it will not surprise them. The reality that the DUP fails to recognise is that boycotting did not work and collapsing the institutions did not work. Although the DUP was built on "Never, never, never," it always returns to the table with its tail between —.
No, you have said enough. The DUP always returns to the table with its tail between its legs. The question is this: are you interested in representing all the people in Northern Ireland or not? The reality is that, right throughout its history, the DUP has cherry-picked the parts that suit it but wants the rest of us to run to its beating drum when it suits it. The reality is that things here need to change. We have a huge task in delivering for all the people in Northern Ireland on health, education and housing. The truth is that those are the issues that unite our society. People are united by their struggle to get operations or the treatment that they need, to get homes and to support their families. Typically, however, this place always falls into the trap of "them and us". "Let's distract from the fact that there has been no delivery by the House and create an illusion that we can't work together". In truth, that is a political decision. Boycotting the North/South Ministerial Council achieved nothing, and the DUP has learned nothing. Deep down, it knows that all the boycotting has achieved nothing. Its Members are back in the Assembly with very little having changed and their tails between their legs. I remind the DUP that the protocol is a direct consequence of the Brexit that it wanted and for which it fought and argued. Maybe it is a case of the DUP being careful what it wishes for and of this being time to get on with it. People deserve better. They want this place to work, but they also want higher standards —
— from the people in elected office, who hold the responsibility for —
— and have control of the Departments. It is time to get on with the job.
516 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: 0.23 (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 (0.83).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- 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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.23 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.11 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.29 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.20 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.25 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.23 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.83 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.10 |
| Adopts it | 0.07 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.68 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.25 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.05 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| 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.