Debate contribution: Sinn Féin Billboards: Illegal Erection

Debate contribution by Mr Jonathan Buckley on 20 January 2026.

MLA

Mr Jonathan Buckley

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

20 January 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Sinn Féin Billboards: Illegal Erection

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5348791

Read the official Assembly record

Text

At the outset, I say, "Congratulations" to the new Member for Newry and Armagh. I wish him well in his new role. I have worked with him and, indeed, his predecessor for a long time. He will put in sterling work in the Chamber. At the very heart of the motion, which, I imagine, is serious for everybody, is the rule of law. It has already been said that enforcement forms a critical part of the planning process. Many Members have cited reasons for people having been caught up, whether it is businesses or homeowners, in the enforcement process. I understand the narrative that there are many important issues that we could be discussing today and we end up discussing a Sinn Féin billboard, but the point is important, because it is about accountability. As Mr Stewart said, we would not have had to have the debate today if there had been mature decision-making before it reached this stage. The irony here is that we have a Sinn Féin-led Department, led by a Sinn Féin Newry and Armagh MLA, who fails to address an illegal billboard within her own constituency that has her party's logo, at times, on it. That is beyond parody, Members. Could any other political party say with a straight face, if it knew that there was a billboard in a constituency with its party details on it, that it did not know who erected it? That is the glaring hypocrisy in today's motion. I read with interest the Committee letter, and I will focus on a point. It states:

"My Department has requested that the billboard be removed on two separate occasions; once on 18 August 2023 and again on 5 November 2025."

Let us clear that up: Minister, who did you issue those letters to? Who did the Department issue the letters to? On the Front Bench today are two Sinn Féin Newry and Armagh MLAs. Did your Department issue them to the man who is sitting beside you?

I will happily give way. I can assure you that, if there were a DUP-erected billboard, I would know who erected it. Does anyone on the Benches opposite really want to take the rule of law seriously or the issue of enforcement seriously? It is ridiculous. We have to get real: Sinn Féin's defence is always the same, and we have seen it here today. It is that they knew nothing, and they claim it with expert precision. If any Members watched the recent Disney series, 'Say Nothing', they will have seen that, at the end, there is a potent point that Gerry Adams was never a member of the IRA. I contend that, if there were to be a new documentary, the disclaimer at the end of the Sinn Féin statement would be not "say nothing" but "see nothing".

Every time that we come to the House seeking accountability on issues pertaining to particular Departments, we get the answer, "Not me, guv. Saw nothing, heard nothing, will do nothing". Our constituents demand for us to be treated in the same way that we would have them treated. "One rule for thee and another for me" is simply not acceptable.

I call on the Minister to use common sense, to abide by the rule of law, to reveal to the House who those letters from the Department were issued to — were they issued to members of Sinn Féin? — and to endeavour to have an illegal billboard, which could have safety implications, removed and put this matter behind us.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Second assessment

Jev’s answers did not settle this record, so a second model, claude-opus-5-5, read the same text (without the MLA’s name or party) and gave its reasons on 21 October 2026. How the second assessment works

Verdict

Not flagged

Public interest or divisiveness

Mixed

Against the published rubric

The contribution is mainly about planning enforcement: it asks who the Department's removal letters of "18 August 2023" and "5 November 2025" were sent to, and calls for an "illegal billboard, which could have safety implications" to be removed. It does not frame the issue as a contest between communities, raise a cultural grievance or attack a community. The one identity-tinged element is a sarcastic aside linking the party's denials to the 'Say Nothing' series and the claim that a former leader "was never a member of the IRA". That line uses Troubles legacy for partisan mockery, but it targets a party's conduct rather than a community or its culture, and it is not the main point.

Public interest or divisiveness

The core of the speech scrutinises whether a department is enforcing planning law even-handedly when its own minister's party is involved, under the theme of "one rule for thee and another for me". That is a legitimate accountability question. However, the "see nothing" IRA jibe and the mocking "Not me, guv" add partisan point-scoring with a legacy edge, so the contribution is not purely substantive.

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:15 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