Debate contribution: Committee for Standards and Privileges Report: Ministerial Response

Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on 26 January 2026.

MLA

Mr Gordon Lyons

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

26 January 2026

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Questions for Urgent Oral Answer

Heading

Committee for Standards and Privileges Report: Ministerial Response

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5340909

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I had not considered that. It is fascinating, but not all that surprising, that the commissioner did not seek to interview you. She made a number of presumptions about what people on the ground may have thought that night, but she did not speak to anybody. She said that my actions "may have" had a consequence but gave no evidence. My actions may, equally, have had no consequence or have had the opposite consequence. No, I am not at all surprised, but it is wrong: she should have sought that. I certainly believe that there may have been a different outcome had she gone a little further and interviewed some more people. I thank the Member for his support. It would be very easy for him to join the political pile on. Knowing what he does, however, he did what I believe to be the honourable thing.

Absolutely. The people who were impacted on are the victims; I made that clear in my original answer, and I stand with those people and with those who continue to face the impacts. However, the report has consequences for all Ministers and MLAs. I ask the Member this: is she content for her Ministers to be held to the same standard? There she goes — she just shrugs it off.

They are not prepared for their own Ministers to be held to the same high standard. That is the point.

Yes, it does, and I highlighted those in my response to the Committee. Indeed, the commissioner has form in that area. She wrote to me with her findings of fact, and I responded to her to say that I believed that she was incorrect. In her response, she said:

"On reviewing the finding itself, I acknowledge it may be more appropriately expressed as an opinion rather than a finding of fact. I have therefore decided to remove it from the list of facts."

I believe that, in her subsequent report, she continued to indulge in giving opinions rather than in providing evidence-based information. I thank the Member for her kind words. The idea that it would have been my intention to use my ministerial platform for what I have been accused of is not only absurd but offensive and entirely untrue.

Those who know me will know the truth of the situation, and, for those of you who do not, there is certainly some political opportunism on show today.

There we go again: there is the insinuation and the mistruth from the Member. Let me be clear: I did not reveal anybody's location, because my post was published hours after those vulnerable people had been moved. It did not reveal the location. Did it reveal where they had been? Yes, after advice from the PSNI. The PSNI contacted a member of staff in my office, who is also a councillor, to highlight the fact that there was concern that people were going to use the leisure centre as a protest point. The PSNI wanted to get the information out that the people who were seeking refuge were no longer there. I was not the one who initially revealed the information: it had been publicised by Mid and East Antrim Borough Council, and it had been published online by a media outlet. My intentions that day were clear: to keep calm, stop any violence and make sure that we had a satisfactory outcome. That did not happen, and I am deeply angered that it was not the case. However, the idea being insinuated here that, in some way, I revealed the whereabouts of vulnerable people is absolutely incorrect.

The Member should not complain about the tone of debate and then cast about some of the assertions that she has made. I have set out why I took the actions that I took. She can pontificate all she wants, but I will come straight back to her: you are not prepared to hold your Ministers to the same standard as you would hold others. She should reflect on that. I encourage her — I am fairly sure that she has not done so — to read the whole report.

The response from the Alliance Party says it all. The Member makes his point in his unique way. I will say it again: a new bar has been set; a new standard has been established. Do they really want that same standard to apply to everyone?

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:30 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