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 5340975

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Yes, it was. The Member is now taking it on himself to decide what I was or was not intending to do. That is what I was intending to do. The fact is that I called for people to be peaceful. The fact is that I was establishing information to make sure that it was in the public domain so that it could have been of assistance. I say clearly that I will always do what I think is in the best interests of my constituents. I felt that, at that time, I was doing what I could to defuse a situation and provide clarity. Unfortunately, those involved did not listen to me, but I will continue to do what I can.

No, I do not. In fact, I remind her of the commissioner's findings:

"there is no evidence to substantiate"

a connection between my post and the violence. The Member has been shaking her head throughout my contribution this afternoon, but those are the facts, and those facts are backed up by evidence that the commissioner found. I will ask the question again: is she prepared to criticise on the same basis the Sinn Féin Ministers who attended Bobby Storey's funeral

and created a huge amount of upset?

They created a huge amount of upset.

You say that it is about me today, but it is about equality of standards and equality of —

You talk about deflection, but who is deflecting now?

Who does not want to talk about the Bobby Storey funeral? That is key to the issue. We are talking about a new standard of empathy. In June and July 2020, there was no empathy on display at all for people who were not able to go about funerals in the normal way. The Member would do well to reflect on that if she agrees that it is a new standard to which Ministers should be held.

I have not done an analysis, but, helpfully, somebody sent me an analysis that was produced using AI. AI was asked to compare the two reports and how the commissioner approached each of them.

The analysis stated that the commissioner applied two —

You might want to listen, Mr O'Toole. I know that you have a great interest in AI. The analysis stated that the commissioner applied two materially different standards — a qualitative, impact-based standard in the Lyons case and a narrow, evidentiary standard in the O'Neill case — and that inconsistency raises legitimate questions about consistency, proportionality and application of the ministerial code.

I would take the evidence that I had. I would listen to those, such as the PSNI, who gave their opinion and assessment of the security situation, and I would respond accordingly.

I cannot speak to other people's views or on what steps others may or may not take. I will give this commitment, however: I will continue in the vein in which I have been working for the past two years. I will get on with delivering what I can; I will work with Executive colleagues to deliver where I can; and I will operate within the bounds of the Department. I am more than happy for my record as Minister to be scrutinised. I am more than happy for people to look at the actions that I have taken and at what I have been able to do within the context in which I have been operating. I will continue to do that. I am willing to work with others. I have seen some of the outrageous comments that others have made on social media and elsewhere. That is OK; that is fine. I will continue to work with other people. It is up to them to decide what approach they will take.

I certainly believe that there are questions to be asked about that approach, and I have outlined some of those today. The comparison between the report on me and the report on the First Minister is telling. Changes need to be made. We have a new commissioner in post, and there is further work to be done, particularly on the ministerial code and when it applies. I understand that Cathy Mason sent a letter to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister because of uncertainty around that. Is there work to be done? Absolutely. We need to be able to have confidence in the procedures that are in place. Having gone through the process, I find it hard to have that confidence.

This is maybe one Question Time that the Member should have sat out. It is outrageous that he has the cheek to ask questions about what I have done. Let us remember what Mr Carroll did. When hundreds of Jews were being massacred on 7 October, what was his response? "Up the Palestinian resistance". Empathy? Where was his empathy? He comes now with his double standards. He had empathy with Hamas, but he had no empathy with innocent people who were attending a music festival. So, no, I will not take any lessons from Gerry Carroll after the outrageous and disgraceful comments that he made online. I was trying to tell people to stay away from violence, whereas he was encouraging it. That is absolutely disgraceful. The Member talks about empathy, and he is absolutely right on one point: we should all have empathy and compassion for others. What I dispute is that I have failed, in my public life, to show empathy. It is not up to a commissioner, on the basis of one post, to decide whether I am demonstrating empathy in the work that I do or to hold me to the moralistic standards of others. It is absolutely outrageous that the Member would take part in these questions, considering what he has been involved in.

Do I accept that she has made the ruling? Yes, it is a fact that she has made a ruling. I disagree with it, yes, and I absolutely question it, because I believe that some of it is based on inaccurate information and some of it is based on a standard that has not previously been in place. I think that we should challenge something when it is wrong, and I will absolutely challenge it, as is my right, as someone who has been elected to this place to stand up and speak up for my constituents, regardless of whether that may go against the grain and regardless of whether, at times, that may offend the sensibilities of some. It is important that we feel that we can speak up in this place and stand up for our constituents. There were some quite frankly ridiculous comments about my supposedly criticising public bodies. I did not do that, but, even if I did, we should all have the right to criticise those who also hold public office and ensure that they can be held to account. I think that it is absolutely wrong that someone is trying to gag public representatives and impinge on their freedom to properly stand up and speak up for their constituents.

I thank the Member for North Belfast for so succinctly pointing out the hypocrisy of the position of the Members opposite. He is absolutely right, and one thing that has been very clear today is that the double standards of Sinn Féin have been on show for everybody to see.

1,238 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 text is a minister's defence against a standards finding about a social media post linked to violence. It disputes the commissioner's reasoning, argues for consistency in applying the ministerial code, and draws comparisons with the Bobby Storey funeral and another member's comments on 7 October. These comparisons are made to allege 'double standards' in how conduct is judged. They do not frame the issue as a contest between communities, attack a community's culture, or use coded language about any group. The pointed attacks are on specific people and a party's conduct, which the rubric treats as criticism of conduct rather than identity-based hostility.

Public interest or divisiveness

Much of the text deals with real accountability questions: whether the commissioner applied 'two materially different standards', whether the ministerial code is clear, and a member's right to speak for constituents. However, a substantial share is combative whataboutery aimed at opponents, including the Bobby Storey funeral and another member's 'Up the Palestinian resistance' post. This is partisan point-scoring rather than engagement with the substance. The point-scoring is political rather than communal, so the overall picture is mixed.

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:31 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