Debate contribution: Ministerial Code of Conduct

Debate contribution by Mrs Pam Cameron on 10 February 2026.

MLA: Mrs Pam Cameron
Party at the time: Democratic Unionist Party
Date: 10 February 2026
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Opposition Business
Heading: Ministerial Code of Conduct
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5435272

Text

I rise to oppose the motion and to place on record my support for the Minister for Communities, Gordon Lyons. Let me begin with something on which there should be agreement across the House: the scenes at Larne Leisure Centre on the night in question were unacceptable. Racism, intimidation and violence against anyone have no place in our society, and the Minister has been clear and consistent in condemning that behaviour from the outset. However, the motion is not about addressing racism: it is about political opportunism. At a time when people across Northern Ireland struggle to access healthcare, waiting lists continue to grow and public services are under real strain, the official Opposition have chosen to use valuable Assembly time on a motion that they know will go nowhere. They know that it will not remove a Minister or improve a single public service. Therefore, this question must be asked: why bring it forward at all? The answer, we know, is that they do so because it is easier to attack than to deliver. The finding against the Minister relates not to corruption, misuse of office or dishonesty but to an alleged failure to demonstrate a sufficient level of empathy in a social media post. That alone should concern Members across the Chamber. Serious questions remain about the commissioner's report, in particular the failure to properly consider whether the Minister was acting in his ministerial capacity at all. It was a constituency matter. Had that been correctly assessed, the complaint would never have been deemed admissible. The report also makes claims that the post may have heightened tensions, yet it provides no evidence to support that assertion; no investigation and no factual assessment, just conjecture. If elected representatives can be sanctioned on the basis of subjective interpretation rather than evidence, we risk creating a chilling effect on legitimate political speech and constituency representation. What makes the motion even more difficult to take seriously is the absolute hypocrisy around it. Some of those who have been loudest in lecturing the House about empathy have attended the funerals of convicted terrorists —
— or defended decades of violence by saying that there was no alternative. The hypocrisy in the Chamber is stark, but the public can see the double standards that are at play.
I will not, thank you. The latter part of the motion is equally troubling. It calls for so-called institutional reform involving the Irish Government. Let me be clear: reform of these institutions is the responsibility of this Northern Ireland Assembly, not external actors. The appropriate forum for such a discussion already exists through the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. Constantly running down these institutions does not "restore public confidence"; it undermines it. The motion is disproportionate, politically motivated and, ultimately, damaging to the credibility of the House. For those reasons, I oppose it.

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

Assessment

Awaiting analysis

This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification