Debate contribution: Ministerial Code of Conduct

Debate contribution by Ms Sian Mulholland on 10 February 2026.

MLA

Ms Sian Mulholland

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

10 February 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Ministerial Code of Conduct

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5435282

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I had a speech ready about the lack of ability for us to hold Ministers to account, but I received a text asking me to humanise the crux of the issue as it was for those who were involved in the events in Ballymena. I have heard the terms "political opportunism", "political point-scoring" and "politically motivated" being mentioned in the Chamber already. I can honestly, hand on heart, say that there is not one bit of me that is politically motivated when I talk about this, because, on the night of the Ballymena riots, I talked on the phone to people who were terrified. I received videos of children in attics and a text message that said, "If they set fire to this house, Sian, the people in the attic will die". That is the reality of what we faced on the Monday and Tuesday night. That is not politically motivated for me. I think — I hope — that most people in the Chamber know that there is nothing in what we did and in what we tried to do at that time that was politically motivated. At the heart of this were five women, four men and six children aged between one and 14. Those children, once we were able to get them out of their house, were vomiting on the floor of the police station at 2.00 am. A meeting was then set up to try to take them to wherever they would be safe. Ballymena leisure centre was ruled out as it was too close, so Mid and East Antrim Borough Council went to its nearest council provision, and that is where they were sent. At 4.00 am, that is where they were given shelter, with police offering the children yoghurts from their own lunchboxes to try to settle them. That was the reality and the human element of the situation. When I support the motion, for me, it is not about a Minister or a Department. It is about the politics of empathy and the politics of compassion. Regardless of the intent, I do not think that the intent of the Minister — I have talked to him about it — was to create any more tension. I hope that it was not. I really do. However, the lasting impact of what happened will be from how it was read and perceived by people. I use the words of a young Filipino man, whom I met on the Friday with the UK's ambassador to the Philippines:

"Does the Communities Minister not want us in our community? Because that is what it felt like".

Again, that is not political opportunism or me point-scoring: those are the words of someone who was deeply impacted by the events on the Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday in Ballymena and Larne. They are still feeling the impacts. They are still frightened to walk down the street because of the colour of their skin or because of their perceived nature. That still goes on. That is still reverberating through the town. Those people are genuinely frightened that it will happen all over again and that all it will take is a match to relight it. That is where the fear was on the Wednesday when that post went out. The Minister said, "I was not consulted". I asked at the time whether, had the Minister been consulted, there would have been a different response. That question was not answered. When accountability fails again and again, it exposes the current shape of our institutions. Yes, they were set up at a time when we were greatly divided. The overriding priority, post Good Friday Agreement, was managing division, but I hope that we have moved on as a society and as a Chamber. However, all too often in this place, compassion is misread for weakness or niceness or not being strong enough. People are told to get a thicker skin. Do you know what? There are plenty of us who do not want to have to have a thicker skin to be in politics. People out there want the politics of empathy. They want to see their representatives in this Chamber representing their best interests. They want to see that people care, but so often in this place empathy is sacrificed for sound bites and playing to the crowd. That has to stop because it does not serve anybody. Ultimately, the debate is about whether our standards framework has practical authority or symbolic value alone. For me, a system that identifies failures but cannot respond to them is not fair or consistent, and it does not provide and protect integrity. All it does is expose its own vulnerability. Supporting the motion is not about political point-scoring and it is not about punishment: it is about reaffirming the fact that we need a politics of empathy that is clear, compassionate and unequivocal in coming out straight away and standing with those who are most impacted.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:33 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