Debate contribution: Ministerial Code of Conduct

Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on 10 February 2026.

MLA

Mr Gerry Carroll

Party at the time

People Before Profit Alliance

Date

10 February 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Ministerial Code of Conduct

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5435418

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank and commend the Members for tabling the motion. Almost three months ago, in November, we debated a question for urgent oral answer that, similarly, was an attempt to hold a Minister to account. That time it was Paul Givan: different Minister, same party. Today, we are talking about the same shameless refusal of people to take responsibility. The commissioner found that the Communities Minister was in breach of the ministerial code not once but twice, yet he still clings to office, protected by a party that values tribal loyalty over public standards. The Labour Party's defence of Keir Starmer in the past few days has been nauseating, but the DUP takes the biscuit in its defence of Gordon Lyons and Paul Givan. There is a clear pattern here of Ministers shrinking from responsibility because their parties shield them from accountability. They close ranks, deflect criticism and wait for the news cycle to move on. They have made a cynical but, unfortunately, entirely correct calculation that there are no consequences for breaking the rules, which may be the case today. That has resulted in astounding arrogance from Paul Givan and Gordon Lyons: an arrogance that Ministers can breach the ministerial code repeatedly, but, if they just sit tight, the public will forget. People will not forget, Minister. They see through the circus, and many are asking what the Executive have actually delivered. The big parties have delivered absolutely nothing for struggling working-class communities. In the debate, former junior Minister Cameron said that there was no evidence that the Minister for Communities's post increased tensions. I remind the Member that, after the Minister's social media post, a leisure centre housing people who were fleeing racial violence was burned to the ground. If that does not meet the threshold of increasing tension, I do not know what does.

What are you saying?

Ministers have a duty to act responsibly and to be careful of the impact of their words at all times, but especially at a time of heightened racial violence.

Go ahead.

You need to get a new playbook, mate. It is also worth remembering that, in that period in which unionist MLAs —.

I will come to you in a second, Mr Frew. It is also worth remembering that, last summer, many unionist MLAs were taking part in a strategy of whipping up anti-migrant sentiment —.

You might not like it, but I am going to say it. In particular, there were anti-Roma comments. Sexual harassment and misogyny are always wrong and have to be condemned, but it is worth remembering that, after last summer's events, the two charges against two Romanian teenagers, which sparked the riots, were dropped. There were no apologies from any of the Members who gave a wink and a nod or stirred the pot. Mr Frew gave a blazing defence of his Minister. Maybe he will be rewarded with a ministerial position in the next mandate. Let us remember what he said last year. He, disgracefully, tried to tie sexual assault to immigration. That needs to be called out and challenged. He talked about the problem of HMOs, not because the people in them are stuck in damp, mouldy and unsuitable housing but because there might be a tiny increase in the number of black and brown faces in Larne, Ballymena or elsewhere. Did he backtrack? Has he apologised? Absolutely not. Some Members said that the debate is a waste of time. If holding Ministers to account is considered to be a waste of time, that shows the depth of arrogance and entitlement that DUP Ministers in particular have.

I do not know the circumstances that the Member is talking about.

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. A lot of derision and scorn has been poured on the fact that the commissioner challenged the Communities Minister for not showing empathy. It is beyond farcical that the Minister and his backers think that empathy is a bad thing and something that Ministers should not have while they are in office. It should be a bare minimum for Ministers, MLAs and anybody in elected politics. Frankly, I do not care whether it is written down in the ministerial code: Ministers should have empathy as a basic requirement of office, and, if they do not think that they should have empathy, they should not be in office. The Oxford Dictionary says that empathy is:

"the ability to understand and share the feelings of another".

Last year, at the time, I said that either the Communities Minister knew what he was doing when he posted about the migrants' location at Larne Leisure Centre and distanced his party from that decision with an unsubtle wink and a nod to far right and racist agitators in the town or he was so clueless that he did not think that mentioning the location of migrants, who had been driven out of their homes in the context of racial violence, would lead to racial violence. One of those statements is true, and both of them, in my view and that of many people, are reason enough for him to be out of office. The debate exposes the fundamental hypocrisy of our institutions. Stormont cannot deliver housing while thousands of families are homeless; it cannot deliver healthcare while waiting lists are the worst on these islands; it cannot deliver educational reform while children are still segregated at 11; and, apparently, it cannot even deliver basic ministerial accountability.

Thank you.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:51 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