Debate contribution: Ministerial Code of Conduct

Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on 10 February 2026.

MLA

Mr Gordon Lyons

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

10 February 2026

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Ministerial Code of Conduct

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5435464

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The motion proposed by the leader of the Opposition is nothing more than a charade dressed up as a debate on standards in public life. Let me be clear: the report from the former standards commissioner was an attempt to denigrate my standing and it was straight from the playbook of the woke brigade. I engaged in good faith and fully cooperated with the process, yet the commissioner, Melissa McCullough, blatantly disregarded much of my evidence. As I will set out, the former commissioner produced a ragbag report that failed to clear any objective threshold in its findings. I have to say that the former commissioner sits well with the increasing number of people who want to cancel those with whom they disagree. Liberty, free speech and the exchange of views should never be cancelled, and I will never be afraid to give leadership, regardless of whether that comes at a cost. I reject the report and believe that all objective people should do the same. Ultimately, this is not about whether you like me or agree with what I posted after the events that disgracefully unfolded at Larne Leisure Centre that night; it should be about whether my actions constituted a breach of the ministerial code. Had I revealed in real time where those migrant families had been sheltering, that would have been a failure of leadership. Had I encouraged protests, my actions might have been called into question. However, I did neither. The report is based not on evidence but on conjecture, and opinion has triumphed over fact. What we have is the introduction of new standards, falsehoods and contradictions. In fact, the former commissioner does a number of somersaults in the report. She finds that there was coordination between my office and the PSNI and later laments the lack of coordination. She states that the post required "more thoughtful communication" but also states that it was "deliberate and considered". She states that I blended personal, political and official roles but later states that I cannot step in and out of those roles. She states that I did not prioritise public safety but later concedes that it was my intention to "calm tensions". Her report is a bucketful of biased contradictions. When the evidence did not support her predetermined position, it was inevitable that she would tie herself up in knots.

Not only is the report laced with contradictions, but it contains falsehoods. For example, while the commissioner makes many outrageous comments, I highlight and utterly reject her completely false allegation that I endorsed or encouraged protests: at no time did I do that. The former commissioner also said that I criticised public bodies: at no time did I do that. There is no evidence to support her claim. Even in the event that I had done so, that would not have been a breach of the ministerial code. With such shoddy work, it is little wonder that she got so much else wrong. The report is based on what she thinks happened rather than what actually happened. She made no effort to conduct a proper investigation or speak to a wide range of witnesses. It is, therefore, no surprise that she uses words such as "may have", "appears" and "could reasonably conclude", because she cannot be categorical. Worse, though, is the former commissioner's presumption of the positions held by the people whom I represent in how she used the line:

"aware of the views of many of Minister Lyons’ constituents"

to justify the conclusions in her report. That is as unprofessional as it is inaccurate, and she should know better than to indulge in such innuendo. I will address the comments that have been made about my supposed lack of empathy. Although I have explained clearly that the vulnerable families who were affected had been moved away from the leisure centre and were therefore not at risk from the awful events that later unfolded, I had then and have now a deep compassion for them and for anyone who might find themselves in such a position. What they experienced was wrong, and I have always stood against violence and intimidation. My record is not one of justifying or excusing violence, and I have consistently advocated support for the police, the courts and the rule of law. I have no truck with anyone who seeks to harm others, and it is particularly abhorrent when that is done because of the colour of someone's skin or their nationality. I never set out to hurt or offend anyone. Anyone who knows me knows that I would never want to do that. However, the omission of empathy cannot be sufficient cause for finding a breach of the ministerial code. If that were applied consistently, it would set an alarming precedent that would threaten our public discourse. If Ministers are now required to infuse every statement with empathy — a term so subjective that it could mean anything to anyone — we are entering dangerous and anti-democratic territory. Here is the key question: who determines whether something is empathetic enough or carries the requisite emotion? Who becomes the arbiter of such behaviour? It would be unelected commissioners, who would dictate not just what we say but how we say it under the guise of enforcing standards that chime with their attitudes and personal bias. That would crush robust debate and discourage politicians from engaging directly with the public during crises. Ultimately, it would harm the communities that we serve. If the same standard were applied, we would have a future in which every tweet, post and speech was parsed for emotional content rather than factual accuracy. That is not accountability; that is political correctness and cancel culture masquerading as virtue. I note what else the commissioner had to say for herself:

"Minister Lyons’ post appears to have been shaped by personal or political considerations, rather than a fully objective assessment of the situation."

Look at the new test that she introduces: our posts and commentary should not be influenced by political considerations. My post on that day as a local MLA was shaped by neither personal nor political considerations, yet here we have the former commissioner stating that we cannot allow our personal or political convictions to shape our views and how we communicate. What an incredible statement to make. I have a further point. The commissioner said that it was her view that stating that the migrant families had been in the leisure centre:

"increased the likelihood of further ... unrest, regardless of whether that group ... had already moved on."

The PSNI, which was present on the ground and is trained in managing protests, asked that we let people know that the families were no longer there. Let us play that out. The alternative option open to me — it appears that it is the view of the commissioner and Members on the other side of the House that I should have taken it — was, on receipt of that request from the police, not to comply. That would have been the wrong thing to do. A refusal to assist the police could well be construed as a breach of the Pledge of Office. When it comes to managing protests that have the potential to turn violent and the police take the view that getting the word out is likely to be helpful, while the commissioner takes the view that getting the word out may lead to further unrest, I think that most people would place more weight on the assessment based on operational policing judgement than on the musings of a commissioner far removed from the events on the ground. Most would assume that that would be far outside her area of expertise, and they would be right. Therein lies the problem with the former commissioner: she thinks that she knows better than the people on the ground, including the police, and that she knows better than I do about what I meant and about the capacity in which I was acting.

No, I will not. This goes to the heart of the problem with the report: she believed that it was her job not just to investigate and produce a report but to police the words and behaviour of Members — well, some Members. It is hard to fathom how the commissioner did not think it appropriate to investigate the conduct thoroughly of Mr Gerry Carroll, when he posted, "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance" as Israelis were being murdered, raped and kidnapped in their hundreds by Hamas.

I will not give way. She took at face value his ludicrous assertions that he was not aware of what was really going on. She meekly —

She took at face value his ludicrous assertions that he was not aware of what was going on. She meekly accepted his pathetic excuse that he was simply referring to Palestinians destroying fences in an act of civil disobedience. Nobody believes that for a second. By her actions and judgements in that moment, the former commissioner demonstrated the two-tier imbalance in the standards regime governing our arrangements: for unionists, a different — higher — standard applies. The reaction of some Members has been completely over the top. It has not been grounded in reality. It is political pantomime. Some Members have repeated falsehoods with glee. Some simply read out attack lines given to them by their party leadership. However, I doubt that there has been a more ludicrous response than that from some members of the Committee for Communities, who, led by Kellie Armstrong, resolved to write to the Secretary of State to get his opinion as to whether I may have been in breach of section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act. The Committee thinks that the report could mean that I am not committed to pursuing my political goals by purely peaceful and democratic means. Those Members claim to act in defence of democracy and accountability but disregard the facts and cuddle up together as so-called progressives.

I am sure that that is something that we could find out, but, rather than taking the time to write letters, I assure him that that is probably a grand total of zero. I remind the Committee that there was nothing progressive and democratic about the Sinn Féin movement when it was murdering and maiming people across Northern Ireland. You can disagree with me. Say what you want about how you would have taken a different approach: that is fine. However, the idea that I am in some way not a democrat or that I believe that there is a role for violence in this society is so ludicrous that it is laughable. We all know what way the vote will go today. Let me be unequivocal: my intent in posting was to de-escalate. It was done in an attempt to avert a repeat of what we had seen in Ballymena. It was done in the hope of a better outcome for everyone involved. It was done in good faith. The outcome of today's vote will be immaterial. It will not change the approach that I take in this job or as a public representative for East Antrim. I will be guided by what is in the best interests of those who elected me and work for them. They elected me, and they know that I am here because I have a genuine desire to make things better for the people of Northern Ireland. My job is to serve them, represent them and get things done for the people of Northern Ireland. That is what I will keep doing.

1,950 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Flagged Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers

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?

A second, larger AI model can read this record again, without being told the MLA’s name or party, against the same published rubric. It also asks whether the activity mainly serves the public interest or mainly advances division. Its verdict replaces the current one, whichever way it goes, and its reasons are published here. Each record can have one second assessment.

If you still think the record or its classification is wrong after that, or the record itself has a factual error, you can challenge it. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.