Motion or amendment: Executive Reform
Motion or amendment by Ms Sinéad McLaughlin on .
- MLA
- Ms Sinéad McLaughlin
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 22 February 2024
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion · Private Members' Motion
- Heading
- Executive Reform
- Assembly identifier
- Document 389840
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Executive Reform
That this Assembly is ashamed of the long suspensions of devolution over the last ten years; accepts responsibility for the decline in public services that have taken place over that time; apologises to public sector workers who have experienced pay injustice over the last ten years; resolves that the functioning of the Assembly and the Executive should never again be subject to the veto of a single party; and calls on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to include a specific commitment to reform of the institutions in the Programme for Government.
95 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Also tabled by
Each MLA who tabled or co-signed this item has their own record:
Divisions on this item
- 4 March 2024: Executive Reform – The Motion Was Negatived
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.10 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.63).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.07 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.63 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.10 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.86 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.13 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 08:50 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9. The text was identical to an already-assessed record, so the same answers were reused.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.