Motion or amendment: Establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee to consider legislation to prevent the suspension of the devolved institutions - Amendment 1
Motion or amendment by Ms Connie Egan on .
- MLA
- Ms Connie Egan
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 29 February 2024
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion Amendment · Private Members' Motion · to “Establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee to consider legislation to prevent the suspension of the devolved institutions”
- Heading
- Establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee to consider legislation to prevent the suspension of the devolved institutions - Amendment 1
- Assembly identifier
- Document 391598
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee to consider legislation to prevent the suspension of the devolved institutions - Amendment 1
Leave out all after “provided for in” and insert:
‘Standing Order 59 (3)(b), urges the Assembly and Executive Review Committee to revisit the issue of reform of the devolved institutions to prevent a single party from collapsing the Assembly and Executive; gather further evidence and examine the removal of the designations requirement and the method of appointing the First Minister and deputy First Minister; and further calls on the UK and Irish Governments to appoint an independent chair to work with both governments and Northern Ireland parties to agree reforms to these institutions as a matter of urgency.’
118 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:
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.12 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.84).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging 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 | 0.12 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.84 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.12 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.56 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.29 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.13 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 08:51 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 reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.