Motion or amendment: Executive Reform - Amendment 1
Motion or amendment by Ms Kate Nicholl on .
- MLA
- Ms Kate Nicholl
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 29 February 2024
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion Amendment · Private Members' Motion · to “Executive Reform”
- Heading
- Executive Reform - Amendment 1
- Assembly identifier
- Document 391595
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Executive Reform - Amendment 1
Leave out all after “devolution over the last ten years” and insert:
‘and acknowledges 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 the institutions in the Programme for Government, which includes the removal of a veto on the establishment of an Executive and Assembly, on Executive decisions and on preparations for the removal of designations in the longer term.’
122 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: 0.18 (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 (0.80).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.87).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.06 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.06 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.14 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.80 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.18 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.87 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.08 |
| Adopts it | 0.05 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.39 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.33 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.17 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.05 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
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.