Debate contribution: Standing Order 42(5): Suspension
Debate contribution by Mr Eóin Tennyson on .
- MLA
- Mr Eóin Tennyson
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 19 February 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Standing Order 42(5): Suspension
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4222976
Read the official Assembly record
Text
It is important that we are clear about the consequences of failing to suspend Standing Orders and failing to grant accelerated passage for the Bill. Mr Carroll refers to not "playing fast and loose" with the issue, but I would argue that those who oppose the suspension of Standing Orders are the ones guilty of playing fast and loose with the issue. The Minister has been clear that, if the Bill is not given accelerated passage and if Standing Orders are not suspended, Departments could fall into difficulty accessing cash, and the prospect of any pay award for 2023-24 will fall by the wayside. We owe it to our public-sector workers and public servants, who have been waiting this long, to do this at speed. I agree that this is an unsatisfactory way to bring forward a Budget Bill, but, in fairness to the Minister, that is not of her making. While I do not want to lower myself to the playground antics of Jim Allister, who has had a road to Damascus conversion about the role of MLAs, it is due to the fact that this place has been down over the past two years and MLAs have not been permitted to carry out their role and scrutinise that we are now in the position where that process is necessary. All of us in the Chamber should have been involved since last year, from the Main Estimates right through monitoring rounds and Supplementary Estimates, to get to this point, but, instead, we are in the position where all we have is the Budget Bill. While I accept that there is a desire to see spring Supplementary Estimates, the Executive have been restored for only a matter of weeks, and we got clarity from the Treasury only on Tuesday on what the conditions and quantums of the funding package actually are. It is simply impossible to expect that to be available at this stage. I agree with Members that this process is substandard, but I ask those Members to think carefully about the reckless and irresponsible approach that they are taking.
351 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
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: 0.05 (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 (0.64).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.09 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.64 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.96 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.02 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:37 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.