Debate contribution: Executive Reform
Debate contribution by Miss Nuala McAllister on .
- MLA
- Miss Nuala McAllister
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 4 March 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Executive Reform
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4254167
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I support the motion. I am glad that it has been tabled and that the SDLP is joining the Alliance Party in our calls for reform of the institutions. I say that in all honesty and without sarcasm, because it is important that all parties get on board and not just have discussions and conversations about reform, but actually help to make it happen. There is an elephant in the room, however, that has not been highlighted today. These institutions are as stable today as they were the day before the last collapse. The reason not just why Sinn Féin and the DUP are lacking in support for reform of the institutions but why others are not fully on board — I appreciate that UUP Members have said that they support the motion but are unsure about the entirety of the conversation — is the issue of power. The reason why people are so reluctant to give up the power of veto is control. If you are refusing to give up that power and to reform the veto over the establishment of these institutions, it is for one reason only: you want to use the threat of bringing down these institutions again. We need to go beyond that type of politics in this day and age. We need to ensure that we have good governance and a respectful way of debating the issues that we do not all agree on. There is no one in the Chamber who believes that they can get everything that they want at all times. In bringing down the institutions, we see people acting like they should get everything that they want. However, they know that, in any negotiation, the outcome will never be totally on your side. Alliance respects that, and we have been calling for reform since 2004. In June 2022, we published our proposals and put them forward to the UK and Irish Governments, stating that we are willing to have these conversations and to talk about cross-community voting and designations, because, as my colleague has just outlined, the votes of the people who voted for the Alliance Party are not counted in any cross-community vote. We need to ensure that we can move past that, but it is not just about words; it is about action. The Member who spoke before me — I speak through you, Principal Deputy Speaker — highlighted the Belfast Agreement, which many Members in the Chamber support. I am proud to say that we still support the Belfast Agreement, but, at the time it was published, it contained safeguards so that it could be changed and updated, because time moves on. We all have our political priorities, but we cannot push forward our political priorities without the threat and the shadow in the background of bringing down these institutions. We wanted the motion to be a bit more specific, and we did attempt to table an amendment. However, perhaps we understand why the SDLP has not been specific, and I understand that the leader of the Opposition will address some more issues in his winding-up speech. I would like to hear from the SDLP if it will also get on board with the Alliance proposals to remove the system of designations, because that is particularly important. We have already discussed that issue in public. Each and every one of us, when canvassing doors right across Northern Ireland, will have been met with the conversation about reform. We know that people support it and that people can get on board, so I say to the DUP and Sinn Féin: do not be afraid of what reform could mean. I know that you may be afraid of losing your power and control, but it is more important to move this place forward and have an Assembly and Executive that can actually deliver for everyone.
646 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: 0.15 (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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.89).
- Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
- 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 | 0.19 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.08 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.13 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.55 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.15 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.89 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.08 |
| Adopts it | 0.03 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.44 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.40 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.13 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:40 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.