Debate contribution: Ad Hoc Committee to Consider Legislation to Prevent the Suspension of the Devolved Institutions

Debate contribution by Mr Eóin Tennyson on 4 March 2024.

MLA

Mr Eóin Tennyson

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

4 March 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Ad Hoc Committee to Consider Legislation to Prevent the Suspension of the Devolved Institutions

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4254810

Read the official Assembly record

Text

We must be clear that these institutions are as stable today as they were the day before they last collapsed. The public are weary, and they want to be assured that we in the House are taking steps to ensure that the last collapse was the last collapse. I am of the Good Friday Agreement generation. That agreement allowed me to grow up in relative peace, which was not experienced by my parents and grandparents, but I am clear that it was about more than the mere absence of violence or the minutiae of political structures and that it was never intended to be a ceiling on our ambitions. It was designed to be a foundation on which, together, we could build a brighter, more prosperous and shared future. Instead, mechanisms that were designed to protect minority rights by requiring cross-community support on key decisions have been turned on their head and abused to deny fundamental human rights, to derail bread-and-butter politics and to spare the blushes of the DUP and Sinn Féin.

Of course.

I agree, and I will come to that point later in my remarks. Whether it was the blockage of marriage equality, the vetoing of health regulations during the pandemic or protecting Ministers who had clearly lost the confidence of the House, repeated abuses of the system are nothing more than a perversion of democracy. More than that, cross-community votes are the least cross-community votes of any in the Chamber. The case for reform may well be indisputable and supported by three quarters of the public, but it will be resisted because the current system privileges the two largest parties. A bit like Orwell's 'Animal Farm', it seems that we are all equal, but some are, simply, more equal than others. Again, I lay this challenge to Sinn Féin Members in particular: having talked about equality, about wanting to work for all and, in the past, about the importance of "one man, one vote", how can you, with a straight face or a clear conscience, argue that it is acceptable that those who vote for Alliance, People Before Profit or the Green Party be treated as second-class citizens? How can you, having called on the DUP to end its boycott for two years, argue that its ability to wield a veto should be protected? I share my colleague's concerns about an Ad Hoc Committee. It will duplicate AERC. It will be ineffective because it will have at its core an inbuilt Sinn Féin and DUP majority. All that said, I genuinely welcome the SDLP's coming to this conversation, so, in an act of good faith, despite the concerns that we have about the Ad Hoc Committee, its operation and its ability to deliver, we will support the motion. Equally, I hope that the SDLP will support our calls for a proper root-and-branch review of these institutions, as was envisaged in the Good Friday Agreement but was never delivered, that is inclusive of both Governments and all parties in the House. That will instil the confidence in these institutions that is so desperately needed.

517 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:43 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.

Challenge this classification