Debate contribution: Ad Hoc Committee to Consider Legislation to Prevent the Suspension of the Devolved Institutions
Debate contribution by Mr Mike Nesbitt on .
- MLA
- Mr Mike Nesbitt
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist 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 4254822
Read the official Assembly record
Text
As this is the first time that I have spoken in the Chamber outside Question Time today, I take the opportunity to wish Mr O'Toole well in his new role and wish the SDLP well as the official Opposition. It would be churlish and perverse of me, as the political leader who brought in the first post-1998 Opposition, not to wish you well. I think that an official Opposition is a step in the right direction towards normalising the politics of this place. In fairness, you have structured your first Opposition day a lot better than the first Ulster Unionist/SDLP Opposition day in 2016. The Ulster Unionists have supported your first two motions, and it will be case of "two out of three ain't bad", I am afraid, because we do not support this one, and the reasons have already been articulated. I sat on the Ad Hoc Committee on a Bill of Rights. We do not have a bill of rights. The Ad Hoc Committee went nowhere because we could not get agreement, and I cannot imagine for one millisecond that setting up this Ad Hoc Committee would be any more successful. The point has been made repeatedly that the role for review rests with the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, and we support that Committee's taking a look at this issue. Finally, there is a little confusion that the leader of the Opposition might clear up. The motion says that the Ad Hoc Committee would:
"submit a report to the Assembly".
However, in your remarks, I believe, you said that the Committee would submit proposals for reform. Are you prejudging the outcome? Which is it?
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The point is that the line:
"to consider legislation to prevent the suspension of the devolved institutions"
does not mean that the consideration will end in saying, "Yes, we should put forward a proposal so to do". However, I accept the clarification from the Member and conclude my remarks there.
331 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.06 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.06 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.57 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | At or below not-qualifying 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 | 0.55 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.39 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.02 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.02 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.