Debate contribution: Ad Hoc Committee to Consider Legislation to Prevent the Suspension of the Devolved Institutions
Debate contribution by Ms Kellie Armstrong on .
- MLA
- Ms Kellie Armstrong
- 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 4254835
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I will not stand in anyone's way of them discussing the necessary reforms, as it will allow parties the opportunity to catch up on what Alliance has been talking about for, to be honest, a couple of decades. Although I will not block the motion, I have to ask why we keep on needing to have Committees. I sat on the AERC in the previous mandate. We went through an investigation, but, because of the make-up of that Committee, we did not come to any recommendations. It was drawn out and dragged on so that nothing came out of it. I hope that the current AERC might go back over the wealth of experience that was brought into some of those reports and come out with some recommendations. However, let us be very clear: even if the AERC comes out with a recommendation to move towards reform, as has already come out and was clarified at last week's Committee on Procedures, it will still be for the UK Government to bring forward those reforms in law. Any changes to the Northern Ireland Act cannot be taken forward by this House. Then, of course, once that happens, it will be for the Committee on Procedures to make any changes to Standing Orders. Therefore, there are a lot of things to go through before we get this. As the leader of the Opposition said, time is tight on this one, and we have a lot to get through before we even get to the stage of changing Standing Orders. I point out to the House that any changes to Standing Orders will require a cross-community vote, and guess what, folks? I am standing here again saying what I said earlier: my vote will not count the same. It makes a mockery of this whole place. As I said, I will not stand against the motion today, but I have to say that, of the seven people who are talked about in the motion — the seven representatives on the Committee — four will vote against anything to do with reform of the institutions. They have done that today and will continue to do so. We could take the matter out of the House and go to a citizens' assembly. I am happy to consider that, because the people outside the House actually get this an awful lot more than the people in the House do. Collapse without any reforms is unforgivable. In the debate on public-sector pay, we heard that it is hurting the very people who elect us to the House. It is time for reform to go forward. Unfortunately for the Opposition, I believe that the motion will be voted down. I will not vote against it, because any discussion is better than no discussion at all. I hope that other Members will count the clock down. It is time to change this place, and the time is now.
489 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: 0.18 (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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.97).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- 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 | 0.14 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.07 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.18 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.09 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.51 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.18 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.97 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.02 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.57 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.30 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.11 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.01 |
| 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 reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.