Debate contribution: Ad Hoc Committee to Consider Legislation to Prevent the Suspension of the Devolved Institutions
Debate contribution by Ms Cara Hunter on .
- MLA
- Ms Cara Hunter
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour 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 4254839
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I welcome the large number of contributions that I heard on reform. In my own time, chatting to constituents and speaking to young people, I have heard about their want for us on the hill to instil a sense of hope that the institutions can stand and work and that the parties in them can work together without collapsing or the ability to collapse them. We can and must use every tool that is available to us to prevent the suspension of the devolved institutions. We in the Opposition believe that the Ad Hoc Committee that our motion calls for is the best mechanism to create proposals that will lead to reform and options to end the veto and create legislative proposals. The motion seeks to create an Ad Hoc Committee. We ask these questions. Why not now? If not now, when? If not this process, what? I will touch on a few comments from Members.
Yes.
I thank the Member for his intervention, but, as my colleagues stated, we previously published a number of things on reform. You can see from previous comments by a number of our representatives that we are extremely passionate about the issue. I welcome that Alliance shares that position. Mr Buckley mentioned that the AERC could be utilised as a tool to discuss reform. A more targeted Committee, with specific aims, timelines and targets, would be beneficial.
I thank the Member for his intervention. Should the motion not pass, what we will have seen from the DUP and Sinn Féin is that they are not committed to talking about reform. In the event that it does not pass, I would welcome Mr Buckley's comments and ask that we work collectively on the AERC, but, from our perspective, we believe that a more targeted Committee, with timelines, would be better suited to discuss reform.
No, because I need to make some progress. One of our main concerns is that the AERC has a number of issues to deal with, and we fear that reform might get eaten up among its other priorities. That is a concern for us. The public is watching us today, and we believe that it would welcome a Committee such as that proposed. Pat Sheehan touched on reforming the institutions and mentioned fears around duplication of a Standing Committee. We have seen the votes from the DUP and Sinn Féin today. Again, I argue that they are not serious about talking about reform and working for all. Reform is necessary to instil that sense of hope not just in young people but in all people across Northern Ireland. The Committee's specific purpose would put that at the forefront of political discussion. Eóin Tennyson talked about the importance of root-and-branch reform, which the Ad Hoc Committee could look at, as it is important. Mr Nesbitt reflected on his time in opposition previously — there was a touch of nostalgia there — and his concern about the motion. Ms Armstrong touched on the importance of reform and said:
"any discussion is better than no discussion at all."
It is important that we have conversations on reform. It has been a pleasure to contribute to the debate. I thank the Members for tabling the motion. We need reform of the institutions. In five of the past seven years, we have left constituents, workers and families with no answers and in significant financial distress. We have a mental health crisis. We talk at length about issues such as women's health and violence against women and girls, yet some Members cannot see how reform and those societal issues that each and every one of us is trying to fight and tackle every day are linked. I am at a loss to understand how that can happen. I thank Members for their contributions, and I urge them to support the motion.
644 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: 0.08 (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 (0.66).
- 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 | 0.08 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.07 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.66 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.08 | 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 | 0.40 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.25 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.21 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.05 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.05 |
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.