Member's statement: Council Meetings: Hybrid Arrangements
Member's statement by Ms Sian Mulholland on .
- MLA
- Ms Sian Mulholland
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 5 March 2024
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Council Meetings: Hybrid Arrangements
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4252353
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I am dismayed at the decision that has been made by the Communities Minister not to put forward an extension to the Coronavirus Act 2020 (Extension of Provisions Relating to Local Authority Meetings) (No 2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2022, which allowed hybrid meetings in our councils, while simultaneously not putting forward a proposal, thereby pre-empting the consultation, to lay any stand-alone legislation. At the Communities Committee on 22 February, we agreed to approve the recommendation of extensions to the Assembly while the Minister was considering going forward with stand-alone legislation, only to have that extension pulled with no notice. Before I came to this place, I benefited many times from that legislation as a local councillor. My second son was born in 2019 and was five months old when the pandemic hit. I found it much easier to balance my full engagement in council meetings while juggling a young baby and a toddler. When my father was ill, I was able to dial into meetings from his home, and, on one occasion, with headphones from his hospital room while he slept. As someone living in a rural community, when there were weather warnings, I was able to choose to stay at home and dial into committee meetings. At no point was I a less effective councillor because I was engaging online. I spoke to councillors last night who have caring responsibilities, and they are really worried about the lack of consultation on this. I spoke to a councillor with a neurodivergent condition who knows that, when an urgent oral update is on the agenda, it is better for them to stay at home with their noise-cancelling headphones on so that they can concentrate on what is being said without any written papers in front of them and without any distractions. At a time when we should be encouraging more people from disenfranchised communities to engage in our political system, we are effectively putting a barrier in the way of those with caring responsibilities, young families, conditions or illnesses and those who live in rural communities. The decision was communicated to council chief executives on Friday. Some councillors were told on Monday, getting less than 48 hours to put in place alternative arrangements to be present in the chamber for all meetings in March. That shows little consideration for those who have caring responsibilities or legitimate reasons for requesting a hybrid alternative. I have great respect for the Minister for Communities, and I look forward to working with him and seeing what he can achieve in this mandate. However, with due respect, that is the wrong decision, and it will only further alienate those whose voices we need to hear more of in local government.
454 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: 0.05 (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).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.95).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- 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 | 0.08 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.98 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.02 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
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.