Debate contribution: The Coronavirus Act 2020 (Extension of Powers to Act for the Protection of Public Health) (No. 2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2023
Debate contribution by Mr Alan Chambers on .
- MLA
- Mr Alan Chambers
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 11 March 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- The Coronavirus Act 2020 (Extension of Powers to Act for the Protection of Public Health) (No. 2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2023
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4270009
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is chapter 2. The pandemic changed lots of things. It changed the way in which many people worked and how businesses traded. It is almost four years since we were told to stay at home to save lives. As a society, we were asked to do things that, only weeks before, would have been considered totally unimaginable. I never again want to experience a period such as that. Thanks to the brilliant work of our scientists and medical experts, the pandemic has been well and truly in retreat for some time. However, we must maintain a level of preparedness and resilience to protect our citizens should circumstances change. That brings me back to an earlier point. In Northern Ireland, we find ourselves at a legislative disadvantage. Whilst England, Scotland and Wales could all move at pace, if needs be, if today's extension order is not granted, we could not. Indeed, in recent months, the main talking point has been the sea border that makes the movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland more difficult. The argument has been that it makes us different from the rest of the United Kingdom. If the extension is not granted, we will have created a health sea border in that our preparedness for a potential COVID outbreak will be different from that in the rest of the UK. I wonder if some see the irony in that position. From the briefings to the Committee, it has been clear that some of our public health legislation is in major need of updating and amending. Thankfully, a public consultation on the changes is about to launch. Ideally, the new public health Bill would have already been introduced and scrutinised long before now, but, unfortunately, that has not been possible following the latest two-year collapse of the Assembly. To those who speak most loudly against today's extension order, I simply ask them what their alternative is. Do they want to see people in Northern Ireland potentially left behind their peers across the rest of the UK, or, if they believe that other solutions should have been found, do some not see the contradiction in supporting the collapse of the very political institutions that would have been able to deliver them?
381 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: 0.07 (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 (0.81).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.98).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.07 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.10 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.81 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.68 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.32 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:52 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.