Debate contribution: Local Government (Remote Meetings) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024
Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on .
- MLA
- Mr Gordon Lyons
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 24 June 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Local Government (Remote Meetings) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4497515
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I welcome the level of consensus that we have across the Chamber on these regulations, and I place on record my thanks to the Chair of the Committee and the Committee more widely for the positive way in which they dealt with the issue. I want to raise a few issues that were brought up during the debate. It is correct to say that greater flexibility is now on offer permanently to our borough and district councillors. However, a number of Members mentioned issues around, for example, disabilities. I do not want in any way the message to go out to councils that they can roll back on their responsibilities and statutory obligations because these regulations are now in place. Council chambers should still be accessible. This legislation should not be seen as an alternative to ensuring that our chambers are fully accessible and that we have the support for those who are in them. In my opinion, it is second best to be at home doing this work remotely. I understand that there are times when that flexibility is necessary, but I always think that it is better to have people, where possible, in the chamber where the conversations are taking place and the decisions are being made. I do not want anybody to think in any way that we should not be doing everything that we can to make our council chambers accessible and to make it possible for people to gather around when business is being done. That takes us on to an issue that Sian raised. At the end of her contribution, she expressed concern that there will be the potential for different councils to take different approaches to how they put in place their standing orders for this issue. I think that I could have got criticism either way. If I had mandated the way that councils operate according to what I think is right and proper, I would have been in for criticism if I had limited it to the specific circumstances that I might think are appropriate. I believe in devolution and that people should be making their own decisions at the right level. I would not want anybody dictating to the House how we should do our business, and I do not think it right that I dictate to councils how they do theirs.
Councils have different standing orders for conducting their meetings and the timings of those meetings. They decide them for themselves, so it is only appropriate that councils can also put in place their own standing orders on this issue as well.
Sian also raised the issue of the period during which there was no provision in place for hybrid or remote meetings. It is my duty to follow the law in this place, and the law stated that I should continue with the 2020 regulations only for as long as they were necessary in order to combat coronavirus. I know that people got comfortable and liked having the regulations in place, but I did not believe that there was a justification under the law as it stood for me to extend them. That is why I decided to allow those regulations to lapse, but, as soon as it was practicably possible, to bring in the regulations that are in front of us today. I said that we would do it before the summer recess. I have done that, and I have given councils the power to decide for themselves how meetings take place, as it would not have been appropriate for me to use coronavirus as a reason to keep the 2020 regulations going. I therefore used the alternative legislation that was in place. I am grateful for the consensus in the Chamber, and I commend the regulations to the House.
633 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: 0.03 (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 (0.76).
- 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-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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.76 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 1.00 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| 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 10:48 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.