Debate contribution: Standing Order 39(2): Suspension

Debate contribution by Dr Caoimhe Archibald on 16 September 2024.

MLA: Dr Caoimhe Archibald
Party at the time: Sinn Féin
Date: 16 September 2024
Type: Debate contribution (made as a minister)
Business: Executive Committee Business
Heading: Standing Order 39(2): Suspension
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 4532547

Text

I beg to move
Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
Standing Order 39(2) requires that, in accordance with the 1998 Act:
"No date may be determined for the Final Stage of a Bill until ... the Speaker has considered the Bill in accordance with section 10 of the ... Act and signified to the Minister ... in charge of the Bill that",
in their opinion, it may proceed to its Final Stage. That Standing Order ensures that the Assembly, rightly, has time to consider and debate legislation fully. I ask that the Assembly agree to the suspension of that Standing Order in order to allow the Bill to complete its passage in a shorter time frame and for the Final Stage debate to occur in a week's time on 23 September. As Members may recall, the Assembly agreed a 65% Vote on Account for 2024-25 on 9 April. That Vote on Account provided finance to allow Departments to continue to provide services in 2024-25, pending the passage of a Budget (No. 2) Bill. When the Budget (No. 2) Bill completes its passage through the Assembly, there are further steps to be completed before Royal Assent is secured. That does not happen immediately. There is a risk, therefore, that Departments reach the Vote on Account limit before Royal Assent is achieved. I am seeking to mitigate that risk. Should Departments reach their cash limits, there is a real risk to the delivery of public services, as it would be illegal for a Department to exceed the voted limits. There will be an opportunity for the Assembly to discuss in full the issues that relate to the Budget (No. 2) Bill at the upcoming Final Stage debate. I thank Members for their continued support for the Budget and their understanding on the matter.
I thank the Member for his contribution. The urgency of the Bill's needing to proceed to Final Stage is driven by the critical need to secure cash to Departments so that they can continue to deliver vital public services. As the Member mentioned, we recently had to advance funding from the Consolidated Fund to the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to ensure the delivery of farm payments. I am not aware of each Department's specific accounting position in relation to its Vote on Account at this stage, but the risk is that, if we do not move to Final Stage next week, it will take much longer to get Royal Assent for the Budget Bill, and Departments will then meet their cash limits. I therefore point out that not agreeing the motion to suspend the Standing Order would jeopardise the delivery of public services. I urge Members to agree to the suspension of Standing Order 39(2).

460 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.02 (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 (0.81).
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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.02	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.01	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.01	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.02	No
Controversy escalation	0.02	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.81	Yes
Overall judgement	0.02	At or below not-flagging threshold

Context and attribution (stance)
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 area (top five)
Subject	Probability
No identity-related subject	0.62
Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy	0.37
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty	0.01
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials	0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations	0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:03 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.

Challenge this classification