Debate contribution: Standing Order 30

Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on 17 September 2024.

MLA: Mr Gerry Carroll
Party at the time: People Before Profit Alliance
Date: 17 September 2024
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Committee Business
Heading: Standing Order 30
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 4536927

Text

I oppose this change to Standing Orders. It is already difficult for smaller parties or independent voices to get a private Member's Bill completed or passed in the House. The proposal makes it more difficult for those to complete the process. Obviously, it limits the time during which people can introduce them.
Let us think about it. We could have the absurd situation in which something new occurs or there is a groundswell for movement on a particular issue in June 2026, yet no private Member will be able to introduce legislation or act on the issue until June 2027, if they are re-elected. That is what the proposal effectively does. As I said, it limits the voices of smaller parties, independent Members and parties outside the Executive. It is really damaging to democracy, which is what this Building should be about, to the people outside and to the parties outside the Executive. It is an attempt to stifle democracy. Think about the legislation that came through in the last few months of the previous mandate. Obviously, not all of it was perfect, and we did not agree fully with all aspects of it. Had this amendment been in place then, we would not have had any climate change legislation. We would not have had my trade union Bill, and we would not have had period poverty legislation or the Private Tenancies Bill. The list goes on and on. I implore people —.
Yes, I will give way.
The Member should do a bit more opposing. He is meant to be the leader of the Opposition. He is essentially saying to any of his party's Members who come to him in June 2026 that there is no chance of a new private Member's Bill. If something changes in society or in the real world, which happens regularly, voting for this change to Standing Orders means that his Members will have to wait at least another year until such a Bill can be debated in the House.
I will give way, yes.
I thank the Member for her intervention, but it does not change my substantive point that the proposed change is restrictive and prevents Members from introducing legislation for a year, when Stormont returns and if they are re-elected, which is up to the electorate. The proposed change is restrictive, and Members, especially those who are supposed to be in opposition, should oppose it.

404 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: 0.04 (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

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	0.07	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.03	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.02	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.04	No
Controversy escalation	0.03	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.66	Yes
Overall judgement	0.04	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	0.79
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues	0.15
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty	0.02
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups	0.02
Another identity-related subject	0.02

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:07 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