Debate contribution: Standing Order 27A: Voting by Proxy
Debate contribution by Mr Colin McGrath on .
- MLA
- Mr Colin McGrath
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 22 October 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Committee Business
- Heading
- Standing Order 27A: Voting by Proxy
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4608210
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I will only say a few words. I was going to start by saying that moves like this welcome us into the 21st century. Then I checked, and the legislation for the rest of society was passed in 1999, so we are catching up with the last century by implementing the changes. All I will say is this: great, wonderful, but can we get on with some more? There are many other changes that we would love to see, such as electronic voting, so that it does not take 20 minutes to progress every time we have a Division because people have to physically walk around the Chamber. Many other changes could be made, but it is great to see the ones that we are discussing. This place should reflect society instead of being something like the ark. I definitely welcome the changes.
143 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).
- 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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.08 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.38 | No |
| 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.96 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.02 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:27 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.