Debate contribution: Standing Order 27A: Voting by Proxy
Debate contribution by Ms Sian Mulholland on .
- MLA
- Ms Sian Mulholland
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 22 October 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Committee Business
- Heading
- Standing Order 27A: Voting by Proxy
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4608212
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I welcome the changes to our Standing Orders, as someone who had to return to work when my baby was just five weeks old after the return of the House in February. I was unable to legally drive myself to the Building: I was still healing, physically and mentally, from major surgery and also had the day-to-day fog that comes in the newborn phase. I know, first-hand, the challenges that are faced by parents, particularly new mothers in political life. It was not easy, but it highlighted the urgent need for change. Had I stayed away from the Assembly, my vote would have been lost, and my constituents would not have been represented in the Chamber. There is a point to be made about some of the criticism — others might say "trolling" — that I received when I brought my baby to the Chamber. First, I was asked, "Why don't you put her into childcare?". There are very few childcare places available for a baby who is five weeks old. Secondly, I was asked, "Why doesn't your husband look after her?". I recognise my privilege, and I was in the fortunate position that he was able to step in as the primary caregiver because he was able to take shared parental leave due to the date of my co-option to the Assembly. Had I been co-opted two weeks earlier, my husband would not have been eligible for shared parental leave because his ability to take it was based on my previous employment. As MLAs, we are not regarded as employees or sole traders, so, after legal advice, we found that we were only eligible due to the date of my co-option into the Assembly. Some MLAs are not in a position where the father or another caregiver can take that shared leave. There are many reasons why we should have the proxy vote provision, but I will focus on the rural aspect. Many MLAs can manage because they live close by or within driving distance. However, when you have guidance that says that a newborn baby cannot be in a car seat for longer than 40 minutes and you live an hour and 20 minutes away, that poses a logistical issue. If we want to truly encourage more women and parents to step into civic and political roles, we have to ensure that they have the support that they need to balance their family responsibilities with the demands of public service. The introduction of parental leave for MLAs is a really key part of that. It signals that we value the contributions of families, mothers and fathers and recognise that family life should not be a barrier to political engagement. I welcome the fact that these changes acknowledge the rights and needs of not just biological parents but all parents, be they biological, adoptive or foster in nature. We know that this will significantly impact on mothers and their ability to balance new motherhood with being a political representative. We still lag behind other legislatures in the percentage of MLAs who are women. I think that we are at 36%, which is far below gender parity. Other Parliaments across the UK and Europe have taken stronger steps than this to improve gender balance and create family-friendly policies, be those on the timings of debates or the provision of a crèche facility. It is about making it as easy as possible. The proposals on parental leave are an important signal that we are serious about catching up to, as Mr McGrath said, "the last century" — not even this one — and ensuring that our Assembly reflects the diversity of the people whom we represent. I feel that it is time —.
Yes, of course.
Thank you. That is a great point. What I see now when I look around this Building and at those who sit in the Chamber is very different from what I saw growing up, particularly in the female representation and age. We have more people with young families. As I look around the Chamber, I see quite a few Members, be they male or female, who have young families. Anything that we can do to create a working environment where more women and parents feel empowered to join us in shaping the future of our society is a good thing.
725 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: 0.04 (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 (0.90).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.95).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- 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 | 0.08 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.09 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.95 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.04 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.74 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.26 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 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.