Debate contribution: Standing Order 27A: Voting by Proxy
Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on .
- MLA
- Mr Timothy Gaston
- Party at the time
- Traditional Unionist Voice
- Date
- 22 October 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Committee Business
- Heading
- Standing Order 27A: Voting by Proxy
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4608224
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I welcome the amendments to Standing Orders. To me, they seem to be a necessary acknowledgement that MLAs are people too and require time off for bereavement and other sensitive reasons. There is one issue on which I would like clarity from the Committee Chairperson. I received correspondence last month from the Committee on Procedures in which it indicated that it will look at proxy voting for long-term illness, bereavement and absence on official business, which you, Chair, acknowledged in your opening remarks. Chairperson, can you confirm that MLAs should not and, indeed, would not be able to take advantage of those provisions if they go on holiday while the Assembly is in session? I ask that in the context that, just last week, a Minister was on holiday and was therefore unable to fulfil her duties in the House, even though the Assembly is in recess next week. I want the record of this debate to be clear that there is no provision in this amendment for any MLA, be they party leaders, Ministers or lowly Back-Benchers like me, to vote by proxy while sitting poolside.
187 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: 0.05 (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 (0.65).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.06 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.09 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.65 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | 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 | 0.75 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.21 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
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.