Debate contribution: Standing Order 27A: Voting by Proxy
Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on .
- MLA
- Mr Gerry Carroll
- Party at the time
- People Before Profit Alliance
- Date
- 22 October 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Committee Business
- Heading
- Standing Order 27A: Voting by Proxy
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4608226
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I certainly do not oppose the changes, but I fear that this may be a missed opportunity. The announcement of changes to Standing Orders for paternity or bereavement issues is welcome, but, as the Chair said, there are gaps around child appointments, child sickness and other areas, which, I fear, is a missed opportunity. The proxy voting arrangements that are proposed are too restrictive. COVID showed many's a thing, such as how proxy voting arrangements could be altered and implemented. Certainly, from this end, there seemed to be no issue or problem with that process being in place. It seemed to run smoothly from this end. If there were issues outside or on the technical side, I would be happy to hear about those. However, from here, it seemed to work smoothly. I believe that we need to get back to that system. I have raised that with the Chair in a few previous debates, but I want the Committee to get on board with that. To be honest, it probably would not be of massive benefit to me, being an MLA in Belfast, unless there were unforeseen circumstances. Proxy voting arrangements would probably benefit bigger parties and people outside Belfast in particular. I am happy to give way if the Chair wants, but some still believe that what happens in this place trumps all and that this is the sole, primary place for political discussions or decisions. However, there is obviously a lot more work taking place outside this Building, and, given the lack of legislation coming through, some would argue that more important work is happening in constituencies, with meetings and groups of individuals and so on.
I appreciate the Chair's comments, but I have responded to the Committee to say that it should look at the wider proxy voting system, as the Chair may know, and I repeat that it is too restrictive. Ultimately, it should be up to MLAs to decide. If they are not in the Building and are deemed to be MIA, they can be voted out by the public, who, ultimately, decide those things. I think that the current system is too restrictive for all sorts of reasons. There is full proxy voting in France, Luxembourg and New Zealand, and the sky has not fallen in. I was going to ask the Chair about the opposition to the changes, but she alluded to it already. I also think that the deadline is too restrictive. It does not take into consideration Members who intend to travel in to vote on a debate, but life can change and weather patterns can change, and I am thinking in particular of Members from Derry or the north-west who may be unable to get down the Glenshane Pass but want to vote. Many people could be unintentionally disenfranchised by this too rigorous, restrictive system. I support the changes proposed today but urge the Committee to consider extending them to a wider range of circumstances.
496 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).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.89).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | Yes |
| 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 | 0.72 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.12 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.08 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.04 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.03 |
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.