Debate contribution: Standing Order 27A: Voting by Proxy
Debate contribution by Ms Kellie Armstrong on .
- MLA
- Ms Kellie Armstrong
- 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 4608228
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank Mr Carroll for giving way. As a Committee, we considered that and took significant legal advice. Our main point, as I mentioned in my speech, was that we wanted to maintain and uphold the importance of our vote in this place. We are not in COVID times now, so the decision was taken to limit proxy voting to very specific purposes that would have the most benefit and the quickest benefit in the House. The Committee will look at long-term illness and other options for proxy voting in the future, but, for now, the Standing Order covers just parental leave at time of birth or when there are fostering responsibilities.
112 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 (0.74).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.74 | 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 | 0.40 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.28 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.17 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.12 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
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.