Debate contribution: Standing Order 59A
Debate contribution by Ms Kellie Armstrong on .
- MLA
- Ms Kellie Armstrong
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 26 November 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Committee Business
- Heading
- Standing Order 59A
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4677346
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures, I welcome the opportunity to conclude today's debate on the motion to amend Standing Orders to provide for the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee to substitute members. I thank all those who have taken part in today's debate for their contributions, including the Chairperson of the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee, Philip McGuigan, and the Deputy Chairperson, David Brooks. I also thank the Clerks of the Committee on Procedures and those who provided legal advice for their diligent work in developing this new addition to Standing Orders. There was unanimous support in the Committee for bringing forward the Standing Order, and Members' comments have been positive and supportive today. I will pick up, briefly, on some of the points that have been brought up today. In answer to the Chair of the Committee: yes, the Committee on Procedures will review the provision in 12 months to ensure that what we have put in place is good enough to allow your Committee to do its work. To be honest, I was expecting there to be a lot more challenges to the motion, but I am glad not to have received those. Legal advice was taken on proxy voting, and we cannot bring that forward. Let us test the substitute member provision first and see whether it works well. If it does, that is great; we will see how that flies. No one from any other Committee has asked for that type of replacement process, but that is not a call for the rest of you to jump on the bandwagon and to look for provision to have substitute members.
We are certainly open to doing that in 12 months' time, once we have had time to look at how the substitute members provision has worked. I cannot go into the issue of proxy voting that was covered by the legal advice, but I can say that it reflects how the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee works, given that it has such legal determinations and votes to take. We will certainly look at the issue of proxy voting in 12 months: it is not to say that it will never be introduced; just to say that we will try the first option first. It is important to support the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee in carrying out its functions and meeting its deadlines. The new Standing Order will assist it in doing that, particularly in periods of recess. At times when the rest of us may be enjoying a holiday or in our constituency offices, the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee will be here in Parliament Buildings going through its business. I am pleased that, overall, Members have welcomed the new provision, which I commend to the House.
468 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: 0.02 (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).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- 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 | 0.02 | 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 | 0.21 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.81 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.19 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:35 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.