Debate contribution: Enhancing Accountability and Trust in Government
Debate contribution by Ms Paula Bradshaw on .
- MLA
- Ms Paula Bradshaw
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 3 February 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Enhancing Accountability and Trust in Government
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4774426
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. While agreeing that we would like to get on with governing rather than just administering, as Matthew O'Toole said, there is a case for raising the simple reality that meaningful change takes time. I am sure that he will agree that his colleague Nichola Mallon, when she was Infrastructure Minister, realised that when she was on the previous Executive. Michelle Guy set the tone well by emphasising the scale of the challenge caused by collapsing the institutions, which is why it is essential to address the ability to use the sectarian veto to collapse the whole thing. It should have been apparent to the SDLP long ago, not least from the absence of any Executive Office Ministers at the debate, that appeals to Sinn Féin and the DUP will be ignored. Michelle also raised the importance of doing it in a managed way, and I put on record the fact that my party leader, Naomi Long, recently wrote to the British and Irish Governments to raise again the need for reform. If we accept Emma Sheerin's view that we have made some good progress, there should be no delay in confirming that her party will not collapse the institutions and, indeed, agreeing a system that disables any minority party from doing so. Likewise, Harry Harvey made a case for two DUP Ministers' work over the past year. If their work has been so effective, there should be no delay in ensuring that devolution cannot just be collapsed. I agree with Robbie Butler that the St Andrews Agreement was a step in the wrong direction, although it demonstrated that reform is possible, contrary to what some claim. However, he was wrong to talk about political wish lists. Frankly, it appears that he did not read our amendment —
I will just make this point. That is not the first time that the Ulster Unionist Party has not read our amendment. Go ahead.
Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I absolutely agree that it should be up to the people of Northern Ireland to take forward any change. Our party's reflection is that, when the Assembly was first created, we had only a small number of MLAs but we now have 17. Our mandate is growing and will continue to grow. We feel that we and the people who vote for us are disenfranchised by the current system. Brian Kingston talked about the need to maintain devolution but then made what seemed to be a contradictory argument: that we should leave the institutions in place with the ever-present risk of collapse. He said that we should deal with the bread-and-butter issues, but, given that the Assembly was down for five of the past eight years, we were not dealing with the bread-and-butter issues. That is why we have seen decline in our public services in far too many ways. However, I agree with Brian that a cast-iron commitment never to resign is impractical. The purpose of our amendment is to say, "Look, there will be circumstances in which Ministers have to resign". Conor Murphy resigned a while back and again today for legitimate reasons that were not to destabilise the institution. Unfortunately, Timothy Gaston drifted off-topic and continued to mislead the House. It is interesting that he talked about the motion's scope, given that he keeps referring to my trying, at that infamous Committee meeting, to bring him back to the First Minister's departmental role and responsibility rather than her responsibilities as the Northern leader of Sinn Féin. Moving on —
OK. Thank you.
597 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: 0.20 (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 (0.74).
- Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
- 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 | 0.20 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.10 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.17 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.17 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.65 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.20 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.74 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.17 |
| Adopts it | 0.08 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.93 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.05 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:53 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.