Member's statement: 'Reform of Stormont: Options for Discussion': University College London Report

Member's statement by Ms Paula Bradshaw on .

MLA
Ms Paula Bradshaw
Party at the time
Alliance Party
Date
8 April 2025
Type
Member's statement
Business
Members' Statements
Heading
'Reform of Stormont: Options for Discussion': University College London Report
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4919224

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I rise to note a recent report from independent academics in London that has laid bare the severe damage that Assembly collapse and stop-start government is causing to communities and public services in Northern Ireland. It reinforces the need to reform the institutions so that they cannot be collapsed on a whim and the sectarian veto becomes a thing of the past. The report, 'Reform of Stormont: Options for Discussion', from the constitution unit at University College London states that, during Assembly collapses from 2017 to 2020 and from 2022 to 2024:

"much of the work of government, particularly longer-term work, went undone, which is reflected in the current economic and public service problems experienced in Northern Ireland."

That is strikingly similar to the module 1 report of the UK COVID-19 inquiry, which also noted that preparations for the pandemic had been hindered by the absence of functioning government in the months before the virus first emerged from China in late 2019. The University College London report, authored by Conor Kelly, Alan Renwick and Alan Whysall, goes even further, blaming recent Assembly collapses for the failure to progress long-term solutions to the problems faced by Northern Ireland's finances, health service and other public-sector services. Of course, it must be said that that is to do with not just the non-operation of the institutions but the bias in our institutional set-up in favour of the status quo and against reform. Taking the key decisions to reform our health service and water infrastructure etc and, indeed, to tackle the cost of division is rendered much more difficult by the prospect of blockage via the abuse of the sectarian veto. The report assesses the options for reforming the power-sharing structures at Stormont and says:

"Removing ... veto powers within the Executive could speed up ... decision-making"

and improve the implementation of key policy priorities. Again, that is linked to the emerging evidence in the COVID inquiry. That independent analysis reinforces what the Alliance Party has been saying for years, even decades. Ransom politics and vetoes over government are blocking the transformation and improvement of key public services and causing damage to people and communities across Northern Ireland. Stop-start government takes a wrecking ball to the key priorities that households in every corner of Northern Ireland are, we know, relying on us to deal with. The independent report, along with the emerging evidence from the COVID-19 inquiry, provides fresh impetus to all parties in the Chamber and to the UK and Irish Governments to engage meaningfully in a conversation about institutional reform ahead of the next Assembly election in 2027.

436 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.08 (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 (0.52).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.08No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.04No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.05No
Controversy escalation0.05No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.89Yes
Overall judgement0.08At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.52
Reports or questions it0.01
Criticises or condemns it0.45
Adopts it0.02
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.97
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty0.03
No identity-related subject0.00
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:20 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.

Challenge this classification