Debate contribution: Standing Order 18C
Debate contribution by Ms Kellie Armstrong on .
- MLA
- Ms Kellie Armstrong
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 1 July 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Committee Business
- Heading
- Standing Order 18C
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5061987
Read the official Assembly record
Text
On behalf of the Committee on Procedures, I am pleased to bring forward a new Standing Order, which provides for an annual debate on the Executive's legislative programme. The addition to Standing Orders is one of the recommendations of the inquiry into private Members' Bills that was undertaken by the previous Committee on Procedures and approved by the Assembly on 14 March 2022. That Committee did not have time to bring in the Standing Order before the end of that mandate and, therefore, recommended that its successor Committee do so in this mandate. The recommendation to provide for an annual debate on the Executive's legislative programme arose from the requirement of section 15(3) of the Assembly and Executive Reform (Assembly Opposition) Act (Northern Ireland) 2016, which states:
"Standing Orders must make provision for an annual debate on the Executive legislative timetable."
The Business Committee and the Chairperson's Liaison Group (CLG) also supported provision for such an annual debate and indicated that it would be:
" helpful to the scheduling of plenary time",
and facilitate Committees to better plan their scrutiny. In developing the Standing Order presented to the Assembly today, the Committee on Procedures considered a range of potential approaches, received legal advice on a number of issues and took account of the process already adopted by the First Minister and deputy First Minister in this mandate. Members will recall that the First Minister and deputy First Minister tabled a motion that was debated on 11 June 2024 on the Executive's legislative programme of Bills to be introduced in the Assembly in 2024, details of which were set out in a written ministerial statement dated 23 May 2024. That information was more recently supplemented by a written ministerial statement that provided an update on the Executive's legislative programme for the remainder of the 2024-25 Assembly session. I turn to the detail of the Standing Order. Paragraph 1 provides for time to be allocated for an annual debate on the Executive's legislative programme as required by the 2016 Act that I referenced earlier. On the Bills that are intended to be introduced during the Assembly session, paragraphs 2 and 3 provide for the First Minister and deputy First Minister to table a motion for debate:
"within a period of 20 working days beginning with the first day on which the Business Committee meets following the summer recess."
The Business Committee must select the motion for debate, which should take place within 10 working days of the day on which the motion is tabled, in accordance with paragraphs 4 and 5.
Thank you. I hope not to take it, because I am aware that this is the last debate before recess. I absolutely agree with the Member. We have recognised, in the Standing Order, that there is a need for flexibility, as there may be circumstances that affect the ability to table the motion within the expected time frame. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Standing Order provide for the First Minister and deputy First Minister to make a statement setting out the reason for not tabling the motion within that time frame and providing a revised date for when, within that calendar year, a revised date will be set to debate the motion on the Executive's legislative programme. The Standing Order fulfils the legislative requirements; is based closely on the approach that is already adopted by the First Minister and deputy First Minister to a debate on the Executive's legislative programme; and provides greater clarity on the expected time frame. It will assist the planning and scheduling of work during each Assembly session, provide appropriate flexibility should they be unable to meet the time frame, and implement the recommendation of the previous Committee on Procedures, which was endorsed by the Assembly in March 2022. Prior to finalising and agreeing the Standing Order, the Committee sought the views of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, all parties and the independent Assembly Member. At its meeting on 18 June 2025, the Committee agreed to bring the Standing Order to the Assembly for approval. In my capacity as Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures, I thank the Deputy Chairperson and all members of the Committee for their constructive approach and detailed input to the Standing Order and to the work of the Committee more generally. I also thank our Committee Clerks, who are known affectionately as "Christella", and the officers who have worked so hard throughout the session to complete a significant workload. Thank you very much to all of them. I trust that Members will view the proposed change as a constructive and useful addition to Standing Orders, and I look forward to the debate. As an individual Alliance Party MLA and as a scrutiny MLA, I am delighted that we will have prior knowledge of the Executive's legislative programme at the start of a session. That will make life an awful lot easier for Committees and help us to hold Ministers to account.
832 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).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.54 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.94 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.04 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:06 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.