Debate contribution: Standing Order 18C
Debate contribution by Ms Cara Hunter on .
- MLA
- Ms Cara Hunter
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 1 July 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Committee Business
- Heading
- Standing Order 18C
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5062001
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I will speak, briefly, on the new Standing Order. I thank the Chair of the Committee for her work chairing the Committee. The SDLP welcomes the new Standing Order, which seeks to include an annual debate on the Assembly's legislative programme. The new Standing Order speaks to the importance of openness and transparency in the Assembly in relation to Executive business. Having been the Opposition for the past 500 days or so, our view is that this is of great importance and allows for the First Minister and deputy First Minister, and the rest of the Executive, to be held accountable for their work. I put on record my frustration that the Executive have still not delivered their 2024 legislative programme. We are elected to the House to deliver for people, and transparency and accountability are key to showing the public that we are focused on putting in place legislation that can adequately change their lives.
156 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).
- 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 | 0.04 | 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 | 0.30 | No |
| 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 | 0.93 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.02 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.02 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.01 |
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.