Debate contribution: Waste and Inefficiency in Government
Debate contribution by Ms Kellie Armstrong on .
- MLA
- Ms Kellie Armstrong
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 23 March 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Waste and Inefficiency in Government
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5466112
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Deputy Speaker. We have had a disappointing debate, especially with people who are transgender being used in such an unfortunate way. I ask the Deputy Speaker for a ruling under Standing Order 65, which concerns the approach that is taken in the Chamber. Standing Order 65 refers to "conduct": I remind everyone that one of the "Additional Assembly Principles of Conduct" is:
"Equality: Members should promote equality of opportunity and not discriminate against any person".
I feel that the language used in the House today has been appalling and that trans people have been used as scapegoats. I would like the Speaker's Office to make a ruling on whether that principle has been breached in the debate.
119 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).
- Criteria met: Identity framing (0.70); Controversy escalation (0.74).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (1.00).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- 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 | 0.70 | Yes |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.28 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.74 | Yes |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.19 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.20 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.98 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:08 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.