Debate contribution: Elected Representatives: Abuse and Harassment
Debate contribution by Mr Colin McGrath on .
- MLA
- Mr Colin McGrath
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 10 March 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Elected Representatives: Abuse and Harassment
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5436644
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I may require an additional minute for this answer. I thank the Member for her question. The Assembly Commission recognises that abuse and harassment of Members is a serious and persistent issue and that addressing it requires coordinated action across a number of bodies. Within its own remit, the Commission has taken forward a programme of engagement and action to strengthen support for Members and to address gaps in existing arrangements. Last year, the Speaker held separate meetings with the PSNI and the Electoral Commission. Those discussions highlighted the importance of ensuring that organisations involved in this area have a shared understanding of existing activity and where further action is required. Building on that work, the Speaker convened a round-table meeting in September, attended by representatives of the Assembly Commission, the PSNI, the Electoral Commission, the Electoral Office, the main political parties, the Assembly Women’s Caucus, the Jo Cox Foundation and the Hume Foundation. While a wide range of issues were discussed, participants emphasised the impact of hearing directly from Members about their personal experiences of abuse and harassment. Engagement between the Assembly Commission and partner organisations is ongoing and a significant development has been the PSNI’s MLA safety strategy. Assembly Commission officials now sit on a joint group with the PSNI to consider delivery of that strategy and to ensure that appropriate support is available to Members, both in response to specific incidents and through the provision of advice and training. The Commission has also taken steps to ensure that its future work is informed by Members’ lived experience. A survey of Members on abuse and harassment was conducted between June and September 2025, with 48 Members responding. As a result, the Commission established a group to bring forward proposals for actions that the Commission can take, within its responsibilities, to address these issues. To inform that work further, Commission officials have engaged with colleagues in other Parliaments, including the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Senedd and the Houses of the Oireachtas, and have continued discussions with the PSNI. The Commission will continue to engage with other bodies on these matters, and Members will be aware that, last month, the Speaker joined the Presiding Officers from Scotland and Wales at the launch of the most recent report of the Jo Cox Foundation’s Civility Commission.
388 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).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.75).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.93).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.75 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.93 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.07 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.47 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.32 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.16 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.04 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:12 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.