Are the Stormont institutions fit for purpose? There's a lot going on at the moment with Ukraine,

the protocol, a dramatic rise in the cost of living, not to mention what everyone hopes is the

tail end of the pandemic, but with the next Assembly election just two months away, the debate

over the need for a route and branch review of how things work on the hill is beginning to build momentum.

Does Stormont's ugly scaffolding at least need to be looked at, Claire?

I think institutional reform in looking at that ugly scaffolding is a process.

It's an iterative process as opposed to something that just happens at a static point in time.

So absolutely yes, and it should be something that is constantly ongoing.

John? Mark Durgan would probably say that's his most misquoted speech. But, um, from 2008.

From 2008. I agree with Claire. We've done this in 98. We changed things in 06. We changed in 010 at Hillsborough.

Stormont House 1-2 and 3, fresh start, new decade, new approach. We've always changed in things.

So yes, we need to keep evolving that and make those things an issue better.

Sean, do you agree that conversation needs to be taking place at the moment?

Absolutely. I think the institutions are long overdue in MOT.

They weren't built to be unchanging. They were actually built to be reviewed.

There's a review clause in the Goodfair the agreement.

But I think the way we go about the process of institutional

reform needs to change. We need to have a very public conversation about what people want from

their democratic institutions. We haven't asked the public since 1998 in terms of how they want

to be governed. So that conversation needs to be a public one. It shouldn't be one that's just

left to party political leaders.

So that's a full house, isn't it? All three guests on today's podcast agreeing that the conversation needs to take place.

...