Debate contribution: Programme for Government

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 13 May 2024.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

13 May 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Programme for Government

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4488595

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I beg to move

Today is our third Opposition day. We intend to use it to focus on delivery, but, before I move on to my substantive remarks, I wish Conor Murphy well. He has temporarily stepped down from his role as Economy Minister, and I think that all of us will wish him a speedy recovery and hope to see him back at his desk and in the Chamber soon. I also associate myself with the remarks made by Deborah Erskine and John Blair in relation to the 20th anniversary of the accession of eight Eastern European countries and the role that they have played in broadening our society in Northern Ireland and increasing our diversity. It is hugely welcome, and I too will be at the event later today organised by the new Friends of Poland group. Since taking up the role of opposition, we have been consistent in saying that we intended to be constructive. We recognise that, after years of collapse, austerity and deteriorating public services, not everything could or would be fixed overnight or, indeed, fixed in the course of this mandate. From the health service to housing, our infrastructure, the childcare crisis that was just mentioned in Members' Statements and our stubbornly high poverty levels, the incoming Executive were faced with challenges that are not easily resolved but are, in fact, deeply embedded and, in some cases, structural. We know, for example, that the health service requires more investment but also a multi-year programme of reconfiguration of services around specialisms; longer-term recruitment strategies for all healthcare professionals; more use of cross-border services; and, ultimately, a broader societal shift towards a greater emphasis on prevention and upstream public health improvement to limit the burden of managing chronic conditions for an ageing population. I use the example of health to acknowledge the complexity of the challenges that we face and the solutions that are required. It would be utterly wrong of me to stand up, bang the lectern and insist that we get all the challenges in the health service sorted overnight. That is not possible in any society, let alone one where we have allowed the health service to get to the state that we have in Northern Ireland. I acknowledge today the complexity of the challenges that the Executive face, and we have done that since we entered into opposition. However, the public of Northern Ireland are not unreasonable, and they are not daft. They know that the challenges will take time and effort to resolve, but they expect a plan. If the plan itself is not yet ready, which it does not appear to be, then, at a bare minimum, they deserve to be told when the plan will be published. One hundred days on from the restoration of the institutions, we have had 28 motions from Executive parties promising action on everything from waiting lists to childcare support to the MOT backlog. In many cases, those motions are presented as if they substantively change the law or allocate funding: they do not. A casual observer watching the First Minister publicise motions calling for improved childcare or support for holiday hunger might naturally assume that, since the person speaking is the joint head of the Government here, the motions come alongside a meaningful plan involving legislation or allocation of funding, but they do not. While motions in the Assembly by governing parties can be a legitimate way of putting items on the agenda and airing issues, they cannot be a substitute for practical action and delivery. Otherwise, the Executive parties collectively risk inviting even more of the cynicism that our politics has generated in recent years. Our motions today, starting with this one, focus on delivery. We would like to see a Programme for Government (PFG) delivered soon. Is that so unreasonable?

We have not had one in nearly a decade, and we know, as our motion highlights, that the Executive parties met, and were meeting, for, I think, more than 18 months with the head of the Civil Service to agree the key parameters and the outline of a draft Programme for Government so that it would be ready to launch when an Executive were formed and our devolved institutions restored. I do not know how many of those meetings happened, and I do not know specifically what the outcomes — outputs, as management consultants say — are or were, but I do know that they happened. There have been countless meetings about strategies and priorities, but we have not yet seen a Programme for Government, nor do we know when we are going to get one. We therefore want to know when we are going to see a Programme for Government. If we cannot see the document itself, we want to know when it is going to be published. What is it going to state? Will it appear alongside some meaningful form of multi-year Budget, and, if the Executive's position is that a multi-year Budget will have to wait for a multi-annual spending review from a new UK Government, what types of targets, what indicative spending plans and what key targets for the rest of the mandate can the public expect to see be prioritised and delivered against? Is that so unreasonable? Is that such a mad, unreasonable ask of a Government? It was disappointing to be told recently by the First Minister that, collectively, we should not be in a hurry to see a Programme for Government. I remind the leadership of the Executive that we have not had an operational Programme for Government in nearly a decade. I see that the deputy First Minister is shaking her head. I am happy to take an intervention from her at this point if she wants to correct me on that statement, but my understanding is that we have not had a fully signed-off Programme for Government since the 2011 Programme for Government, because the 2016 Programme for Government was published only ever in draft form. During the brief 2020-22 period of an Executive, there was no formally signed-off Programme for Government. I therefore do not think that we have had agreed, updated Programme for Government targets in a decade. I do not think that it is unreasonable to ask for them, because how else can the public judge what the Executive are, or are not, delivering for them? Executive parties face the challenge of navigating a multiparty mandatory coalition. Yes, constraints are imposed on them through having a devolved settlement with limited control over revenue and an austerity-obsessed Tory Government in Westminster. Our motion acknowledges the extremely difficult financial position that we are in and that the Executive are in. Nobody should be in any doubt about that or be in any doubt that the UK Government should agree a better and more reasonable funding settlement for this place. None of that, however, is an alibi or an excuse for parties that sought power — parties that are made up of people, the faces of whom, in many cases, were on most lamp posts across the country — not to set a plan, set priorities and be honest with the public about the choices that the Executive need to make. The limitations that I have acknowledged, be they related to the devolved spending settlement or to being in a power-sharing coalition, are all the more reason that we need a road map — a Programme for Government — to tell us as an Assembly, and the public more broadly, what the plan is and what is being delivered. Without one, as we have seen in the past, the Executive simply improvise from week to week and run on glossy PR and positive vibes. Those are welcome, but they cannot be a substitute for delivery in government. I am sure that I am going to be accused of simply carping from the sidelines, but I am not, and neither is my party. I acknowledge the positive signs and the instances in which the Executive have made specific progress. I say, genuinely, that I welcome the positive symbolism and the strong imagery between the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. That has to be acknowledged, and I acknowledge it. I also say that the Economy Minister, who, as we know, is away for, hopefully, a brief hiatus, set out some clear themes on regional balance and a greater promotion of the all-island economy that he wants to pursue in his economic policy. That is to be welcomed. The Communities Minister has also made some progress and acted swiftly to help deliver legislation on defective premises. I am therefore willing to acknowledge where there has been progress made. What I am not going to do, however, is simply accept that we can have government that has no plan or road map and that drifts along, week to week, simply on the back of PR. I am afraid that that is what appears to be happening.

I do not have much time left, so I will not give way. I will be happy to give way later in the proceedings. All that we ask for is a plan — a road map. We are not asking for the earth or for miracles. The public of Northern Ireland have a right to expect that parties that have sought power and have successfully been elected to power have a plan and will tell them the choices that they will make to rescue our public services. That is all we ask. If the parties that have sought that power and have it cannot sign up to the motion —

— I do not know why they are in power in the first place.

1,626 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:23 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.

Challenge this classification