Debate contribution: Programme for Government
Debate contribution by Mr Doug Beattie MC on .
- MLA
- Mr Doug Beattie MC
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 13 May 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Programme for Government
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4488652
Read the official Assembly record
Text
One has to ask, "Why can you not support the motion?", because it is factually correct. The Executive have been restored for 100 days. There are huge fiscal challenges facing the Executive. We have been underfunded, and we continue to be funded below need. Those are all facts. There was extensive engagement between the Executive political parties and the Northern Ireland Civil Service around a Programme for Government. We absolutely support the motion. The amendment is absolutely factually correct as well. It lays out what we said in those negotiations would be our priorities. We can easily support the amendment. It does not negatively affect the main motion. We have no problem either way. It is clear, however, that a Programme for Government should be a foundation document for what we want to achieve as a Coalition Government with a long-term vision. It should be strategic and outcome-focused, not project-focused. It needs to be looked at in depth. The Ulster Unionist Party has always had the stance that it is better to wait until a Programme for Government is agreed before running the d'Hondt process and forming the Executive. Therefore, people can go into government already knowing what the outcomes will be, and there is no more silo mentality. Funny enough, we could have achieved that. We disagreed with the boycott, but it gave us two years in which to approve a Programme for Government before we went in. We had the ability to have a Programme for Government up and running really quickly. In fact, if you look back to 2021, which was not that long ago, you will see that the previous Programme for Government went out for public consultation between January and March 2021. That Programme for Government should have had longevity for the future. It should never have been a one-, two- or three-year Programme for Government; it should have been a five- or 10-year Programme for Government. The First Minister was the deputy First Minister at the time, and her signature is at the bottom of the consultation document, as is Arlene Foster's. The consultations between the political parties and the Northern Ireland Civil Service went on from June 2022 until January 2024. There was ample time to come up with a Programme for Government. There absolutely are fiscal challenges, but every time anyone hints at trying to deal with those challenges or at revenue raising, it is closed down pretty quickly. If you agree an underfunding Budget, you accept an underfunding Budget. We did not; we could not. It will not work. I agree with all the issues mentioned by the DUP. Every single one will require a resource, but we do not have that resource or the level of engagement within the Executive that we need now. The Executive have met about six times since they were re-established, but there has been no focus whatsoever on a Programme for Government. There have been side issues and some talk about it but absolutely nothing otherwise. There is a sense that TEO is a bit dysfunctional at the moment. I think that Paula Bradshaw outlined really well some of the issues that create that dysfunctionality. There are multiple documents about a Programme for Government. I have them sitting here. They are very glossy, and they would have given us the ability to get up and running pretty quickly. There is even a document called 'Strategic Programme Timeline', which says that a Programme for Government should be out for consultation seven weeks after an Executive are up and running. I will finish with this: my concern is that we will end up with a makeshift, one-year Programme for Government that will deal with projects only. It will deliver projects, and they will be good projects and the right projects. Childcare is absolutely the right project, as are special educational needs provision and efforts to dealing with waiting lists, but they have to be part of something much bigger than a project dealing with one issue or another. That is where we are lacking. I hope that the Programme for Government comes out soon. The Programme for Government should have informed the Budget, rather than the Budget informing the Programme for Government. We got it the wrong way round. I will happily support the motion — it is a good motion — and the amendment.
728 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: 0.04 (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 (0.89).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 | 0.89 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.05 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.03 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:27 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.