Debate contribution: Executive Legislation Programme 2024
Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on .
- MLA
- Mr Matthew O'Toole
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 11 June 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Executive Legislation Programme 2024
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4495535
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I am pleased to debate the legislative programme for 2024, such as it is. We are told by the First Minister that the programme, which was laid on 23 May by written ministerial statement, does not represent the totality of the Executive's ambitions in relation to legislation. All I can say is, "Thank goodness for that", because, when compared with some of the promises that have been contained in motions from Executive parties over the past four and a half months and with the promises that have been made in PR photo opportunities, in videos by Ministers and, indeed, in party manifestos, what is in the legislative programme is, I am afraid, pretty thin gruel. I acknowledge that this is a three-year mandate. Curtailed and constrained by public finances as it is, it is still a significant period in which significant legislative achievements can be met. Before I make broader comments, I want to go through some of the specifics in the legislative programme. In framing some of my comments, it would be helpful to know, perhaps from the First Minister or the deputy First Minister, whoever is winding up, to understand which of the Bills were in draft form when the Executive were restored in February or, indeed, which of them were in draft form when the Executive collapsed in 2022. Several of the Bills that we are talking about here are Bills that have been talked about for a long time, but there are lots of other Bills that are not on this programme that have also been talked about for a long time. I commend a couple of the Bills in particular that, I am glad, are coming forward. The Minister for Communities has been commended, deservedly, for working with his colleagues to introduce the Defective Premises Bill in relatively quick time. The sign language Bill, clearly, is important progress for people in that community. There are some welcome tidying-up measures from the Minister for the Economy around the Utility Regulator's powers and the RHI scheme, but they are, as far as I am aware, legislation that has been in the works for a long time. There is nothing particularly that aligns to the Economy Minister's grand vision, much of which I agree with in principle. There are no legislative indications of how any of that will be delivered. There is certainly not the ambitious workers' rights legislation that has been promised by the Economy Minister and his party. Let us bear it in mind that these are simply Bills to be introduced this year. I am sure that few of them will be passed this year. I am glad that the Minister of Finance is introducing a Bill to put the Fiscal Council on a statutory footing. That is most welcome, and I have been calling for it for some time, as others have. The Bill from the Health Minister to respond to the findings in relation to Dunmurry Manor is, of course, welcome. There are other measures, including the Minister of Justice's updating of the rules around fingerprints and DNA profiles. I have put on record my disappointment that the Minister of Justice has walked away from her and her party's long-standing commitment to a stand-alone hate crime Bill. I hear sighs from my colleagues on the Alliance Benches, but my job is holding the Executive to account, and I will not be deterred from doing that, no matter what Members from Executive parties think. That is what the Opposition are here for, and we will do that job. Under the previous item of business, we had a discussion about the North/South Ministerial Council agriculture meeting, and you, Mr Speaker, are from an agricultural background. There is a saying in agricultural circles in Texas that certain farmers can be all hat and no cattle. Well, I would say that, looking at some of what has come out of the Executive over the past four or five months, the public of Northern Ireland might well conclude that, so far, the Executive is all hat and no cattle. We have had dozens upon dozens of motions promising everything from action on Lough Neagh to support for childcare — I admit that there has been some spending on childcare from the Education Minister, which I commend — and a range of other things. Indeed, this morning, the First Minister was saying that Sinn Féin is bringing forward a motion to support uniform costs. That is enormously welcome and urgent, but, so far as I understand, that will come via a private Member's Bill; it is not even in the Executive legislative programme. All of those motions laid out vital aspirations with which we do not disagree. When will they be implemented? When will we see an actual Programme for Government? It is nearly 130 days into the mandate, after hundreds of meetings between civil servants and Executive parties between 2022 and 2024, and we still do not have that signed off.
Although we will not force it to a Division, we will not support the legislative programme.
It is all hat and no cattle. It is time for delivery.
861 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: 0.07 (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 (0.74).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.96).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.08 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.08 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.74 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.96 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.04 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.60 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.34 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.02 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:38 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.