Debate contribution: Executive Legislation Programme 2024
Debate contribution by Mr Colin McGrath on .
- MLA
- Mr Colin McGrath
- 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 4495652
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I rise as a Member from the Opposition to do what the Opposition do: provide scrutiny of the legislation and statements that are presented to the House. That is what the Opposition do here. I am pretty sure that it is what the Opposition do 100 miles down the road. That is our task. I certainly will not be taken to task for providing that scrutiny. I welcome that, at least, the legislative programme is being offered. However, I agree with my colleagues: there is not much in it. It deals mostly with the mundane and things that, Departments say, have to be done, rather than being strategic or planned or offering something for the future. It simply deals with a lot of things that, Departments have said, need to see some movement after seven years when there was not much government here. With regard to the health portfolio that I carry for my party, I am looking at things such as the public health Bill. It has been suggested that it will replace legislation that has been there for over 50 years.
It is out of desperation that we need some of the changes and that is why that Bill is coming forward. If we look back at the COVID period and how a lot of those regulations came in and at the difficulties that there were, we will see that the Department is saying that it needs the new legislation in order to be able to deal with things in a better way for the future.
Again, the adult protection Bill is there as a response to some current issues, but some, especially those that are to do with Dunmurry, showed how out of touch the legislation was as it was not able to deal with any of the issues that were being presented. That is why there was an urgency about updating those matters. Again, however, that is being done out of desperation. When problems arise, we have to rush and get some sort of legislation to try to cover the cracks that have been exposed. That is not planned or strategic, and it does not present a better future for people. It is about doing the barest minimum that we absolutely have to do because of what has taken place. Things like the adult protection Bill expose how we operate in silos here. One arm of the Executive — the Health Department — is going to propose the Bill, which will include a requirement for the recruitment of a huge number of new social workers. However, there is no money from the Finance Department to go to the Health Department to deliver the new staff who are required. I have no doubt that we will pass the Bill, but then there will be a crisis, because we will not have the staff, as the money will not be there. That is what happens whenever we deal in silos.
Yes. I would like the extra minute.
Thank you. It should be an extra minute and a half, because he covered the next 30 seconds of my remarks, which deal with the fact that the available budget will not even be able to do what is currently expected of the Department of Health and that the Department, when the Bill is passed, will not have the money from the Finance Department or the Executive to be able to deliver what is needed. There is not one MLA in this room who has not heard, time and time again, that our health service needs to be transformed. We urgently need transformation in order to make our health service fit for the future. Is that in this year's legislative programme? No. All that we will be left with, then, is two years to pass some legislation to deal with transformation. I do not believe that that will happen. Alternatively, as has been mentioned, we will end up with such a short period of time to deal with an issue such as transformation that we will probably mess it up, because it will be rammed through with not enough time for scrutiny or interrogation of the Bill to make sure that it will be done properly. That brings me to the next piece of legislation, which is to do with hospital car parking charges. Only this Executive could pass a Bill about cars that involves a U-turn. They overturned their own decision that they took only two years previously. They rammed it through in the time before an election when there was not the proper time for scrutiny. I believe that the legislative programme will deliver some work but not enough. We must have more ambition for this place in order to be able to deliver much, much more.
798 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: 0.03 (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 (0.91).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 | 0.97 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
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.