Debate contribution: Executive Legislation Programme 2024

Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on .

MLA
Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly
Party at the time
Democratic Unionist Party
Date
11 June 2024
Type
Debate contribution (made as a minister)
Business
Executive Committee Business
Heading
Executive Legislation Programme 2024
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4495671

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank Members for their contributions. This has been a wide-ranging debate that has touched on many of the key issues that the House has already discussed through a number of motions and debates. All those issues are, of course, important. Passing legislation is the primary function of the Assembly. That is why we were determined to make our written statement and to move the motion, which sets out the Executive's immediate programme of primary legislation work. It was encouraging to hear from so many Members, and I want to touch on a number of points that were made in the debate. The leader of the Opposition, Matthew O'Toole, described the programme as "thin gruel". I assure the Member that — he mentioned it in his remarks — this is the programme for the remainder of 2024. There are six months left, including the summer period. Of course, we have to be realistic. It is a primary duty of elected Members and, indeed, Ministers in this Government to ensure that we are honest with the public about what is realistic in what we can do. He accused us of being all hat and no cattle. I do like a hat, but, having attended some fantastic country shows over the past number of weeks, I like my cattle as well. On the serious point, the First Minister and I have discussed this issue in some detail. We find it incredibly important for us to get out there to support communities and to support events, but we recognise that absolutely key to this Administration will be delivery. It will be the cattle, and that is what we are working hard on. Of course, it is also key that what we focus on is deliverable. If we try to prioritise everything, nothing will be done. That is what we are working on in the Programme for Government and within the Executive Office. I can assure him that this is just the start of our ambition, and we are deeply ambitious for this place. We have a shared determination to build a better and brighter place, and that must include addressing the problems, growing our economy and, of course, the important work of the transformation of our public services. The Chair of the Committee for the Executive Office, Paula Bradshaw, is not in her place. I welcome her endorsement of the programme. She raised a number of key aspects. She welcomed, as others, including Carál Ní Chuilín, did, the sign language Bill. I welcome that deeply. It is a very good indication and sign of our inclusive agenda to ensure that everybody is able to participate and access the public services that they require. It is critical to recognise the role of this place on legislation. It must be about the identification of need. In a personal capacity, I am a small government politician. I do not support legislation for legislation's sake. It is a significant mistake for people to look at this Assembly and judge it on, as Paul Frew said, the quantity and not the quality. I urge Members to take caution because, when we look back over the past 17 years since restoration in 2007, we see that a number of the significant challenges and problems that we have faced have been to do with legislation or policy that ought to have been better and ought to have been scrutinised, with problems identified at an earlier stage. We have had to spend considerable time trying to address those problems.

I thank the Member for his intervention. Of course, an important point on the legislative programme, as was touched on by the Chair of the Committee for the Executive Office, is that this programme represents what Ministers have put forward but is very much in the context that the content of the legislation still needs to be agreed. It will need to be scrutinised by the Executive Committee and then by the Assembly Committees. The actual policies in those Bills are not yet agreed. Some of them we have a greater understanding of than others, but that will have to come forward. You are absolutely right that, on this issue, it is important that we get it right. That is the point that I was making around the role of the Assembly and of its Committees. In the Northern Ireland Assembly, Committees have a very particular role, which is different from that of Committees elsewhere: it is not just to scrutinise but to aid and support Ministers on policy development. That presents an incredible opportunity for Committees. I would like to see all of us commit to ensuring that we do not value quantity or speed over quality and getting things right. We absolutely have to scrutinise —.

Unfortunately, I have only 10 minutes, and I have a lot of contributions to touch on, I am afraid. I want to be fair to as many people as possible Like a number of Members, Deborah Erskine mentioned her policy brief in relation to her chairing of the Infrastructure Committee, which is very welcome. I touch again on the point that, if the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive are to deliver and have the determination to deliver, we will only do so by working hand in hand with the Committees, relying on them to call the relevant witnesses to really scrutinise the legislation to ensure that we are doing the right thing. I welcome the contributions from Deborah and other members of the Committees. Steve Aiken mentioned the Programme for Government. As indicated yesterday, we are in the same position as Scotland and Wales. All three jurisdictions were in an advanced position with their programmes for government, and all three, having taken guidance about the election period, will not be publishing them. That is right and proper. I would love to say that the Programme for Government is so good that to publish it would give an electoral advantage to the First Minister and I, but, of course, that is what the guidance is there to caution against. I have no doubt that there will be a variety of views on the Programme for Government. Of course, we will publish it for consultation, because we want to hear those views and improve it. We are very mindful of our responsibilities during the election period, but we are determined to get it published as soon as possible following that. Some Members referenced using the summer period for consultation. We acknowledge that using the summer period for consultation on legislation or policy is not ideal, but it allows people a little bit of extra time. We would have to consult into the autumn, as well, to ensure that there is adequate consultation time. The policy area of a duty of candour was mentioned by a number of Members, and I add my support to that. I was not here for questions to the Health Minister yesterday, but there was a reference to "the black box" then. There is an excellent book called 'Black Box Thinking' that deals with that very particular point. It talks about why so much goes wrong, such as medical negligence and other issues, and focuses on the specific issue of candour. There is an important point on candour, not just relevant to our health sector but across all our policy areas and all our legislation: we need to be open and frank on what works and what does not work. If something is not working, let us get it changed; let us work together to try to address it. That is the only way that we will improve things.

Unfortunately, I have only a minute and a half left. I want to add to that point by saying that it is incredibly important that we are fully aware of the impact of what we are doing on all the issues. I come back, again, to the point about quantity in relation to legislation. When we speak to people on the doors, as all of us will be doing over the next number of weeks, the key issue that we hear about, time and again, is that people want their public services to work for them, such as access to GP services and affordable childcare, in health and education respectively, and all those types of issues. We are also conscious, however, that legislation is not always the answer to the problem. Sometimes the answer will be transformation, restructuring and getting the right policies in place. The Committees have an important role in all those things, as does the House. I thank Members for their contributions to the debate. It has been very useful, and important issues have been raised. I urge people to consider this, however: let us get the right legislation, prioritising quality over quantity and consideration and scrutiny over speed. That is what the people of Northern Ireland demand of us and that is what will deliver for people throughout Northern Ireland.

1,505 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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 (0.63).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.03No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.03No
Controversy escalation0.03No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.63Yes
Overall judgement0.03At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits0.93
No identity-related subject0.06
Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy0.01
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00

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.

Challenge this classification