Debate contribution: Supply Resolution for the Northern Ireland Main Estimates 2024-25; and Supply Resolution for Excess Votes for 2016-17, 2018-19, 2020-21, 2021-22

Debate contribution by Mr Patsy McGlone on .

MLA
Mr Patsy McGlone
Party at the time
Social Democratic and Labour Party
Date
1 July 2024
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Executive Committee Business
Heading
Supply Resolution for the Northern Ireland Main Estimates 2024-25; and Supply Resolution for Excess Votes for 2016-17, 2018-19, 2020-21, 2021-22
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4499476

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I listened intently to Dr Aiken's emphasis on health in his contribution. I am sure that all our offices receive correspondence about waiting lists, childcare and paediatric health issues. Some of the cases could take a tear from a stone. I raised this point earlier in response to the Minister of Health's statement: there is a need for the re-establishment of the cross-border healthcare directive to help reduce waiting lists. We all know and recognise the need for cross-border cooperation on health. We often talk about it in the Chamber. It makes sense. If we can in some way alleviate the problem of our major waiting lists, why not do it? Why not collaborate with the Irish Government and Minister Donnelly to see what can conceivably be done? The health service is on its knees. Day and daily, we hear of cases, and it honestly seems to be getting worse. The required investment would at least help to break the back of some of the waiting lists, which are getting longer and longer.

Yes.

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

We owe it to our people to do all that we humanly can, especially on health. Nevertheless, I will move on to the scripted speech that I intended to give, but Dr Aiken inspired me to raise that issue first. The environment and ecological crisis that we face in the North demands long-term strategic thinking and action, but the Executive have repeatedly failed to deliver what is required. The Budget demonstrates that. Nowhere is the absence of long-term strategic thinking more apparent than in the Executive's failure to deliver for Lough Neagh. It is almost exactly a year since the devastating algae blooms shut down activity on the lough. The stench and sight of the blooms were apparent, as were their effects. We are now back in the summer months, and the blooms are, in fact, recurring on the lough. In some pictures taken by the PSNI last week, the blooms were very visible. They are re-emerging. The Assembly is about to go into summer recess, and the Executive parties have not delivered a rescue plan for the lough. In fairness to the AERA Minister, it is not necessarily because of a lack of ambition on his part. We know what is needed to address the excessive levels of nutrients in the lough that fuel the algae blooms. All parties and MLAs received the briefings from DAERA about its priorities. The key actions that were recommended at the start of the year included: enforcing existing regulations; reducing the level of phosphorous in animal feed; developing a policy to reduce or eliminate the use of chemical phosphorous fertiliser on grasslands; bringing forward an updated nitrates action programme; and making additional investment in our waste water network. The estimated additional costs for the necessary upgrading of 18 waste water treatment works that have an impact on Lough Neagh was £131 million. If Executive parties are serious about improving the poor water quality in our rivers and lakes, further investment will be needed in the water and waste water network across the North. The additional moneys for social housing were mentioned, and that is very welcome indeed. Many of our towns are in paralysis because of the lack of investment in the waste water disposal system. Sewage disposal works are at or beyond capacity. That has an effect on the delivery of social and private housing and on retail and commercial developments. Consequentially, there is an impact on the cost of housing. Hopefully, any negotiations between the Executive and, what we hope will be, an incoming Labour Government will render at least some investment in the improvements that are so needed for all our vital agencies. Another area in which the Executive have not delivered is climate change and, in particular, the just transition to net zero. When the Assembly passed the Climate Change Act in 2022, we set ambitious targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions for all sectors of our economy to achieve. Given the delay in agreeing to the targets in the Climate Change Act, we had a short time to start to take action. Due to the DUP's boycott of the Executive, the deadline for setting the first carbon budget has been missed. The deadline for the first carbon action plan has also been missed. It was recognised that achieving the ambitious targets that are in the Climate Change Act would require advice and assistance in order for it to be available for all sectors, particularly agriculture, yet, despite the urgent need to act, the required just transition commission is not in place. The First Minister and deputy First Minister have not established the office of climate commissioner, and no one has been appointed to the post. There is no just transition fund for agriculture to assist farmers to make the necessary changes in farming practice. It is an absolute requirement to facilitate that transition by way of training and grant aid and to move to new farming and agricultural methods. Those are essential elements of the Climate Change Act that are required if we are to achieve the net zero target by 2050. The longer that it takes to start the process of a just transition, the more difficult that transition will be. It is also vital that we define exactly what that just transition is, yet not only are those elements of the Climate Change Act missing but there is still a lack of clarity about that definition. I raised those issues with the AERA Minister during his appearances at the Committee, so he is well aware of our party's concerns. As I have repeatedly said, the SDLP is willing to work constructively with the Minister on Lough Neagh, on a just transition to net zero and on establishing an independent environmental protection agency, but Executive parties really need to work together much more constructively on those and other issues. Otherwise, it will be an abject failure. Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leat as cuireadh a thabhairt domh labhairt.

1,018 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: 0.04 (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 (0.95).
  • 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

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 framing0.04No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.03No
Controversy escalation0.03No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.95Yes
Overall judgement0.04At 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
No identity-related subject0.57
Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy0.40
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty0.01
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.01
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:57 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