Debate contribution: Programme for Government: Public Consultation
Debate contribution by Ms Michelle O'Neill on .
- MLA
- Ms Michelle O'Neill
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 9 September 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Ministerial Statement
- Heading
- Programme for Government: Public Consultation
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4511170
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I look forward to working with the Committee Chair, the Deputy Chair and the entire Committee as we gather responses to the consultation. We need to send a strong message to wider society that this is a draft document and that we are listening. We are in listening mode. The document is the basis on which, we think, we can go out to consultation, but there is no doubt that there will be constructive comments and things that we may be able to include. Where we cannot include things, perhaps we can talk it out with those who advocate a different approach. We have a huge body of work to do to build confidence through how we engage. We will come at this with an eight-week consultation period and 12 weeks for the equality impact screening. We will also go out to engage in person, and we will encourage all Ministers to do likewise. We will go out very much to listen to people and to hear what they have to say. Through our political briefs, we will all have a role to play in engaging with different sectoral interests. As the Member said, perhaps everybody will be picking over the document today, wanting to see their part. That is OK, because that is the area that they are interested in. Encouraging people to engage with the process through a combination of in-person and online engagement will lead to a fulsome Programme for Government. The Committee's role will also be vital to make sure that we have the best possible Programme for Government that is fit for purpose. That is the Executive's collective will.
274 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).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.19 | No |
| 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 | 0.81 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.16 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:58 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.