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 4511178
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Yes. We ask that engagement with the process be as wide as possible. Again, Committees and the Member, in his role as the Chair of a Committee, will have the opportunity to engage with people from across all sectors.
We want to hear from the labour movement, civic society, the business community, academia and, of course, our young people. We have done particular work on looking at the impact on young people as part of the Programme for Government consultation.
I say to everybody that this is our plan. This is what is going to make a difference to us, our families and wider society. We need to drive home the message that everybody has a stake in it, that everybody has an opportunity to shape it, and that we very much want to engage and listen. As I said, we want the end result to be that we have made a difference to people's lives and that we can be judged on that. We are confident that we can improve some of the areas that we know are in huge difficulties, not least our public services after 10-plus years of austerity. The challenges that we, as a public sector, face will be fixed only if we transform how we do things. That is why you can see the whole way through the consultation document that it talks about transformation being key.
232 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.50 | 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 | 0.71 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.26 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
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.