Debate contribution: Programme for Government: Public Consultation
Debate contribution by Mr Robbie Butler on .
- MLA
- Mr Robbie Butler
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 9 September 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Ministerial Statement
- Heading
- Programme for Government: Public Consultation
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4511200
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I do not want the First Minister and deputy First Minister to be fighting over answering my question, as they did for Ms Brogan's question. I do not want to be negative, but I will be honest, if that is OK. It is really good that you have brought this draft Programme for Government to us and put it out for discussion, but, in reality, the two things that have affected the people in Northern Ireland the most over the past eight years have been the lack of funding and political abstentionism. You have got off to a great start in your roles as First Minister and deputy First Minister, but the timeline of delivery will require a stable Government who are here when big decisions need to be made. Have we a commitment from the Executive Office that that will be the case, not just for this mandate but into the next one?
154 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: 0.07 (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 (0.71).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.71 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.93 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.03 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.02 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.02 |
| 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.