Member's statement: Programme for Government: Peace
Member's statement by Ms Paula Bradshaw on .
- MLA
- Ms Paula Bradshaw
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 16 September 2024
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Programme for Government: Peace
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4531765
Read the official Assembly record
Text
As we mark the beginning of Good Relations Week 2024, I make the case for including a mission on "Peace" and peacebuilding in the Executive's Programme for Government (PFG). Like many in the Chamber, I welcomed last week's launch of the draft Programme for Government for consultation. My party's Ministers have been working hard around the Executive table to progress the PFG. Alliance wanted to see "Peace" and peacebuilding as a separate mission in the PFG from the outset. We proceeded on the basis that it would be included as a cross-cutting theme, with the option of a dedicated mission on "Peace" forming a specific part of the public consultation. I hope that Members will agree that the case for its inclusion could not be clearer. Without embedding reconciliation, diversity, equality and inclusion in everything that we do, we cannot achieve so many of the priorities and ambitions that are set out in the document.
To begin with, the draft PFG includes ambitious proposals for growing a globally competitive economy in Northern Ireland, but we know that civil unrest, paramilitarism and political upheaval are major barriers to economic growth. Time and again, research has shown that political stability is a driver of foreign direct investment and the shared prosperity and job creation that come with it. We will never build the thriving economy that we want in an environment that is defined by stop-start government and political chaos. Elsewhere, the draft PFG, rightly, targets the long-overdue transformation of Northern Ireland's public services, but we have to acknowledge that that is not possible without tackling the cost of the division that remains so deeply embedded across our society. The duplication and segregation of the likes of health services, housing and schools mean that those services cost a fortune to maintain. That is a fortune that the Executive can ill afford, the spending of which robs those services of desperately needed funding and investment. That also stops us from creating the high-quality, integrated and inclusive public services for which our constituents have been crying out for so long. Whether it is growing the economy, creating safer communities, improving public services, tackling poverty or supporting the vulnerable, none of the PFG goals will become a reality without "Peace" and peacebuilding being at the heart of the Executive's agenda. Alliance will continue to make the case for that vital mission in the time ahead, and I hope that other parties will support us in our effort.
412 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: 0.04 (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 (0.92).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.95).
- Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.95 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.05 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.71 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.27 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:01 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.