Debate contribution: Programme for Government

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 7 October 2024.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

7 October 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Programme for Government

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4578999

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I beg to move

When we came back here, just over eight months ago, the SDLP was clear that it would be a constructive Opposition. We have been constructive but robust ever since. The purpose of an Opposition is not simply to throw snowballs or stones but to do our job, as a public service, for those who have sent us here collectively but have been failed over years — in fact, for nearly a decade now — through repeated failures of the Executive to deliver for the people of the North. What does our motion say today? The motion is clear: we want to see the Programme for Government (PFG) improved and updated in order to be clear about the targets, timelines and specific deliverables that the people of Northern Ireland can expect from the Executive. That is all: it is not that complicated or dense in policy terms. There is a range of areas where the public can see public services failing and have not had any devolved, Westminster or, for that matter, North/South clarity on who is delivering what for them. There is a crisis of trust in devolved government. Any of us who declare otherwise are being disingenuous. The best we can do in these institutions is to provide a clear plan and road map for how the Executive will address that crisis in confidence. We think that that needs to happen via a plan and that this document, which is a Programme for Government in draft form, is a key part of improving public confidence. It is important to say that it is a draft. I and some of my colleagues were robust in some of our criticisms of the draft document when it first came out, on the same day as we published our own plan. Certain Executive Ministers were clear that we were being a little negative, were not getting involved and were not doing enough positive thinking. They said that we needed to get with the programme a little more. They also said that the Programme for Government was in draft and that there would be a consultation process. Well, this is consultation. This is an opportunity for all the parties in the Assembly, whether they are Executive parties, the official Opposition or independents, to have our say. It is interesting that some Executive parties have said that they will send in their own responses to the consultation on the Programme for Government. It is slightly surreal, if others do not mind my saying so, for parties that serve in the Northern Ireland Executive to say that they will send in official responses to the Programme for Government, but that, apparently, is what the Alliance Party is doing. However, in the spirit of consultation and fulsome public debate about the Programme for Government, I welcome that. That is what the motion is all about. It is important to say that there is lots of positive stuff in the Programme for Government. It is also important to say that we recognise a number of things. The now eight-month-old Executive do not have limitless powers to solve all the problems. It is important to say in parenthesis that many of those problems have been made worse by repeated collapses by the two main parties in the Executive, but, even if we had not had collapse, powers here are not limitless. This is a mandatory power-sharing coalition that relies in large part on a block grant of funding that comes from Westminster, and consensus or, at least, some level of agreement has to be found among the four parties that comprise the Executive. I accept that there are not limitless powers to do everything all at once. That underlines and accentuates the need to have a clear set of targets and, with those targets, clear timelines for delivery and clear measurable outcomes that the public can judge the Executive against. I am afraid that the draft Programme for Government document does not have those. The document has nine priorities. Some people would say that that is rather a large number of priorities, but, even if we go with the nine priorities — they are all important — we need to see clarity and focus on delivery. I also acknowledge that, in several of those areas, progress has been made. It would be churlish of me to pretend that the Executive and Executive Ministers have done nothing worthwhile or constructive since the institutions returned. I do not say that at all: that is not what I think, and it is not the case. I have, for example, commended the Education Minister on the progress that he has made on childcare costs. I have commended the Economy Minister for the clarity that he has given to his focus on, for example, greater all-island collaboration, taking advantage of our dual market access and, hopefully, placing a greater emphasis on regional balance. However, to make real those intentions, we need to see clarity in the Programme for Government about what will be delivered. To pick one example at random, on the provision of at least 10,000, hopefully, student places at Magee in Derry, I would like to see clarity and specificity in the Programme for Government on what it is promising about when those students will be in Derry, when the places will be in Derry or when the mechanics will be put in place to enable that to happen, with the supporting policies around accommodation, funding and all of that. As I said, the document contains lots of positive aspiration. It also contains lots and lots of warm words but not, in many cases, a lot of clarity. It also misses out on several important things. To pick two examples, there is strikingly little about poverty and mental health in it. However, I acknowledge that no plan can do everything. The fact that those important subjects are not mentioned in the Programme for Government is evidence that, at least to some extent, Executive parties have agreed that there needs to be some level of prioritisation. If there is going to be prioritisation, there needs to be clarity about what actions are being prioritised, whether they are legislative, financial or anything else. Our motion refers to a number of specific areas. I will touch on those because they are particularly important, but they are not the only things that are important. On waiting times, we know that we have the most devastated health service, possibly, in western Europe, to be honest. Therefore, we want to see clarity. This may come up in the debate, so it is worth saying that some in the health sector, including the BMA, have been clear that they do not necessarily want complete and detailed specificity on certain targets because they think that it would be more helpful to look at the reform programme holistically. We acknowledge that there will be views on whether one specific target is helpful. The point of our motion is to say that, in a general, broad sense, we need more targets. It is also to say that, if there is not to be a specific target for one policy output, there needs to be a clear plan with a timeline and a delivery mechanism, and it has to be agreed on and made public. We do not yet have that from the Health Minister or the Executive writ large. The next issue that we mention is child poverty. On our second Opposition day, we tabled a series of motions on poverty, one of which touched on child poverty and specifically mentioned the pernicious two-child limit. In the document, there is not a target or even a set of clear intentions around actions being taken to address our shockingly high levels of child poverty, which are higher than in other parts of these islands. On childcare costs, as I said, I recognise the important work that the Minister has done. I have not been churlish or unreasonable, nor have my colleagues, but we would like to see more clarity on what will be delivered through the rest of the mandate. It may be that it will be indicated in a childcare strategy, when one is forthcoming, but we think that it should be embedded in a final Programme for Government. On biodiversity laws, we have seen an action plan specifically relating to Lough Neagh, but, frankly, with not much specific detail on targets. There are lots of what Donald Trump called recently outlines of a plan or "concepts of a plan" but not specific, measurable targets. We will keep asking for those, because they are important, not for us but for the public — the people who send us here. When it comes to social housing, we know that we have a shockingly low number of social houses and that we are nowhere near fulfilling what was set out in the plans that were outlined in 2020 and 2021. On water and waste water infrastructure, in parts of the North, you simply cannot build a house, let alone get to the targets that we need to deliver on our social housing strategy. What is the plan for that? The Infrastructure Minister has talked about a proposal or the outlines or concepts of a proposal for a developer charge: we do not have clarity on that yet. If that is a specific legislative intervention, bring it before the House. The same goes for everything else that every other Minister is doing. We need detail, clarity, timelines and targets. We do not have enough of them yet in the draft Programme for Government. Part of our job as the Opposition is to constructively nudge the Executive and Executive parties, sometimes in a way that may grate on or annoy them, towards more clarity. If that annoys them, I am sorry.

I will happily give way, but I am about to come to the end of my time. I will happily give way if I get an extra minute.

The Member has just floored me by reading out something that was said 13 years ago when neither she nor I were MLAs. If I am right, she has said that, when we were in the Executive —.

Hang on, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The Executive parties need to get real.

Pathetic interventions like that, I am afraid, simply reveal a lack of seriousness.

I ask the Executive parties to support the motion.

1,749 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:16 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