Debate contribution: Programme for Government
Debate contribution by Ms Emma Sheerin on .
- MLA
- Ms Emma Sheerin
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 7 October 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Programme for Government
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4579042
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I welcome the opportunity to speak about our draft Programme for Government, which is out for consultation until 4 November. It is vital that as many people as possible respond to that consultation and have their views fed in. As Mr Harvey outlined, the announcement of our draft Programme for Government on 5 September was a good news day for the North, the Executive and everyone in the Assembly. It was also a key indication of everyone working together to solve the problems that we all face in our constituencies and deal with the issues that our constituents bring to us. If you look at the priorities in the Programme for Government, you see that it tackles the issues that we all face. Anybody who has listened to me in recent weeks will know that, as a Mid Ulster MLA and someone who lives in south Derry, we have seen a significant problem with water quality recently, which is a result of the problems that we have in Lough Neagh. I was delighted to see that an action plan for Lough Neagh features as one of the priorities in the draft Programme for Government. It is vital that that work starts, because we know that those problems will not be solved overnight. Years and years of underinvestment and decline have led to those problems, and we need to work together to fix them. Similarly, as constituency MLAs, we have all had people contact us about the rising cost of childcare and the pressure that that puts on working families. Again, a commitment to sort that out — I know that work has begun there — and a cross-departmental approach to the issue are fundamental to good government and to us all working collaboratively together. I could go through all nine priorities, because they are all examples of that. I was particularly pleased to see ending violence against women and girls outlined as a priority, and work has begun on that strategy. Last week, the Committee heard from the First Minister and deputy First Minister and the junior Ministers about the updates that we will receive on that work. We want that epidemic to end in the North of Ireland; we do not want the North to continue to be one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a woman. All these things and the work that has been done blasts a lot of the misconceptions that people have about politics in the North. We all have different ideologies; we all have different political perspectives; but we are all united in wanting to see the best for the people whom we represent, and we all want to deliver for the people who have put us here. The draft Programme for Government is a brilliant example of that, and I urge people to feed into the consultation and have their views heard.
483 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 (0.91).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.46 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.91 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.09 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.59 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.35 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.05 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
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.