Debate contribution: Legislative Programme: Update
Debate contribution by Ms Michelle O'Neill on .
- MLA
- Ms Michelle O'Neill
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 9 December 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Legislative Programme: Update
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4698333
Read the official Assembly record
Text
As I said, seven Bills are under way, and we are working our way through those. There are others still to come. There are some that, I believe, are only weeks away from being introduced in the Chamber. We know that there are a number of policy decisions to be made, particularly around some consultations that were had, and there is a lot of detail to be digested and then turned into legislative provision. I am quite sure that Ministers will bring their legislation as quickly as they possibly can. I can refer only to my Department, and, for example, we consulted on the issue of mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses. We received 269 comprehensive responses. I do not want to rush that. I want to do it in a timely manner, but I also want to get it right. We will keep working our way through that, and I know that that is similar for other Ministers. I also said to you earlier that we have already started this work. We have reached out to all the Departments. We have asked them for the reasons for delays, and we have also asked for a time frame for when things will come forward. The deputy First Minister and I will make a statement in the new year on what exactly this picture looks like for the year ahead.
229 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.27 | 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 | 0.45 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.22 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.21 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.08 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.02 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:41 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.