Debate contribution: Programme for Government 2024-27

Debate contribution by Ms Sinéad McLaughlin on 3 March 2025.

MLA

Ms Sinéad McLaughlin

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

3 March 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Programme for Government 2024-27

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4826216

Read the official Assembly record

Text

It has been more than 13 years since the previous Programme for Government was published. I am glad that, finally, we have the opportunity to debate a finalised Programme for Government today, albeit it is one for the next 26 months, rather than for five years, as it should have been. I am also glad to read the commitments included in the document, such as an end to violence against women and girls, the promise to address the childcare crisis and the commitment to the expansion of Magee. Those are all things that I welcome and hope can be achieved. It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the mention of regional balance in the document. Its inclusion marks a positive step in the right direction. We must ensure that it is accompanied by the appropriate action. Several attempts have been made by Governments here over recent decades to address regional imbalance in Northern Ireland, and yet disparities between regional economies continue to grow. The gaps between those who have and those who have not are getting bigger. The reasons for that are many, but the failure to close those gaps is rooted in the fact that the responsibility for addressing regional imbalance has always lain with the Department for the Economy. That can no longer be the case. The SDLP wants legislation that helps to address regional imbalance by mandating all of government to make deliberate and proactive interventions to support left-behind places. That legislation would play a key role in supporting the interventions that are outlined in the Programme for Government rather than act as an alternative to them. The lack of a commitment to legislation on that issue really is a missed opportunity. It is a missed opportunity to tackle poverty and support better health outcomes, including increased life expectancy for those who live in areas that have been left behind. The SDLP is frustrated, as many members of the public might be, by the lack of time-bound and measurable targets in the document. When we debated the draft version in October, the SDLP made it clear that the document's success would be defined by its ability to generate real change in the lives of people and that the lack of targets would act only as a barrier to doing so. However, here we are, six months on, and the final version has only a small number of targets. The targets do not align with previous promises. In January, it was said that the childcare strategy would be brought to the Executive by the autumn of this year. However, the Programme for Government states that a strategy will be in place:

"By the end of this mandate".

Parents and providers will be aghast at the lack of urgency and ambition. Which deadline is it? Which one are we meant to believe? I question how the Executive plan to address the childcare crisis without setting a target for cutting childcare fees. I also question how the Executive plan to build 5,850 new social homes while our waste water infrastructure remains broken. Unfortunately, those are questions that have not been answered in the document. Not only is the success of the document limited by the lack of targets; it is set to be limited by the Budget. We are in the midst of a very difficult financial situation, but that is made worse by the lack of alignment between the Programme for Government and the Budget. In summary, the final version of the Programme for Government is disappointing. It lacks the seriousness and urgency required. It also makes no mention of the elephant in the room, which, of course, is the instability of these institutions. The First Minister and deputy First Minister seem set on refusing to address that concern. The truth is that, without reform to stop one of the biggest parties pulling down these institutions, little else in the Programme for Government can be guaranteed. Our public services are in crisis, but the people out there are becoming increasingly frustrated by false promises and the lack of delivery.

I worry that the final document will do little to calm those nerves. Someone just messaged me on WhatsApp to ask, "What is the biggest difference between the draft Programme for Government and the final Programme for Government?". I said, "Well, there were 24 photographs in the draft programme, and there are 64 photographs in the final version". The photos are all well and good — they are very nice — but the devil is in the detail.

I just want to finish this point. I will come back to you. As I said, the PFG's success will be judged by the improvements that it makes in the lives of the people whom we are all here to serve.

I acknowledge that there are some targets that were missing in the draft Programme for Government, but there are very few.

There are very few targets in the Programme for Government. Surely our ambition is greater than the content of this Programme for Government. I suggest that the Member's ambition for his constituency is greater than what is in here. Today is an important day, but tomorrow and the day after are more important. The Executive need to deliver.

880 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:07 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