Debate contribution: Programme for Government 2024-27

Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on 3 March 2025.

MLA

Mr Timothy Gaston

Party at the time

Traditional Unionist Voice

Date

3 March 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Programme for Government 2024-27

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4826329

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I will make some progress, and then, be assured, I will let you in. Page 30 tells us that the Executive will invest up to £135 million this year:

"to reduce waiting lists by treating an additional 70,000 patients".

That works out at around £4,000 a patient. We are not aiming to perform many hip replacements if that is the associated budget provided. I will move on. There is not a word about additional officers for the PSNI at a time when it has just 6,278, which is over 1,000 fewer than, the Patten report stated, we need. There are other things, however, that the document talks a lot about. Indeed, it talks a lot. Let us consider childcare, as it is mentioned at least 30 times. On page 27, we are told that the Executive are:

"investing up to £25 million this year."

That sounds like a catchy headline for the media, as it is trumpeted as a major achievement. Let us see what the reality is. At Question Time earlier today, the First Minister told us that the figure was up to £50 million. The Executive got a cheque from Westminster to fund a scheme similar to that in England and Wales. The sum on that cheque was not the £25 million mentioned in the document or the £50 million that the First Minister told us about earlier; it was £57·2 million. Nowhere in the document do the Executive explain where the millions have gone. In fact, what is the figure? Is it the £25 million that we see in the document unveiled today? Is it the £50 million that the First Minister told us about at Question Time? Regardless of what the figure is, what happened to the missing £32·2 million or £7·2 million? Either way, working families in Northern Ireland are being short-changed by the Executive. Some of the missing millions may be going to the three nationalist demands mentioned in the document. This is a Programme for Government that commits to the expansion of the Ulster University Magee campus while making no solid promises to any of our other higher education institutions. This is a document that promises that the Executive will fulfil their duties to deliver on the Irish language when it comes to the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022 and pledges to work on an Irish language strategy. This is a Programme for Government that makes promises on the redevelopment of Casement Park, but where is the section on how the Executive will deal with the protocol? It is not as much as mentioned. Let us turn to the economy and what the Programme for Government says about planning, which is important on two fronts. The biggest barrier to planning is a lack of waste water infrastructure. In the document, there is no commitment on the level of investment for Northern Ireland Water or the areas that will be targeted. How has our planning system worked since its day-to-day functions were devolved to councils in 2015? Through the review of public administration (RPA), Stormont allowed councils to move from one set of policies that governed all of Northern Ireland to creating 11 different local development plans. If the Executive want to address the issues in our planning system and are serious about attracting inward investment, there is a need to go back to one set of planning policies that govern all of Northern Ireland. As it stands, I do not see how planning works for business or for our people. More fundamentally, when it comes to the economy, as I have stated, there is a lack of any mention of the protocol. You cannot grow your economy while trashing the UK's internal market. You cannot grow a globally competitive economy while cutting this part of the UK off from a possible UK-US trade deal, as the protocol leaves Northern Ireland trapped in the EU customs union and single market for goods. I ask unionists who claimed that they would fight the protocol in the arena of Stormont this: how is that working out for you? What progress have you made? The protocol is not even deemed worthy of a mention in the document. Some might respond to that by saying, "On page 85, there is a mention of Intertrade UK", yet that same paragraph also deals with InterTradeIreland. Let us contrast the two bodies. InterTradeIreland, thanks to the Budget passed by the House last week, was handed £6 million in resources: Intertrade UK is not getting a penny from this place. InterTradeIreland has permanent offices and a growing staff: Intertrade UK has neither. InterTradeIreland has a statutory basis: Intertrade UK has no such standing. It is not hard to work out which body will be able to deliver on its objectives. The final point that I will pick up on is about the ending violence against women and girls strategy. For months, I have been pressing the First Minister and deputy First Minister on their agreed position on violence against women and girls. Was violence against women and girls wrong in the period between 1969 and 1998? Just last week, I finally got an answer. The agreed position of the Executive is that:

"Gender-based violence, abuse and harm has always been wrong and unacceptable."

That sounds good, but it leaves wriggle room. When the Women's Rights Network came to the Executive Office Committee recently, I took the opportunity to ask it for its thoughts on the policy. First, it was not even consulted on the document. It was the only gender-critical organisation, and it was left out. No gender-critical organisations were allowed —.

It is indeed. Secondly, in the absence of an agreed definition —

— the policy lacks any credibility.

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

Assessment

Flagged Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty

Second assessment

Jev’s answers did not settle this record, so a second model, claude-opus-5-5, read the same text (without the MLA’s name or party) and gave its reasons on 21 October 2026. How the second assessment works

Verdict

Flagged

Public interest or divisiveness

Mixed

Against the published rubric

Much of the speech is substantive scrutiny of the Programme for Government, covering waiting-list funding, PSNI numbers, childcare money and planning policy. A substantial part, however, frames the document as a communal ledger. It labels the Magee expansion, statutory Irish-language duties and Casement Park as "three nationalist demands" and suggests the "missing millions" may be going to them. It also contrasts InterTradeIreland with Intertrade UK as a parity grievance and asks fellow unionists "how is that working out for you?" over the protocol. The closing section turns the violence against women and girls strategy into a Troubles-era test ("wrong in the period between 1969 and 1998?") and a complaint that gender-critical groups were excluded, which engages several recognised flashpoints.

Public interest or divisiveness

The questions about childcare funding, hospital waiting lists, police numbers and water infrastructure plainly serve the public interest and would make sense to anyone. Alongside them, the speech presents spending on one community's language, sport and region as concessions to that community at the expense of others. It also uses the debate to pursue constitutional and legacy point-scoring rather than engage with what those commitments do. Both strands are substantial, so the overall effect is mixed.

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