Debate contribution: Legislation Programme 2025-26
Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on .
- MLA
- Mr Matthew O'Toole
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 13 October 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Legislation Programme 2025-26
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5176034
Read the official Assembly record
Text
You could have knocked me over with a feather when I saw, on a Friday, 10 days ago, that the legislative programme had arrived in my inbox. If the Executive are, according to their own Programme for Government, "Doing What Matters Most" and, as the deputy First Minister told me from the lectern just a few, short days ago, delivering for the people of Northern Ireland, and if they want to get out and tell people about all the positive things that they are doing, I would have thought that they would have issued a press release, held a press conference or come to the Chamber before now to explain their ambitious legislative programme. No, they did not even issue a press release for the media. The famously publicity-shy First Minister and deputy First Minister did not even issue a press release on the legislative programme. Is it any wonder that they did not? The motion that has been brought to the Assembly today does not ask Members to endorse the legislative programme. The motion does not say that the Assembly "supports" the legislation programme; it says that it "notes" the legislation programme. Does that look as though the Executive are confident in their delivery for the people of this region? They have brought forward a legislation programme and cannot even ask an Assembly that they dominate — nearly 80 out of the 90 MLAs in the Chamber represent Executive parties — to support their legislation programme. No wonder the First Minister has not even turned up today for the debate. Let us go through what is in the motion.
I am happy to receive the clarification from the deputy First Minister. We wish the First Minister well. However, the point remains that an Executive should be able to come to the Chamber and say, "Here is our legislative plan for the people of Northern Ireland. Yes, we have different views on the constitution. Yes, we face different ways on the left and right, but we have agreed on a set of priorities. We have agreed on what we need to deal with. We agree that we want to rescue Lough Neagh. We agree that we want to improve the health service. We agree that we want a more productive economy and better jobs for our workers, and that is what we will deliver". They cannot even do that. Not only that but the Executive were late. According to Standing Orders, it is supposed to be within, I believe, 14 or 20 days — I forget which — but they missed the deadline for tabling the legislative motion before the Assembly. Let us look at what is in this "ambitious" legislative programme from the Executive. Most of it is technical or carry-over legislation. Indeed, some of it was carried over from the Executive's legislative programme in 2024. The First Minister and deputy First Minister have a penchant for long delays when it comes to implementing things. They certainly have a penchant for long delays when it comes to responding to Members' questions. However, when I first saw the legislative programme, back in 2024, I did not know that we would be looking at implementing it in 2026. Who knows? When we move on to some of the things that are supposed to be substantive, ambitious and reforming, there is no clarity about whether the Executive will support the legislative programme. For example, we know that workers' rights in this place have been left to languish for a very long time, while other parts of the island have updated workers' rights and employment legislation. There is no clarity yet from this document as to whether the Executive parties are going to support the long-delayed employment Bill from the Economy Minister. I am happy to give way to the deputy First Minister if she will confirm to me now that her party will support that Bill.
I am happy to give way to the Chair of the Economy Committee if he wants to tell me.
Well, there we are. The appearance of unity from the Executive crumbles as soon as a question is asked. The DUP Chair of the Economy Committee stands up and says, "No, we cannot agree to this landmark employment Bill, because we have not seen it yet". What are the people of Northern Ireland to think? We had politics students in the Gallery earlier today: what example is it for them that they cannot even rely on an Executive being able to agree their own legislation programme? Earlier, when I asked the Environment Minister, Mr Muir, a direct question about an independent environmental protection agency, which will have to be legislated for — it cannot be done via a memorandum of understanding (MOU) or a written ministerial statement — he said that he wants one. It was in the Alliance Party's manifesto, and there is a review to look at it. I asked him whether it was going to be legislated for — because, if it is, it has to be in this legislation programme unless it is going to be introduced in January 2027 — but he did not tell me, and he responded with a churlish remark about my party. Legislating is a profound trust that is placed in us by the people when we stand for election. It is at the core of our job title: "Legislative" is the middle bit. It should be at the core of a reforming Executive, but they are not a reforming Executive; they are a listless, limp Executive who are addicted to photo ops and chaos. The people of this region deserve better. The Opposition oppose the legislation programme, because it is absolutely pathetic.
955 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: 0.11 (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 (0.96).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.05 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.11 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.10 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.50 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.11 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.96 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.02 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.02 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.82 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.17 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:28 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.