Debate contribution: Legislation Programme 2025-26
Debate contribution by Mr Robbie Butler on .
- MLA
- Mr Robbie Butler
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 13 October 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Legislation Programme 2025-26
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5176073
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I obviously cannot speak for the Minister in my capacity as Chair, but given the truncated timescales that we have left, it is very unlikely that something of that significance will see the light of day. However, I am sure that all those things are up for discussion in the Chamber. The present Agriculture Act dates from 1949, which trumps 1966. Indeed, a new, comprehensive agriculture Act was one of the options that was considered prior to DAERA's deciding on the small Agriculture Act that was recently passed to amend the two legacy EU common market organisation (CMO) schemes. However, we heard that scoping on the need for a comprehensive Northern Ireland agriculture Bill was at only an early stage and that gaps exist in the primary powers that are needed for the Department's new farm support and development programme. The Department is using those powers actively at the moment in the development of some of its SRs. To conclude, the Committee has seen DAERA recently run into problems in making regulations for the new farm support and development programme under the powers in the 1949 Act. DAERA was advised by the Examiner of Statutory Rules to bring forward amending regulations to ensure that it remains within the vires by amending the definition of "authorised persons" and removing offences and penalty regulations in the Horticulture Pilot Scheme Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025, the Beef Carbon Reduction Scheme Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2023 and the Suckler Cow Scheme Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025. That ends my comments as Chair of the AERA Committee. I will make a few closing remarks, if that is OK, Mr Speaker. I thank the deputy First Minister for moving the motion this afternoon and the junior Ministers. I express my party's concerns to Sinn Féin and the Sinn Féin leader about what may be a family matter. I will make a few points about the Executive's legislative programme. It should be one of those flags that we put in the ground early in any mandate to indicate to people that we are serious about making changes here and that the legislative programme matches up with the provisions in our Programme for Government. It could be argued by some, and probably will be by the Opposition in the coming weeks and months, that it probably does not.
What we are witnessing is stovepiped scrutiny, stovepiped delivery and, as the Member for North Belfast pointed out, some of the last legislation that we made in the previous mandate should not cover us all in glory because when we have compressed times in which to legislate, it is really difficult, not just for legislators and Committees to scrutinise the legislation but for those who are drafting the Bills and giving the legal oversight. I hope that we are learning lessons. We have come back from two truncated periods when we did not have an Assembly, and that is why we faced those periods in the previous two mandates of having to do rushed legislation, and that should never be the case. I know that the Committee on Procedures did a piece of work with you, Mr Speaker, to make sure that the legislative programme is actually an important step at the start of every mandate. Let us hope that, in 2027, after the next election, that is what we do.
558 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).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.79).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.91).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.09 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.19 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.79 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.11 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.91 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.08 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.86 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.07 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.03 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.01 |
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.