Debate contribution: Legislation Programme 2025-26
Debate contribution by Mr Stewart Dickson on .
- MLA
- Mr Stewart Dickson
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 13 October 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Legislation Programme 2025-26
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5176081
Read the official Assembly record
Text
As a member of the Executive Office Committee, I welcome the publication of the Executive's legislation programme. It is right that the Assembly debates it today and that we do so with honesty, because, despite all the talk of ambition, the programme is remarkably light on legislation. Of course, some legislation is already in play, but it is certainly not an exhaustive list of what the Executive need to do. In fact, in the programme that has been presented, only one Bill remains for the Executive Office Committee, which is the race equality Bill. It falls directly within the Executive Office's remit. At a time when equality gaps persist and measures to deal with key shortfalls in gender, disability and age discrimination legislation remain stalled or buried in consultation papers, that is not the level of drive or ambition that people expect to hear from the Executive. Northern Ireland's equality law is now badly fragmented and far too complex. There are major gaps and inconsistencies across the system. Different equality laws provide different levels of protection, creating a hierarchy of rights that means that some people are better protected from discrimination than others. Over time, those gaps have only widened, leaving us lagging behind international standards and behind our neighbours in Great Britain and Ireland. After almost two decades of promises, we still await the single equality framework that everyone knows is needed. The Equality Commission has already set out five priorities for change to our race equality laws: the harmonisation and expansion of the scope of racial grounds; the extension of protection against discrimination and harassment by public bodies; the introduction of combined discrimination provisions; the protection of workers against third-party racial harassment; and the widening of the scope of positive action. The road map is clear; what is missing is the political will. It matters, because we do not debate the programme in a vacuum. Recently, we witnessed what might have been called a "summer of discontent", a period during which racial hatred was dragged into the open for all to see; families were driven from their homes; election posters were burned as usual; and flags and effigies were used to intimidate. The PSNI's latest report makes for grim reading, with 2,049 racist incidents and 1,329 race hate crimes in the past year. Those are the highest figures since records began in 2004. Behind those numbers are, regrettably, our neighbours, our colleagues and children who are forced to live in fear simply because of the colour of their skin or where they were born. Amnesty International described this year as one of "hate and fear" in Northern Ireland and warned:
"Hate crime thrives when politicians deliver words but no action."
This is not a sudden spike but the result of years of complacency, inaction and the Assembly's absence. The race riots and violent attacks on migrant families in June were not isolated events; they are a symptom of a society that has failed to confront racism honestly and a warning of what happens when leadership goes missing. Our ethnic minority communities have had an understandable loss of faith in government, and they deserve much better. We need bold programmes, not sticking plasters. We must finally bring our law into line with the rest of these islands and go further. We need to close the gaps in the Race Relations Order 1997 and explicitly honour those requirements and obligations under article 2 of the Windsor framework. We need to build a Northern Ireland that genuinely protects and celebrates diversity. We want to see a Bill that is introduced early, consulted on widely and drafted in such a way that it has the lived experience of minority ethnic communities at its heart. The Department of Justice is bringing forward further legislation, but I will highlight two areas that connect directly to that work. The forthcoming sentencing Bill will bring in Charlotte's law, implementing a statutory aggravator model. The victims and witnesses of crime Bill will complement those reforms by ensuring that there are automatic special measures for hate crime victims through prohibiting in-person cross-examination and establishing the post of a commissioner for victims and witnesses of crime, who will be able to assist victims and witnesses. Ultimately, the Executive legislation programme will be judged not by the number of Bills that are introduced but by the substance of what is delivered. A race equality Bill will give the Executive a chance to prove that equality is not an afterthought but a foundation: a chance to rebuild trust, to show courage and to state clearly that every person who calls Northern Ireland home belongs here in full and equal measure.
779 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: 0.08 (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 (0.94).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.98).
- Subject area: Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers.
- 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 | 0.11 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.06 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.08 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.08 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.02 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.99 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| 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.