Debate contribution: Tackling the Financial and Societal Impacts of Division

Debate contribution by Mr Colin McGrath on 25 March 2025.

MLA

Mr Colin McGrath

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

25 March 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Tackling the Financial and Societal Impacts of Division

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4866505

Read the official Assembly record

Text

The SDLP welcomes the opportunity to debate this important issue, and we commend the Alliance Party for bringing it to the House. It is timely, given the constraints on our public finances, that we look critically at the cost of division in our society and reflect on how, in 2025, the ambition to create a more shared society in 1998 has completely flatlined. It is not as though we have the luxury of being able to finance a divided society, which comes with a price tag, as the motion outlines. The 2016 figure of £833 million, indeed, is undoubtedly much higher in today's money. As an example of that, a Pivotal report released last week highlighted the fact that 90% of social housing is still segregated, in contrast to the finding that 73% of people say that they want to live in a shared neighbourhood. That needs to be investigated. It tells us that the Government are failing to provide the leadership that is required for the sort of society that, people say, they want: a shared one that celebrates diversity rather than separating it.

Without going into the detail of the point that has been made, it is imperative to do something rather than nothing. Our constant battle — I will reflect on this a little later — is that, when we say, "Here is a specific response" to something, the rebuttal is, "Yeah, but there are all these other problems over here, so let's not do anything". That goes to the core of the difference between some of the amendments and the motion. The problem is that, whilst peace was secured here, reconciliation was not.

Although our party's priority when we held power was to build on peace in order to deliver that reconciliation, it has not been the modus operandi of the two parties that have been at the helm over the past two decades.

We therefore cannot be surprised when carve-up politics goes beyond this Building. It has infected communities across the North, keeping people apart, creating fear of the other and, in its worst manifestation, keeping sectarianism well and truly alive. With duplication of our crumbling public services absorbing a significant amount of money, is it not time to look at removing the walls that are costly in monetary terms and to changing our society for the better? Carve-up politics fails to reflect the diversity of our society in 2025. For minorities and marginalised groups, that separation can make Northern Ireland feel exclusionary rather than inclusive, thus limiting access to opportunities and equal treatment. The SDLP welcomed the inclusion of "Peace" as an underpinning commitment in the Programme for Government and believes that it should act as the basis for reducing duplication and, critically, delivering reconciliation. Although we know that the Executive may say a lot of the right things, the same cannot be said when it comes to delivery. Events last year in the Minister of Education's Department, where despicable politicking from Sinn Féin and the DUP on Derry City and Strabane District Council and on Belfast City Council saw them try to reduce a bid from a charity that supports children with special needs by 97% by way of a carve-up, tells us that those two parties prioritise their own needs over everything else. That is why the SDLP tabled an amendment that places a statutory duty on the Executive to cooperate on the delivery of public services, which, we believe, will help reduce the cost of division. Division is at the heart of our political structures. The ugly scaffolding of the Good Friday Agreement persists. Although it secured peace, it has not evolved to deliver reconciliation. Our Departments are carved up. They are shared out rather than shared. That often leads to inefficiencies in spending and to an inability to deliver an outcome that extends beyond the boundaries of one's own Department. We regularly see that manifested in frustrating circular debates that may identify the problem but that then go nowhere in their attempts to find a solution. We see that in our Budget, which is allocated for political expediency rather than be based on a recognition that, in order to fix the biggest problems that we face as a society, we may need to pool resources and change how we do things. By introducing a duty to cooperate across Departments, we could remove some of the barriers that prevent more cross-departmental working. Given that so many of the issues that affect people across society are logjammed as a result, the SDLP believes that it is imperative that we find ways in which to help support delivery. That is something that the big parties can get behind. Although I will not be behind the door in calling out carve-up politics, which is one of the biggest blights on our Government, I do have some sympathy, because the system in which they are operating is clunky and sometimes works against them as a result of the siloed structures. On an individual level, each and every one of us has come to the Assembly to do our best to represent our constituents: the people who elected us. We are all frustrated at just how bad things have got for those living in chronic pain as a result of lengthy waiting lists, for those living in emergency accommodation as a result of a lack of homes and for working families struggling with the cost of childcare. We see you and hear you, but that is not enough. If we want to do something about such issues, we need more than words. I therefore call on Members to support the SDLP amendment, which would place a duty on Departments to work together, thus helping them deliver on the ambition that the Executive have outlined in their Programme for Government. Far be it from the Opposition to help the Executive to deliver their agenda, but this is what constructive opposition is about. It is about offering solutions and saying, "We will support you if you deliver those aims, and we can work together to help people in our communities". That would reduce duplication of services and funding and free up much-needed money for the biggest challenges that people across our society are facing right now. As I mentioned, there are two amendments, and one is mutually exclusive to the other. The point that I would make about the SDLP amendment is this: let us start to find focus and the issues that we can challenge and do something about. If we constantly take a step back and say, "No, but there are all these big problems. Here is a whole list of them", and if all we ever do is look at those lists, we will never change anything. Therefore, let us not dismiss it when there are opportunities in and suggestions for single-item things that we can do that will help. We are 27 years on from the Good Friday Agreement. We should be working much more collectively with a much more joined-up approach and delivering for people, saving that money up and allowing it to be put right back into the public services, which so desperately need it.

1,203 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:08 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