Debate contribution: Executive Progress

Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on 19 January 2026.

MLA

Mr Timothy Gaston

Party at the time

Traditional Unionist Voice

Date

19 January 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Executive Progress

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5322079

Read the official Assembly record

Text

The motion invites the Assembly to reflect on what is politely described as a failure of delivery by the Executive. The SDLP has provided the opportunity for the four Executive parties to mark their own homework during their contributions. What we have heard is pre-election sound bites ahead of the 2027 Assembly election, with the odd poke of the eye put in for good measure. I make it clear at the outset that this is not a matter of poor implementation, missed targets or insufficient ambition; it is a problem of structure and of design. The SDLP cannot admit that, of course, because the structures that this place operates under are a product of its making. Time and again, the public have been promised stability, progress and delivery.

I am happy to give way to Mr McCrossan.

Absolutely not. It is the structure of this place. A mandatory coalition will never work — never ever, ever — without the best sound bites of what we have heard from the Floor today. My goodness, what have we heard? The public have been promised stability, progress and delivery. Those were the very pledges and the justification given by those who wanted to bin all that and say, "Our promise on the protocol does not matter, because we need to get back to this place, and all our ills will be in the rear-view mirror". That has not happened, and the reality has been drift, delay and dysfunction. There is no agreed Budget; rather, you have Ministers openly attacking each other over the proposed Budget that is out for consultation. There is no flow of Executive legislation, and the Programme for Government promises nothing of substance. But fear not: the SDLP has the solution. What we need is a statutory duty to cooperate with each other. The problem is not that Ministers are not cooperating; the problem is that the system itself is built to fail. The Executive model created by the Belfast Agreement requires the participation of parties that do not even believe in the continued existence of Northern Ireland. It embeds veto and rewards inaction. That is how the system is designed.

I am happy to give way quickly.

I am happy to set that out at the end, along with a solution to our current problems, but I will get back to what I was saying. So long as the Executive can exist only with Sinn Féin at their heart and so long as Sinn Féin's political objective is the destruction of our Union, this place will continue to fail the people whom it is meant to serve. For 25 years, they have been promised that the next restoration, the next Government or the next reset will finally make devolution work. What do we have to show for it? Repeated collapse, chronic instability and an Executive incapable of taking hard decisions. Many people have understandably concluded that Stormont should simply be scrapped altogether, and I understand that frustration. For my part, let me be clear: if the choice is between dysfunctional and terrorist-inclusive government and British rule from Westminster, I know the side that I will be on. Let us not make that choice, however. The Executive have failed comprehensively and repeatedly, but the Assembly itself, in its legislative role and scrutiny powers, has not. What fatally undermined scrutiny in the past was the simple fact that Ministers were being scrutinised by parties that were themselves part of the Executive that they were meant to be holding to account. I say this: remove the failed Executive model, retain the Assembly and its legislative authority and retain and strengthen its scrutiny role. Under such a system, legislation would be brought forward by Westminster Ministers but shaped, examined, amended and challenged locally by elected representatives. Committees would no longer be tamed by Executive loyalty but would robustly interrogate those exercising executive power. That is not direct rule by default or joint authority by stealth; it is a form of devolution that maximises local democratic input without handing the levers of government to those determined to wreck it. The choice before us is not between the failed Executive and permanent rule from London. There is a middle way, one that, I argue, is a better way; a way that accepts 25 years of evidence and removes structural sabotage from the heart of government. If you want to talk about reform, that is an option. With 25 years of experience of failed mandatory coalition —

— let us see what the reformers want to talk about.

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

Assessment

Qualifying Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:13 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification