Debate contribution: Executive Progress

Debate contribution by Mr Stewart Dickson on 19 January 2026.

MLA

Mr Stewart Dickson

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

19 January 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Executive Progress

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5322480

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank everyone who contributed to the debate. It has, I think, been very useful. There is much in the motion with which my party agrees. Therefore, I encourage the party that tabled the motion to support our amendment. We all agree that delivery has been too slow. Too often, Programmes for Government from the Executive represent, in reality, a collection of Departments doing their own thing, rather than what might be expected from such a document from a single Government, which would work towards shared outcomes that make a difference to people's lives. We have heard that in the debate. That is not to suggest some good and important work is not being done, to which the deputy first Minister made reference. It appears, however, to be piecemeal and, more often than not, dysfunctional. That is why we believe that a statutory duty to cooperate and address cross-cutting issues is essential. Those concerns are real, and they deserve to be taken seriously. It is also important, however, to be honest about why we find ourselves here and about what would actually change things. If we are serious about improving delivery, we have to be clear about the causes of failure and the limits of what private Members' motions — a more accurate description might be "party motions" — alone have been able to achieve so far. Day in, day out, we hear debates in the Chamber on motions that call on Ministers to do this or that. Sadly, the vast majority are ignored or used for political point-scoring. My colleagues and I were elected to the Assembly to be legislators in order to improve the lives of our constituents and change them by improving our laws. Yet, so far in this mandate, precious little has been achieved. We would rather sit in this place and engage in divisive and sterile debates, often on things over which we have little influence. Indeed, with a few ministerial exceptions, more tumbleweed than legislation comes into the Chamber for debate and decision. The problems that the motion identifies did not emerge in this mandate alone. Silo working, weak collective decision-making and the absence of long-term planning, despite Programmes for Government, have characterised the Executive for many years — not accounting, of course, for all the downtime — including previous mandates during which the party that is now in opposition held ministerial office for significant periods. That context matters, because if we misdiagnose the problem, we will not be able to fix it. At the same time, it would be wrong not to acknowledge the significant and, frankly, malign inertia that continues to exist at the centre of the Government. Too often, the Executive Office and the First Minister and deputy First Minister's structures are slow — to the point of inertia — to drive collective action, grip delivery and provide the leadership that is needed to turn agreed priorities into real progress. Frankly, a mixture of what I perceive as laziness and political point-scoring seems to be the hallmark of our Executive Office. Without effective leadership and coordination at the centre, even good decisions struggle to be translated into outcomes. However, the public do not benefit from or need a blame game between the Government and the Opposition. What we need is structural reform, clear accountability and a system that is designed to deliver rather than one that fails to deliver. My party, the Alliance Party, is in the Executive not to defend their shortcomings but to change how they operate. We believe that the Government should work as a single team focused on outcomes rather than as a set of competing departmental silos. That is why we have been arguing for change for more than a decade. We have argued for multi-year Budgets because, without them, Departments are forced into short-term decision-making. We have argued for a statutory duty on Ministers and Departments to cooperate, because cross-cutting challenges in areas such as health, infrastructure, climate and education cannot be solved in isolation. That is why we have been clear that the Programme for Government must be more than a document that is agreed at the start of a mandate. The Opposition play a vital role, but the Opposition alone are not a substitution for reform. If we want different outcomes, we need different systems. That means reforming how our Executive take decisions, strengthening collective responsibility and ensuring that progress against a Programme for Government commitment is transparent and measurable and is reported openly to the Assembly. We have clear signs of what we might call reckless budget management by others in the Assembly. The two highest-spending Departments in the Executive, Education and Health —

— are the worst offenders when it comes to overspending or throwing good money after bad, and they are unreformed.

Thank you.

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

Assessment

Not qualifying

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:17 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