Debate contribution: Executive Progress

Debate contribution by Mr Colin McGrath on 19 January 2026.

MLA

Mr Colin McGrath

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

19 January 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Executive Progress

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5322492

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker. As I close the debate, what I feel most strongly is not anger but disappointment. I am a democrat, and I believe in our democratic institutions. As a nationalist, I believe that, if we want to shape a new Ireland, the institutions must work and deliver. Two years ago, when our institutions, including the Executive, were restored, people were promised better than this. They were promised delivery, cooperation and a Government who would focus on what matters most. Measured against those promises, the Executive have failed to deliver. There is still no Executive-agreed multi-year Budget; the progress made on Executive legislation has been limited; and delivery against Programme for Government commitments is, at best, patchy and, at worst, absent. That is not the change that people were told to expect. The Assembly was promised momentum, but we have seen drift. We were promised transformation, but, instead, we have delay. The evidence of that failure is visible in promise after promise that has gone unfulfilled. Indeed, the deputy First Minister just said that she is proud to have used her veto to stop "nonsense" from progressing. Is that nonsense such as the A5, which is still mired in delay? Is it nonsense such as Casement Park, which, years on, is still unresolved? Is it nonsense such as waste water infrastructure, the lack of action on which is holding back housing and economic growth across the North? Is it nonsense such as Lough Neagh, which still has not seen the decisive action that people were promised? Is it nonsense such as the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition report, which was published and then parked? Is it nonsense such as the housing crisis, which is deepening, with too few homes being built and too many families being left waiting? Those are not merely Opposition demands; they were Executive commitments, and we have not seen them. When so many headlines made promises and those remain undelivered, people are entitled to ask what the Executive have been doing with their time. Nowhere is that question more pressing than in health. The Ulster Unionist Party sought the Health portfolio, arguing that it would bring leadership and reform to a system that was under enormous strain. Two years on, people are still waiting to see that change. Waiting lists remain stubbornly high; ambulance delays continue to shock; staff are exhausted; and patients are losing confidence. Of course the pressures are real, but leadership is about outcomes, not explanations, and the reality is that the health service feels no closer now to witnessing the transformation that was promised 10 years ago by our First Minister, who was then the Minister of Health. Health cannot be fixed by slogans or ownership alone. Rather, fixing it requires coordination across Departments, social care capacity, workforce planning and even things such as housing support. That brings me on to the amendment from the Alliance Party. Alliance entered the mandate promising reform of the institutions. It promised to change how Stormont works, not simply to keep it ticking over. Reform is not something that is talked about only in manifestos but something that has to be driven from the Executive table. Alliance has instead chosen to prop up the existing two-party structure, offering stability to a system that continues to under-deliver. People see the consequences of that every day. For example, in Warrenpoint, residents have been living with persistent foul odours that affect their homes and quality of life. The Agriculture Minister has a responsibility there. He could reform waste management in the North and end the foul odours with the stroke of a pen, but there is no action from him. There is a danger when reform becomes rhetoric and a catchy election slogan. The motion is not about tearing down devolution. Rather, it is about being honest about where devolution is falling short. The public voted not for excuses but for delivery, for an agreed, ambitious multi-year Budget and for Departments that genuinely cooperate rather than operate in silos. Think about that for a moment. When I reflect on all the contributions, I note that each of the Executive parties' representatives stood up and said, to a tee, "Things are not too bad, because guess what our Ministers are doing at the Executive?". It is therefore all about what Ministers do individually, when, instead, what we are crying out for is collective work across the Executive. Clear reporting on the Programme for Government commitments so that progress can be measured and judged is critical. Is that really too much to ask for? We know that the Government will not get it right all the time. We understand that people are human and that there is only so much that Ministers can do with the budget that they have, but constantly painting a picture that everything is fine when anybody has the audacity to ask a question about what they are doing, to seek transparency or to say that things are not good enough is, as I said at the start, just disappointing. Look at some of the remarks that were made during the debate. For example, there were attacks made on my colleague Mark about the fact that he was a Minister 13 years ago. What have we had in those 13 years from the party that threw out the accusations? We have had the renewable heat incentive, the collapse of the institutions and any amount of lack of Government and delivery. If you cannot remove the plank in your own eye, I do not know where we go in the future. We had a contribution from the TUV about something. It wants more rule from London. If the polls are right, and we are to have a Reform Government, do we really want Reform looking after our affairs and having the final say on them? Absolutely not. I could go on about some of the remarks that individual representatives have made. From one, the words "useless", "out of touch" and "do-nothing" were used. They were said by the leader of the Sinn Féin Opposition in Dublin, when talking about the Government down there, but if we look at delivery from the Dublin Government, it far surpasses anything that is happening here. If that is "useless", "out of touch" and "do-nothing", the Sinn Féin leader might want to come up and have a look to see exactly what is happening in this place. We want to see joined-up government and more delivery. That is something on which everyone in the House can agree. We want to see better delivery for people and to have public services that work. For the debate to have become one of ignorance of our remarks, and for there to have been an attitude of "How dare you raise issues", when we are simply trying to seek the best for our constituents, that will not wash. I therefore hope that the motion passes and that we see better delivery from our Government in the future.

You know the context that

You know the context.

No?

1,187 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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