Colin McGrath
South Down · Social Democratic and Labour Party · Northern Ireland
“Minister, regardless of where people stand on the exact figure, surely we can all agree that a health service cannot function without the doctors whom it trains.”
“Minister, climate change is happening, and extreme weather events are taking place. We saw that in Downpatrick a number of years ago when the town centre was ravaged by flooding, and it has taken the businesses affected many years to try to get over that flooding.”
“Minister, given that capital funding is, generally, being decimated, the extent of which may increase as a result of the Executive's not agreeing a Budget, what impact will that have on any final road maintenance strategy, and are any contingencies being put in place to manage that?”
“<BR /> <BR />Since March 2025, the parliamentary excellence programme has delivered dedicated sessions with the Executive Office on the strategic framework and its delivery plan, enhancing Members’ understanding of the cross-government approach and their role in scrutiny, legislation and constituency engagement.”
“<BR /> <BR />More broadly, the Assembly Commission supports Members and Committees in carrying out their scrutiny functions, including in relation to the Executive Office’s work on that framework.”
“As the Member mentioned, one example is the Assembly's Women's Caucus, which has a particular focus on supporting women in public life and highlighting the increasing challenges that women face in the digital sphere, including online abuse.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,662 lines we hold for Colin McGrath, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 54.
“We would create a regional investment bank for long-term health, infrastructure and workforce planning. It is about future-proofing our finances with a future generations Act that ensures that long-term well-being is at the centre of every pound that we spend. Instead, this Budget refuses to take control of our future and simply blames everyone else when things fall apart. <BR /> <BR />People are exhausted not just by the waiting but by the wait for leadership. If the Executive will not prioritise the health of the public, the SDLP will stand in the Chamber and in communities and call it what it is: a betrayal of trust and a Budget that fails the sick.”
“Parties promised that Health would come first, but, when the chance came, they blinked. They have allocated just 2% of the biggest block grant in history to the outcomes in the Programme for Government's priorities. That is not transformation; that is simply tinkering at the edges. Where is the vision? Where is the reform? Where is the courage? <BR /> <BR />We have been clear. Our documents have said that we would commit to spends in the Departments with Programme for Government priorities. We would like to see more money set aside for those priorities, be it health, housing, childcare or economic inclusion. We would cut waste and end the cycle of agency dependency and overspending on failed projects by grasping the fiscal powers to gain control over income tax levies and borrowing powers to shape our own future.”
“Our health service is collapsing under the weight that it carries, and the Executive are simply watching it happen. Here is what the cuts to health funding mean in real life: over 450,000 people are on hospital waiting lists; the mental health system is stretched to breaking point; and £400 million was spent on agency staff last year because we are not working to retain our staff. Where is the urgency? Where is the investment? Where is the transformation? Why is Health not the number-one priority for the Executive? <BR /> <BR />The Budget is not just about money; it is about outcomes. Underfunded care means longer waiting times. It means more burnout for people. In real life, the Budget means worse survival rates. Let us be honest: the Executive promised transformation.”
“Budgets are, in essence, moral documents, because they detail not just how much we spend but what we value and what we really want to spend our money on. Regrettably, if this Budget is the Executive's statement of values, I am afraid that the message from the Executive is loud and clear: healthcare does not matter enough. <BR /> <BR />In the Budget, health receives £8·5 billion, but do not be misled by that headline. The Department asked for a 10·6% increase just to stand still but was handed barely 4%. That is a real-terms cut to hospitals, GPs and mental health services. If we take stock for a moment, we find that the Executive have £16·9 billion for day-to-day spending and that, of that, only £215 million has been earmarked for reducing waiting lists and investing in elective care.”
“My question builds on the issue of the fisheries. Another 12 years of fishing with EU fishing fleets in these waters will give them another 12 years of advantage in getting staff, because they can get staff from across Europe and beyond, which is something that we are inhibited from doing. Minister, did that form any part of the discussions or any of the solutions that you referenced for our local fishing fleet and processors?”
“Whilst the Minister is practically a youngster, most of us are getting older and progressing in years, and we know that there will be an increasing number of older people in our communities. Does the Minister agree that some form of formal, official older people's service — akin to what we have with the Youth Service for young people — should be developed so that there are organised activities in every area across Northern Ireland for older people to engage with? Having information about what help is available for them, tackling loneliness and social exclusion and all the other benefits would be of great use to people as they grow older.”
“Minister, if you are willing to go to war with our GPs and impose the settlement on them without their approval, has your Department assessed the impact of doing so? Will you take responsibility for the collateral damage that will undoubtedly follow?”
“Minister, today's statement is not just about a failure of negotiation; it reads like the Executive are declaring war on our already overburdened GP sector. In any trade union negotiations, if you publicly detail the content of those negotiations and then impose a settlement that has already been rejected, it follows that there will be retaliation. We shall have to wait and see.”
“Minister, you commissioned the study on the cost of doing business, but it appears that all that you will do with it is simply send it to the British Government and that the Executive will not do anything. When will you do something to help businesses here, given that 96% of respondents to Retail NI's survey said that this Executive were doing nothing for them?”
“I hope that it is noted, as I conclude, that I got through the entire speech without using "renumeration" and stuck to "remuneration", which I think was an achievement.”
“In summary, the Assembly Commission commends its own amendment Nos 6 and 7 to the House and supports amendment Nos 1, 9, 10, 12 and 14 from the Ad Hoc Committee. The Assembly Commission also supports retaining clauses 3, 5 and 10 in the Bill. The Assembly Commission looks forward to considering the decisions that Members take today in advance of the Further Consideration Stage of the Bill occurring in due course.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 11 also has the potential to undermine the exercise of the Assembly's statutory functions as set out in section 47 of the 1998 Act in relation to the remuneration of Members. That may also create a risk of the Bill's being referred to the UK Supreme Court. I also note that it is a constitutional principle that an Assembly cannot bind its successors, which would be the effect of amendment No 11. The Assembly Commission therefore opposes amendment No 11. <BR /> <BR />I appreciate that I have taken some time to go through the detail of the amendments.”
“Part 2 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 states that the Assembly may make law in accordance with the relevant provisions of that Part. Part 2 is an excepted matter. The Assembly cannot pass Acts that deal with matters covered by Part 2 of the 1998 Act. Amendment No 11 is concerned with the way in which the Assembly makes laws. It introduces conditions for the introduction of legislation that are not set out in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. That deals with the subject matter of Part 2 of the Act, which sets out the only limitations on the plenary power of the Assembly to make laws. The amendment deals with an excepted matter and would potentially jeopardise the passage of the Bill into law.”
“The remuneration board will determine the level of salaries. Once its decisions are made, they will be implemented. There will therefore be no need for the Assembly Commission to introduce a further Bill on those issues, and it has no intention of doing so. Clause 6 requires the remuneration board to publish a draft determination outlining any decisions that it is considering making and allows it to consult on the draft with any other persons whom it considers appropriate. Therefore, there is already a provision that would permit public consultation on the issue of Members' salaries in the future, if the remuneration board considered it valuable. <BR /> <BR />The more significant issue is that there is a risk that amendment No 11 is likely to take the Bill outside the legislative competence of the Assembly.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 11, tabled by Mr Gaston, deals with the issue of consultation. The Assembly Commission has previously clarified that it took account of a number of factors in its approach to the Bill, including the fact that the Assembly had approved a resolution in June 2020 that called for Members' salaries and pensions to be determined independently and that an earlier version of the Bill was subsequently introduced. I note that the Ad Hoc Committee invited responses to inform its scrutiny of the Bill. Amendment No 11 would place a requirement to consult on any future Bill. <BR /> <BR />There are, however, practical and legal issues with amendment No 11. First, the intention of the Bill is to set up the remuneration board and re-establish an independent mechanism to determine Members' salaries.”
“<BR /> <BR />The 2011 Act disqualifies certain categories from applying to join the remuneration board to avoid conflicts of interest. That is very different from requiring the majority of the remuneration board to have one specific requirement that would prevent the majority of the population from applying. While appointments to the remuneration board are not ministerial appointments, there is also a risk that the amendment would be contrary to key elements of the requirement of the code of practice previously published by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, including on the grounds of equality, diversity, merit and proportionality. Neither the Assembly nor the Assembly Commission should want to encourage such an approach. The Assembly Commission therefore opposes amendment No 8.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. I think that the approach that is being taken by the Commission is the best one. It is open to everybody, trade union representatives and all; in fact, I hope that there will be trade union representatives on the board. I hope that they apply. They have unique skills that can contribute to this type of work. They understand the importance of a fair and decent wage for everybody. They have a lot of experience that they could bring to it. The issue is with their having the majority of seats on the board. If we have an open and transparent process, it is better that the board be populated with people of different backgrounds rather than just the one background, more or less. As I say, that approach could narrow the range of skills available to the board in performing its functions.”
“Thank you, and there are also 1·6 million-odd who cannot apply for it, which seems a bit unfair as well. However, I do not mind giving way; it gives me a break from a long speech. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 8 requires trade union representatives to be appointed as a majority of members on the board but is silent on the specific professional experience or skills that they should bring to the remuneration board.”
“The Bill does not prevent trade union representatives serving on the remuneration board. I am happy to make it clear that the Assembly Commission has no objection in principle to the possibility of trade union representatives serving on the remuneration board. However, they will be subject to the same independent process of appointment as others, which will see the best candidates from the open recruitment process being appointed on merit. Amendment No 8 would significantly restrict the potential membership of the remuneration board. The Assembly Commission has a concern that it would limit the pool of applicants who could apply.”
“The Assembly Commission considers that to be an important element of the Bill, as it allows the potential for the insight of a former Member's first-hand experience to add value to the remuneration board's work. However, the appointment of a former Member is optional: it is not required. A balance of perspectives is retained by allowing a potential maximum of only one former Member to serve on the remuneration board at any one time. <BR /> <BR />Mr Carroll's amendment No 8 is very different and takes a different approach to the appointment of trade union representatives on the remuneration board. Not only does it require that a trade union representative be appointed to the board but it requires that a majority of the members of the remuneration board be trade union representatives.”
“Finally, from a political perspective, it could be argued that Mr Gaston's amendment is inconsistent with his previous positions. He has previously argued that clause 3 and the requirement to "have regard to" the salaries in other legislatures would inevitably lead to a significant pay rise for Members. However, in tabling amendment No 4, he now seems to seek only to remove specific institutions from that clause rather than to oppose the concept of benchmarking as a whole. Therefore, the Assembly Commission opposes amendment No 4. <BR /> <BR />Clause 5 amends paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the 2011 Act to remove former membership of the Assembly as grounds for disqualification from membership of the remuneration board.”
“However, when the Assembly Commission gave specific consideration to the bodies that are included in that clause, it was not motivated by party political considerations. The Assembly Commission included all the legislatures in these islands with which the Assembly most frequently engages. That would give the remuneration board a number of comparators of differing scale and legislative responsibilities. Removing the Houses of the Oireachtas would therefore limit the scope of the comparators that could be considered. <BR /> <BR />The amendment is also arguably legislatively ineffective, as it would not prevent the remuneration board expanding a benchmarking exercise that it wished to undertake or making its own decision to review the provision for Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas.”
“<BR /> <BR />Clause 3 inserts a new provision into section 2 of the 2011 Act and would impose a requirement on the remuneration board to have regard to the salaries payable to Members of other legislatures. As I have stated previously, the Assembly Commission believes that that is a reasonable measure to ensure that the remuneration board is informed by benchmarking against the salary levels awarded to legislators in other places and is one that it is likely to undertake, whether it is in the Bill or not. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 4 would remove all reference to the Houses of the Oireachtas and, I assume, is politically motivated from Mr Gaston's perspective. Again, that is his right.”
“From a technical perspective, the Assembly Commission is also concerned that amendment Nos 3 and 5 could be considered legally deficient, as legislative competence attaches to the Assembly rather than to individual Members. <BR /> <BR />Like amendment Nos 3 and 5, amendment No 13 would tie the operation of the Bill to the Windsor framework. The Bill will come into effect on the day after the day that it receives Royal Assent. Amendment No 13 would predicate the commencement of key provisions of the Bill on matters related to the Windsor framework. It would postpone those provisions for at least four years until the next vote on the democratic consent process. It is unreasonable to tie the operation of the Bill to those issues, so the Assembly Commission opposes amendment Nos 3, 5 and 13.”
“However, I return to the points that amendment Nos 3 and 5 would limit the discretion of the remuneration board and impact on its independence by making issues around the Windsor framework a predominant factor that influences and determines its decisions. <BR /> <BR />The law-making powers of each legislature in these islands vary. The Bill gives the remuneration board full discretion to take account of the legislative responsibilities of the Assembly and its Members in any benchmarking or other exercise that it undertakes. However, it is a disproportionate approach to tie the operation and decision-making of the remuneration board to an issue outside of its control, the control of the Assembly Commission and, indeed, the control of the Assembly.”
“<BR /> <BR />With your indulgence, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I will now address amendment Nos 3, 5 and 13 together. Those amendments all raise issues that relate to the Windsor framework and essentially connect to the political point that Mr Gaston has made at earlier stages of the Bill about the impact of the Windsor framework on the legislative responsibilities of the Assembly. It is Mr Gaston's prerogative to focus on those issues. The Assembly Commission has had no part in the creation, detail or future of the Windsor framework and will not take a position on such an issue, which is outside of its responsibilities.”
“<BR /> <BR />Ultimately, if amendment No 2 were passed, the purpose of the Bill would be undermined, as there would be no need to establish and resource the remuneration board. An annual inflationary increase could be provided for without the structures to review and determine the appropriate levels for Members. It is interesting to note that, if we look back to 10 years ago, when there was last a rise in MLAs' wages, we see that the consumer price index is around 30%. That would have meant a £15,000 increase for MLAs in the past 10 years — that is what would happen if the amendment had been in place from that time. That is not a level that I would want to have accepted for the past period. Maybe that is what the proposer of the amendment was looking for. The Assembly Commission, therefore, opposes amendment No 2.”
“If amendment No 2 were accepted and it were made a requirement for the remuneration board not to exceed the most recent rate of inflation, that would have the predominant weight in determining its decisions. However, once the remuneration board has concluded its initial review and taken a decision on a reasonable level of salary for a Member, the board will have the option to decide that an increase in line with inflation should follow in the years after. The key point is that, if the independence of the remuneration board is to be meaningful, the decisions are for it alone to take on the basis of all the factors that, it thinks, are relevant without its hands being tied.”
“My assessment is that that figure is probably quite low. If you talk to people about MLAs' salaries, 100% of them would probably say that we are paid too much. That is, of course, their view, but it is not the reality that is set out in legislation. We have to find a board that can conduct itself independently to find a level that, it feels, is appropriate — it is not us; we are not going to decide what our salary level will be — and the Bill is about establishing that independent board. <BR /> <BR />The level of inflation at a given time will, undoubtedly, be a factor for the remuneration board to take into consideration. However, amendment No 2 would fundamentally restrict the board's independence and limit the scope of its decisions in a number of ways.”
“It would not prevent the remuneration board from taking account of other factors as it sees fit.”
“I now turn to amendment No 2, tabled by Mr Carroll, which seeks to amend clause 3. It has been the Assembly Commission's view that requiring the remuneration board to have regard to the salaries payable to Members of other legislatures is a reasonable benchmarking measure that any such body would expect to carry out when reviewing salary levels. It would help the remuneration board to achieve the objective set out in section 2(2) of the 2011 Act, namely to have:”
“However, in its previous engagement, the Assembly Commission indicated to the Ad Hoc Committee that, if it was of the view that adding the word "Independent" to the remuneration board's title would be helpful to emphasise its independence, the Assembly Commission was prepared to accept that view. The Assembly Commission is therefore content to support amendment Nos 1, 9, 10, 12 and 14.”
“Those amendments insert the word "Independent" into the name of the remuneration board. The Ad Hoc Committee engaged with the Assembly Commission on its intention to introduce those amendments. Section 3 of the 2011 Act makes clear that the board would not be subject to the direction or control of the Assembly or the Assembly Commission. As I said, the Assembly Commission is focused on the detail of the Bill to ensure that the independence of the remuneration board is maintained and embodied in how it operates.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Assembly Commission engaged with the Ad Hoc Committee on those amendments. The Ad Hoc Committee sought clarification on which Committee would be asked to scrutinise any order brought forward by the Assembly Commission under this legislation in relation to temporary appointment. The Assembly Commission clarified that the Audit Committee would, it believed, be the appropriate Committee to scrutinise any such order, given its existing role in the Assembly Commission's budget. The Assembly Commission communicated that to the Audit Committee, and we are grateful that the Ad Hoc Committee indicated that it is content to support amendment Nos 6 and 7. <BR /> <BR />I turn now to amendment Nos 1, 9, 10, 12 and 14, tabled by the Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee.”
“of the 2011 Act. The amendment puts more detail in the Bill on temporary appointments and ensures that the full suite of disqualification and termination provisions in Part 1 of the 2011 Act also applies to temporary appointments. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 7 to clause 4 adds new section 6A(10) to the 2011 Act. That allows the Assembly Commission to make provision for temporary appointments to the remuneration board by order. That is included as a precaution to enable the Assembly Commission to deal with unforeseen circumstances. The new section 6A(10) is included to make clear that the Assembly Commission's powers to make such orders cannot be used to modify the application of new section 4(4) of the 2011 Act, which states that only one former Member of the Assembly can be a member of the remuneration board at any one time.”
“including disqualification from the board,”
“However, following the introduction of the Bill, it occurred to the Assembly Commission that there was a potential issue with the same disqualification and other such provisions as applied to permanent appointments not applying to temporary appointments. The Assembly Commission therefore tabled amendment Nos 6 and 7 to avoid that discrepancy occurring. Amendment No 6 amends clause 4 and substitutes new section 6A(9) with wording that provides:”
“<BR /> <BR />Whilst there are varying options for provisions that could be included in the Bill, the Assembly Commission has been focused on protecting the independence of the remuneration board and avoiding provisions that would reduce its ability to make its own decisions. That principle underpins the position of the Assembly Commission on many of the amendments being debated today. <BR /> <BR />I want, first, to turn to amendment Nos 6 and 7, which the Assembly Commission itself tabled. Clause 4 inserts new section 6A into the Assembly Members (Independent Financial Review and Standards) Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 — the 2011 Act — which makes provisions for temporary appointments to the board.”
“It is independent because that person will not get any financial benefit from it. They are not setting their own wage, but they will bring a depth of understanding of the role. Some Members said that there should not be any understanding of the role in determining how the job is undertaken. If you have somebody there who has undertaken the work and understands, having done the job, what it is about, that allows for a certain breadth of experience to be brought. However, because that person will not benefit from the determinations that are made, of course the board is independent. That is logical.”
“The Assembly Commission appeared before the Committee twice and dealt with a number of additional points via correspondence. Therefore, it is appropriate that the Assembly Commission acknowledges the work that was undertaken by the members and staff of the Committee. <BR /> <BR />Before I proceed to deal with the amendments in detail, it is worth highlighting a theme that runs through them, and I will return repeatedly to it. The central purpose of the Bill is to ensure that arrangements are in place for the salaries and pensions of Members to be determined independently.”
“Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the amendments that have been tabled to the Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill on behalf of the Assembly Commission. I express the thanks of the Assembly Commission to the Chairperson and all members who served on the Ad Hoc Committee that was appointed to scrutinise the Bill. <BR /> <BR />From the outset, we have recognised that this is not a piece of legislation that will win Members any popularity contests. However, the Committee Stage has been important in allowing new sets of eyes to scrutinise the Bill and examine it in detail. That process has also been helpful in dealing with some of the more misleading commentary on the Bill.”
“There are other Department for Communities initiatives to try to lift Downpatrick, and I hope that we might be able to use them to try to lever in some support, especially to try to help those volunteers, who have put in numerous hours of their own time only to see everything literally swept away. I hope that we can continue to help them. Thank you to the volunteers for the work that they do. Hopefully, we can get some finance for them for the future.”
“It is so sad that some mechanism was not made available for use by an organisation undertaking a community-based project that tries to tick so many of the boxes for government: bringing in tourists; trying to tackle social deprivation; and encouraging people to participate in their local community by volunteering to rejuvenate an area of the town that was previously run down and turning it into a cultural tourism destination. When it came to their need, the money was not there. Instead, the volunteers saw it go back to the centre and not be made available to them. <BR /> <BR />That made the volunteers very sad, and it also makes me very sad, because I want to see that part of Downpatrick be rejuvenated. I want to see more footfall in that part of the town, but the project has been set back by a number of years.”
“The level of funding provided to try to help the volunteers after the floods was not nearly enough for the size and the scale of their project. It was all the more galling for them when they found out that nearly half the money that had been set aside to try to assist businesses and groups was then sent back for Departments to use. That felt like the ultimate slap in the face, because it said to them, "A huge amount of damage was done. We have got some money, but you are not getting it".”
“I will speak about the Downpatrick and County Down Railway, which is a fantastic local project in my constituency run by volunteers who have spent years restoring our railway heritage. They have built something really special. It is educational, is a tourist draw and brings real pride to our area. When the floods hit Downpatrick, however, the railway was the first place into which they came, and a lot of real and serious damage was done. <BR /> <BR />Unfortunately, the level of funding that was made available was nowhere near enough to help undo the damage that the floods caused. The volunteers had put years of work into restoring trains, carriages, tracks and buildings, and it took just a few days of heavy rain to undo that work.”
“As I said, I am thinking especially of the owners and managers in the fish processing industry in my constituency who are saying that they are being brought to their knees because of the immigration policy. It cannot be good if they are being brought to their knees. Yesterday's announcement will take us even further to the right, which will not help.”
“The business closes. If the business closes and a number of people in the constituency lose their job, I hope that they will be able to go to the elected representatives of theirs who wave flags and talk about their ideology and ask them, now that they have to draw down money from the welfare state in order to survive, how that helps. <BR /> <BR />We need a sensible approach to the matter. The sensible approach is never on the far left or the far right; it is always somewhere in between. What was announced yesterday was not good, because, as my colleague said, it was a lurch to the right. Therefore, I would like the issue to be brought more to the centre. Nobody wants to see the downsides to mass immigration if it is there, but we want to see jobs in our community being filled so that people can flourish and businesses can survive.”
“I thank my colleague for bringing the issue to the House. I want to bring a local dimension to the discussion. If there is one thing that a hardened ideology will not do, it is put food on the table for people. A number of businesses in my constituency are struggling under the old rules to get staff to fill the posts to do the work. I am thinking of the fishing industry and the fish processing industry in particular, which require people for only short, seasonal work, but cannot get recognition from the British Government in London of the fact that their work is seasonal. As a result, those businesses are going to struggle to survive. <BR /> <BR />What does that mean? If half a business is made up of local people and half is complemented by seasonal workers, what happens if it does not have the workers and cannot deliver the work?”
“Thank you. Absolutely, because, as I have said, there needs to be full Executive support for it. It is in the Programme for Government. There is no point in us putting things into the Programme for Government and then saying, "We are not going to give you the money to deal with it". We say that the money should come ring-fenced so that people out there know that, if they are facing cancer, they will do so knowing that there is a service that is funded and is available for them. With all of the interventions that have been mentioned and the support from everybody across the House, hopefully we will see an improved service for people. Thank you.”
“Our amendment was tabled to support the motion and to try to give the Health Minister all the help and support that he can get to deal with the issues that, we have all said, are critical. I hope that the amendment can be supported in the way in which it is presented, which is to assist with cancer waiting times. I will give way to the Minister.”