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 44 of 54.
“I thank the Minister for his statement and for his commitment to rebuilding health services, especially in the south-eastern area. I know that there has been an announcement of dozens of additional beds for the Ulster Hospital, and now there is today's announcement about all the additional services for the Lagan Valley. I am going to go for the hat-trick to see whether we can get some commitment for the Downe Hospital, which is the furthest away from other services. Does the Minister agree that facilities such as the Downe Hospital are ideally placed to deliver services in the future? There is a willing staff, excellent facilities and the capacity to deliver. All that we need is the Department and the trust to give us those services.”
“I thank the Minister for coming to answer questions on this important issue, which is causing great concern to people. I appreciate, from his advice, that the incubation period could be up to seven days, but is there a method of prioritising testing for those individuals on that seventh day? If results could come back within 48 hours, that could shave five days off the quarantine period for them, which would enable many of them to get back to work. Many of those who are off at this period are teachers, and they need to get back into school and back to work as quickly as possible.”
“If the Member is suggesting delaying a decision on the grounds of not having the full information and not understanding how it will impact on people across Northern Ireland, can he remind me how he voted on our motion for an extension to the Brexit process?”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, is this a debate on amendments to the Bill, or is it a discussion about Richard Bullick? I am losing track. The majority of the conversation today has been about Richard Bullick rather than the Bill or the amendments.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. Again, it comes back to the fact that, as a party, we are happy with the Bill. We do not need any further consideration of it. That is a viewpoint that we are perfectly entitled to hold. <BR /> <BR />Constantly being able to threaten to use the judicial review mechanism if a matter is not brought to the Executive, even if it is not significant or controversial, is wrong, and clauses 8 and 9 close down that vexatious process. <BR /> <BR />I believe that the proposed amendments are well intentioned and were tabled as a helpful measure to ensure accountability. However, it is our belief that there remains an acceptable number of methods to appropriately challenge decision-making at the Executive, and we support the Bill as it is presented.”
“We also have the Human Rights Commission, the Equality Commission and commissioners for young people and older people to provide appropriate oversight of decisions that are taken by the Executive. Matters that attract significant spend or hefty changes to internal departmental budget lines are required to be brought to the Executive as well. Then, there is the ultimate decision-making body, the electorate, which will get to judge whether a Minister's decision was right or wrong. Constantly being able —.”
“I accept the point that the Member makes. Of course, I would say that a scrutiny Committee provides the opportunity not to scrutinise for the sake of it, but to ask questions. If you are satisfied with a decision that is being presented, you do not need to ask questions. Maybe you have already had conversations with party members. You may have had other conversations to determine whether you are happy with the decision that is being presented, and that, therefore, you do not need to scrutinise for the sake of it. <BR /> <BR />As I said, we have this place. This place is critical, for example, to members of the Green Party, People Before Profit, Jim Allister and, indeed, more increasingly, Mr Wells. They are not at the Executive table, and they do a fine job of holding Ministers to account for the decisions that they take.”
“We have plenary meetings, ministerial questions, ministerial statements, scrutiny Committees, private Member's business, and other methods by which to challenge the decisions that a Minister takes.”
“Absolutely; I agree with that. I would like to see all decisions that are taken in the light of that to be brought to the full Executive for discussion. There was an Executive subcommittee on Brexit. It remains, now, a standing agenda item. That only underscores that it is a significant and controversial issue. <BR /> <BR />The proposed removal of subsections 8 and 9 would not be helpful. Those sections provide the legal surety that Ministers need to be able to take decisions. While people might disagree with a decision, the content or outworkings of it, those subsections merely provide certainty for the Minister that the decision can be taken. There remain many avenues by which to challenge ministerial decisions; not least this place, which is, quite often, overlooked when it comes to decisions.”
“I ask for the junior Minister's understanding of what constitutes "significant or controversial", as the provision for such matters to be referred to the Executive remains unchanged. While I appreciate that those matters are not codified in law, there are conventions that apply. I would appreciate the junior Minister's view of how those matters can continue to be brought to the Executive table. <BR /> <BR />One issue that concerns me is Brexit, which, we know, is significant and controversial. I hope that the junior Minister agrees that any decision that a Minister takes in relation to Brexit should be brought to the Executive for consensus.”
“As I said, I acknowledge that, while the Bill is not perfect and is being done by accelerated passage, which no one likes, the speed is being used to unlock many key planning decisions that will get the economy working again. The Bill will speed up the delivery of jobs and decisions, and will prevent the paralysis that we have seen previously. People want action and delivery from Stormont and the Executive, not a Government who constantly block the decisions that are needed to get the North working again. <BR /> <BR />The Buick ruling cast a shadow over the Executive's capacity to make decisions. It has left unanswered questions about what Ministers can and cannot do. My party seeks a number of assurances that would reduce the necessity for the amendments.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. I know that he wants longer to debate the Bill, and I think that he is using interventions to get that time. However, like the Member for South Belfast opposite, if Mr Wells gives me more time to make my remarks, he will see that I address the concerns that he has raised.”
“It can allow one larger party in the Executive to block decisions that everyone else wants to be made. At times, that paralysis has severely impacted on the ability of Ministers to take decisions. As a representative of a smaller party in the Executive, I have found it somewhat frustrating that there was an expectation that every decision would go to the Executive in order to receive approval; otherwise, it was open to judicial review. The Bill rectifies that and goes some way to codifying what needs and what does not need to go to the Executive. I acknowledge that it is not a perfect Bill and is going through under accelerated package, which no one likes, but the speed is being used to unlock many of the key planning decisions that will get our economy working again.”
“The SDLP has supported the Bill after its journey through the Executive, where we are quite confident that it received all-party support, including that of the party that offers amendments today. That journey will have involved substantial legal scrutiny, legal opinion and interrogation before the recommendations that are in the Bill were made. Internally, we sought opinions on the Bill from our party membership far and wide, which includes many who were the architects of key agreements and policy documents. <BR /> <BR />Our imperfect system of government is a legacy of the Troubles and the division that our community has faced over generations. The system of numerous parties coming together to make decisions has often led to paralysis in decision-making.”
“I hope, too, that other Members here today will support me in their contributions in order to help our sporting community to allow spectators back safely to sporting events. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the further easements detailed today. I believe that all of us should support them, and I encourage clarity at all times.”
“It is an oddity that people can gather in large numbers to eat and drink indoors yet cannot gather outdoors to watch a sport, even with proper social-distancing and safety measures in place. I hope, for the immediate future of the GAA, soccer and other sports, that that rule is revisited tomorrow at the Executive meeting and that the Minister can give us his view on it today. Many of those sports need the gate fees from attendees to survive. They can do it safely. They can do it properly. They just need the Executive to be on their side. I hope that that is possible and that we see the change tomorrow. I wrote to the First Minister and deputy First Minister to ask for that change, and I hope that it will be reflected in what we hear being proposed tomorrow.”
“I ask the Executive Office and its Ministers to pull together and to do what is in the best interests of people here on the basis of the scientific advice that is available to you. The restrictions impact all of us, be it where you can go, whom you can be with and even if and when you can go on holiday. Most of us have stuck by the rules and have ensured that we lead by example. Some Members have felt the heat of that more than others in recent days. I think of my close family members overseas, whom I have not been able to see since last year, but rules are rules. <BR /> <BR />The anomalies of the guidelines continue. If we examine what is being cleared today and introduced a few weeks ago, we see that we now permit 30 people to gather outdoors in a socially distanced manner but not if they choose to watch a sporting event.”
“People are angry at the "One rule for us and one rule for them" that some have displayed. Ministers, please go back to Stormont Castle today and shout "Clarity" at the top of your voice. Let simple, clear and effective messages be the mantra from here on. Stop the confusion. Stop the double standards. Let people know exactly what they can and cannot do in a way that is easy to understand. As my Committee has heard, you have 45 or more press officers, the cream of the crop. They should be able to help you to spread the message clearly. <BR /> <BR />Let us not fall into the trap, which is easy to fall into, of trying to make the pandemic a green-and-orange issue, an us-and-them battle a day.”
“Now we can go to museums, beauty parlours, spas, bars and restaurants and see summer schools take place, but always underpinning the relaxations is the need to remember to keep to social distancing guidelines and to wash our hands. <BR /> <BR />Businesses across these islands have been impacted the most, yet some have had to bear the brunt more than others. Our hospitality sector has felt the full whack of the pandemic and for it to be permitted to reopen, in even a small way, is a move in the right direction for it. <BR /> <BR />The regulations continue to cause confusion. I worry about an Executive who cannot relay messages to people and then get upset when people do not stick to the guidelines. Well, if you do not even stick to the guidelines yourselves, what hope is there that people in our communities will stick to them?”
“I will now make a few remarks as an SDLP representative and highlight the fact that this continues to be a worrying time with a number of spikes in community transmission. People have been very worried about the outbreaks in places such as Limavady. That scares people, and we need to continue to do all that we can to manage our behaviours and approaches to everyday life so that they are done in a safe manner. <BR /> <BR />Today's restrictions that are eased include the allowing of gatherings of up to 30 people outdoors and permit the reopening of key businesses and high street venues to allow a greater sense of normality to return.”
“I am speaking on behalf of the Committee for the Executive Office. There has been much debate in the Assembly and its Committees, and, indeed, in the media, about recent amendment regulations. Although the Committee for the Executive Office has discussed issues around the outworkings and alleged breaches of the regulations, it does not have responsibility for scrutinising the legislation. The statutory responsibility for that lies with the Health Committee, and I am sure that its Chair will provide a detailed commentary. The Committee for the Executive Office welcomes, however, the timely lifting of all the restrictions that are mentioned and encourages continued discipline and compliance with them.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. I was going to move on to his intervention and suggest that he had used the word "regret". It was in a different context. However, he mentioned that it is not an issue that is orange and green; this is indeed about right and wrong. <BR /> <BR />Mr Temporary Speaker, do I get the extra minute that others may have —?”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. I will never support any re-tweet that has been done in a hurtful or harmful way, but I leave it to those individuals to account for their behaviour.”
“He also mentioned John Dallat and Edwin Poots's father, and we appreciate that those families had to go through difficult times as well.”
“However, there was a difference, and it is the difference here in what happened afterwards that we are referring to and not the loss of the person. Of course, we want to send our condolences to the family. <BR /> <BR />Daniel McCrossan highlighted how we managed to contain the spread of the disease by sticking to the rules. That was a difficulty, because we feel that when people break the rules, we will see an increase in the spread of coronavirus.”
“In starting, Mr Stalford said that people had stuck to "the letter and spirit" of the guidelines. I have outlined how that has been done, and it is the difference and straying from that that has caused much of the pain. He also correctly highlighted how many people felt that the Executive were working well, pulling in the one direction and reaching out and helping the community. I hope that, if there is an appropriate apology, we can get back to that stage. <BR /> <BR />Órlaithí Flynn mentioned and detailed how important Mr Storey was to members of Sinn Féin, and I acknowledge that. She also mentioned that when people pass, it is an important loss, and I acknowledge that as well, but I go back to my comment about the 5,000 families who have lost loved ones in the North since the restrictions were introduced.”
“I am here today to talk about this issue, and I do not want to stray from that. <BR /> <BR />The decision by Sinn Féin and the wider republican movement has sent a message to the community of the North that they are different, that they are special and that they are the elite. Sinn Féin have lauded themselves as being the anti-establishment party, yet they forget one thing: they are the establishment. They are the elite. They are on high as the joint leaders of Government and have been for 13 years. They have made it to the lofty heights and have chosen to look down on others and say, "Do as we say not as we do", which is more reminiscent of 1990's Tories than any freedom fighter or socialist that I know. <BR /> <BR />I want to talk about a few of the comments that have been made.”
“<BR /> <BR />It was not just about the funeral, it was about the whole grieving process for those families because they did what they were told. They had no wakes. They had no visitors to the houses, and they told people that, if they must line the route, they should do it with social distancing in mind. They stuck to the rules for chapels, with significantly smaller numbers than in this case. They took their time slots and followed staff guidelines at the crematorium, and they did not organise after services. Nor did they organise and invite people to the funeral, organise dress codes and set up PA systems so that the obviously expected crowds could hear. <BR /> <BR />Regulation after regulation was broken. Advice after advice was flouted. Rule after rule was ignored, and then the party wonders what all the worry and concern is about.”
“In total, with the other natural deaths, over 5,000 people have lost their life in the North since the pandemic began and the introduction of the restrictions in March. <BR /> <BR />Mr Temporary Speaker, those are 5,000 families who are suffering the pain and emotion of a family death, often older people and the lead generation of a family but not always so, and they were told in no uncertain terms that they must stick to the rules. They must abide by the regulations. No deviating from them. All in the interest of public safety. They did the right thing. They stuck by the rules and did it for one reason and one reason only: for the greater good of our community, to stop the spread of the virus and to save lives.”
“You have been badly let down by the people who asked you to make unimaginable difficult sacrifices, by people who have since shown themselves incapable of sharing that sacrifice. I am sorry about that. <BR /> <BR />When the moment came to show solidarity, the message sent out from our joint head of Government is that her movement, her people and her pain is more important than yours, and it is more important than the public health advice that we have issued to keep everyone safe. Coronavirus has ripped the heart out of many families. There have been many direct deaths as a result of the virus — over 550 in the North — and many other untimely deaths or excess deaths that have not been classed as due to coronavirus but are probably due to it in some way.”
“We will give that consideration after we have concluded the debate this evening. <BR /> <BR />It is simply no longer credible for the deputy First Minister to come in here and deny that she breached the public health guidance. That is beyond doubt. A half-apology that expresses regret "if" people were hurt is no longer acceptable. There is no "if". People in every community, from every background, were hurt seeing hundreds of people, led by our joint First Minister, at that funeral, when so many were laid to rest without their close family present. <BR /> <BR />Since it has not come from the deputy First Minister so far, let me apologise, on behalf of the Assembly and on behalf of politics here, to those who have been hurt.”
“I thank the Member for her contribution. Yes, it is important that we have all the apparatus of the Executive and the Assembly in place so that they can fulfil all their responsibilities. <BR /> <BR />We have not come to the Chamber today seeking to tear down the institutions. We have not sought to exclude Ministers from office. What we are asking for is an acknowledgment of the pain that their actions have caused and an apology for carrying out those actions, because, to date, the denials and the doubling-down has sapped more and more authority from the deputy First Minister. This is about restoring the credibility of our public health advice and allowing us to keep the public with us as we seek to keep them safe.”
“It is about the serious breach of trust that has taken place between Ministers and members of the public, who were told that their ability to mourn had to be constrained to protect others. It is about the failure to acknowledge that, by breaching the public health guidelines that the Executive issued, their Ministers have critically undermined their own authority. It is about the basic failure to acknowledge that what they did was wrong and that they should apologise.”
“None of us would want to see you resigning from your role, Mr Temporary Speaker. <BR /> <BR />I thank Members for their contribution to today's debate. The issue is incredibly sensitive, and I recognise the passion with which Members have spoken about their experience of loss and the experiences of their constituents. We have asked people to make immense sacrifices over the past few months, particularly during periods of trauma and grief, and that has been reflected in the testimony that we have heard today. <BR /> <BR />The motion is not, as some may have characterised it, about political point-scoring. Nor is it about the character or actions of the man whose funeral members of our Executive attended last week, and we should acknowledge the pain of that grieving family.”
“I do not think that that is asking too much, and, in case there is any ambiguity or confusion, I absolutely support the motion today and urge all Members to do so.”
“As part of the repurposing, I urge the Health Minister to do three things that are entirely within his gift and to do so as quickly as we can. The first is to put in place flexible funding to be made available to family carers so that they can begin to plan alternative arrangements for care and support for the foreseeable future and so that they can get a break themselves and not be burnt out. Secondly, the Department must ensure that family carers are given the discretion to use individual budgets immediately for managing their family members' support needs in a way that gives flexibility, choice and control. Thirdly, family carers must be fully involved in any and all of the future long-term solutions.”
“We need to repurpose our health service and find a new normal. What is the purpose of our health service? It is about the physical, emotional and mental well-being of everyone, whether you are a patient, a family member or a staff member.”
“If the old normal meant that you can pull the handbrake on essential social services for adults and children with disabilities, it is not what we want to see. If the old normal meant that family carers had to put their physical, mental and emotional health on the line to care for others in the worst days of the crisis, and not be consulted on the future operation of the service, we do not want to be part of that new normal. <BR /> <BR />I know that our Health Minister likes to use the term "repurposing" and it has found a way into our new language, but, in this instance, I maybe actually agree with the Health Minister, although he may not believe it.”
“<BR /> <BR />Forgive me, I know that sometimes we in south Down feel very isolated and alone when we see moves to repurpose our beloved Downe Hospital. It looks, though, that we are not alone in this, when we see the same tough, difficult treatment being handed out to family carers. In some ways, I fear for the aftermath of the COVID crisis. Lots of people are talking about a new normal. I hope that there is a new one, because we cannot go back to the old normal. If the old normal meant that you could pull essential staff from a local emergency department, send them to a hospital where they were not needed and then tell them to go home and use their leave, I do want to see that normal.”
“<BR /> <BR />here we stand, on Tuesday 7 July, with the worst of the pandemic behind us, getting ready for a summer ahead, and what position have those local heroes been left in? In the worst days of the pandemic, we let them step up to the plate and protect some of the most vulnerable in our society, and what is their reward? Those heroes who worked unfailingly, with no conditions attached, and regardless of the impact on their physical, mental and emotional health, who oftentimes had to leave their own families behind so that they could care for others. How are they being repaid for that? Well, they are not. We are now being told that the indications are such that these services will not be restored to meet assessed need for a very long time, and no information is being given directly or being shared with the families.”
“They gave comfort, they lived and breathed compassion and they helped to save lives. <BR /> <BR />In March, we saw the pulling of the handbrake on social services for adults and children with disabilities. With little warning and no consultation or engagement with those who would be most affected, it was gone in the blink of an eye. Essential daycare facilities and respite services were shut. Support staff and daycare staff were repurposed and transferred along or furloughed. All the while, family carers stepped into the breach and not only ensured that those with a disability were supported and cared for, but that the further risk of infection of family members was prevented.”
“I rise to speak today, just two days on from Sunday, when we celebrated the 72nd birthday of the NHS, and I acknowledge the phenomenal work that goes on every day right across the health service. I also pay tribute to the many individuals with a disability and their families across the North, who have made such sacrifices during the pandemic and, indeed, will have helped to save lives. I pay tribute to the many family carers, who have given tremendous support and assistance, and I pay tribute to all our healthcare staff, who have given up their time, energy and even, at times, their lives to ensure that the pandemic did not have the biblical impact that was predicted. We need, and needed, our carers. In the midst of the worst days of the pandemic, what was the response of those local heroes?”
“The approach outlined by the Secretary of State is an appalling attempt to shut down justice for victims and survivors. Does the deputy First Minister agree that cases must remain open so that advances in policing technology that could open new investigative and evidential opportunities can be explored to deliver justice for families?”
“Does the deputy First Minister accept that it was obvious that the funeral was going to draw huge crowds and that those crowds gathered, and did so in an unsafe manner? The use of loudspeakers, marshals and invites confirm the fact that Sinn Féin was aware that there would be crowds. Do you think that that was a breach of the rules?”
“We will want to see some quick decisions being taken, especially regarding planning, to enable swift developments that can deliver jobs. I do not want to see bad decisions — no one does — but a quick decision is not necessarily a bad decision. The construction and other key economic sectors will want to see quicker decision-making that allows them to get moving much more quickly. We will all want to see that when the inevitable economic downturn or recession arrives after the coronavirus pandemic. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the Bill and support it at its Second Stage.”
“The Committee undertook a question and answer session with the First Minister and deputy First Minister for any members who had questions. I think that it is well accepted that the point about whether a decision should be taken by one Minister or more than one Minister is a general one. It is a fairly reasonable point, notwithstanding the fact that the decisions taken can be open to further scrutiny, if required. <BR /> <BR />On behalf of the SDLP, I welcome the Bill. It will allow for better, speedier decision-making. It removes ambiguity and will enable more openness and transparency, as one Minister can own a decision and, if needed, it can be challenged. We have some dark and difficult economic days ahead.”
“<BR /> <BR />The junior Minister outlined in detail the general principles of the Bill, but, in short, it will allow the Minister for Infrastructure to make the decisions that she is best placed to make without challenge and provides clarity on matters that need to be brought before the Executive Committee. <BR /> <BR />The Committee noted that a number of high-profile planning applications will come forward for decision this year, and it is essential that any vulnerability to the integrity of the planning process is removed. The Committee for the Executive Office therefore supports the Bill's general principles. <BR /> <BR />The Bill is proceeding under accelerated passage, and I highlight the fact that it has three clauses: one is the commencement date and another is the title, so, in effect, there is one clause.”
“As was referred to in the debate on accelerated passage, that situation needs to be remedied to ensure that the Minister for Infrastructure can make planning decisions without challenge and without referral to the Executive Committee except in particular circumstances. <BR /> <BR />It is important to point out that the Bill does not remedy the matter just in relation to planning decisions; it could apply to other scenarios in which there is an interest of more than one Minister. It is also important to point out that any planning or other decision can still be brought to the Executive for consideration if three or more Ministers think that it is significant or controversial.”
“At its meeting on 1 July, the Committee for the Executive Office considered the general principles of the Executive Committee (Functions) Bill, and the First Minister and deputy First Minister attended the meeting to answer members' questions. <BR /> <BR />The Committee is aware of the judgements of the court in the case of Buick, who successfully challenged the decision by the Department for Infrastructure to grant planning permission for the construction of a waste treatment plant and energy from waste plant at Mallusk. The Committee is also aware that the Court of Appeal held that the decision to approve the application was a cross-cutting matter that required the approval of the Executive Committee.”
“I speak in my capacity as an SDLP Member, because the Committee has not given consideration to the matter, but we would certainly support the suspension of the Standing Order.”