Simon Hamilton
Strangford · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“I have emphasised to the Member and the House before, that, whilst I accept that those are not good enough — that is why we have been developing the plan — there are alternative technologies in place that can present opportunities for those who just cannot get acceptable speeds.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. There are some initiatives that I believe will help and act as a driver to improve broadband access. One such intervention is the broadband universal service obligation (USO), which is being taken forward by Her Majesty's Government.”
“I thank the Member for his question. However, he is conflating two issues. I wrote to his party leader, and indeed to all Assembly party leaders, before making the announcement that I did last week about wanting to publish the details of the businesses in receipt of the non-domestic RHI scheme. It was my intention to do that tomorrow.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Chancellor, in his autumn statement, made some more funding available for telecommunications, and my Department is studying that and seeking to avail itself of that to the fullest possible extent.”
“In addition, my Department is managing a contract for the delivery of the superfast rollout programme, which, by 31 December, will provide access to superfast broadband with speeds of at least 24 megabits per second to a further 38,000 premises, both business and residential, across Northern Ireland, including in the Newry and Armagh cons…”
“I signalled the intention to do this a few weeks ago. The Member and the House will know that inspections of all installations would have taken place over the 20-year lifetime of the RHI scheme.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,625 lines we hold for Simon Hamilton, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 49 of 73.
“There are some that we are less enthusiastic about having to do. That might include a voluntary exit scheme. This is not something that Westminster pushed us into, as the First Minister made clear. This was a proposal that the five Executive parties put to the Secretary of State, who sold it to the Prime Minister. It was an idea that came from us, not them.”
“<BR /> <BR />Mr McCallister mentioned reform, as he has done frequently throughout the debate. To be fair, he has contributed, I think, at every stage of the debate on the Budget Bill, unlike some others who contributed this evening. He is right on some bits, but I take exception to others. He made the argument that all or many of the reforms that we are doing — perhaps I am going too far in saying this — are being done because they are being forced on us by the Conservative Party or Her Majesty's Government. That is not the case. On many of the reforms that we are taking forward, particularly in shared services and digitisation, we have been doing them for some time and are in advance of what is happening in Great Britain.”
“<BR /> <BR />As the First Minister said, it is difficult for many of us on this side of the House and, I am sure, on other sides of the House to take a lecture about the Stormont House Agreement, shoddy deals and bad agreements from the man who was David Trimble's lieutenant throughout the Belfast Agreement and its implementation in the years thereafter. I also find it difficult to take lectures from a member of the United Kingdom Independence Party about public spending in Northern Ireland when his party's position is that it wants to see the Barnett formula, which is far from perfect but has served Northern Ireland well over the years, scrapped. Why? Because it wants to send more of our money to England. That is the stated position of the United Kingdom Independence Party on public spending.”
“He accuses us of reckless spending. The insinuation of reckless spending suggests that the Executive are spending more money than they have in the past. Of course, the fact is that we have not breached our Budget in the past. We have never had to hand any money back to Treasury. We have never lost any money. Even with the very grave difficulties that we have had this year and having to have in-year reductions in spending, I believe that we are on course to ensure that we live within our Budget this year as well.”
“It is a Budget that has employment as one of its central pillars, underpinning the economic growth that we are enjoying in Northern Ireland. It has seemingly not come to Mr McNarry's notice that unemployment in Northern Ireland has fallen to 5·7%. The claimant count has been down for 25 months in a row. That is a seemingly inconvenient fact for Mr McNarry, given the pre-written script that he was reading out. <BR /> <BR />The Member asked what the Budget dis for hard-working families. He says that next year's Budget does nothing for them. Next year's Budget maintains household bills in Northern Ireland at the lowest levels in the whole of the United Kingdom. Household bills in Northern are at an average now of £812 per household compared with £1,433 in England, from where he now takes his marching orders.”
“Had he taken any notice or been in the Chamber at any previous debates on the Budget Bill, he would perhaps have appreciated this more: we are not debating next year's Budget; we are debating the Budget of this current year and the Vote on Account for the start of next year. However, next year's Budget is one that backs health and education. It backs health by increasing its allocation by £204 million, an allocation that Mr McNarry voted against. It is a Budget that actually boosts support for the schools budget. There is £80 million more going to the schools budget, compared with the draft Budget position, an allocation that Mr McNarry opposed. He questions what the Budget for next year does for our economy and for unemployment.”
“The point is that the objective that has been agreed across the parties is 20,000 posts through a range of interventions, not just the voluntary exit scheme. Recruitment freezes and suppression of vacancies will obviously play a major part in achieving that aim. <BR /> <BR />I can certainly say with regard to the DARD project on wind energy that the Member would be far better taking that up with DARD than with me. I have no specific answers on that issue. <BR /> <BR />I will turn to Mr McNarry, who, unfortunately, is not here, and his riddle, which often sounded like a very difficult 11-plus question from my past. He kept talking about debating next year's Budget. This has been a problem throughout this stage and previous stages of the Bill.”
“<BR /> <BR />Mr Leslie Cree made far too many points for my pen to keep up with at this late hour. I will review Hansard and come back to him. He asked detailed and specific questions that should never be asked at 11.00 in the evening. He mentioned welfare reform penalties, which I think the First Minister adequately addressed in respect of when that might come back and the pro rata nature of all that. On the voluntary exit scheme, I reiterate to Mr Cree, as I have to others, that the objective is a pay bill reduction. He asked what the split would be between those who would leave under the voluntary exit scheme and how many posts would go as a result of a recruitment freeze and so on. We are yet to develop all that.”
“There was, perhaps, too much laughter there; we should move quickly on. We should be very proud of our record. Many Ministers, including the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, are going around Northern Ireland and selling it as a place in which to invest, which has attracted fantastic firms not just to south and east Belfast but to all parts of Northern Ireland. It is a record that we should be proud of. I wonder what Mr McDonnell — he is in the Chamber, and he has had a tough week — would think of the calls from his party colleague to have no more investment in his constituency. I know that there are others seeking the Westminster seat who, I am sure, would be more than willing to stand up for South Belfast and investment in that constituency.”
“<BR /> <BR />We should not be surprised, I suppose, by the confusion in the SDLP ranks when we have a Member for West Belfast saying to the House that there should not be any more jobs in south and east Belfast. I am very proud of the record of DETI, Invest Northern Ireland and the economy Minister, who is, of course, as Mr McNarry told us, the only Minister doing her job in the Executive.”
“I listened particularly to Mr Attwood's latter comments. The argument from the SDLP or, at least, from that quarter of the SDLP is that because it has some doubts or concerns — without any evidence — about how a lower rate of corporation tax may or may not impact on this or that part of Northern Ireland, the benefits to the whole of Northern Ireland should be denied to all the people of Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />My colleague the economy Minister is right to point out the latest evidence produced by the University of Ulster that suggests growth of over 10% in the economy in just over 10 years. That is not to be sniffed at, nor are 37,500 net new jobs in the whole of the economy. These are benefits and prizes that we should gras[ very quickly, and we should decide on a rate and a date as soon as we can.”
“From the visits that I have made to the area in my job as Finance Minister I know that it is one of the more impressive places in Northern Ireland for the indigenous companies that have grown in that city, many of which will be able to avail themselves of a lower rate of corporation tax. The example of Newry is one that he, perhaps, should sell to his party colleagues who represent other parts of Northern Ireland. What has been done in Newry over the last number of decades as a result of the hard work of entrepreneurs is something that I admire. It is something that, perhaps, those in the north-west in particular would learn a lot from if they followed that example.”
“A lot of work has been done on corporation tax and its effects, and there is no evidence that devolving corporation tax would distort the economy further or affect negatively the regional imbalances that, we accept, exist. A lower rate of corporation tax will, of course, be open to all businesses in Northern Ireland, and it could present a needed shot in the arm to businesses in the north-west, the west, the south-west or wherever they may be. <BR /> <BR />The Member represents a part of Northern Ireland that is not in the greater Belfast area; he represents the Newry area.”
“We anticipate it to be making considerable savings by that time that will ease the burden of the cost. <BR /> <BR />It is something that we have striven hard to secure. Its benefits are almost universally agreed in the House and further afield, with 37,500 net new jobs being the latest estimate and over 10% growth in the economy in Northern Ireland by 2030. It is important that all the parties in the Executive agree a rate and a date and give not just Invest Northern Ireland but those who wish to invest in Northern Ireland the certainty that they need on corporation tax. <BR /> <BR />I also want to pick up on the points made about regional imbalance: absolutely no evidence at all has been presented.”
“The benefit of all that to Northern Ireland is that, because we spend so much of our Budget — some 65% — on health and education, whilst we will still endure spending reductions, they will be much less than perhaps we feared. The fear that we had of having, perhaps, 13% real-terms reductions in public spending in Northern Ireland is very quickly dissipating as each of the two main parties tries to outdo the other in a bidding war in advance of the general election. <BR /> <BR />The third factor that has to be considered in and around public spending concerns and corporation tax has to do with exactly what savings we reap from a voluntary exit scheme. By the time the powers will be devolved and the costs will be coming in, we will be well through our voluntary exit scheme; in fact, we will be into its third year.”
“The first is the fact — this has been confirmed by Treasury — that there will be a stepping-in of the cost to Northern Ireland so that it is much more affordable in early years than perhaps we anticipated. It was a point made by the First Minister at Question Time a week or so ago. <BR /> <BR />I understand the concerns around public spending, but the public spending situation and settlement for future years is not yet known. As I said in the debate yesterday — I think that Mr Bradley was in the House for most it — we watch and listen with interest to Conservative and Labour spokespeople trying to outdo and outbid each other in what they wish to protect, whether it is health or education, in real or cash terms.”
“It is critically important that the language, tone and message coming from the House is one, is united and is clearly in favour of what we seek to do and what we have fought long and hard for in respect of the ability to reduce corporation tax in Northern Ireland and reap the benefits that that will bring. I hope that the SDLP is more faithful on corporation tax than it was on the deal it did on welfare reform. <BR /> <BR />Nobody understands better than me, in my position, that there will be public spending concerns. Those concerns have been raised by many Members in the House. We know that one certainty around corporation tax is that it will come at a cost to our block grant. Several factors are changing that situation on an ongoing basis, and they are worth bearing in mind.”
“He started with the intention of keeping his contribution short, and I think he culled a lot of the stuff that he wanted to say. He talked about corporation tax, which sparked a longer debate than perhaps he or I anticipated this evening, or this morning. I echo the First Minister's comments pleading with the SDLP to be careful with its language around the issue. That is not to say that they should not raise issues — there are proper fora for those issues to be raised in — but they must be careful about the language they use. I reiterate the point that the First Minister made: a lot of what we do from here on — I am sure that the economy Minister will affirm this — is as much a sales job as anything else.”
“There will always be some who will seek to use Budget Bill debates as a platform for issues that have tenuous links to the Bill that is before us, but I welcome all inputs that are made to the debate. <BR /> <BR />I appreciate that Members will not want me to respond to all issues; I have no intention of doing so. I thank the Committee for Finance and Personnel, particularly the Chair, Mr McKay, for its assistance in granting accelerated passage to the Bill through the Assembly. The support of the Committee will enable the Bill to receive Royal Assent, House permitting, by 31 March and allow a smooth continuation of public services into the new financial year. <BR /> <BR />I will turn to some of the issues raised by Members. Dominic Bradley spoke at length about corporation tax.”
“I welcome so many Members to the House for the debate. I suspect that it is not in anticipation of my contribution but because of the fact that, at 12.15 am in Parliament Buildings, there is little better to do than coming into the Chamber and listening to whomever is speaking, although the last contribution probably rendered that useless. <BR /> <BR />I thank most of the Members who took time to contribute to the Final Stage debate of the Budget Bill today — this morning. Members, in their own inimitable style in many cases, sought to add to the debate that we have been having over the last number of weeks. I welcome those who brought up relevant issues — I stress the word "relevant" — during today's proceedings.”
“Of course, innovation should not happen just in the private sector. I am determined that the public sector becomes more innovative and that we find better and smarter ways to do things. Not only is that desirable but it is an imperative in the context of an increasingly constrained public expenditure environment. I will continue to do all that I can to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland have access to the best public services that are delivered in the most effective and efficient manner possible. <BR /> <BR />To conclude, this is the Final Stage of our financial legislative process this year, and the legislation has already been subject to much debate. However, I look forward to hearing any final thoughts from Members on this important legislation.”
“With our economic recovery still fragile, including in our private sector, it is more important than ever that we focus our attention on putting in place the conditions that will allow our economy to flourish. I believe that the devolution of corporation tax is an important part of that economic strategy. However, make no mistake: it is not a silver bullet. We need to continue to invest in our children and young people, in securing our skills pipeline, in making our firms more innovative and in ensuring that we have a first-class infrastructure. Only then can we take full advantage of the strategic advantage that a lower rate of corporation tax affords Northern Ireland.”
“<BR /> <BR />We also agreed the Stormont House Agreement. This not only provided a significant financial package to fund public sector voluntary exit schemes and investment in shared education facilities but paved the way for the devolution of corporation tax powers.”
“As this financial year draws to a close, now is an opportune time to reflect briefly on what was perhaps the most challenging financial environment facing the Executive and the Assembly since devolution was restored in 2007. During the year, we had to sanction in-year resource spending reductions to manage the overall block position. This requirement for departmental reductions was largely due to the delay in agreeing a way forward on welfare reform. It is therefore encouraging that the Executive have now reached agreement on this issue and that the welfare reform legislation is now finally passing through the Assembly. Only last month, the Executive and the Assembly also agreed the Budget for 2015-16. Again, this was achieved against the backdrop of a highly challenging public expenditure environment next year.”
“I think that that is from all sides of the House. <BR /> <BR />Today's Final Stage Budget Bill debate draws to a close the financial legislative process for the 2014-15 year. The Bill before us has been the subject of much debate over recent weeks, a debate that has at times strayed much wider than the Budget Bill itself. Nevertheless, the debate has been informative, and I welcome the opportunity that Members have had to have their say on this important legislation. I hope that it is now completely clear to everyone that this Budget Bill covers the 2014-15 financial year but also provides legal authority for the Departments to spend in the first few months of 2015-16. In addition, it gives legal authority to the Department of Justice to incur spend on a new judiciary pension scheme in 2015-16.”
“Mr Speaker, I am being encouraged to stop there.”
“On further fiscal powers, I think we have shown a willingness to devolve those where they pass the test of being affordable and having a social and/or economic benefit, and we will continue to pursue an examination of all those through the work flowing from the economic pact that was agreed last year. <BR /> <BR />I support my party's amendment — surprise, surprise — and oppose the Alliance Party's amendment, which would see substantial increases in household taxes for people in Northern Ireland.”
“<BR /> <BR />In conclusion, I am always content to consider local revenue raising. I have talked about prescription charges. I am also open to looking at a modest increase in tuition fees. We have had modest increases in the regional rate, although pegged to inflation, over the last number of years. We need to bear in mind the principle that someone always has to pay. I have said that I will review the non-domestic rate system, but that will produce different sets of winners and losers depending on the changes that are made. I think that the Budget review group (BRG) is the platform to take forward further discussion, but, given that no serious proposals worth considering have been made today, it is difficult to support the substantial motion that is before us.”
“However, we could do even better, and that is why we, as a party, have supported the devolution of corporation tax powers. The latest research shows that it would create 37,500 net new jobs and that our economy would be 10% larger within 10 years. However, I am mindful at all times of our immature tax base and that our economy is not as strong as Scotland's. Many will look to Scotland and say that, if Scotland is getting it, so should we, but we are not Scotland in economic terms. There is a legacy of the Troubles, as highlighted by Mr Cree, and we have a fiscal deficit of £9·6 billion. Whilst some question the methodology, there is a fiscal deficit and we have to deal with that reality. There is also the issue of volatility in the tax take and sometimes dubious or no benefit in devolving some of those taxes.”
“<BR /> <BR />The SDLP record on revenue-raising proposals is chequered; it famously proposed that we sell an airport that we did not own. At that time, it also proposed that we tax ATMs. The reverse is worth considering. Since introducing a relief on rural ATMs a number of years ago, the number of rural ATMs in Northern Ireland has more than doubled, so having a rate relief has assisted rural communities in particular. <BR /> <BR />I think that we all agree that we want to boost, grow and improve our economy. Northern Ireland is doing better. Unemployment has fallen for 25 months in a row. Property prices have stabilised and are starting to grow. We have record levels of foreign direct investment, and we have economic growth of around 2%.”
“No, I am running out of time. I have made it pretty clear that I will not. <BR /> <BR />The rates cap was mentioned by Sinn Féin, and the point made by Mr Bradley was right in that, while eliminating it may be superficially attractive, that would not deal with those who are asset-rich but income-poor. I have made it clear in the House before to Members from Sinn Féin that we cannot do what they are asking us to do in terms of borrowing from the European Investment Bank (EIB) to invest in infrastructure such as roads, hospitals or schools. That is why I have come up with the novel proposal of an investment fund, which will be at least £1 billion, to leverage in finance from EIB and, hopefully, grow by leveraging in finance from elsewhere.”
“No, I will not. I have limited time. Very few actual proposals were made in the debate. Whether they were progressive or otherwise about revenue raising, at least the Alliance is honest about being a high-tax party. In many respects, whilst a lot of the proposals that were put forward would raise revenue, they were messing about around the edges; no substantial economic change would come from them and no substantial revenue —”
“That is code for the decision by the Executive not to allow the Minister for Employment and Learning to proceed with taking away the premia from St Mary's University College and Stranmillis University College, which is something that the Alliance Party was resoundingly defeated on in this House.”
“I have said in the House, and I welcome the opportunity to say it again, that I am proud of the fact that we have maintained local household bills in Northern Ireland at the lowest levels in the UK. <BR /> <BR />I also agree that we need to reform our public sector. I am glad that public-sector reform is now at the top of our agenda. With workforce restructuring, the OECD review and a digitisation in the e-government agenda, which my Department is progressing, I am very pleased that public-sector reform is now something that everybody is talking about. <BR /> <BR />The Alliance amendment, though, talks of there not being a consistent approach to public-service reform.”
“I agree with that. It begs this question: why does the Alliance Party continue to call for the introduction of water charges and a huge hike in our rates bill? I think that it was Mr Girvan and Mr McQuillan who made the point that, to get a significant volume of cash coming from the rate system — a 1% increase raises around £5 million, which is not an insignificant amount of money, but, in the grand scheme of the Budget, it is not going to shift the needle significantly — we would need a significant hike over years, which is something that our Ministers have argued for in various meetings, as, indeed, they have argued for an end to concessionary fares.”
“Whilst lambasting the Minister, as he does, for a range of different things, it was significant that Mr McKinney said that he was willing at least to have a debate about prescription charges moving forward. The proposals put forward by the Minister last week of a small but universal charge is something that I am very open to, and I have said that before in this House. <BR /> <BR />I will turn now to the Alliance Party's amendment. I have said to Mrs Cochrane before that I agree with her point that we should not be raising revenue to plough into an inefficient system. We are in good company on that. The current Chancellor, Mr Osborne, said before Christmas:”
“There will be a range of reasons, such as impracticality, illegality, lack of political support, lack of political will, the wrong thing at the wrong time or just outright broad opposition. We can have these sorts of discussions, but product coming out of them is thin and few and far between. <BR /> <BR />I think that it is not wrong to have a debate, perhaps it was a debate that we had in advance of the Budget, but given that we are facing a three or four-year Budget due to the comprehensive spending review, it is not an inopportune time to continue to have the discussion. Given that Mr McKay, in his opening remarks, mentioned particularly the pressures on the health service, I think that it is an opportune time to have the discussion, irrespective of what is decided, around prescription charges.”
“I recall Members and, particularly, Mr Bradley talking on several occasions to me and my predecessor in debates about discussions that were being had by the Executive through the Budget review group about other additional revenue-raising streams. Those powers or revenue-raising measures were considered in great detail by the Budget review group as far back as 2011 when it started its work, and it looked at proposals made by the likes of Sinn Féin around a tax on mobile phone masts, the sale of the government art collection and a wide range of weird and wonderful propositions that were put forward. It is significant that very few, if any, of those proposals actually saw the light of day, which shows the problem.”
“There is no such thing as easy money to be got through local revenue-raising or tax-varying powers. I and my party have shown that we are not against additional tax-varying powers. We have successfully supported securing the power to devolve and reduce corporation tax here in Northern Ireland. In the past, we have secured the power to reduce and, ultimately, eliminate long-haul air passenger duty to secure our only direct route into North America. <BR /> <BR />Looking at local revenue raising is not a new thing. This is not the first time that we have had this discussion. It is not the first time that it has been called for or asked for.”
“I always ask Members to bear in mind that the underlying principle of revenue raising or tax varying is that someone, ultimately, has to pay.”
“That would mean that, running from the first year of the comprehensive spending review, 2016-17, towards the end of the decade, resource expenditure in Northern Ireland will still go down, but the reduction could be around 1% in the first year, falling to as low as 0·1% in the final year. Obviously, that is contingent on who wins, what they do and what deals are done as a result of the election, but it is perhaps a very good argument to the people of Northern Ireland to ensure that there is a strong and united team representing them at Westminster after the next general election in some weeks' time. <BR /> <BR />In this debate, a lot of discussion is about tax-varying powers and local revenue raising.”
“Both are making promises about protecting or increasing — certainly, protecting — health expenditure either in cash or real terms and education expenditure either in cash or real terms. Both of them are trading this off almost daily, and certainly, a number of weeks ago, it was very much daily. Since health and education make up 65% of our spending, and there are comparability issues with the Barnett formula, that is good news for Northern Ireland. It does not mean that we will be immune to reductions in public expenditure; there will be reductions in public expenditure. <BR /> <BR />Who knows what might happen after the election, but the most benign scenario is that you could have cash-terms protection for health and education.”
“That is a conventional capital position. That is increasing, and Northern Ireland will benefit from that increase over the next number of years. That is one of the reasons why, given the need to do workforce restructuring and using our borrowing powers, which, of course, have been enhanced and increased by virtue of the Storm House Agreement, to assist us, we will see our capital position continue to rise over the next number of years towards the end of the decade, irrespective of what we do by using reinvestment and reform initiative (FRI) borrowing to pay for workforce restructuring. <BR /> <BR />One of the things that interests me greatly at this time is the pre-election pledges arms race between the Conservative Party and the Labour Party about what they would do with various areas of public expenditure.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Office for Budget Responsibility, which was set up by the current Government, is projecting that, by 2019-20, at a UK level, not a Northern Ireland level, for which the granular detail is not available, resource expenditure will be down by £20 million — sorry, £20 billion — across the UK. I am sure that the Government would settle for £20 million. Capital expenditure, interestingly, will be up by some £8 billion over that period, so there is a noticeable and deliberate switch between current resource expenditure and capital expenditure.”
“As some Members, including the proposer of the motion, mentioned, the future does not look particularly rosy or bright for public spending. We can go over why that is the case. I think that a lot of us, including the current Government and the current Chancellor, perhaps believed that the economy would have recovered sufficiently and that tax yields would have risen over the first years of the Parliament so that we would now be in a position where all the objectives of paying off debt would have been made and the deficit would have been reduced or diminished completely and that the proceeds of growth could be applied to public spending. That clearly is not the case, and austerity and cutbacks to public spending will be there for the next number of years.”
“That is why, over the last number of months, I have been reiterating the point that our spending power as an Executive has been down by over £1 billion even though the actual amount of cash available to us has risen modestly over that period. If we cast our minds back to 2010, we will recall that my predecessor, when he was in office, was more concerned about the impact, certainly in the early years, of the cuts on the capital budget. Our capital budget went down by 6% in cash terms and by 15·4% in real terms, so there have been significant reductions in our ability to spend on infrastructure since 2010.”
“They mirror those that have had to be made in the Irish Republic for similar, but different, reasons, and, indeed, they reflect those made right across Europe and the Western World. It is worth reminding ourselves of the extent of the impact that there has been on our block grant since 2010. The impact on non-ring-fenced departmental expenditure limits (DEL), which is the day-to-day resource expenditure that pays for the running of hospitals and schools and so on and so forth, has meant that it has been down 8·1% since the beginning of the current Parliament in real terms. It is up in cash terms by 1·2%, so we have more money in cash terms but less spending power.”
“I thank the Members who tabled the motion. I also thank the various parties and Members that tabled amendments, and I thank them for their contributions. I do so because I think that it has been a useful, if not very enlightening, debate. I will return to that point later. It has been a useful debate if for no other reason than that it allows me the opportunity to remind the House of the difficulties that the Assembly and our Executive have faced in dealing with public-spending reductions over the last number of years. Some Members made very useful contributions about why that has been the case, including the Member who spoke previously. <BR /> <BR />The policy of austerity, or the Tory cuts — whatever one wants to call them — have been introduced by the current Conservative and Liberal Democrat Government in London.”
“I welcome the support of the Chair of the Committee and the explanation of the process that the Committee went through. I do not hesitate, therefore, to commend the motion to the House.”
“<BR /> <BR />In conclusion, these are very technical modifications to wider pensions legislation that will seek to ensure that alpha scheme members can get the pensions that they expect without any unexpected effects as a result of tensions with the wider law. Therefore, I commend these modifications to the House.”