Adrian McQuillan
East Londonderry · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“I thank the Minister for her answer. I am sure that you agree, Minister, that stalking is one of the worst types of harassment and that the sooner we bring forward legislation to stamp it out and get the people who are carrying it out before the courts the better.”
“The Executive are also committed to the Co-ownership scheme, which supports people buying a home, and the Minister has secured an additional £100 million for it. <BR /> <BR />Another block to providing new and affordable homes is down to the availability of land.”
“I oppose the motion and the amendment. The housing sales scheme has been part of the fabric of housing policy for nearly 40 years. Its purpose is twofold: first, it has been utilised as a means of generating income to build more social housing, through the price paid for the house and the savings made from the house maintenance budget; an…”
“Suspending or scrapping the scheme would, therefore, not provide additional homes for the social housing sector. Everyone is aware of the pressure on the social rented sector, given the number of people in statutory housing stress.”
“All government policy is subject to regular review, and the housing sales scheme is no different. <BR /> <BR />The Programme for Government sets out the aim to provide an additional 9,600 new homes by the end of the mandate. That is an ambitious but achievable target.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I certainly agree with my colleague from North Belfast, who has made a very good point. When people were not able to buy their housing association house, there was uproar. <BR /> <BR />I support the house sales scheme and the right of long-term social housing tenants to buy their home.”
The complete record
Every one of 122 lines we hold for Adrian McQuillan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 3.
“I would like to address the report published this year by the Committee on pupil attendance, but, first of all, I place on record my thanks to the Clerk and the staff for all the help and support they have given us during these reports. <BR /> <BR />When the Committee looks at value for money in the public sector, it does so in a rounded way and does not just focus on the pounds, shillings and pence spent. On the contrary, we also look at the service delivery and the extent to which our citizens get best value from the public services available to them. One of the most interesting evidence sessions last year examined the issue of pupil attendance in our school system.”
“I welcome the statement by the Finance Minister. Minister, what sort of schemes do you envisage will be supported through the £30 million change fund?”
“I also thank the Minister for his statement. I certainly welcome it. How do the Executive plan to repay this loan over the next year, given the pressures that you have just enlightened us about?”
“I thank the Minister for her answer. Does she agree it is important that smaller towns as well as larger towns feel the benefit of the legacy?”
“Thank you, Minister, for giving way. Do you not agree that the Causeway Coast and Glens council is doing that? It is being prudent by asking for this audit and being careful.”
“I thank the Member for that, but I am not sure what projects received the go-ahead on that night. I am talking about the three main projects, the three that will take up the most spending. We also have to be mindful of areas such as Moyle, which has no sport and leisure facilities at all. They will be looking for help to build something there. I also know that Loughgiel GAA is looking to the Causeway council to help it to develop its ground. <BR /> <BR />As I said, the total capital spend for the Causeway council is £8·8 million. If it spends £7·2 million on the Dungiven project, the rest of the region will lose out. There is no doubt in my mind or the mind of anybody else who has visited the site that Dungiven needs some sort of facility, but it is about getting agreement on the facility that is required.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. I do not know of any at all, so it is very odd that it is just Dungiven that has taken this stand. <BR /> <BR />The proposed scheme at Dungiven has not been refused; it is on hold pending completion of the sport and leisure facilities and services strategy development work for the new council area. The same type of work on leisure and sports projects in the Ballymoney and Coleraine areas is similarly on hold. It is not about Catholics and Protestants; it is about all the sporting facilities. There is nothing sectarian about it at all.”
“The review would also examine population densities and travel times. <BR /> <BR />It should be noted that, when the decision to postpone making a commitment to the Dungiven scheme was taken, extension and improvement projects at the Joey Dunlop Leisure Centre were also postponed to allow the council to take a fully informed decision from objective and relevant information. This is good governance and a responsible attitude to ratepayers' money. It also caused some pain in our party grouping, as representatives from Ballymoney were keen to see the Joey Dunlop centre plan taken forward.”
“Portstewart has a similar-sized population but has no council sporting leisure facilities, and we are not seeking to spend a similar sum on provision there. <BR /> <BR />Sinn Féin led calls for a special emergency meeting of Limavady Borough Council to discuss the situation — the meeting was held on 5 August — and of the Causeway council on 7 August. Ms Hickey endorsed the notice, giving Sinn Féin the eight names that it required to get the meeting called. It was agreed that decisions on all major capital projects not yet in contract should be deferred until October, giving the council officers time to put together a full appraisal of the current sport and leisure provision in the new council area and the impact of proposed projects on existing and other planned provision.”
“It was decided that decisions on all capital projects should be suspended for one month to enable officers to have more time to present more complete information on existing leisure provision in the area, other pipeline projects of significance to the new council area, population densities, travel times, demand and the impact that such schemes would have on rates etc. It was implied that a significant DCAL grant would be lost if the decision to proceed to the £250,000 design stage was not taken there and then. Our party felt that there was not enough information available to make an informed decision and that, on the face of it, spending £7 million to serve a population of 7,800 in Dungiven and district was disproportionate. There are modern leisure facilities in Limavady, Londonderry and Maghera, each 12 miles or less from Dungiven.”
“It also recommended that the site at Ballyquin Road/Main Street could be enhanced with the inclusion of the ground that has the PSNI station on it presently. <BR /> <BR />We move forward to this year and to the Causeway Coast and Glens District Council. A capital workshop held in Flowerfield on 16 July recommended that the new council would have a capital spend programme of £8·8 million. The £7·1 million version of the Dungiven scheme came before the new shadow council on 24 July — it has not been costed, but it is still £7·1 million; I do not know where that came from — at its second meeting, along with other capital schemes from across the legacy councils.”
“It claimed that a consultation meeting was attended by 160 people representing 21 sports clubs and 23 community groups. Local sports clubs have a membership of 3,200, so it was not that well attended if you take that into consideration. Seven options were outlined, ranging in capital outlay from £1·95 million to £7·22 million. It said that a full economic appraisal was required to further test the options and identify the preferred solution. It went on to suggest observations in its conclusions. Those include the assessment of need — demand clearly demonstrates the need — for indoor sports and community facilities and outdoor sports facilities. That points to options that deliver indoor and outdoor facilities on one or separate sites.”
“It should not matter whether it is Catholic or Protestant; it is a sporting facility that we are talking about here. John Dallat is the guy who brought it into the conversation. <BR /> <BR />A feasibility study was conducted by Otium Leisure Consultancy on behalf of Limavady Borough Council in 2012. Proposals therein included three main elements: the refurbishment or development of Dungiven Sports Pavilion; the relocation of an indoor community sports facility to an alternative site; and the need for and development of an outdoor sports facility. The report was intended not to identify a preferred option for development but to put forward a range of solutions. Its basis included a consultation with the local sports club and community groups.”
“I thank the Member for bringing the debate. I will give you a wee bit of background to the debate, but, before I start, I have to say that it tells you something about the debate today when we have Gregory Campbell calling for consensus and Mr Dallat and Mr Ó hOisín using the S-word. There is something powerfully wrong about that.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Does he think that the audit that the Causeway Coast and Glens District Council — I will say it as well, John; I have no problem with it — is carrying out is a good thing or a bad thing?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. How did DCAL decide to give £2·2 million to a project that has not been costed?”
“Thank you, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. What about the police officers who are investigating historical crimes? Is there any chance that they will be taken off those and put to front line services to make up for those we will lose from the front line?”
“<BR /> <BR />I am keen to see the current impasse orchestrated by Sinn Féin in its failure to offer leadership or to govern resolved. The impasse can be resolved when Sinn Féin and the SDLP decide whether or not to self-impose an £87 million cut to the Budget. It is therefore not a failure of the Budget or the process but a problem that lies solely at the door of Sinn Féin and the SDLP.”
“<BR /> <BR />Furthermore, we now have a situation where, after last Thursday, Sinn Féin is calling for more powers to be devolved from Westminster to this House. How can we see more powers devolved to the Assembly when it is clear that Sinn Féin is unwilling to take responsibility for the powers that it currently refuses to acknowledge exist? While I am concerned about the changes that welfare reforms will bring — my party has made that clear — we have seen the Minister for Social Development, Nelson McCausland, make efforts to reduce the burden on the vulnerable with mechanisms brought in to protect them, two of which are the retention of benefits being paid fortnightly rather than monthly and the retention of the mechanism to pay housing benefit to landlords directly, hence protecting the vulnerable and the disadvantaged.”
“The grandstanding of Sinn Féin and the SDLP on the issue is somewhat ironic, given that they are content to impose cuts on other Departments due to their failure to accept the reforms for what they are and ease the financial pressure on other key services, such as health and social care — something that effects everyone, especially the vulnerable — roads, unemployment schemes to help people on welfare get back into work and, to top it off, the efforts of the Executive as reflected in the 2011-15 Budget and the Programme for Government to get our economy moving. You cannot have your cake and eat it. The resources that we once had are simply not available, due to the international economic downturn.”
“It is also important to point out that the current Budget, in its final year, has been placed under enormous stress due to the willingness of Sinn Féin and the SDLP to send money back to Westminster for penalties imposed due to the failure to agree welfare reform legislation. Those reforms would bring us into line with the rest of the UK.”
“I rise in opposition to the motion. Members will be well aware that we are nearing the end of the budgetary period. The current Budget was presented to the House in 2010 and runs until the end of the next calendar year. Therefore, I pose this question: why set and agree another Budget when a new Budget for the period of 2015 and beyond is effectively in the making? It therefore seems a nonsense that we are discussing the very outcome that the motion is calling for, which is a new Budget, when we have a major decision to make regarding the October monitoring round and a new Budget for the specified budgetary period in any case. <BR /> <BR />The motion states that the current Budget is not fit for purpose.”