Basil McCrea
Lagan Valley · Ulster Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“I carried on that work on the all-party group on science and technology, and, when I am gone from this place, I hope that those who are still here will take up the challenge of science and technology, because that is where the jobs are and that is where the future is.”
“I rise for the last time to address the Assembly. I thank the people of Lagan Valley for the privilege of representing them over the past nine years. It seems like only yesterday that I first got here, awestruck by the names on the doors of people that I had seen only on television, and, yet, here we are.”
“— what matters is to have the courage to go on. I will go on. I will leave this place with my head high, with my colours flying, with my dignity intact and with all conviction about what is good for Northern Ireland. In conclusion, two roads diverged in the woods, and I took the road less travelled. That has made all the difference.”
“Despite the heckling from the man in front of me, I shall ask a question of the Minister in two parts. First, would the Minister care to tell us what was his personal favourite of the many events at the Northern Ireland Science Festival?”
“I am grateful to the Member for the explanation, and I have no doubt that her efforts to draft the amendment were well-intentioned. Maybe she can help me on this, if it has come up in the discussions.”
“Actually, when I read it, I understood it to be the other way round. However, I am happy that it is a more general stance and is not limited to single acts. <BR /> <BR />As regards amendment No 2, I approached the concept in a sympathetic manner, but I am not convinced that we can properly define an imbalance of power.”
The complete record
Every one of 747 lines we hold for Basil McCrea, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 15.
“I am grateful to the Member for providing clarification. As I said, I did not have the chance to pick it all up. I note that the amendment runs to quite a considerable number of items, three pages of detail, and that that is but one element of it. I am sure that he would join with me in saying that, whatever information can be given to victims, at whatever stage, is a bonus for them. <BR /> <BR />Some have said that the rights of the victim should take primacy and that they should not in any way be equated with the rights of the perpetrator, which should be secondary. To be honest, I am not sure if that is not being a little generous. The issue with our criminal justice system is that victims of crime need to be absolutely front and centre. That is what a criminal justice system is for.”
“The odd word to the wise about what is going on is deeply comforting. The problem, of course, for any criminal investigation is that if you are giving out information and trying to keep people informed, good and all as that is for the victim, you run the risk of compromising the investigation. Whilst I am supportive of agencies working together and getting support to victims, I would like to look a little bit further at the next stage at what exactly that amendment seeks to do.”
“If I have, obviously the Minister or the proposer will get the chance to clarify it. It seemed to me on reading the amendment that there was specified information that bodies were allowed to give to other people, such as the name, address and contact telephone number, so that they could be provided with services. I am not sure whether it goes quite as far as Mr Givan was suggesting, whereby you would get more information during the process. If that is what is required, maybe that, too, will need to be looked at at Further Consideration Stage. <BR /> <BR />Certainly, I think that the most frustrating issue for any victim of crime is that it seems to take a long time for anything to be resolved. You sit waiting for information, hoping that somebody is doing something, and you are not sure whether anything is actually happening at all.”
“Nevertheless, it is a pretty good framework for something to be done on, and I commend her for it in general terms about how we make sure that those who are under pressure actually get support when it is needed. I will put it on record that I am a little bit disappointed that we cannot get into the nitty-gritty and talk about it now, but since we are going to look at it again and come back, that will be the time to really look at it. Congratulations on that; I hope that it will see some positive outworkings at Further Consideration Stage. <BR /> <BR />I will move on to information. I listened to Mr Givan talk about amendment No 68 on sharing information. The reason why I was not in my place, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, was that I was checking whether I had misunderstood what was in the amendment.”
“In fact, domestic violence is one of the few areas where you can actually prosecute without having the witness. I got some more experience. I know that this is not to everybody's liking, but I did manage to take a case through to the European Court of Human Rights on behalf of a lady who had suffered domestic violence. It was quite an education on how positive it was for her to deal with those issues. <BR /> <BR />What is really interesting for me is the fact that Mrs Kelly has brought forward a fairly comprehensive range of amendments. I accept, because she has accepted, that it may be that we need to look at the drafting of those matters.”
“For five years, I was the chair of the Policing Board's human rights committee. One of the best things that I ever got involved with — it is a funny thing to call "best" — was working with Women's Aid. We had a great seminar. Earlier, I heard Seán Lynch talk about the fact that the police occasionally need a bit of training for when they come across issues of domestic violence. That was one of the things that we were able to engage with and explain to people: that it was not just "a domestic", but a serious issue. I will not rehash the statistics. We all know them. It usually takes a considerable number of events to happen before the woman — and it is usually a woman — will come forward and make a complaint. <BR /> <BR />We looked at all sorts of issues about how to ensure that somebody, having made a complaint, follows it through.”
“I am sorry for interrupting all the time, but you bring up some interesting points. This has just occurred to me: is there any notification? If a person has requested information about person x, does person x get to know that someone has made that request?”
“I am grateful to the Member for giving way. He might help me. He mentioned PPANI. Given that he quoted the figure of 1,200 cases going through the courts, does he have any information on the different categories: 1, 2 and 3? It would be useful to put in perspective the quantum of people whom we are trying to manage. If he has that information to hand, it would be really good to hear it.”
“I just wonder about the thinking behind the inclusion of the word "consideration", if the Member would be so kind as to elucidate.”
“I am grateful to the Member for giving way, and I commend him for bringing the amendment. I just wonder whether he can provide a little bit of clarity. I will read it out here:”
“That is all very well, Minister, but it does not really address the issue. The performing arts associations have issued a statement; I am sure that you are aware of it because Dan Gordon has been quite vociferous. Bangor is too far away for many people, and it does not offer the specialist courses that the industry needs. People would like to know what you are going to do about it.”
“What is the problem with defending the right to life, the right to a private life, the right to free assembly, the right to a fair trial or the right to legal representation? What difference is a British judge going to make to a European judge? Let me conclude by saying that this is not Europe imposing its views on us. This is Britain imposing its values and principles on Europe. It was borne out of the atrocities of the Holocaust; it was borne out of states that do not have our 300 years; it is something that we gave to Europe and the world, and we should support it.”
“It is when you get down to the nitty-gritty and understand the whole issue of human rights that you get sensible decisions. I really do believe in a separation between the judiciary and the legislators. I think that it is right that you should legislate, but the reason why I oppose mandatory sentences in almost every case that comes through here is that, when you look at individual cases, you see that there is always something else to be taken into consideration. We should support the judiciary. The judiciary should be independent. The judiciary should not be beholden to legislators in the way that Mr Givan thinks that it should be. I have to say that this place will be a much worse place if we get political interference in the courts. <BR /> <BR />We talk here about whether human rights affect us. They affect all of us.”
“What the court does say though, for example, is that a blanket voting ban on every single prisoner is not consistent with the convention by which Britain is legally bound. Interestingly, that is a view that a parliamentary Joint Committee emphatically endorsed last week when it said:”
“No, I will not let you come in because you would not let me in. If you cannot have a debate, do not try to interject. This is a democracy, and I will have my say.”
“Of course it is different if you are in there for 30 years. In the democratic mandate that he wants to fight it —”
“Look at the number of cases that actually come before the Court of Human Rights. Of the 2,082 complaints against the United Kingdom last year, the court rejected 2,047. It found no violation in 23 and upheld just 12, which is 0·6%. <BR /> <BR />Mr Givan made what I thought was a most appalling speech. Heaven help us if we ever live in a country where Mr Givan has the say-so about what happens. I actually think that there is no better testimony for why we need a Human Rights Act than what Mr Givan said. Let me deal with the issue that he brought up about prisoners not being allowed to vote. The court did not say that every prisoner should or should not be allowed to vote. What it talked about was proportionality. If you are in prison for only six months, should you be allowed to vote or not?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the efforts that you have made to let me speak. I will say at the outset that I spent five years as chair of the Policing Board's human rights and professional standards committee. During that time, I got to look at a number of really interesting issues from a human rights perspective, guided by one Keir Starmer. There were interesting debates, including on the introduction of the taser, which not everybody agreed with, and changes to stop-and-search powers, which not everybody agreed with. I got to understand how the human rights legislation framework works, which is why I am a big advocate for it. <BR /> <BR />When I listened to the speeches today, one of the issues that disturbed me a little is that human rights terminology has got itself a really bad name, much of it not justified.”
“Will the Minister advise us of what she thinks about the emergency exit plan for Casement Park?”
“So, to those of you who will negotiate long and hard in the next couple of weeks, I wish you well. Remember, the fate of Northern Ireland depends on it.”
“No contrary argument has come back in time to convince me to do otherwise. I realise that, by the nature of the debate, there is probably some other process in play. As we get to this stage of the night, the steam has gone out of the argument. All that that tells me as a politician is that there is a deal already agreed with somebody about something that is going to go in a different way. That is the only thing that I can assume. Otherwise, I would see a lot more energy in this place. We do not want this place to fail. We do not want it to stop, because the last time that happened, it took years — in fact, decades — to get it back again.”
“<BR /> <BR />I will bring my remarks to a close by saying to people here that we really need to be careful that, when we argue from party political positions, try to make a few points and try to score some points on our opposition, we do not destroy that which is most important to us. It is a really good thing that we have a devolved Government here. It is right that the people of Northern Ireland should decide the fate of the people of Northern Ireland. We should take all these powers in our hands, and we should try to do it properly. If we look incompetent, incoherent and incapable, nobody will give us anything. <BR /> <BR />When it comes to the end of the debate, I will stick to my original decision, because the argument was made at that time that this is what we have to do.”
“It is not possible to take decisions like that unless you have all-party support. We all know that it is far too easy for people to stand up and pick holes, grandstand and take advantage of people when they take tough decisions. Everybody says, "Take a tough decision": the minute you take a tough decision, you get your head in your hands. You cannot work like this. This is what is so disappointing about the Welfare Reform Bill. There must be proper discussions, negotiations and some form of agreed position. You have to do something. Either you renegotiate with Westminster or you accept what you have got or whatever, but you have to do it together.”
“The only thing that was more shocking than that was when our new Minister of Finance and Personnel said last week, "I never thought that I would say this, but you made a good speech". I have gone off and checked with whomever, and I need to rewrite things. <BR /> <BR />Here is the issue; here is the nub of the problem: in health, which is what I talked to the First Minister about, demand is growing at 6% per annum. That is a good thing, and it is because our people are living longer and we can do more for them. But our income goes up by 1%, and it is not possible politically to go and close hospitals or other buildings. I heard the Minister of Health say that we should not be wedded to buildings, which I take as code for saying that we will have to make some decisions.”
“I have a lot of time for the points that Mr Allister makes. I do not always agree with them, of course, but he makes good points. However, he stretches credibility to believe that the processes are working. I do not see the processes working here. It may just be that Mr Allister is more generous than I am, or maybe he is in a different place, but I think that we need to do much, much better. <BR /> <BR />When I last spoke on this matter — it was a late hour, around 11.30 pm — the First Minister told me that I had made a really good point.”
“What I see and hear in the country is people wishing that we would get our act together and do something. I give way to Mr Allister.”
“Our fundamental problem now with welfare reform is that there are arguments that could be made, but, at the moment, we look like a laughing stock. It looks like we are incapable of making any decision. It is not just the Government of the United Kingdom who think that we are a laughing stock. The people of Northern Ireland are saying, "Whatever you like. It does not matter whether the Assembly stays up or goes down, whether there is direct rule or not or whether we turn up tomorrow or not". Nobody gives two hoots about what we do because we are ineffective at doing anything. I will take issue with Mr Allister. In fact, if I had long enough, I could probably take issue with everybody, but he tried to say to me that he thought that this place was doing quite well with legislation and some oversight issues. I am sorry, but I do not see it.”
“I will be guided by you, Mr Speaker, but the point that I am trying to establish is that the reason why we have to implement welfare reform is that we simply cannot afford to do anything else. It is not because people take an ideological position; it is a fiscal reality. People need to take cognisance of that point of view. <BR /> <BR />If parties here wish to go to the Government and explain that Northern Ireland requires special dispensation or special measures to mitigate the worst outcomes of welfare reform because we are still a society in transition from a troubled past, that is an acceptable way to go. That argument should be made, but you will not be able to do so if you do not go collectively.”
“In 2010-11, there was a deficit of £196 billion; the next year, it was reduced to £185 billion; the year after that, it was £178 billion; and now we are down to £148 billion. However, the point, Mr Beggs, is that we are still in deficit. We still spend more than we raise in taxation. Unless you change that —”
“Look at what has happened in Greece — I heard Gregory Campbell talk about it — if you tell people that you are taking their pension off them or reducing it drastically and the reply is that they did not borrow all the money, I can understand why there are problems.”
“Our problem is that we simply do not have enough money to pay the bills that we have. If you put the sums of money that are being reduced into perspective, the benefits budget in the whole of the UK last year fell from £215 billion to £213 billion. There was a saving of £2 billion, so that gives you a sense of scale. The left tried to advance the bigger issue, which is that it is unfair that the huge deficit was caused not by the people but by the banking crisis and why should the people have to pay that burden. You could make that argument properly and discuss it with people. It is amazing that, given the amount of contraction that we have seen in social welfare, we have not had more riots throughout Europe.”
“Let me give you some facts that I picked up, and I am happy to be corrected on them. Against our subvention of £10 billion a year, the deficit in UK terms in 2013-14 was £148 billion. That is the difference between what we raise in tax and what we spend. The Chancellor talks about bringing down the deficit, but he is not bringing down the debt. The debt is increasing and will peak in 2015-16 at 80% of our GDP. In fact, if you were to take in the pension liabilities, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies thinks we should, it could be at 240%. <BR /> <BR />I know that the economists amongst us will argue about whether it really matters, given that interest rates are so low, and we can borrow effectively anyway and just carry on. The problem is that it makes us vulnerable to what foreign investors think of the UK, not of Northern Ireland.”
“I will point out to them that mandates are all very well, but, if you do not have any money, you have to talk to people in a particular way. The issue is that, if Northern Ireland was self-financing, we could do what we liked and spend our money in whatever way we wanted, but, as we do not have money and we get a subvention of £10 billion out of £20 billion that we spend, you have to talk to people in the correct way. <BR /> <BR />When we talk about £20 billion or £10 billion, people quite often do not really have any idea whether that is a lot of money. They ask, "Does £10 billion here and there count?". Let me give you some reasons why, in my opinion, it is not the case that the Tory Government have suddenly ganged up and said, "Let us see if we can really annoy the Scots, the Northern Irish and the Welsh".”
“Shame on you, SDLP. How dare you oppose the welfare Bill. Yet we now seem to have petitions of concern. I really do not understand how, over one weekend, it changed from anybody who dares say anything against the Bill is somehow disloyal to democracy and to the people of Northern Ireland to "We need to oppose this". I am sorry, but, as someone who is sitting on the edge of these discussions, I do not understand what has gone so badly wrong. There is something fundamentally amiss with our political processes if we cannot, after months of discussion and debate, come up with some form of agreed position. <BR /> <BR />I listened to the debates and heard people from Sinn Féin talk repeatedly about their mandate. They said that the Conservatives did not have a mandate here and that Sinn Féin would go and argue for its mandate.”
“He went on to chastise the SDLP because he seemed to think that it had done anything but live up to the agreement:”
“I voted the last time. Mr Humphrey had to go and have a lie down afterwards because he saw me in the Lobby so often. I voted for the Welfare Reform Bill on the basis that it was a five-party agreement. I said to people, "I do not necessarily agree with everything, but the only way that you can deal with these issues is to get everybody together". There is something that I really struggle to understand. There were notable speeches today from Mr Maskey and Mr O'Dowd. I remember the welfare reform debate of 10 February, when Mr Maskey said:”
“Mr McNarry, you finished your contribution talking about a little more time and a few more hours, and I have to say to you, "Please, anything but that". We have talked and talked and talked today, and it is irrelevant. I have watched people around here, and I have never seen so many phones studied with such interest and so many hands to foreheads. This is Groundhog Day. It reminds me of a triple period of Latin: just going over and over the issue. I despair. Not only is the debate irrelevant but it almost says that this place is ungovernable. We cannot get any form of agreement.”
“First, I extend my best wishes to the First Minister and wish him a speedy return. <BR /> <BR />I have to admit that, when I saw Mr McNarry stand up to speak with what looked to me like an inch of papers, my heart sank. I asked myself —”
“Does the Minister accept that there is huge frustration throughout the rural parts of our country that they cannot get what they consider to be an essential utility for modern living and that it is perhaps something that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development should take on board to drive rather than just leaving it to the techies?”
“Does the Minister have any idea of how many of the applicants will be successful in getting voluntary redundancy?”
“— will not cut it. You need to get your act together and find a way to drive this place forward.”
“He mentioned the 192,000 visitors to the Giant's Causeway visitor centre. That is the real issue. <BR /> <BR />This is Groundhog Day. This is not showing us at our finest. This is not us tackling issues properly. This is cut-and-paste politics, and it is not good enough. We need to get our act together. We need to find a way to drive employment and tourism and all those good things, but simply regurgitating the same old same old —”
“<BR /> <BR />When you ask me what drives tourism, I have to say that many people will know that, when you go to the South, it is very expensive. It is more expensive than here. I do not know whether that is an exchange rate argument, an issue with labour rates or whatever. I would like to have the money to invest. The interesting thing is that the Sinn Féin argument is almost identical to Mr Sammy Wilson's argument in the previous debate. He said that this is a non-devolved matter, so it is extremely difficult to do things, but let us see whether we can be creative. He then produced quite a list of things that we do, and the Minister who was responsible is here. Three years ago, he mentioned the £300 million in tourism infrastructure and the 450,000 visitors to Titanic Belfast in its first three months.”
“The issue is whether we will decide what we will do. We spent a considerable time yesterday, and even during Question Time today, saying that we were really worried about the state of the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA), the third sector and the voluntary sector, and asking where we were going to find the money. At the same time, we are asking for a tax rebate. <BR /> <BR />One thing that the Minister at Westminster came up with that bears thinking about is that we pay zero VAT on food, newspapers and transport. We give back VAT on museums. We have the highest VAT registration, so many people in the tourism industry do not pay VAT at all. In other words, it is all part of a complicated system.”
“During the previous debate, the then Minister pointed out a number of issues. One was that, although the Republic of Ireland had changed its VAT rate, its visitor numbers went up the same as in the United Kingdom. In that debate, Mr Lunn quoted a letter from the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury to Naomi Long that stated:”
“I had the benefit of hearing Mr Lunn speak. The great thing about Hansard is that you can go back and read what he said the last time we debated this issue in September 2012. He has an engaging turn of phrase. On that occasion, he said that the Alliance Party would support the motion, although we might wonder why when we heard him speak. He raised some good points and said that he was voting for the motion, but he explained why he might have a problem. He said that just because things happened to work in the Republic of Ireland did not mean to say that we should adopt them willy-nilly up here. <BR /> <BR />When preparing for this debate, I wondered why the British Government would be so stupid as not to agree to the collective wisdom of this place, given that it is so self-evident that this is what they should be doing.”
“The reason why I was going to support Ian McCrea is that he made the point that, if you want to talk real politics, it is really difficult for us to go to the Exchequer and say, "Please can we have some form of derogation or separation on VAT?", when we cannot sort out welfare reform. We are incapable of government. We are not able to go along and say, "Give us a chance".”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. What is interesting about Mr Flanagan's contribution is that this is, effectively, a cut-and-paste debate. When you read through the documentation that we have, everything said today has already been said ad nauseam. The Member for Mid Ulster went back to when we raised this question in 2004, but I note that it was raised in a Westminster Hall debate by members of the DUP, and we have heard from others who have said the same thing <BR /> <BR />The key question that I have to ask is this: what part of "not devolved" do we not understand? This is a non-devolved matter. We can have many debates, wringing our hands and saying that somebody should do something, as Mr Flanagan said, but we are talking to ourselves. This is a key issue.”
“I was going to intervene because I think that my namesake, Mr McCrea, has made some really important points. <BR /> <BR />There are two things that the Assembly does really well. The first is that we are really good at calling for cuts in taxation. We want a reduction in everything. The second thing that we are really good at is spending more. So, the conundrum that we face is trying to stretch that piece of elastic.”
“Does the affordable warmth scheme have any mechanism for self-referral?”