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 5 of 15.
“There was a cross-community vote on the last motion. There are parties that did not get to speak at all. Mr Speaker, perhaps you would look at this to see if there is some way, whatever the time constraints you put on it, that every party in the Assembly gets the chance to speak at least once. I will leave it to you, Mr Speaker, to consider the best way forward.”
“I have no input to the Business Committee but I do have input to you. You said you were sympathetic, so I wonder whether you might use your good offices to say that there are debates in which it is known that people will want to speak. You can deal with that, Mr Speaker, in your own good time. <BR /> <BR />I would like you to consider a second point and respond in writing, or whatever is the right form. Standing Order 17(5) says that the Speaker shall have:”
“Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, I am, of course, absolutely happy with the way in which you conducted the debate. There are two key points to make, however, if I can put them to you to consider and come back to me on. <BR /> <BR />One concerns the relationship, because Standing Order 17(4) states:”
“Given that the business is scheduled to finish today by 4.40 pm, I wonder whether you can set out at some time — you may not be in a position to do it now — the relationship between the Speaker and the Business Committee in establishing the total time for debate available. I was disappointed not to be able to speak in the previous debate, as I know was Mr Agnew from the Green Party.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Apologies, but I tried to catch your eye before we started this debate. Standing Order 17(4) states:”
“Given that the Member has talked about scripture, does he think that marriage is a wholly Christian concept?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I want to follow up on the point he made in his intervention earlier to say that this part of the naughty corner would really like to have a say on the matter, and I thank the Member for bringing it to the attention of the Speaker who will, no doubt, look at that in 15 minutes' time.”
“I listened carefully to the Minister's answer when he said that we had to deal with our troubled past. I will follow on from Mr Nesbitt's question: where does the Minister think that we go from here, given that we have now discovered that everybody is still around and active in one shape or another? How can we deal with our troubled past if we will not accept what is going on in the present?”
“There is not a person I talk to who does not say, "This is wrong. It has exposed this place, and we really have to do something to try to regain the trust of the electorate."”
“I think that, on multiple levels, the Ministers who are not here are failing to live up to those conditions. I am quite happy to accept that there are serious political issues to be resolved. There are some things that need to be brought to the fore and that we need to resolve. However — it is stating the obvious, but I state it for the sake of clarity — this strategy on the part of DUP Ministers, whether well-intentioned or not, is backfiring spectacularly.”
“My argument is that you cannot just do it one day and then not the next day. <BR /> <BR />The last point that I want to make on the Pledge of Office is that I was struck by its inclusion of the commitment:”
“I was coming to the ministerial code, and I will say just that 1.5(ii) states that Ministers should:”
“I want to know this: does that stop the minute you are no longer a Minister? Do you say, "I am no longer going to act in good faith"?”
“How are we going to deal with the past? This is not what this crisis was about. It has morphed into something different. <BR /> <BR />When I look in this very helpful pack provided by the Library, one of the key questions I have for ministerial officeholders is on the Pledge of Office, which states they should:”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. As Mrs Kelly points out, there are many contradictions in this place that in any other part of the world you would look at in disbelief. However, being here, we have some people saying, 17 years later, "We are going to stop doing bad things." Other people are saying, "We never did bad things in the first place." You get this strange argument going on about what form of democracy we have here. <BR /> <BR />The point I really want to make on this issue is that the whole crisis was based around some form of shooting, whether there was an allegation of paramilitary activity and whether it is still in place. And yet, it is gone. It is hardly mentioned. What we are talking about now is process: how are we going to deal with a non-functioning Executive? How are we going to deal with flags?”
“Where are the three wise men who were going to tell us whether there is an issue with paramilitaries? That was supposed to happen last week, but it is not even today. It might be tomorrow. Who knows? The very issue that brought about this crisis has been forgotten even by those parties that walked out on it. They are now caught up —”
“in the short term. But he is caught in this morass, where his reputation is being trashed. Of all the winners and losers in this debate, I happen to think that Simon Hamilton is the biggest loser of all. This was a man on the rise, someone who had a future and opportunity. He has been in lots of ministerial positions, and he was going to go and do something. Together with his absence from the Chamber and, potentially, his association with other events being discussed by the Committee for Finance and Personnel, I think that he deserves the opportunity to come and explain himself. Yet he is not able to do that because of party political positions. <BR /> <BR />I am also interested in following up on the point that Mr Allister made, which was this: where is the panel?”
“It has been an interesting debate thus far. People are struggling to find some rational explanation for why we have got into this place in this way. There are a number of people who I feel a little sorry for. This may be somewhat surprising. Number one is Simon Hamilton, who, as Minister for Health, has, I think, found himself in an invidious position. I agree with the points that he makes in the briefing document. He says whether he is in the Executive:”
“Would it surprise the Acting First Minister to know that the percentage of people who think that relations are worse now than they were previously is at its highest since the Belfast Agreement? Why might that be? Is it because of the Executive's failure to tackle contentious issues such as flags and emblems?”
“Very briefly, I pay tribute to Sinn Féin. It is a good motion that you have brought forward. You have raised the issue. The stark reality is that £1,000 out of anybody's wage is a significant factor. Even here, if you lose £1,000, you have a problem. We need to fix it.”
“I agree with Mr Dickson on that, but his intervention highlights the thing that I find most strange. The mitigation that we have for welfare reform and the effort that we put into it, which I personally think we have to take, are in stark contrast to tax credit cuts, which we appear to have ignored in their entirety but which are just as detrimental to the people of Northern Ireland. Whoever is doing the negotiations needs to address that issue.”
“I am not sure how, given the sums of money concerned, the Assembly can address it. However, if we do not, the people of Northern Ireland will look at government in general, including us, and say, "You are not making my life any better; you are making it worse." <BR /> <BR />The big issue that we have to address is how this is put on the negotiating table. I am not sure; perhaps those involved in the talks can say whether it features or not. For all the talk about welfare reform, it is only part of the issue: tax credits are fundamental. It is insidious when you try to convince people that they should go out and get work —”
“I thank Mrs Kelly for that point. The key issue, and perhaps she is aware of this, is that there are Members of the Assembly — Ministers — who keep telling us that the economy is going really well here. However, this very helpful briefing from the Department for Social Development that examined the median household income in Northern Ireland states that it increased from 2002-03 to 2008-09 but that it has been in decline since. In fact, median income levels in Northern Ireland for 2013-14 are lower than in 2002-03. We have gone right back. When people tell us that things are getting better when they patently are not, we have a problem. <BR /> <BR />I stayed on for this debate, despite the absence of numbers, in order to say that this is a very real and pressing issue.”
“What works in London does not work in the Midlands and most certainly does not work in Northern Ireland. I was not at the Tory conference — I do not think that I have ever been to one — but I heard hear from people coming back that the Tories are very pleased with the way that the economy is going. They point to the figures and say, "Our policies have worked; look at the way things are going", and they will point to here.”
“<BR /> <BR />I listened to David McWilliams, an economist in the South famous for predicting the crash. He was saying, and I have a great deal of sympathy with this, that the whole balance of an economy lies in giving some incentive for people to work harder, and, if they work harder, they will get more money. That is a positive. I am not totally socialist in my outlook on that; I want to reward people who work for a living. However, I also have to say that, if the gap between those who have and those who do not have increases exponentially, as it appears to be doing now, ultimately, you will have an unstable place that you will not be able to sustain. <BR /> <BR />An issue raised by a number of contributors is that the Tories appear to think that everything is equal across the land.”
“I join others in saying that I am surprised that the Chamber is so empty for what is, I think, a really important debate. In fact, I was a little surprised that, when the cut in tax credits was announced, it did not achieve as much prominence as welfare reform, which has dominated political discussion and the popular press. To my mind, tax credits have a much deeper impact on our society and on what we are trying to do, because they affect people who are in work and trying to make something of their lives, so it is useful that we are having this debate. I hope that the issue is being addressed in other areas, too, because, if you take such an amount of money out of our economy, you will not only create hardship but you will, I suspect, run the risk of civil unrest. I do not say that lightly.”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can you inform the House as to at what stages you are able to change designation in this place?”
“If you are looking forward to an update —”
“Will the Member give way? Would the Member like an update?”
“Will the Member inform the House that, when he tried to bring a private Member's Bill through on procurement, he came to me and asked if I would take it over so that he could bring forward this private Member's Bill?”
“Will the Member, just for the record, explain that, because constituents will ask why you are not speaking out on issues? I think that people need to understand that it is because you are prevented by Standing Orders from being able to speak. I think that you should make the point clear.”
“Is it really the case that, if you get to be a Minister with untrammelled ministerial powers, you will give that up to be in opposition? I do not think so. <BR /> <BR />Debates are taking place elsewhere. If you look at the Chamber, which is, thankfully, a little fuller than it was earlier, you will realise that it is not the decision-making body. We can talk all we like in the Chamber, but it will not change anything. Unless we find some resolution, we will lose the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland. I agree with Steven Agnew that things have got so bad with the people's perception of this place that nothing short of a renegotiation and another referendum will restore the credibility of the institutions of Northern Ireland.”
“Yet, we are now saying — I hear it collectively, I hear it around — that designation is a bad idea. Why do you need to have some stamp on you that says "unionist" or "nationalist"? Is it not obvious from what you say and do and the motions that you table? Do you really need that to happen? It enshrines some form of sectarian politics. We ought to do more about that, and we ought to do it now. <BR /> <BR />When the Bill goes through the Committee, and we have lauded the sponsor for having the foresight to table the Bill, I hope that we really deal with the technical issues that we have to look at. I want to see what an opposition really means and whether it can be done here when perhaps only six people would provide an opposition.”
“That is the concept of cross-community designation. Those who follow these things will know that that issue vexed Mr McCallister and myself a few years ago. There was an issue, and we in NI21 decided that, all things considered, it would not change my position on the constitutional issue, but I dislike labels and do not want to be labelled by other people about who or what I am. Designation is a fundamental mistake in the democratic proceedings of the Assembly. I said it then, and I say it now. <BR /> <BR />I think the quote by Mr McCallister was that it would put us:”
“Let us face it: if you are trying to hold to account the First Minister, who, I think, has four SpAds, or the deputy First Minister, who, I think, has four SpAds, we should have a SpAd for the leader of the opposition and the deputy leader of the opposition. Is that what we want? Do we really want to be putting more resources into those issues, or do we need a fundamental review of all that? The public will not wear it if we try to make changes in that manner. <BR /> <BR />If we are looking at reviewing things for an opposition, I like the fact that, in Westminster, they present to the public the names of every single SpAd and how much money they earn. That seems to be the open and democratic position that we want. Perhaps the Member will take that on board. <BR /> <BR />I want to come to what is perhaps the most interesting issue for me.”
“It is an attempt to silence the people who have a dissenting view. Politics suffers because of that. Those of you who have votes on the Business Committee do not have to wait for this Bill. You do not have to search around; you only have to change your own rules and let proper democratic debate take place in the House. <BR /> <BR />I move on to the issue of financial support. Again, I am not sure whether the sponsor of the Bill has gone into the full detail of it. When he is talking about additional resources, does that include special advisers (SpAds)? Is the leader of the opposition going to have a SpAd? Is he going to be on band B, which is £92,000?”
“I thought that it got a little bit confusing as to what you would be in a technical group for or why. If you are an independent — in the South, 18 Members are independents — what if you do not want to participate in a technical group? Why not just stand up and represent your own mandate? <BR /> <BR />I would also be more convinced by the arguments from around these Chambers if, when you look at the existing speaking rights for those of us on these Benches, you did not introduce rules in the Business Committee that prevented us from speaking. This is a decision not of the Westminster Parliament, the Secretary of State or somebody else; the Business Committee of this place makes it the case that Mr Allister is 35th, Mr Agnew is 36th and I am 37th, and that you cannot get to speak in a one-and-a-half-hour debate.”
“I did not understand what it meant. There is a challenge, however: if you put any Bill to the public of Northern Ireland at the moment and said, "This is our plan for Stormont", I am not sure that you would get any votes for it from anybody, such is the state that we have got ourselves into. Maybe that is the point that Mr Agnew was making: that we need a form of radical engagement with the population. Politics is not something that you leave to people up here on the hill, which goes on here behind closed doors and which people ignore; it is something that we have to get people engaged in. That is one of the issues that I would like dealt with. <BR /> <BR />I also look at the Bill's point about smaller parties and how we might deal with some further representation. People have talked about technical groups and suchlike.”
“Simply saying to somebody that you are in opposition or that you are going to get a wee bit more money is not going to change the basic electoral mathematics. Unless you have a fundamental change in structure, you are not going to see any difference. I would like, when the Bill goes through its Committee Stage, to actually start to look at some really radical amendments, because you have to have a change of function. <BR /> <BR />While we are on the point that Mr Agnew mentioned, if we are going to have a fundamental review, should we not put it to the public? When I voted, I did not really read the agreement. I was not a member of a political party; I was not in politics. I looked at it and said, "I'd like to move forward. I'd like to put the past behind me. I'd like to do something different", but I did not look at any of the detail.”
“We could look to the way that they actually have another House, with people with different levels of responsibility and expertise. They would actually give some guidance to this place. My fear about an opposition is that it fundamentally comes down to numbers.”
“So, quite a lot of what we are talking about in the Bill is covered by the Stormont House Agreement. It also mentions — and again, it is mentioned in the Bill — the provision for financial and research assistance. They are trying to keep the costs neutral, but, actually, in this particular part of the Bill, the costs are to be additional. <BR /> <BR />There are some other questions that I would like to ask about how we might deal with something that is a little bit more radical. Many Members have long called for a civic forum. In fact, it was part of the Belfast Agreement — item 34. I would like to see a more radical approach to how we might bring in an opposition. Perhaps, if we were dealing with an opposition, we could look to Dublin and the Seanad.”
“Thank you for that, Mr Lunn. It brings me to the point in relation to the Bill about opposition arrangements. In response to an earlier question, I think Mr McCartney mentioned item 59 of the Stormont House Agreement, which states:”
“I was at a meeting that Mr Lunn attended a few days ago, and it was put to him — and I think he was a little surprised by it; he can clarify if he wishes — that only the Alliance Party and, I think, Sinn Féin have ratified the Stormont House Agreement, and that nobody else has agreed to that agreement.”
“I also note that Mr Agnew, in his contribution, highlighted our problem in having no way of holding Ministers, whom we do not appoint, to account. In fact, if you look at the fundamentals of the Belfast Agreement, you might say that the decision to put all the Executive powers in Ministers, who are then unaccountable to this place, is actually at the root of our problems in trying to produce good government. Again, I think that this is a point that Mr Allister made. <BR /> <BR />If you look at some of the radical issues that need to be dealt with and that remain outstanding, when it comes to the Stormont House Agreement, item 73 states that:”
“Some Members have alluded to the fact that it is to Mr McCallister's credit that, at least, he has been able to bring this particular Bill to the Floor of the Assembly. I think that that is a reasonable position to state, but I want to go on and talk about some of the issues that might have been addressed. My point in all of this is that — and here, again, I agree with Mr Allister — it could have been a lot more radical and incisive. We could have tackled some of the outstanding issues. <BR /> <BR />I note from the Bill and from Mr McCallister's speech that he has decided not to deal with the thorny issue of d'Hondt, because apparently we are not able for it. Actually, I think that d'Hondt is a travesty. I know that other Members here agree.”
“Obviously, I was in no way challenging you. I was just seeking clarity on the matter. I do think it is worthwhile saying that the discussion about opposition has been ongoing for some considerable time.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, this is an opposition Bill, and this is outlining what I was saying about opposition. I am at a loss as to what —”
“Now, as time goes on, not only is it not the opposition but it has two Ministers in the Executive, which is why it was quite interesting to hear the overtures from Mr Lunn to Mr McCallister, "Would you not like to join us?". I am not sure whether Mr Lunn was making himself available to be Speaker but, certainly, there was a meeting of minds. <BR /> <BR />If we move on a little later to December 2010, when —”
“I said it then, and I stand by it now. What was interesting about that document — it is a pity that Mr Lunn is not here with us — is that it went on to say:”
“It mentioned the fact that I thought we should go into opposition. <BR /> <BR />A few months later — this is when I am grateful that I have got my colleague Mr Allister here — he and I are quoted in December 2007 as saying that issues discussed included the sustainability of a mandatory coalition, and Jim Allister was clearly against it, though it says that he did not offer an alternative. That was the debate then: Mr McCrea repeating comments that he had previously made of the idea of the UUP going into opposition was also clearly on the record. You fast-forward a few years to 2010 and, just to show that we are covering the whole of these lands, the 'Derry Journal' ran with the headline, "Will UUP go into opposition?". The article says:”