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 8 of 15.
“I will give way in just a moment. Osborne has announced that he wants to make £20 billion more in cuts over the top of the welfare cuts that you are all getting so excited about. He will make cuts totalling £20 billion in DFT, BIS, DEFRA and all those areas. Do you know what they are talking about doing away with? The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Maybe we should do away with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Department for Employment and Learning. I will give way.”
“Nobody is talking about the increase in the minimum wage and what impact that will have on our SMEs and our businesses. There is no discussion about how it will affect our nursing homes, how it will affect nurses coming from overseas and how we will look after our hospitals. Those are key parts of our economy that you are ignoring. <BR /> <BR />The next thing that you are not talking about, which again I find frankly incredible, is that Osborne —”
“I only got the chance to look at this report today, and I am a little surprised at some of the things it talks about and some of the things it ignores. I am also very surprised by the comments from some people around the Chamber and what they have ignored. <BR /> <BR />Mr Agnew talked about the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, but I will talk about a former Member of the Assembly Esmond Birnie who is the chief economist in PricewaterhouseCoopers. He says that Northern Ireland will remain the lowest growth region of the United Kingdom and that it will be bad this year and worse next year. Where is the attack? Where is the, "Let's do something about this and try to work out what is wrong"? <BR /> <BR />There are another couple of things that are not mentioned that I find really surprising.”
“I also have to say that, unlike Scotland and Wales, we do not have a refugee integration strategy in Northern Ireland — maybe we ought to work on that — or a race equality strategy. I say that because it is important. This is but one case of refugees, but thousands of people are streaming in from Africa, fleeing drought and deprivation there. We need some solution and not just a gnashing of teeth and a rending of clothes. We need to find out what it is that we will do. <BR /> <BR />I have to say to you that this is a political issue that requires a political response, and we should debate it. We really need to find a way to tackle humanitarian concerns that affect us all, but that needs to be done in a planned and long-term manner. I hope that the House will address the necessary strategies and the missing policies.”
“Of course, when you look at the pictures, you cannot be anything other than distraught. I think that I join with all people here when I say that, when you looked at the photographs, it was appalling. The question then arises as to what we do about it. I have to say that I struggle to know what I, personally, can do. There are a number of questions here. There are those who say, "Let's not bring politics into this". That is wrong. This is about politics; everything is about politics. There are some hard questions to be asked. I am not saying that I have an answer, but, when we talk about the military intervention in Syria, the question arises: would we be supportive of setting up safe havens in Syria or Turkey and providing military support to do that? Surely, it is better to keep people where they are.”
“Her eldest son, Prince Charles, has been an admirable son and delivered a great role. When he was younger, he might have expected to ascend to the throne before now. <BR /> <BR />All in all, this brings to us issues of how we manage an ageing population and look after our young people, and I am sure that Her Majesty will not be short in giving advice where advice is needed.”
“First, I congratulate Her Majesty. It is really good, Mr Speaker, that you have written to her on behalf of the Assembly — the complete Assembly. I realise that there are some political dimensions to this, but Her Majesty's role in overcoming some of the more difficult issues cannot be ignored. <BR /> <BR />In addition to congratulating her and looking back over her great contribution, we have to realise that there are significant changes happening in our society that Her Majesty's longevity illustrates. We are in a society where many, many people live a long and prosperous life. We have challenges in the House about how we care for them in terms of medicine, housing and the provision of care. <BR /> <BR />There are some other issues that Her Majesty's long reign has brought to the fore, namely, how you deal with younger generations.”
“The final point that I want to make is that you can argue that Northern Ireland is a special case. You can say that we are geographically distant or that we have the lowest income per head or that we have special issues. You can do all that, but you can do it only if you go with a united front. The lesson from today is that, if people want to understand the difference between having a mandate and having money, they should look to Greece.”
“Fourthly, some people say, "When we hear what he has to say, we will throw the head up, have six weeks and then we will go to elections and, around September, we will have elections." Elections will not solve anything because we cannot solve the issue. What is the point of having elections if we just go round and round again?”
“The last time, Máirtín Ó Muilleoir tweeted, "Well, you delivered on 50%", so let us see if I can do better this time. First, we are being asked to pass a Budget for which we do not have the funds. There is no money. Secondly, we have a voluntary exit scheme, the savings for which are already factored into our departmental costings. If we do not get to make the voluntary exits, we will not be able to balance our Budget. We will lose money and it will come round about October. Thirdly, on 8 July, the Chancellor may or may not make more draconian cuts. We are not in favour of in-year cuts. That is an issue.”
“Mrs Kelly said, "So, sit down." In the last debate, I tried to say that I would be short, sharp and make some salient points —”
“I have some good news. Wimbledon is on, the sun is out and absolutely nobody is listening to our debate. So, I can take that pressure off people.”
“Will the Minister tell us whether she personally met the Information Commissioner's Office? If so, can she explain what is meant by "no further regulatory action"? Is there any other action that is being anticipated by the ICO?”
“<BR /> <BR />Just in case anybody doubts my credentials about opposition, let me say to the UUP that, on 26 October 2007, I put the cat among the pigeons by saying the same thing at its conference. I said that opposition was the only way forward if you wanted to disagree with the Government. You have a choice: you are either in the Government, working for it, not being critical of it and supporting it together or you go into opposition. <BR /> <BR />My observation in all this, for anybody who cares to listen, is that the financial hole will not be plugged. The strong-arm tactics on Sinn Féin or anybody else will not work. An appeal to reason and a joint approach by people going to London with a well-argued case is the only way forward. If you do not get that, catastrophe looms. In the words of the Finance Minister, we are doomed.”
“<BR /> <BR />The final bit is an appeal to the SDLP: I hope that you will review your position. I want you, as a party, to provide the leadership that you once gave. I want you to come forward and try to be part of the solution in this. Simply setting your face against the Budget will not help matters; we need some credibility in the way that we approach things. You have a contribution to make as a sensible party that thinks about these things. Your opposition to the Budget or the reason behind it is understood, but not voting for it and not being part of a package where we go together is unacceptable. If you cannot find a way to vote for the Budget, you should not be in government. You should do the honourable thing: resign and go into opposition. You simply cannot be in government and not vote for the Budget. That is the reality of it.”
“The deficit is going down, but the debt is going up and up — massively so. Some people say, "You are a big country. You can afford it". That may well be, but, if you are going to get investment, you have to come to people with a very proper argument. That is where Máirtín Ó Muilleoir's contribution to the debate was interesting. He was optimistic about the way forward, and he supported an initiative led by the Minister of Finance and Personnel to explain matters to London and say, "We need to get additional funds, but we are doing it not with a begging bowl out, or stamping our feet and demanding that we get it. We are saying it is in your best interests and ours. It is in our collective best interests. It is the right thing to do, and this is where we should go".”
“<BR /> <BR />I also want to point out an issue that was not brought up, and I am surprised that it was not mentioned by the Green Party: the issue of climate change is real. I have mentioned in the House the drought in Texas, the lack of water in California and the issues that will come round and change. We have to do something about it. Northern Ireland has abundant resources of renewal energy, and that is something that we can offer to the rest of the United Kingdom. We should be making that argument. <BR /> <BR />I am disappointed that Members putting forward arguments do not understand the severe economic difficulties that the United Kingdom or Ireland, for that matter, faces. There is a £75 billion gap in public expenditure this year. People talk about the deficit going down.”
“To my mind, that is a capital spend, like the high-speed train network, that we should approach London for, not having it come out of this Budget. I would like to see action on air passenger duty. I raised the point, and the Minister made it clear that you needed to be careful in terms of the balance: if it costs you too much money, why would you do it? As a peripheral region, we need to reduce transportation costs. There should be a reduction in air passenger duty from internal sources, but it should be funded out of London. You can make the argument to London that this fits in entirely with London's transportation strategy — entirely with London's strategy for decentralising.”
“I take that to mean that Sinn Féin would join in an approach to speak to the Conservative Government about how we might invest in Northern Ireland in its totality — not simply in welfare reform but in a positive way. The real issue for us is this: if you do not have the money, you must appeal to your creditors. <BR /> <BR />I can say — everybody else said it in their speech; I am coming to the end of this — that there are some really positive things that I would like to see done. I would like to see better transmission power lines; I would like to see them go cross-border and transmarine; I would like to sell London cheap renewable energy from Northern Ireland. We have to find somebody who will spend the money to put that capital in.”
“We should be able to say to the Government, "Do you know what? This also helps you in your constituencies". This is not Northern Ireland going to London with a begging bowl saying, "Please help"; this is Northern Ireland going to London with a plan to save London, a plan to help London. <BR /> <BR />I hope that the Minister believes in the issue. Maybe I have misinterpreted, but I took that from her speeches. I believe that she is the right person to take this argument forward. I would like her to seize the initiative so that, when we go to London, we are not seen as being recalcitrant or trying to go back to the past or all of the negative images that are out there. I urge her to take the initiative. <BR /> <BR />Some people commented on the messages that had come out from the deputy First Minister.”
“When I am talking about that, one of the issues coming forward is the High Speed Two investment — some £50 billion that the House of Lords recently had a look at. It decided that it was a really good idea but was not sure whether it would work. It was interesting that the Minister was talking to none other than the Rt Hon Theresa Villiers MP, because she announced support for the scheme at the Conservative Party conference in 2008. She said that the high-speed rail concept would relieve overcrowding, generate huge economic benefits and close the north/south divide. However, the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee report concluded that there were more ways of investing £50 billion than simply building a railway; you could invest £50 billion in regional economic activity. There is a pot of money that we should argue for.”
“It may well be that we should look at how we could join up with the Scots and the Welsh in coming along to that position, but I think the Minister is the person to take that forward as a regional economic strategy. She can make the right argument to London, not with her begging bowl out and saying, "We're a special case", but by saying, "You know what? London has got real problems. Let's talk to London in an argument in terms that London understands." London cannot get teachers; London cannot get workers; London cannot get refuse disposed; London cannot find any way of getting people into the place. London, the centre, must understand those issues, and it is in London's interests to develop the regional economic strategy.”
“I am not trying to join the sycophantic queue of people saying, "You're great. You do all of that", but some good points were raised. I would like to encourage her, such as it is, in taking some initiatives. <BR /> <BR />One of the things that were talked about was a regional economic strategy. There is an argument that you can put forward about peripherality and how Northern Ireland is, by any definition, on the periphery. We are on the periphery of Ireland; we are on the periphery of the United Kingdom; we are on the periphery of Europe. We have higher costs in getting to market, higher energy costs and low economies of scale. There are all sorts of issues about how we should move forward with our economy.”
“That means that there is more pain to be had from 8 July, if we believe what is written in the press. My understanding is that the Minister was not supportive of any further cuts and that she would oppose those issues. That is the right way forward. But that is the order we have got; that is the financial issue which, perhaps, is not receiving the clarity it deserves. <BR /> <BR />We go through all of this and say, "OK, so far, all we've had is a litany of 'This is bad', 'It's going to get worse' and 'What are you going to do?' or whatever". There are some things that we have to look at. We have to look at a different approach. Sometimes, people say things and they are lost in the melee; you do not get to hear what was said. But I heard some positive ideas coming from the Minister of Finance.”
“I have to tell you that it is causing huge concern and huge distress. Government out there is effectively in paralysis because you cannot make these numbers balance. The voluntary exit scheme is important in meeting our budgetary commitments, and you cannot do that without access to the additional funding. <BR /> <BR />There is a third bit. It is not even just about welfare reform and the voluntary exit scheme: we now have George Osborne discussing what cuts he might make in his emergency Budget on 8 July. Mr Givan, who is not in his place, and I had a discussion about that. On Monday night, when she was talking about the issue and was challenged on this, I heard the Minister say clearly:”
“I do not know if I have got this right — if I have not, I am sure the Minister will take me to task on it — but it seems to me that we do not have sufficient money to do even what we want to do. Without welfare reform, we have no money. <BR /> <BR />There is another issue that some mentioned in the Committee and a few mentioned here, but it has not really been talked about. Maybe I missed it — I did not hear every speech — but few mentioned the voluntary exit scheme and the funding for it. Not only do you have reduced budgets for Departments but the savings for the voluntary exit scheme are already factored in. You cannot get the voluntary exit scheme money unless you have got this Budget. We will have even less money than the already draconian cuts that we have put through.”
“Who funds it, how it is funded or where the money comes from is for another day; that is somebody else's problem. This Budget will trundle on through with a big black hole in it. <BR /> <BR />I have heard most of the debate that we have had here; I have actually been in the Chamber, because I waited to see if I would get to speak late last night. I did not, but I got to hear a lot of arguments. I heard calls from all sides and from every person standing up as Chair of their Committee or with some special interest saying, "We need more money for this" or "We need more money for that". All of them ignore the elephant in the room. I will attempt to put a little clarity into this.”
“As it is, thanks to modern technology, if anybody wants to go through the record, I recommend that they do, because there are some really good contributions from Máirtín Ó Muilleoir and others about their positiveness on the way forward and such like. I think that they deserve an airing, so let us have a look at that. <BR /> <BR />Mr McGuinness has not softened Sinn Féin's position. Why would he? He is getting a Budget that he wants.”
“As a guardian of the institutions in this place, I find it interesting that it did not probe this particular issue, given that it had the chance to stop accelerated passage. Why would it not use the institutions that are in place to scrutinise when it is such a champion? Why would it later call for more cross-party talks if it had not even raised the matter at the Committee that is looking at the Budget? <BR /> <BR />While I am on the subject, I might just register the fact that since we were looking at accelerated passage and since it was so important, we are not able to get the official record of that meeting. Maybe Hansard might consider doing a little bit of accelerated passage itself so that we can read what was agreed and what was said.”
“Ostensibly, that was what the Committee meeting was called for, but it was barely mentioned. <BR /> <BR />Those of you who argued that Mr McGuinness, the deputy First Minister, had somehow softened his position or changed it slightly were wrong. If you had read what the Finance Committee was looking at, you would have seen that there was no opposition to accelerated passage, nor was there any discussion about it at all. It is extremely difficult to see how you might oppose a Bill later if you did not oppose accelerated passage. <BR /> <BR />I have to put a question to the SDLP, which had representatives on that Committee. It stated that it is implacably opposed to this Budget.”
“There you have it. We are going to go through with this Budget without welfare reform or additional funds, and we are going to hit something that is impossible to do. If we do not pass this Budget we do not have the legal authority to spend. <BR /> <BR />The presentation to the Committee was quite interesting. I do not know whether any other Members have had the opportunity to look at the Finance Committee's scrutiny discussions; it was quite illuminating. Looking at what came across, I think that the Minister came prepared for a bit of a tussle and an argument about whether we have had proper consultation so that we can provide for accelerated passage. She was anticipating that, perhaps, those who oppose this Budget might oppose accelerated passage, but she need not have worried, because it came to nothing.”
“That was quite gentle, and then she really hits the nail on the head:”
“Some people take issue with that approach, and some people might even question its legality, but we have decided, I think, that this is what we have to do. <BR /> <BR />The Minister of Finance and Personnel has made it clear repeatedly that this Budget is predicated on the Stormont House Agreement. I know that this may sound a little sad, but I watched her at length in her presentation to the Committee for Finance and Personnel. As you, Mr Speaker will know, it has been highlighted under Standing Orders that the Committee must have a look and decide whether we are going to grant accelerated passage to the Bill. I hope that she does not mind me quoting her, but it is worth reiterating the point. She had this to say:”
“I see that people are busily engaged in their business, and I promise not to detain you too long. I sometimes wonder who we are talking to here. As I listened to Mr McNarry, I thought it was some form of counselling session. I found myself wafting off to a wonderful land, far, far away and heading off to sleep. I just thought to myself, "No, you have to get back and say your piece because the world is listening". Well, a few of us in here are listening, maybe. I have a few short, salient points that I hope to make; perhaps people will listen to them, perhaps not. <BR /> <BR />The first thing is that we are here and we are being asked to pass a Budget today that we do not have the means to fund. That is the fundamental issue.”
“I am not against doing good things; I am saying that there is no money and, unless you can tell me where the money is going to come from, I do not know how you plan to implement your proposals.”
“As the Member is talking about figures and takes issue with some of them, can I ask him about these figures from the 'Summary of Public Sector Finances' produced by the Office for National Statistics? I want to know what he makes of this: in May 2015, and that is not that long ago, the public sector in the United Kingdom spent £10·1 billion more than its income in that one month. Despite all the rhetoric that we have had, this is a reduction from the previous year of only £2·4 billion. In other words, we spent some £12·4 billion more in the UK in the month of May last year. I do not know how people do not get it. People talk about the deficit as reduction, but the debt is still going up. Where is the money going to come from to do all the great things that you want?”
“I will not take too long. One of the ways that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggested that we lift children out of poverty is to get their parents a job. Getting people off benefits and into work is really what the Budget should try to do. If you are going to force people and their children to live on benefits for the rest of their life, how can they have a proper life?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I am, as ever, grateful for your guidance on these matters, but the Member made a point, and I wished to pursue it with him. I am happy to leave it; I can deal with the issue in my speech. The point that I wanted to make is that statistics can be used to try to prove almost anything. Perhaps we need to have a proper debate in Committee or at other stages. I will leave it at that.”
“I did not accuse the IFS of plucking figures out of the air. I said that you were using statistics in a way that I found to be incompatible with my understanding of matters. Let me explain and see if you can come back on it.”
“Does he seriously think that there is a bucket of money there, and, because people in Ireland do not know what to do with it, they will give it to Northern Ireland? This is the issue: if you want to fix Northern Ireland, you have a Budget within which you have to work. I would like to hear about how we will work constructively within the fiscal limits to make life better for everybody. Plucking figures out of the air does not do it for me.”
“I listened to the Member talk about statistics, but, when he got to relative poverty, I felt that somebody needed to challenge him. Relative poverty is an arithmetic working-out. Were you to talk about absolute poverty or look at the work that has been done on it in this place, you have to say that the general increase in well-being is demonstrable. That is what I worry about when people talk about statistics. They pluck them out of the air without qualifying them. <BR /> <BR />There is an issue about how you rely on information to reach the correct decisions. I did not intervene when the Member was talking about the improvement in the Irish economy. I have to ask him whether he knows what the absolute level of debt is for the Irish economy.”
“The Member is leading with an argument but has not yet responded to the challenge that has been put forward. On the one hand, you want to cut corporation tax, but you also want to increase spending on skills. The real issue is that it is a liquidity crisis: where will you get the cash from to balance the Budget? It is all spend, spend, spend and no income. You call upon people to have a credible Budget, but I would like to hear a credible proposal from you, sir.”
“This follows on from Mr Beggs's point about corporation tax not being directly relevant to the debate: you mentioned air passenger duty (APD) earlier and asked whether we should be looking at that. I am not sure whether the Member's position is that we are for devolving air passenger duty. I understand that there is quite an expensive price ticket on the block grant for that and that we may be rethinking our position.”
“What colour of tie are you wearing, as a matter of interest?”
“It has brought me to the stage at which I am forced to sign a petition of concern because I cannot take the risk that this will go through. Do you know what made me decide to do that? It was the knowledge that the Ulster Unionist Party was going to support the amendment. The Ulster Unionist Party — the party that used to pride itself on being the party of law and order — will support the amendment. That is appalling. It shows that you have no independent thought, and that is why I had to sign a petition of concern to defeat the amendment.”
“The pillars of our society and our civilisation are built on an independent judiciary. You meddle with it at your peril. <BR /> <BR />A lot in the amendment is not clear, so let me say in conclusion that I am still not sure whether it involves issues to do with common assault or matters that go through the magistrates. I am looking at the Offences Against the Person Act 1861: for the summary offence of assault where no injury is caused or where the injury is minor and non-permanent such as bruising, the starting point is a community order plus a compensation order. If you are over 65, of course, it will be seven years. There is no clarity about what the amendment actually seeks to do. That is because it is poorly thought-out and poorly written and is poor law. I can go through all the issues.”
“It sets out in great detail how much weight should be given to those issues. Through you, Mr Speaker, I put it that the amendment is not worthy of support. It is not the right way to go forward. <BR /> <BR />Mr Allister, I think, challenged the petition of concern. I signed the petition of concern, and let me tell you why: a bad amendment has been put forward that will not assist anybody. It is trying to use and abuse the process by coming in at Further Consideration Stage. Had this been properly investigated, reviewed and peer reviewed, you might consider it, but, coming in at this stage, it is for optics. This is about people who have a career based on attacking the judiciary. This is people saying that they do not trust the judiciary or the legal system. Let me tell you that, if you end up in that type of country, you will regret it.”
“Mr Speaker, sir, this is my assessment of the amendment. It is not derogatory; it is my assessment of what has been put in front of me. I am entitled to that view. I will move on. <BR /> <BR />I will talk about the Judicial Studies Board for Northern Ireland's sentencing in cases of manslaughter, attempted murder and wounding with intent. There is an entire body of evidence on what people consider appropriate. You get issues. I will just mention one at random: 10 years when a defendant committed an unprovoked attack on a defenceless, vulnerable 71-year-old man in poor health. All the case studies are here. The judiciary does not take this lightly and does not ignore the aggravating factors. It also looks at other issues that maybe should be taken into account, such as diminished responsibility.”
“Mr Speaker, I am addressing my remarks through you, sir.”
“Why are you not looking at the most base attacks against women, those with mental health issues and those who are vulnerable? This is a stupid amendment. It has been tabled for some sort of optics or to get some sort of advantage.”