Phil Flanagan
Fermanagh and South Tyrone · Sinn Féin · Northern Ireland
“I thank the Minister for his answer. There is an old guise that you should never ask a question that you do not know the answer to. The question that I submitted asked the Minister how many social houses had been started in the 2015-16 financial year, but somehow it was changed.”
“I thank the Minister for his attempt to answer the question. I put him on notice that it was not he who initiated the process, but I am looking for him to intervene and stop it as a locally elected representative. <BR /> <BR />There are roughly 1,000 people on the housing waiting list in Fermanagh, and nearly 300 of those are in stress.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra. I thank the Minister for his answer. The licence has not been extended, but does the Minister accept that the decision to extend InfraStrata's time frame for a work programme sets a dangerous precedent on fracking, particularly given that InfraStrat…”
“How does the Minister square that with the ministerial involvement of his predecessor, Nelson McCausland, interfering in where social houses are built for political, parading or electoral reasons.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way, and I have no difficulty in supporting this request for information sharing, but I have two short questions. First, he said that this is a tax on employment. Does he have any sort of a headline figure as to what the scale of the financial implications of this will be for local employers?”
“<BR /> <BR />Requirements are now being placed on the Department with regard to careers. That is a very positive development that the Minister brought forward after the Committee initiated a review of careers advice, which was then followed up by a piece of work that the Minister commissioned from an expert group on careers.”
The complete record
Every one of 767 lines we hold for Phil Flanagan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 14 of 16.
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a freagra. Given the continuing constraints on budgets here, can the junior Minister update us on how we are progressing on our drawdown of EU funds and efforts to increase them by 20%?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I definitely do not argue with his point; it merits looking at. However, one of the arguments that we hear for these changes needing to be made to the legislation is to keep it in line with that offered in England and Wales. Is the Member content for us to deviate from what they are doing over there in terms of the inclusion of a statutory code of conduct for practitioners?”
“Provision is also made for statutory demands to be made in writing. During the scrutiny stage, we should seek to explore what the current arrangements are and what the potential benefits of making such a change would be. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, we do not find a pile wrong with the Bill; it is largely a technical exercise. We will have a number of questions through the Committee Stage, but, at this stage, we are more than happy to support the Bill progressing.”
“Under current legislation, it is only possible to be authorised for both. The Bill will do away with the authorisation of insolvency practitioners by competent authorities and enable recognised professional bodies to authorise insolvency practitioners to take only personal or corporate insolvencies as an alternative to being authorised to deal with both. We want an assurance that that will not create the risk of a lack of provision in future should practitioners opt for one or the other. <BR /> <BR />Also included in the Bill, at clause 17, is the proposal, at the suggestion of the Minister of Justice, to require the Lord Chief Justice to be consulted about the making of any order, including the right of appeal, to a court. We want to establish the rationale behind that and why it has been considered necessary at this stage.”
“<BR /> <BR />The original clause 14 referred to bank deposits covered by the financial services compensation scheme. It seems to be the case that, in the event that a financial institution becomes insolvent, individual customers will be compensated up to £85,000 and the financial services compensation scheme will be reimbursed before the British Treasury can claim any further funds. However, what is not clear is whether the Treasury can claim against the remaining funds in preference to the customers who hold deposits in excess of that £85,000. We will try to get clarity on that matter through the Committee Stage of the Bill, unless the Minister can provide it today. <BR /> <BR />The new clause 14 includes provisions to create the option of being authorised as an insolvency practitioner solely in a personal or a corporate capacity.”
“We should learn more about those proposals through the subsequent stages of the Bill, because I am sure that not too many of the 108 of us here are experts in the insolvency process, thank God, although it does feel like it on an ongoing basis. <BR /> <BR />The Minister informed the Committee in June that the original clause 14 of the Bill would be removed to comply with an EU bank recovery and resolution directive that is close to being adopted, we are told. However, as the provisions originally included in the removed clause will now be included in a statutory instrument that the British Treasury plans to make under the European Communities Act, it would probably be appropriate for the Committee to consider the provisions in some way.”
“<BR /> <BR />In relation to clause 12, on the repeal of provision for the early discharge from bankruptcy, through the Committee we have been informed that that provision has been little used in this jurisdiction. I think that the Minister said that it has been used twice. Through the Committee Stage of the Bill, we want to gain a greater insight into why the provision was included in the first place, what its raison d'être was, and to explore what circumstances it was used in. When it was used, did it prove beneficial? What are the potential cost savings that have been referred to through the making of the repeal? Or are we merely repealing it because a similar move was made in England and Wales? <BR /> <BR />There is also reference to fast-track voluntary arrangements.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate, for no other reason than to hear Gordon Dunne say that IT is the way forward. That is a huge acknowledgement from Mr Dunne, and I welcome it. <BR /> <BR />In principle, we support the Bill's progression to Committee Stage. Most of my brief comments will focus on the main areas that I think we should focus on through the Committee scrutiny of the Bill. It is clear that the insolvency legislation that applies here needs to be updated to allow for the use of modern means of electronic communication and to do away with certain procedures and requirements that have outlived their usefulness.”
“Regardless of what people think my view of Mark H Durkan is, I certainly have more faith in him to deliver a HGV levy scheme that meets the needs of the people here than I do in any Minister in a British Government based in the south of England.”
“It does not make sense to charge people £1,000 a year for crossing the border with a lorry. Firms could be employing staff here and buying products here. In Michaela and Barry's case, they could be going to a quarry to lift aggregate, for which tax is paid. They could have staff who are paid here and are spending their wages in shops in the North, yet perhaps the firm that owns the lorry is based in the South. The policy does not meet our unique needs. <BR /> <BR />A better solution has to be found, but the one point that I will make is that it will not be found with a British Minister who has no accountability for, or interest in, the affairs of people here.”
“I turn to the Minister now, and this is what I want him to do, as well as to vote in favour of the motion. I want to see him return to the issue. I do not want him to say, "Well, lookit, the Assembly has voted for this issue, and that is the end of it". Regardless of the way in which the vote goes, I want to see the Minister return to the issue with his colleague in the South and his colleague in Britain and find a solution that meets the needs of people and businesses here. I want to see something that creates a level playing field, to use a phrase from one of the Members opposite. I do not want to see the distorted situation that we have currently. What we have at the minute is completely unacceptable. It goes against the stated ethos of greater North/South cooperation where that makes economic sense. A better solution has to be found.”
“The British Government do not set economic policies with our interests at heart. Certainly not. They do not even think about us. We are not even an afterthought. They do not think, "What are the consequences of this for the people on the far side of Lough Erne in Fermanagh? What impact will it have on their lives?" They are interested only in the people who vote for them in the south of England and do not care about us. This policy does not make sense here. We do not face the problems that they face; we face our own problems.”
“Mr Morrow has encouraged me to return to SR 2014/230, which I will happily do. In all fairness to this policy, let us give Barry's friend Mr Goodwill a bit of credit. This policy probably makes sense on the south coast of England, where people drive lorries across from Calais, go into London for an hour and a half, drop something off and go back out again, or they come in from Calais, lift a load in the south of England, deliver it somewhere else in England and leave again. That is affecting English hauliers, but we are not here to represent them; we are here to represent the people who elect us, and I am here to represent the people of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. That is my primary interest. The policy may make economic sense in the south of England, and that is where the policies that we are having to deal with are being set for.”
“— but the leader says that a border poll would not be useful. What is the party's position on that? Mr Maginness made a ludicrous allegation about UKIP, which is a load of nonsense. The point that I made was that UKIP had an advert in Irish newspapers telling people here to vote for UKIP, and it will give us our country back, meaning that if people here vote for a UKIP candidate, it will give us back Ireland. It is nothing to do with Europe or any of that oul' nonsense. That was the point that I was making. Maybe Mr Maginness just does not get humour.”
“There are a number of solutions, and I told you that I will return to them. I have a three-word answer for you: vote for it. Vote for our motion to annul the legislation that your Minister brought forward. The initial solution is for you and your party to vote against it. <BR /> <BR />These are U-turns in SDLP policy — it is interesting that Mr Eastwood is here — and Alban Maginness gave us a lecture on Sinn Féin's position on Europe, but what is the SDLP's position on a border poll? Mr Eastwood was quoted in the 'Belfast Telegraph' in his weekly opinion piece saying that it is time for a border poll —”
“If ever there was a pure common-sense approach to dealing with a tax, this is it. It is not a concession to nationalism to say, "Don't tax people who are coming three miles across the border to lift something out of a quarry and to bring it back into Donegal again". That is common sense, but the SDLP seems to be opposing it.”
“The SDLP's economic vision is that it wants:”
“They run away from it, and they raise the issue of the definition of a business, whereas when the party did not have the Ministry, it was all about non-farming families. When the SDLP is in a position to change things, it does not do so.”
“The Minister now says that it is not necessary to create a new statutory body outside of government to secure the necessary improvements. What has changed? Have people stopped polluting, or is it simply the fact that the SDLP is now in charge of the Department? <BR /> <BR />Before the 2011 election, you could not stop SDLP MLAs tabling questions and motions and raising the issue of how bad PPS 21 is. They bombarded the previous Environment Minister, who was here earlier for this debate, about PPS 21. In fact, when Patsy McGlone was Chair of the Environment Committee, he claimed that PPS 21 was exactly the same as PPS 14. What do the MLAs do now that they have the ability to change the policy?”
“I am on SR 2014/232, Maurice. If you read it, you will see where I am going. The SDLP manifesto stated that it had maintained pressure for an independent environmental protection agency:”
“I think that it was 52. The SDLP has a number of policies. It has gone to considerable effort to make up policies that it has presented to the electorate, and the electorate have not really liked them that well. However, it is important that people realise that, in 2011, it produced a manifesto, which had a considerable section on its environmental policies and how the SDLP has delivered on them.”
“I am sure that he did his best because, fundamentally, he does not agree with the policy, and his party does not agree with it. This is not an attack on his party. If this was going to be a political attack on the SDLP, I would have plenty of material here without having to get into Mark H Durkan's inability to get the British Government to roll over on a HGV levy.”
“I hear you, Sammy; I hear you. I have mentioned him in a passive manner. I am saying that we have not attacked him.”
“<BR /> <BR />When he gets up to speak, I am genuinely reminded of the comments that Paul Gogarty made to Emmet Stagg in the Dáil one day, and I dare not repeat those, because there are enough people getting thrown out of this place at the minute. I genuinely do not think that he mentioned the HGV levy once in his historical debate. He accused us of trying to embarrass the SDLP, as have others. We do not need to embarrass the SDLP. If you have Alban Maginness speaking on this issue for you, he is doing a good enough job. We never once mentioned Mark H Durkan in a critical manner. I am sure that we are all aware —”
“I thank the Member for his contribution. I always think it is great to hear the SDLP insisting that we come up with alternatives. Perhaps if the Member for East Antrim had the Floor he might suggest that the SDLP might suggest that we sell the City of Derry Airport and use the funds to offset the taxation. That is the type of alternative that we are dealing with. <BR /> <BR />I want to finish on a positive note, when I get there, and that is where I want to see a solution coming from. I will come back to Colum's question in a minute. It was not us who introduced party politics into the debate; it was Alban Maginness.”
“I will in a minute, Colum. As someone who represents a border constituency and who engages on a consistent basis with businesses, I know that this is a problem for those who are based in the North. Let me tell those in this room who think that this is only about hauliers in the South that it certainly is not. It is about businesses in the North that are trying to get their stuff moved; it is about people employed in the North who are going to lose their jobs; and, ultimately, it is about our constituents who are going to face increased costs as a result of this tax.”
“Maybe, sitting in his ivory tower in north Belfast, everything is fine and dandy for him, but it is certainly not good for people in border areas. It is not good for the people who are manufacturing stuff — the manufacturing and agrifood companies that are trying to get the stuff that they make sent to their customers. It is not all fun and games for them.”
“He is not here to debate the HGV levy; he is here because he thinks that there is a political attack against Mark H Durkan, and he is here to block that attack. He is the one who started the attack; it did not exist until he got up to speak. A large number of Members spoke, but not one of them mentioned Mark H Durkan. Nobody attacked or crucified him or said anything negative at all about the man. He stands up and tells us that this is not about the North and that it is us looking to the South. Well, we have a lot more voters in the South than the SDLP has. <BR /> <BR />From Alban Maginness's lengthy pontification on the issue, he did not seem to have a clue what he was talking about. He has not engaged with people to be able to tell us about the issue. He certainly has not engaged with anybody in a border area.”
“Maybe some other people would adopt a smaller position where some roads need to be exempt. Would they pick the A5, which runs from Derry to Aughnacloy, or the A4, which goes from Belcoo the whole way to Ballygawley and extends up to Dungannon and Belfast? Would they add in the A46, which goes from Enniskillen to Belleek, or the A8, which the Member for East Antrim probably knows right and well? Would they add in that road, given its strategic importance? <BR /> <BR />It is rich for Alban Maginness to stand up and tell us that this is not about the North. Not once did he mention the HGV levy. In all of his wide-ranging, historical address — talking about things that happened before I was born — he never once mentioned the HGV levy. That shows you what he is here for.”
“It has nothing to do with the SDLP; the SDLP is not bringing forward this HGV levy. Its Minister has a responsibility for enacting a secondary piece of legislation, but it is not his piece of legislation. So, once again, I want to tell Alban Maginness that we are not fighting with the SDLP over the issue, even if he wants to be outraged and offended and say that I am attacking the Minister. He is on the wrong planet; he is definitely in the wrong continent. <BR /> <BR />Some people might say that this is not the time or the place, but maybe some people do not want to have this debate; maybe some people do not want to hear that partition is bad for our people. <BR /> <BR />Additional roads need to be exempt. We have adopted the position that all roads need to be exempt.”
“It will certainly not build a train track to Enniskillen. I can guarantee you that that is not what the money will go on. As much as I would like that, it will not happen. We have been told that our food and fuel bills are already higher here, so we can certainly do without an additional tax to move goods. <BR /> <BR />Two roads are partially exempt, and that has been the case from the start. That was the case when we tabled the motion in May, and we called for further exemptions. Some Members indicated their support for adding the A5 to the list of exemptions, and the Minister said that he would seek such an exemption. In May, we were also told that it was the wrong time for a debate and that we were tabling a motion as an election was coming up and we were using it to attack the SDLP.”
“I thank the Member for her intervention. I also thank Sean in RaISe, who produced a very helpful document, which includes a table giving the rate for each band. The Member is right that £1,000 a year per lorry is the maximum charge. You can pay it daily at a tenner, weekly at £50 or monthly at £100. None of those are small sums, and they will seriously impact on hauliers in the South and on customers, producers and manufacturers in the North. <BR /> <BR />The customers and the constituents whom we represent will foot the bill. Whatever small amount is raised will have a huge impact here, but it will not stay here. It will go off to Britain and help to build a train track from London to Birmingham or somewhere like that. It will not help to extend the railway from Derry to Coleraine and get it open again.”
“However, if we cannot get agreement on that position, there are alternatives. We could come up with a scheme that covers both of these islands so that there is not the unfair playing field that is there at the minute. Everybody would pay the levy, but it would be applied fairly across all hauliers. <BR /> <BR />Colleagues mentioned that businesses in border areas do much better at exporting and that they often use Southern hauliers. To be honest, anybody who says that this is only about hauliers in Donegal does not know what they are talking about. Businesses based in border areas use Southern hauliers and are reliant on them to move their goods and products. Someone will have to pay the additional costs. If they put a tax of £1,000 a year on the lorry, who do they think will pay that? It will be passed on to the end user, who —”
“As far as I know, this is not his policy. He did not sit down in a darkened room one night to write the HGV levy. It was not his idea. We are not fighting him, and our fight is not with him. The faux outrage from the SDLP that we are trying to embarrass it is a load of crap. That is not what we are dealing with. This is a policy of the British Government, and we should not support them by implementing it. <BR /> <BR />There are a number of solutions. I am sympathetic to what a number of the Members opposite said about Sinn Féin's alternative. Our alternative is that the roads in the North should be exempt from the levy. Some said that an exemption should apply to the A5. Exempting the A5 is a sensible argument, but we do not need to stop there. We need to make sure that all roads in the North are exempt.”
“We have been told by many that it is not the time or the place for this issue to be debated and that we are attacking the SDLP again. I do not think that anybody mentioned the SDLP. I do not think that any of the Members from our party who spoke mentioned Mark Durkan. The only person who went on a rant about party politics was Alban Maginness, but that was no surprise to us. Barry McElduff spoke, and I do not think that he once mentioned Mark Durkan in a negative way. He is trying to build a united front and is not out to score political points against the SDLP. I will tell you in a minute what we would say if we were trying to score political points against the SDLP. I will come to that; I had not meant to, but I have been provoked. <BR /> <BR />Nobody sought to embarrass the SDLP. We have not criticised Mark H Durkan.”
“We would not be saying, "Oh well, there is nothing that we can do." There is the whole nonsense that we cannot table this motion as there is nothing we can do. There is nothing we can do about the persecution of Christians at the far end of the world, but it seems that it is dead on to table two motions to debate that. There is nothing we can do about that in this wee debating hall that turns into a sixth form common room at times. This is an important issue.”
“If it can be done for people who want to travel to or from Singapore either to promote this place as a potential location for investment or to make it easier for people coming for business or tourism, surely they can sort out the whole issue of heavy goods vehicles travelling on our roads. <BR /> <BR />Some people appear to think that a tax of £1,000 a year on a lorry is not a pile of money. It is certainly nothing to be sneered at. If there were an increase of £1,000 to the annual fuel bill for a HGV, we would certainly hear about it. I presume that our colleagues in the SDLP would not say, "There is nothing that we can do about it." It would be raised, there would be a debate about it here, and there would be complete outrage.”
“When we now have the political maturity for a joint trade mission to go to an air show in Singapore in February involving the North's Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the South's Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation jointly promoting this island and, along with their British counterpart, promoting both of these islands, and when the British and Irish Governments can come together to bring forward a joint visa scheme for people who are visiting either of these islands from thousands of miles away, why can they not do it for a lorry that wants to drive up and down these roads?”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important issue. I am a bit disappointed at the tone of some of the contributors. I fully support the proposers of the motion and their efforts to ensure that this bad piece of legislation is not enacted. <BR /> <BR />The proposed HGV levy, which some people managed to speak on for an awful long time without actually getting near to mentioning, is a crazy policy on an island such as this one. We see greater cooperation taking place between governments and organisations North and South.”
“I ask the Principal Deputy Speaker to make a ruling on whether it is all right for a Member to make an accusation that the debate is "fraudulent". It is a strange phrase to use. I do not think that it is an acceptable phrase.”
“On a point of order, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker.”
“I will. It is distorting the market and having a serious impact on hauliers, the people who work for them and, ultimately, the people who get goods and services using those hauliers.”
“Members from the unionist parties have compared the imposition of a £1,000-a-year levy only on hauliers to cross the border to a toll that applies on the new major roads in the South and that everybody pays. Therefore, if lorry drivers or car users based in the South want to use a toll road in the South, they are not exempt from that tax. Everybody has to pay that. It is a fair taxation across everybody. If the tax were to be introduced for all hauliers that are using the roads, it would be fair, and everybody would pay it.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I want to take him back to his comments about a level playing field. Our fundamental opposition to this is not that a tax is being imposed on people who are driving lorries. The principal objection to it lies in the fact that you are charging people who are crossing the border. If a tax were to be introduced that applied to everybody, and hauliers in the North or in England did not get a £1,000 reduction on their annual excise duty on a vehicle and other road users had to pay that, it would be fair. <BR /> <BR />This is not a stick for Sinn Féin to beat the SDLP with, no matter what you think. It is not about that at all. If it were, Mr McElduff's opening contribution would have been an awful lot more political. This is about trying to create a level playing field.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He might be interested to learn that, ahead of the recent elections, a full-page advertisement was carried in all our regional papers saying that, if you vote for UKIP, it will give us our country back. I am more than happy to support David McNarry in that regard.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Minister will be aware that I am not exactly a fan of the scheme. Given that the first thing that it has done is put a significant number of people on the dole, is there anything to stop those people from applying for a programme through the Steps 2 Success scheme?”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire Airgeadais as a ráiteas. I take it that the statement was not agreed by the Executive, because it is one of the most party political statements that I have ever heard, and I thank the Minister for it. On a procedural term, he talks about reducing the headcount in the public sector. Will the Minister detail how that makes financial sense in the short-term, given that people who opt for voluntary redundancy would have to be given an upfront payment? How would that work, given that it takes several years for savings from such a scheme to kick in?”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I am disappointed at the stance that the Minister and some in her party have taken to peddle company propaganda and to completely ignore the facts that everybody acknowledges exists by focusing on the two issues of illegal trade and an EU directive, and completely ignoring the high cost of energy and other production costs that exist here. Does the Minister accept that a number of global companies are reviewing their position here because of those high energy and production costs? Can she outline what steps she is taking to reduce those costs to try to retain maximum employment here by reducing globalisation transfers out of this place?”
“I thank the Minister and commend him for his efforts to answer that question blind. I want to tease it out a wee bit further with him. The site is being transferred to the council. Is there any way in which the council can ensure that the site is developed for social housing instead of putting it on the market? For example, will the council be allowed to do a public sector trawl that might include social housing providers? Would they be excluded from a public sector trawl?”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a freagraí. The Minister may be aware of a recently published DEL report looking into labour mobility. One of the challenges that it identifies is the lack of employment opportunities in rural areas and the move towards jobs in Belfast. How does the Minister intend to reverse that trend and ensure that an adequate number of jobs are created in places like Fermanagh and other rural areas, given the Programme for Government commitment to tackle regional imbalance?”