Colum Eastwood
Foyle · Social Democratic and Labour Party · Northern Ireland
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Given the fact that the Good Friday Agreement envisages an Assembly, a power-sharing Executive, North/South Ministerial Council and other bodies, is it the case, today, that, if we do not have the nominating officer here from Sinn Féin, no Executive will be formed?”
“Mr Allister has made my point for me. The Good Friday Agreement is absolutely 100% clear. The power-sharing Executive, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the North-South Ministerial Council: at any point over the last 1,000-plus days, those institutions could have been restored. People on these Benches have tried hard.”
“That is why we are here today. We will gladly take part in those institutions but we will not be party to a stunt that is using and abusing people's emotions and sensitivities over a very difficult issue, which could have been dealt with at any point over the last 1,000 days.”
“<BR /> <BR />Is it the case, Mr Speaker, that without Members here present to my right or who should be to my right that there will not be an Executive formed today? If that is the case, we will be in no position to support a Speaker and allow for the undermining of the Good Friday Agreement through a unionist-dominated shadow Assembly.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is, of course, true that because of the DUP's despicable and disgraceful behaviour, not just around RHI, we have got to this point. It is also true that they were let do all those things. They were allowed to do all those things.”
“We put the papers in on all manner of subjects, topics and areas, but nobody wanted to negotiate back. Nobody wanted to talk to us about how we can invest in the Irish language, protect equality for LGBT people and tackle poverty and discrimination right across our society.”
The complete record
Every one of 448 lines we hold for Colum Eastwood, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 9.
“But we cannot come up to this issue again saying we are going to resolve it and then not resolve it. We cannot leave the victims at the top of the hill any more times.”
“We all know now that they are absolutely sick of being re-traumatised and, year after year, being put through the same public airing without any real solution. This has to be the phase where we move to the endgame. <BR /> <BR />I am happy to hear from the Secretary of State that we are moving into a public phase, and I want that to happen sooner rather than later.”
“How many more family members do we need to watch go to their grave without fulfilling the promise that we would seek truth and justice for their loved one? All of us in the Chamber work with victims every week, and all of us understand the pain that victims and survivors are going through. All of us, I think, are coming at this from the right place. However, none of us should feel OK about the fact that we still have not resolved the hugely important and difficult issues that it is absolutely necessary to resolve. <BR /> <BR />We have been from the Good Friday Agreement to Eames/Bradley right through to last autumn's Fresh Start proposals, and, every single time, we have given the victims some level of comfort or confidence that we were going to resolve their issues.”
“It is unfortunate that we have to come back to these issues and air them so many times when the people who matter most, the victims and survivors, have not got any real resolution to them. I am encouraged by Mr Beattie's words: it is good to hear that people will support the idea that there will be no hierarchy of victims. No matter who pulled the trigger, we have victims right across our community, and that has to be at the heart of how we approach the issue. <BR /> <BR />This is the biggest unresolved issue from our peace process. It is very unfortunate, and it is a real stain on our political and peace process that we still have not resolved it. How much longer do we need to leave the victims outside the room?”
“The mitigation measures are important to help people with families in the short term, and the Committee agrees that the Assembly should affirm these regulations. However, consideration needs to be given to what type of welfare system we want and can afford post-March 2020. I encourage the Minister to start that work sooner rather than later.”
“After March 2020, this fund, in lieu of any other arrangements, may well be under considerable pressure. Perhaps the Minister could comment on the current pressures on that fund, whether he anticipates it will increase and for what period, on average, awards from this fund are given. Also, does he have any concerns about people falling into rent arrears as a result of the welfare changes, and is he considering any other contingencies to prevent this and therefore reduce the potential risk of increased homelessness?”
“Members of the Committee have raised this with officials on several occasions and have suggested sending a single letter to people to highlight the change that applies to them and the mitigation measures if applicable. It is also important to consider whether the Department should provide, for example, an annual reminder to those in receipt of payments noting that they are scheduled to end by 31 March 2020. <BR /> <BR />The Committee has been told that people who will be impacted by the new cap but who will not receive a mitigation payment can apply for a discretionary housing payment to make up the shortfall in their rent. It seems that the discretionary housing payment is the Department’s key safety net for people whose benefits will be reduced.”
“A mitigation payment will also apply only to those people in receipt of benefit on the day before the cap comes in. In other words, new claims on or after 7 November will not be subject to mitigation payments. This means that, although any current welfare supplementary payments based on the £26,000 cap will end and future payments for families will be based on the £20,000 cap mitigation, mitigation payments will make up the difference, unless, that is, the applicant’s circumstances change. It is important to note that the mitigation payments will only be paid until 31 March 2020, as long as a person’s circumstances do not change in that time. <BR />It is also important to consider how the Department communicates these changes to people who are affected by the revised cap.”
“Just to be clear, the new cap for families will be £20,000, and for single people and couples without children it will be £13,400. In DWP-speak, this is to make the benefits system fairer and to incentivise people into full-time employment, but personally, I am not sure about that. I suppose not being able to feed or clothe your family or heat your home is as draconian an incentive as you can get. <BR /> <BR />The Department has advised that an estimated 2,600 households will be impacted by the new cap. It is important to note that the mitigation payments which the regulations will allow for will only apply to families with children, as per the recommendation of the working group. Couples without children and single people without dependants will not receive a mitigation payment.”
“These regulations are the latest in a series that provide the legal basis for the implementation of the mitigation measures recommended by the welfare reform mitigation measures working group led by Professor Eileen Evason. While we have distinct differences about the overall approach to welfare reform, as it is called, it did provide some assurance when the package of mitigation measures was agreed. <BR /> <BR />Many of us, in all parties, were concerned about the potential for the benefit cap to cause hardship to those on benefits, particularly to families. That cap of £26,000 was introduced in May of this year. However, we will soon be in a position, come 7 November, where the benefit cap will be reduced further.”
“Hopefully, it is the Opposition that is putting the Government in the right place once and for all. <BR /> <BR />We welcome the move from the Minister to take our consideration and our proposals on board to change this desperate situation in which we need to build more social housing for our people.”
“I believe, Mr Stalford and Mr Deputy Speaker, that it is the fact of an Opposition that is forcing this Government to work together. We will see, when it comes to the final production of the Programme for Government, whether it is just going to be about bluer skies and greener grass or whether we are going to see some real commitments to the people; people in my constituency, people in West Belfast, people in North Belfast and people right across the North of Ireland who have been let down by nine successive years of bad government. <BR /> <BR />Hopefully, the Opposition will put those guys and these guys in their place and get them finally delivering for the people of Northern Ireland and that will make sure that people my age and of my generation do not have to leave our shores to find work or a university place.”
“I thank the Member very much for his intervention. Yes, of course we were in the last Government. The SDLP had one member of that Government, and for all the talk of the collegiate, partnership working that we now hear, there was not much of that when we were in government, I can tell you very clearly. There was not much of that. There was not much respect for our mandate, or the Ulster Unionist mandate, or the Alliance Party mandate around that particular Executive table, and if things have changed, I welcome that. I believe —”
“Maybe they have slipped up, and maybe we are going to see more of this to come, but we have two opposing amendments from the two Government parties.”
“When we went into opposition, we did not say that we were just going to oppose everything for opposition's sake. In fact, we said the exact opposite. We said that we would work with the Ulster Unionists. We would work with any political party, either in government or outside the Government, to make sure that the Executive do the best possible things for the people who need it most. <BR /> <BR />It is strange; maybe it is deliberate — I am not sure, Mr Allister — but we have seen a real attempt in radio and TV studios and in this Chamber, and I am glad to see the two Government parties working together. Unfortunately, today, somebody did not get the memo. It is strange. It looks a bit like the last mandate.”
“— "Oh my God, the SDLP and the Ulster Unionists do not have the same manifesto" — why would we? I will tell you what we do: we work together in the interests of democracy and in the interests of the House. That is why I strongly believe that the Opposition are having an impact. <BR /> <BR />As Mr Attwood has just pointed out, we have seen new figures from the Minister. We welcome them very much. The new figures from the Minister, the new commitment from the Minister and the new understanding that we need to build more social housing and more affordable housing to a level that is appropriate and required all say that the Opposition are working. They are pushing the Executive to do more and better things.”
“I thank the Member very much for his intervention. He must have seen some of the notes that I have in front of me. It is absolutely clear, given the criticism that comes from the other side of the room and sometimes from this side of the room as well that, "God, the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP do not agree on every single aspect of policy" — why would we? — "God, the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP have a slightly different approach to the European Union" — why would we not?”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I had absolutely no idea that you were going to call me, but thank you very much; I did not assume that I would be called straight after Mr Attwood. <BR /> <BR />First, I welcome the fact that this is the first day that we have had joint motions from the Opposition. We hear cries from across the room that the Opposition cannot get their act together, but we have today got at least two motions with names on them from the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP. I am also very glad, as Mr —”
“I have no doubt that the Member will know if it is a good or a bad deal. Does he think therefore that we should have a vote on it, or should we just leave it to the British Prime Minister, who has not given us much hope that she is too concerned about whether it is a good or a bad deal for us?”
“Thanks to the Member for giving way. I am glad he raised the point that we have a number of MPs who take their seats and will be in Westminster. Does he therefore support the call for the Westminster Parliament to be given a vote on what happens with article 50 and any subsequent potential deals? Is that what he is saying or are they just going to sit there and debate things but not actually get the opportunity to vote?”
“Has the Member read Martin McGuinness's article in 'The Guardian', which was published last night and referred to special status for Northern Ireland? Has his party moved away from the position that "Remain means Remain"?”
“We do that every day in London as Irish nationalists. There is nothing to stop political unionism doing it in Dublin as part of this conversation.”
“This, again, is from the political school of, "Let's have our cake and eat it". The Brexiteers were told over and over again that, if they wanted to control immigration, they would have to have controls on the freedom to do business around and into the European Union. You cannot have it both ways. I do not know how many times people need to be told. They are being told by everybody in a senior position, including Donald Tusk, in the European Union. <BR /> <BR />The Irish Government have done a good thing in proposing the conversation around this and all the issues associated with it. I appeal once more to political unionism to get involved in that conversation. There is no trapdoor here to Irish unity; this is about getting people together and working to defend the interests of the people who voted here.”
“No. You have had your chance, Mr Allister. The Member is absolutely right: the border will have to be moved to the island of Britain. I did not vote for tighter controls on immigration. Those who did and those who argued for it can have their border if they want, but it will be down the middle of the Irish Sea. That is the realisation that people need to come to very quickly.”
“I thank Mr Allister for his intervention. As usual, he always hears what you are saying. He listens very carefully, and he has picked it up. It is unfortunate that those who, like him and others in the Chamber, argued for Brexit could not see this coming before the referendum result. He is absolutely right. If our job is to protect people here, we have to protect their ability to move and do business around the island and into the European Union. That should not be negotiable by anybody. Confusion reigns across the Chamber. Some of the DUP spokespersons seem to be saying exactly the same thing as we are saying: no return to the borders of the past; no hard borders; we need to maintain the special relationships across these islands; and all these things.”
“<BR /> <BR />That is why we clearly believe that, whilst the new mantra of the British Government is "We will not return to the borders of the past" — I think that that is the line that they keep trotting out — we need to ensure that we explain to people what that actually means. People who argued for Brexit need to be more honest about what that means. If we are not to have a border like we had in the past and if we are not going to control our border at Bridgend, Newry or anywhere across this island, where will we control it? My strong belief is that the only practical place and the best place to control the border into Britain is at Stansted Airport, Heathrow Airport or any port that you want to name, because it will not be possible to do it here. We should not tell the —”
“Our job here is to protect their interests, not the interests of people anywhere else, not the interests of people on a different island or in a different jurisdiction. Our job is to protect people here. That is why we have to ensure that we maintain the four freedoms on the island of Ireland. That is why we have to ensure that our people have the right to move freely around this island and around the European Union. That is why we have to ensure that our businesses can trade freely without tariffs, borders or any impediments to business and growth around this island and the European Union.”
“The British Treasury, which is beginning to implement Brexit, has told us that a hard Brexit will cost the British Exchequer between £38 billion and £66 billion a year. What will that mean for Barnett consequentials and the Executive's already tightened and straitened financial opportunities? What will that mean for us when it happens? People need to understand that, no matter how many glasses of champagne are poured, the British Tory party has no interest and does not care one jot for people in Northern Ireland. I am surprised that people have not learnt that lesson. <BR /> <BR />Since this happened, we have made it clear that our job here is to stand with the people who voted to remain in the European Union.”
“It says something that the Economy Minister understands that we are better off in Europe. I just wonder what happened to the rest of his party.”
“We have also been hard at work using our contacts in the Party of European Socialists, our sister parties right across Europe, to try to make sure that the issues of the North of Ireland are front and centre, because we have no confidence that anybody else is doing that. <BR /> <BR />We have heard the words coming out of the Tory party conference, and I do not think that any of us are filled with confidence that a success will be made of this. It is very interesting to note — I do not know how many times I and others have asked him — that our Economy Minister cannot tell us what way he voted in the referendum. I think that he should just be honest because he is with the 56% who voted to remain in the European Union. It would fit him a lot better to tell us that once and for all.”
“It is not good enough to tell us that there will be tremendous opportunities from Brexit without actually telling us what they might be. It is definitely not good enough to send a letter to the British Prime Minister in August and then patiently wait for a reply; I do not think that we have got one yet. We should be kicking the British Prime Minister's door in to ensure that the interests of the people of Northern Ireland are protected. I do not hear anything coming from the British Government that would give us any confidence that people here are at the top of their agenda. <BR /> <BR />We said, after the referendum result, that we would use any legal, parliamentary and diplomatic options that we had to try to protect the will of the people here. You have already referred to the court case; I will leave that with the judge.”
“Brexit is the biggest issue that has faced the Assembly and this part of the world for a long time. I believe that it will affect this island and these islands more than any other issue and, unfortunately, in a very negative way. We tried to make the arguments during the referendum campaign. Some were, unfortunately, not prepared to listen, but 56% of people in the North of Ireland did listen and supported the European Union and our membership of it. It is unfortunate that some could not hear what our electorate said. <BR /> <BR />We have tabled this motion to try to inject some urgency into the Assembly and, hopefully, into the Executive. It is not good enough to protest passionately on the streets while sitting quietly in the Executive.”
“I will try my best to take your advice, Mr Speaker. Feel free — I am sure that you will — to pull me up if I do not. <BR /> <BR />I beg to move”
“The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has confirmed that all devolved Administrations will be fully involved in the development of criteria, and the Committee for Communities asks that the Minister keep it apprised of progress in that regard. <BR /> <BR />The Committee recommends that the Assembly endorse the principle of the extension to Northern Ireland of the Cultural Property Bill.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee is satisfied that the original consultation undertaken by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in 2008 is still relevant and applicable and is content with the assessment that the financial impact is expected to be minimal. The Committee is also satisfied with the Department for Communities's assessment that the extension to Northern Ireland of the relevant provisions in the Bill has no implications for equality of opportunity, nor will it have an impact on the cultural capital of Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />Crucially, the Committee notes that the British Government will need to develop criteria to identify cultural property within the meaning of article 1 of the convention. That is:”
“The Committee is content that it would not be possible, therefore, to bring forward the provisions by means of an Assembly Bill. <BR /> <BR />The Committee notes that the inclusion of Northern Ireland in the Bill will ensure consistency and coherence across the UK, noting that Wales and Scotland have agreed the same approach. Should the Assembly not pass the LCM, the Bill would need to be amended to allow the British Minister to grant permission and make designations for the use of the emblem in Northern Ireland. The Committee agrees it is preferable that the Bill will confer powers for the Department for Communities here on the use of the emblem in Northern Ireland, and the local Minister will be able to be in a position to influence the operation of the legislation as it relates to the North of Ireland.”
“<BR /> <BR />To that extent, the Committee also welcomes the introduction of offences designed to protect cultural property in the event of an armed conflict, as well as those to deter misuse of the blue shield. The Committee notes that the wide definition of cultural property under article 1 of the convention is in the Westminster Bill. The Committee, having sought clarification from the Department, is satisfied with the rationale for using an LCM rather than an Assembly Bill. As well as cultural matters, the Westminster Bill contains provisions that mainly concern the import and export of cultural property to and from the UK. While those apply to Northern Ireland, they are not devolved matters under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and hence are outside the legislative competence of the Assembly.”
“The Committee for Communities welcomes the Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill, which is designed to enable the UK to ratify the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and accede to its two protocols. The Committee believes the Bill will be a positive development towards the protection of our cultural heritage. The impact of armed conflict on cultural property can be devastating, and the Committee recognises that the marking of cultural property with the distinctive emblem of the convention may afford some protection to these properties. The Committee therefore welcomes the British Government's decision to ratify the convention through the Bill.”
“The aim of the convention was to seek to afford protection to immovable and movable cultural heritage. For example, architectural monuments, works of art, books, manuscripts and archaeological sites etc. The convention comprises two protocols. The first protocol, agreed in 1954, details the undertakings for the protection of cultural property in territory occupied during an armed conflict. The second protocol essentially enhances the protection afforded to cultural heritage, establishes offences for violation of the protocol and provides clarification on obligations to the convention. <BR /> <BR />The British Government signed the convention in 1954, but despite committing to ratify it, successive British Governments have failed to do so.”
“I thank the Minister for moving the motion. Subsequent to the end of the Second World War and the massive destruction across Europe that resulted, the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict was adopted at The Hague in May 1954.”
“Is the Minister concerned, as we are, that this fund and many other funds might go to the wall given the fact that some people in her party and in other parties are rushing to drag us out of the European Union against our will?”
“The Minister will be aware that the Committee is likely to consider hundreds of statutory rules over the mandate and that adherence to proper procedure on subordinate legislation is essential. He can maybe pass that on to Minister Givan. <BR /> <BR />Perhaps the Minister can give his assurances, and those of Minister Givan, that, as the different elements of former Departments become embedded into a new cohesive Department, this will be given due attention. In addition, maybe the Minister can again assure the House that the policy intent has not changed, so Members can have confidence in the regulations before them today.”
“Members were, however, advised at the meeting that there had been issues with the drafting of the regulations and were provided with an amended version at the beginning of the meeting. Those were the regulations the Committee considered and agreed upon, subject to the report of the Examiner of Statutory Rules. However, the regulations the Committee considered were subsequently withdrawn by the Department, again due to drafting issues. Those were replaced by the regulations before the House today. <BR /> <BR />Unfortunately, that means that the Committee has not actually considered these particular regulations, albeit that the Examiner of Statutory Rules has considered them and has not identified any issues and that we are assured by officials that the policy intent has not changed.”
“The Committee for Communities first considered the Department's proposal on 16 June 2016 to make the Landlord Registration Scheme (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016 and was content for the rule to be made. <BR /> <BR />The Committee noted that there is a requirement to amend the 2014 regulation as a result of the Welfare Reform Order 2015 and the Welfare Supplementary Payments Regulations 2016. That is simply to allow the landlord registrar to disclose information to authorised officers from the Department for Communities for administrative purposes relating to welfare supplementary payments. <BR /> <BR />When the statutory rule was subsequently brought before the Committee on 23 June, the Committee was content, subject to the report of the Examiner of Statutory Rules, to recommend that it be affirmed by the Assembly.”
“<BR /> <BR />On behalf of the Committee, I recommend that the regulations be approved by the Assembly.”
“The statutory rule introduces discretionary support provision to pay loans and grants to people in crisis, following the abolition of community care grants and crisis loans under article 76 of the Welfare Reform Order 2015. The Committee notes that this is a temporary response aimed at softening the landing for the most vulnerable as a result of the reform of the welfare system here. Critical to the success of discretionary support will be access to specialist information and advice services. <BR /> <BR />Those accessing discretionary funds are likely to require support in finding a more sustainable financial footing. The Committee for Communities will seek assurances from the Department that a robust framework of independent advice, as recommended in Professor Evason's report, is in place as the welfare reform programme goes forward.”
“I thank the Minister for the great detail in which he outlined the regulations. <BR /> <BR />When the Committee first considered the Department's proposal to make the regulations on 9 June 2016, it was content for the rule to be made. Subsequently, when the statutory rule was brought before the Committee on 16 June, the Committee was content, subject to the report of the Examiner of Statutory Rules, to recommend that it be affirmed by the Assembly. The Examiner reported on the SR on 24 June and did not identify any issues. <BR /> <BR />The Committee welcomes discretionary support, as recommended by the working group on welfare mitigations led by Professor Evason.”
“When a carer is receiving income support and is also entitled to carer’s allowance, the payment will be equal to the standard weekly rate of carer's allowance. Again, the payment will be for no more than 12 months. However, the Committee was advised that, as with the existing benefits system, a change of circumstance will result in a reconsideration of the mitigation payment. It is, therefore, possible, depending on the specific change of circumstances, that the mitigation payment could be stopped. <BR /> <BR />The Committee was content to recommend that the Assembly affirm these regulations. Therefore, on behalf of the Committee, I recommend that the Assembly approve the three motions related to these regulations.”
“Currently, a person who provides care for someone who is ill or disabled can receive financial support from one of the following: carer’s allowance, carer’s premium, income support or state pension credit. When the person being cared for is reassessed and loses the daily living component of PIP, their carer will also be subject to a loss of benefit. The regulations will ensure that carers impacted in that way will receive a mitigation payment for up to one year, and payment will be equal to the amount that they have lost. <BR /> <BR />The Committee was informed that there were two exceptions to that. When a carer is receiving a carer’s allowance and a contribution-based benefit that is less than the carer’s allowance, the payment will be equal to the difference between the two.”
“The payments will be equal to the amount of the disability premium or element that was lost as a direct result of a claimant's DLA to PIP reassessment. <BR /> <BR />The Committee was advised that the payment will generally be for no more than 12 months, with the exception that, when a person appeals the decision of their PIP reassessment, payment will continue until the appeal has concluded. That period may also be less than 12 months if the payment begins after 1 April 2019. Again, the scheme and, therefore, the payments end on 31 March 2020. The Committee was content to recommend that the Assembly affirm these regulations. <BR /> <BR />The third element of this tranche of regulations relates to the Welfare Supplementary Payment (Loss of Carer Payments) Regulations 2016.”