Stewart Dickson
East Antrim · Alliance Party · Northern Ireland
“Thank you, Minister, for your answer. Minister, you will have noted that the Government recently announced a VAT cut for some family expenses for a range of activities over the summer. That is perhaps a change.”
“Many do not know how to apply; others do not even realise that the opportunities exist. If the process itself is a barrier to participation, it is really not open to all.”
“I was born in 1950 in Thorndale House, which was one of the homes that is named in the legislation. I was born to married parents, and Thorndale House was a maternity home. It was where you went to have your baby in 1950 on the Antrim Road. My mum and dad went there, I was born and, a few days later, I left with loving parents.”
“I agree with Mr Brett: amendment No 6 is important because it will deal with persons who refuse to provide information or evidence to the inquiry. Amendment No 8 to clause 20 is a tidying-up amendment that will allow the Committee to make interim reports, which will be of benefit to the inquiry process.”
“That is why I want the inquiry to succeed and why it is vital that it succeeds. That is why it is important for us to see that cruelty in the full glare of a public inquiry. That is why it is important that the scheme goes through without further delay. <BR /> <BR />Finally, I place on record my thanks to the Committee Chair.”
“The Assembly faces stark choices, and agreeing the draft Budget as it stands is not a silver bullet, nor is it sustainable for us to continue in the absence of a Budget. It is vital, therefore, that we break the cycle of crisis and collapse that has been destroying our public finances.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,188 lines we hold for Stewart Dickson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 39 of 44.
“Nevertheless, we must keep up our guard. The Prime Minister and others may spring this irrational policy back at any time in an attempt to satisfy the right wing of their party. I hope that no party here represented at Westminster would contemplate backing such a shoddy policy and undermine fundamental rights for the people of Northern Ireland to suit their political purposes. <BR /> <BR />I have heard people say so often, "Human rights are for other people. I do not need human rights. What have they ever done to help me?" I would like to leave on the record today the words of the Lutheran pastor, Martin Niemöller, an outspoken critic of the Nazi regime of the 1930s and 1940s, which may offer an interesting perspective on the rights of society. Writing of the years before his arrest, Niemöller said:”
“<BR /> <BR />It is the right to appeal to a higher court outside the grasp of the British Executive that maintains confidence in our system of justice, policing and governance overall. It is, indeed, part of an international treaty between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. I am heartened that the Irish Government continue their commitment as a guarantor of the agreement. I just wish that the United Kingdom Government would fully recognise their responsibilities. Scotland has indicated that it will oppose outright any changes to human rights law, and we must send a similarly strong message to Whitehall. Unlike other battles, this one is only beginning and it is one that we can win. <BR /> <BR />The rhetoric from Whitehall and the right wing of the Tory Party has cooled, and the repeal of the Act has been shelved.”
“In the hard-won peace settlement of 1998, which most parties here are supposed to be committed to, we enshrined these fundamental rights into the very functioning of our institutions. The Good Friday Agreement required the United Kingdom to incorporate the ECHR into law in Northern Ireland to ensure access to the courts for our citizens. Furthermore, the Patten report, which forms the very foundation of our modern Police Service, instils an ethos of human rights into the very heart of policing, with strong observance of the ECHR. Removing that from the statute book would have a profound impact on the way in which we hold police accountable, and may even undermine confidence in communities that were traditionally ambiguous, at best, towards the police.”
“Would a British bill of rights, as it has been called, provide the same protections? I, for one, do not wish to have either the Conservatives or the right-wing newspapers of this country deciding which rights are fundamental and which are frivolous. Undoubtedly, social rights would take a back seat. Furthermore, we would find that writing that out of our law would make the UK's position on the ECHR and the Council of Europe untenable. How preposterous would it be that states that constantly flout human rights laws, such as Russia, Turkey and Azerbaijan, remain full members of the ECHR while Britain feels it too onerous to comply with the rules at Strasbourg? <BR /> <BR />As the text of the motion asserts, the Human Rights Act also has a central significance for the people of Northern Ireland.”
“However, the court disagreed; it found that her rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion were violated. <BR /> <BR />Another example of the use of the Human Rights Act helped to get justice for Patience Asuquo, who was brought to the United Kingdom as a domestic worker and nanny. For two and a half years, she was abused, physically and mentally. She was not paid or given time off, and her employer withheld her passport. The police were initially uninterested in that gross violation of her rights, but article 4 of our Human Rights Act, which prohibits slavery and forced labour, forced the police to investigate on her behalf and prosecute her employer.”
“Unlike before, there was a natural progression through the domestic courts, which increased the UK's participation in reaching judgements. <BR /> <BR />Rights are quite often described and considered as an abstract concept until one finds oneself and one's rights violated, so perhaps a few tangible examples of when and why the Act provides justice to our citizens will be helpful to begin with in this debate. The case of the British Airways employee Nadia Eweida, who had been told to remove a small cross necklace that she was wearing, was taken to the European Court in Strasbourg under the Human Rights Act. Our Government — the British Government — argued that her necklace was not a generally accepted means of practising religion, and so argued that it was not a human rights issue.”
“No, I want to make progress. <BR /> <BR />Ultimately, one of those states began the most devastating and brutal war ever witnessed. More than 60 million people died, the vast majority of whom were civilians who died at the hands of a state actor. Nothing was in place — nothing — to limit the executive power of those monstrous regimes. Post-war, we affirmed "never again". Under the direction of Winston Churchill, the rights of European citizens were to be clear, guaranteed and inalienable through the groundbreaking European Convention on Human Rights, with its court independent of any Government. With the incorporation of the convention of rights into UK law by 1998, citizens have had the direct ability to secure their rights ultimately at the European Court in Strasbourg.”
“As we know, millions of so-called undesirables — political dissidents, the mentally ill, Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies and other minority ethnic groups — perished as a result.”
“I and the Alliance Party will meet Mr Cameron and Mr Gove's misinformation with facts. We will meet their attacks on the liberties of our constitution with resolute opposition. We hope that other parties in the Assembly will join us today in making such a statement. <BR /> <BR />Perhaps it is worth reminding the Assembly of the ultimate origins of our modern Human Rights Act. The 20th century was one of intolerable wickedness on the part of state actors. Improvements in communications and technology made government control much more efficient, and it ushered in the era of the totalitarian state in the interwar period. The rights and dignity of individuals became subservient to the aims of the state and a handful of individual rulers who usurped power.”
“I think that, as I progress through what I have to say, Mr Allister will understand that I do not subscribe to that view. <BR /> <BR />Since then, the people of these islands have progressed far through revolt, revolution and reformation. Today, we enjoy rights and freedoms that our ancestors could barely have fathomed. It is perhaps ironic that, today, we stand here debating the potential rolling back of those hard-won rights. Our Prime Minister, buoyed by a slender and unexpected majority in the Commons but held back by the need to fight fires on his right, is seeking to mount a populist, rather nonsensical and, indeed, damaging attack on the constitution of the United Kingdom. It is an attack that could ultimately lead to the UK sleepwalking out of the European Convention on Human Rights.”
“I welcome the opportunity to move the motion on the subject of the Human Rights Act 1998. It is an issue of the utmost importance to our everyday lives and in maintaining confidence in the institutions of government here in Northern Ireland. This year, 2015, marks the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta, the document that laid the basis of our constitutional parliamentary democracy and which, for the first time, imposed real limits on the state and instituted meaningful rights for its citizens.”
“The Member refers to civil servants having to set our budgets and the crisis that would ensue as a result. Can he tell the House whether he believes that that would include, for example, failure by the Agriculture Minister to pay single farm payments to farmers in Northern Ireland? Would it throw that into crisis? Would it also throw into crisis funding from the European social fund?”
“I want to finish. <BR /> <BR />We will be powerless to soften the impact of what really will be Tory welfare cuts for the people of Northern Ireland. We need to bank what we have got, not throw it away. The Bill needs to pass today; otherwise, the future for the Northern Ireland welfare system and, indeed, our economy is bleak, not through turmoil and markets or through civil unrest at home but through the shameful abandonment by our politicians of their duty to lead and to govern. I believe that I speak for the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland when I say that I am fed up with the brinkmanship, the constant deadlock and the endless inaction of this place. Today is the day to get on with it.”
“I had a wonderful quip about wearing specs, but do not worry. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, we have a good deal, and it is a deal that five parties signed up to, because it would not have been a good deal if five parties had not signed up to it. We need to implement that deal or we will, in my belief, lose it for ever. Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Green Party must face up to the reality of the Government in Whitehall. If they continue to renege on the Stormont House Agreement, and Westminster takes back welfare, we may well lose all our hard-won mitigations and be powerless to soften —”
“How much more time do the SDLP and Sinn Féin need?”
“in March 2012". It has been three years since it came into being.”
“In the end, it is not about the vulnerable; it is about the number of TDs to be returned to the Dáil next year. <BR /> <BR />The SDLP tells us that it will not be bounced to an artificial date. If Dr McDonnell were here, I would say, "If you are still the leader of your party, the Welfare Reform Act in England received Royal Assent”
“<BR /> <BR />I wonder if it is with a second thought to its electoral ambitions in the South that we see Sinn Féin's tag line of protecting the vulnerable for what is nothing more than a political slogan, because it is on that that it is woefully hypocritical. Sinn Féin talks about its care for elderly people walking our dark streets, in A&E having been injured, or of being victims of crime waiting anxiously for the police to arrive. Are those not the most vulnerable people in society? Are they, together with welfare recipients, not the people that we should all be caring for? <BR />Sinn Féin's actions, as well as those of the SDLP, display a wanton disregard for the wider picture for all in our society. They are making people vulnerable through their intransigence.”
“In contrast, in Stormont Sinn Féin has proved itself, at least on occasions, a formidable opposition, but it is nothing but a woeful party of government. It is clearly incapable of taking decisions that a prudent government must and should take involving spending our money wisely, protecting those in need and trying to keep the lights on for all in our society. <BR /> <BR />Our welfare system is, in essence, a social insurance scheme. Without contributors to our welfare system, it collapses. If we do not have the tax take, it falls. Can people really continue to work as before if they cannot get work and cannot access health care or, indeed, have the skills that they require to carry out their jobs?”
“Put simply, we cannot run a welfare system in Northern Ireland that is completely separate from the rest of the United Kingdom, despite what at least two or perhaps three parties would like us to do. Yes, welfare is a devolved matter, but the reality is that it is also a parity matter within the United Kingdom. We are not a sovereign state, despite what Sinn Féin might like to think it is running. We have no sources of funds other than those from the Treasury. Therefore, we can act only within the parameters set out to us by the Treasury. <BR /> <BR />The real fight was at Westminster. It is a fight that, as we have said on many occasions before, Sinn Féin chose to sit out. Destroying Northern Ireland's economy and its public services will not serve the electoral strategies as well as it may think.”
“Indeed, it would. In fact, in a sense, the argument is very hollow on any of what we are trying to achieve in the House today. There is little or nothing that Sinn Féin, the SDLP or, indeed, the Green Member can do by way of proposals today that will change the legislation. The sad reality is that the legislation will lie dead in the water after this evening. <BR /> <BR />The mitigation measures that have been put in place to ameliorate the impact of reform for the most vulnerable will assist, but we cannot assess every applicant under the old system and then the new system, because as I listened to officials in the Committee for Social Development, I know that, quite simply, the software is not built to do that. We simply cannot pretend that no one is going to be worse off.”
“We believe that we cannot persuade a majority Government in London to deliver any more money between now and their Budget, and, if they are to be believed, things will get worse, so why do we not bank what we have got instead of squandering it and throwing it away?”
“I entirely agree with the Member. Indeed, it is my understanding that, during the negotiations in the Stormont House talks, officials and others had to assist Sinn Féin and the SDLP to work out figures that they clearly did not understand as the process was being developed and worked through. <BR /> <BR />If those parties really want the rest of us to put up or shut up, the challenge to you today is to say what you want done and how you propose that it will be paid for. That is the challenge to Sinn Féin and the SDLP: you have to tell us where the money will come from. We cannot print it because we do not print it.”
“<BR /> <BR />Northern Ireland has gained an exceptional deal that is looked on with envy by Scotland, Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom, but that is to be blocked by an inability to see that welfare reform has serious positive aspects for all. All in all, it does not suit certain parties' electoral strategies. Sinn Féin believes that there are more votes in scaremongering and maintaining a fear of change than in actually implementing change. Sinn Féin has been caught speaking out of both sides of its mouth at once, with starkly different messages, North and South. While I greatly welcome the mitigation measures that have been put in place to ameliorate the impact of the reform on the most vulnerable, the additional weight that Sinn Féin is seeking to add to the supplementary payment scheme is quite simply unaffordable.”
“Welfare reform will help to make employment financially beneficial and attractive — that, for me, is an important element — by removing the senseless working hours requirements for certain benefits and tax credits, meaning that people who want to work are empowered to do so and will always be better off financially. Welfare reform will also make the system simpler. Currently, many of the most vulnerable in our society under-claim benefits as they are unaware of the elements or entitlements or are intimidated by the Byzantine welfare system that has developed haphazardly in our society, one that all our offices struggle to work with day and daily on behalf of claimants. Those are some of the real benefits of reforming our welfare system, and with mitigation in place.”
“I will indeed admit that I have read those stories in the newspapers, and I will tell you what I did about it. I stood against a Conservative candidate in my constituency. I was not the person who was elected, but I stood against them. The place to do it was at the ballot box. This is a democracy. They won. We will have to put up with what they throw at us for the next five years. <BR /> <BR />Under universal credit, more childcare support will be provided to households, meaning that all families, regardless of how many hours they work, will be entitled to childcare. That provides previously unseen levels of flexibility for parents to enter employment and opens up more opportunities for families to supplement their income.”
“NISRA and DSD figures show that the roll-out of universal credit will benefit — we have heard this figure before in the House today — some 102,000 households by an average of £37 per week. They will receive more — these are the most vulnerable whom Sinn Féin talks about — than they will receive under the existing system. In addition, some 90,000 households will see no change to their entitlement. Therefore, overall, some two thirds of households will benefit from welfare reform, which Sinn Féin, the Greens and the SDLP are now holding back.”
“Many welfare claimants call at my offices seeking to find out what welfare reform will mean for them. The fear in those people is palpable. It is undue fear, brought on by the scaremongering of parties to my right. <BR /> <BR />Today, Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Greens will be creating more vulnerable people in Northern Ireland than they claim to protect. The truth of the matter is that, with our mitigation measures, the vast majority of those people will not be any worse off than they are right now. In fact, as we have heard, many will be a great deal better off. Let us look at an intriguing revelation. Although I know it will not suit Sinn Féin or the SDLP's political purposes, the facts should be heard before the rhetoric, for once.”
“That stands in stark contrast to Sinn Féin and the SDLP who, in a misguided election strategy, are hurting those that they purport to want to protect, whilst leaving the whole of Northern Ireland in an unbearable state of limbo. <BR /> <BR />Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Greens are, by their actions, voting to implement Tory cuts in full. People who work in the public services are waiting to hear whether their jobs will be cut due to Sinn Féin, SDLP and Green incompetence. People on long waiting lists, whose life quality could be transformed by simple surgery, wait to hear whether their operation will be cancelled due to budget cuts in the health service. A constituent saw me last week and said that the first appointment she could get to see a GP was 17 June. How much longer is she going to have to wait before she gets that GP appointment?”
“They were stepping up for all the citizens of Northern Ireland and negotiating with the British Government to deliver what was best for the people of Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />The Alliance Party recognises that, and it will not run away from the difficult decisions today, unlike others. Neither will it continue to kick the can down the road, as it has been suggested by some that we should use the space between now and the Chancellor's Budget. What bit of "no" — when the Tories won — do we not understand in the House? When the Alliance Party signed up to the Stormont House Agreement, it intended to honour it. It is for others to speak about their actions following their signing of it.”
“I fear not only that we may have thrown away three years of work and negotiations, but that we are now walking wide-eyed into a major crisis of our finances and public services. Even the much-lauded Ms Sturgeon, First Minister of Scotland, is not putting her institutions at risk by her actions. <BR /> <BR />In a representative democracy, the public have elected us to represent them and to undertake the duties of government on their behalf. That means spending the money allocated to us in a responsible manner, taking difficult decisions on how to balance the books and stepping up when necessary to do what is best for the people of Northern Ireland. That is what we have been doing. That is what the Minister and the parties have been doing. It is what five parties did when they signed up to an agreement.”
“Today Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Greens are actually voting for the Tory cuts: full, unadulterated, red, white and blue Tory cuts. Thank you, SDLP. Thank you, Sinn Féin. Thank you, the Green Party. You have just chucked out all the concessions that have been negotiated because, as Mr Wilson and others have informed the House, the Bill dies today because of your petition of concern. Let the electorate hear that. Let the people of Northern Ireland hear that. You are the people who, by killing the Bill today, have implemented full-blooded red, white and blue Tory cuts for the citizens of Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />It is with utter exasperation and a profound sense of déjà vu that I stand here today to speak on the Final Stage of the Welfare Reform Bill.”
“I commence by sending my best wishes to the First Minister and wishing him a speedy recovery. I also add my condolences to Mr Attwood on the recent loss of his mother, who happened to be a personal friend.”
“Will the Member give way to somebody who cannot respond at the end of the debate?”
“Minister, I appreciate the information you have given us, but you will appreciate that meeting European waste water quality standards delivers blue flag beach status, which is important for tourism in Northern Ireland. With the recent loss of blue flags around the United Kingdom, how confident are you that we will maintain blue flags for Northern Ireland's beaches?”
“Minister, would you agree with me that the effective and efficient running of our Court Service should be paramount in determining any use of the court estate, particularly when it comes to the use of the court estate for victims and ensuring that there are victim-friendly courthouses with appropriate facilities in them?”
“I wholeheartedly agree. Further, I also call on the Secretary of State to ensure that she enacts that appropriate piece of legislation that will bring total transparency to political donations. I challenge the Secretary of State to do that as one of the first actions in her position as new Secretary of State. Finally, we should not forget what this report is about. It is about delivering high-quality, value-for-money housing and maintenance for Housing Executive tenants and the taxpayer. It is a disgrace that we have to stand here today castigating those who hold office in the Executive and are responsible for the public purse, but, sadly, it comes as no surprise. I commend the report to the Assembly.”
“This has rightly given the public a perception that, when it comes to issues of openness and transparency, there are key players at Stormont who stubbornly refuse to abide by even the most basic codes of ethics and standards. The task of the Assembly today is to restore public confidence and deliver accountability — a task that is made more difficult by the people who are involved in the report today.”
“This report is a step towards finding out the truth of these events and the relationship between one political party and Government Departments and private contractors. <BR /> <BR />There are, however, others who will seek to paint themselves as crusaders on this event — Mr Allister behind me is one of them — against the excesses of the DUP in government with Sinn Féin. However, perhaps what this report and what Mr Allister will say will reveal that Mr Allister is more anti-DUP than a genuine voice of opposition. The reality is that at the very heart of this debate is the necessity to maintain integrity and accountability in public office. Nelson McCausland and others in his party have succeeded in dragging the name of the Housing Executive, DSD and this Assembly through the mud.”
“<BR /> <BR />What has been fascinating for many of us has been the insight into a party-before-taxpayer mentality and a culture of bullying. Key players in the DUP have been linked with this report, from the First Minister to Nelson McCausland to Stephen Brimstone to Robin Newton to Sammy Douglas, and even the new MP, Gavin Robinson. It was clear that the DUP figures who attended the Committee are wedded to their party rather than to any sense of duty to the people they represent, and they have continually demonstrated through this investigation contempt for the Committee and for the pursuit of transparency and accountability on this issue. If Ministers in the DUP were trying to demonstrate that they have nothing to hide, they have absolutely failed and only raised the question again and again: what is being kept from the public?”
“<BR /> <BR />It has been a long, difficult and frustrating process to get the Department and its Ministers over the period to provide the information that the Committee asked for. I find that regrettable and deeply concerning. The release of a heavily redacted report is one example of stonewalling that the Committee faced to extract even the most basic information which, more importantly, the public expected to be made available for an investigation. In seeking to extend the termination of Red Sky's Housing Executive contract, it is clear, as the report tells anyone who wishes to read it, that the Minister acted in the interests of private individuals rather than his own ministerial responsibility to the public purse.”
“In the meantime, the Social Development Committee took on the duty of investigating the allegations put forward in the programme and listening to the stories of those involved. In particular, I wish to place on record my thanks to Councillor Jenny Palmer for her brave, clear and fulsome evidence to the Committee. I also sincerely thank all of those who cooperated with us, and I leave the public to judge those who did not. <BR /> <BR />I wish to place on record my thanks to the Committee Clerk and staff, who have handled one of the most complex reports that the Assembly has had to deal with with integrity and balance. We owe a debt of gratitude to them for the work that they have done, and the unwarranted harassment and bullying of staff is unacceptable. I wish to place that on record.”
“Sadly, for all too many, it will confirm their view of the Assembly. I have, with other members of the Committee, listened for many months. I have questioned for many months, and I have looked, like those looking in on our inquiry, open-mouthed at a story that, on many occasions, beggars belief. It is a story that, when you thought it could not get any worse, did. This is a story that demands resignations; a story that demands integrity in public office. Sadly, the story of today will be one of denial and refusal to do the right thing. That will be the order of the day for that party. It is a sad and sorry tale, in which I hope the public will judge the players harshly, especially when it comes to election for the Assembly in the future. <BR /> <BR />It has been a long road from the original BBC 'Spotlight' programme in July 2013.”
“This debate will, I believe, leave one political party, the people in it and, indeed, this very institution in a perilous state, further discredited in the eyes of the very public whom we seek to serve.”
“<BR /> <BR />I urge the Department to continue its scrutiny of the progress of the implementation, particularly the impact on groups identified as being particularly at risk of being considerably adversely affected. We must ensure that our pension system is fit for purpose and fit to meet the needs of the working environment now and well into the future in order to ensure that there are no shocks for people in 20, 30 or 40 years' time and that a pension plan today will deliver for them when they reach pension age.”
“Nonetheless, it is vital that the Department communicates effectively those changes to allow for the financial management of those approaching pensionable age. Furthermore, I am reassured by the assertion that any further increase in pensionable age will require additional primary legislation to come before us in the House. <BR /> <BR />I intend to support the Bill through its Final Stage. I believe that the changes are rational and required. Nevertheless, I must express disquiet at last week's general election results. I am concerned that an increasingly threadbare social security system will come under further strain. I, for one, am pleased that this is currently devolved to us so that we can deal with the issues and mitigate as appropriate.”
“The Committee was concerned that, in a changing labour market with many people underemployed, many will not meet the earnings threshold for National Insurance contributions, and, therefore, might not qualify for pension after 35 years because, even if they had worked, they would not have earned sufficient to make National Insurance contributions. However, I hope that, through discussions with HMRC and the Department for Work and Pensions, a solution whereby years of work can be counted towards pension entitlement will be found. <BR /> <BR />One of the most impacting changes, which was referred to by others, will be the raising of the pensionable age to 67. As a society, we need to recognise that the pensionable age needs to reflect changes in demographics and people's ability to live longer.”
“<BR /> <BR />With the assistance of statutory and voluntary organisations, a number of concerns were highlighted during Committee Stage: for example, the Commissioner for Older People in particular expressed concern that women might be more adversely affected than men, but, following discussions with DSD, the Committee was ultimately content that the impacts would be ironed out and resolved. <BR /> <BR />Another issue that I was keen to ensure will be effectively monitored was the increase in the years of National Insurance contributions required to qualify for a state pension.”
“I also welcome the opportunity to speak at the Final Stage of the Pensions Bill. The Bill will provide the means to implement reforms to our state pension system to ensure that it is on a par with the system in the rest of the United Kingdom. The key changes are the creation of a single-tier pension system, changes to the pensionable age, bereavement support and alterations to the law around private pensions. The Alliance Party and I are content that the Bill has had appropriate scrutiny, particularly during Committee Stage. As the Chair pointed out, it is important that we recognise the work that the Committee has done in scrutinising the Bill.”
“Will the Member join me in expressing disappointment at the deployment of a petition of concern today, particularly given the recent comments by the First Minister that he feels that freer thought should be allowed on some of these issues?”